Slashdot Mirror
Protesters Blockade Microsoft's Seattle Headquarters Over Tax Breaks
reifman (786887) writes "A thousand unionized healthcare workers protested outside Microsoft's Seattle offices over its Nevada tax dodge on Friday. Microsoft shareholders have pocketed more than $5.34 billion in tax savings as Washington State social services and schools have taken huge cuts. In a hearing Wednesday, the Supreme Court suggested it may hold the Legislature in contempt and order it to repeal all tax breaks to restore proper funding to K-12 schools and universities." I suspect Microsoft's lawyers are careful to engage in legal tax avoidance rather than illegal tax evasion. Geekwire notes "The South Lake Union satellite facility is not a major office for Microsoft, compared to its presence in Redmond. It’s not clear why the workers didn’t protest at Microsoft headquarters."
However the point is that Microsoft is a victim of unconstitutional, illegal government system that usurped power and is stealing people's money. Income taxes are illegal and are collected illegally for a wide range of reasons.
The state of Washington is not held to the constitutional taxation restrictions of the US federal government. Collecting income tax is quite legal for them.
They produced the software in Washington, that's where they're supposed to pay taxes on it. This is settled case law. It's just that the state chose not to enforce the law and throw executives in prison for tax evasion. Which IMHO sets a bad precedent that you can just not pay your tax bill if you're rich enough.
They claim to sell the software from theri branch in Nevada. But, since the items were produced in WA, they're liable for tax there as well.
Microsoft employs >40K employees in the Seattle Metro area, while the other 3.6M residents (literally the 99%) get screwed.
So tell me, if Microsoft left and took the 40k jobs with them, they would then NOT get tax breaks in Seattle.
How would the other 99% of the Seattle residents be better off?
Would they somehow be less screwed?
How is it unfair? The state gets additional jobs, higher tax revenues (if applicable), and most likely an economic boost from people spending money.
At the expense of likely quid-pro-quo types of arrangements with politicians. I'm not naive, and I realize that these sorts of things happen in the real world. But every time we rationalize private deals made between big corporations (or rich people) and politicians, we're asking for more corruption.
In several financial and political philosophies, companies provide a net benefit and therefore should pay zero taxes. Therefore, it is your position that is unfair.
Umm, NO. Sure, you're right that some people argue for zero corporate tax. I'm not saying that's an invalid argument. But what's unfair is that if you REALLY want "zero corporate tax," you give it to ALL corporations. That's fair.
What you're talking about is an anticompetitive practice that gives large corporations an unfair market advantage. Say I give a major tax break to a company that employs 10,000 employees. You know who gets screwed? 200 other local companies that each have 50 employees or whatever. Because they're forced to pay the normal tax rates, while your giant corporation is exempt. Sure, most of those companies may not be competing directly against the big company, but some of them might be.
If a state imposed higher than average taxes, and never negotiated, it would lose employment.
And if the state's corporate tax rates are uncompetitive, the FAIR way to fix that is to lower them for ALL corporations, not give an unfair advantage to large corporations that already have many advantages in the marketplace.
Or is your goal to drive local small businesses out of business?
By artificially lowering the tax rates for a few select corporations, you are also allowing the state to continue ignoring a potential problem of too high corporate tax rates for anyone else. Anyone with the clout to negotiate gets the lower rate, while other local small businesses get screwed. That's the exact OPPOSITE behavior of something that will drive tax rates to zero -- because the local tax rates are artificially propped up by the people who can't fight them.
What is fair? You need to define words before you use them. I suppose I should ask, fair to whom? Because that seems to be the crux of your argument.
"Fair" in terms of the law means that we all get to play by the same rules. No one should get to "negotiate" out of abiding by the law. If corporate tax is too high in a state or local area to draw these large businesses, the correct way to fix this is by lowering corporate taxes FOR EVERYBODY. If enough big businesses refuse to move to a state because of its tax structure, it puts pressure on the state legislature to move toward your ideal world of zero corporate tax. If, on the other hand, companies get arbitrary individual tax rates, there's no such pressure, and the only benefits accrue to the biggest companies with the best lobbyists and connections... which is a recipe for corruption and unfair to actual local smaller businesses.