Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Offers Washington a Bargain: More State Taxes, For More Education
reifman writes: The Washington State Legislature and its budget is a complete mess this year but there's been an unusual bright spot which may quiet the protesters Slashdot reported earlier: Microsoft has volunteered for an exclusive $28 million annual tax — as long as the state funds a number of computer science degree programs. Visions of these faded after the 2008 recession when the legislature cut $4 billion from K-12 and higher education spending in part to cover the coming legalization and amnesty for Microsoft's Nevada tax dodge (students' tuitions only increased 58.6 percent.) With Microsoft's voluntary tax, the company will have fully repaid its $8.75 billion tax dodge by 2327, just 312 years from now.
Cisco for a long time inserted itself in schools by providing major discounts. They figured that if you train people to use and love Cisco, they will grow up buying Cisco. It's the common case of buy what you know. I did it, you did it and well all do it again.
Microsoft has cleverly figured out that it can spend $28 million to A) increase competition in the CS grad job market, thus driving down the cost of employees, and B) offload the costs they would incur training hires over to the state. How clever.
If the personal belief exemption for vaccines is outlawed. Otherwise I will throw a temper tantrum and use the equivalent of the taxes I should owe to hire lawyers to litigate until I turn blue in the face and the state gives up
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
The thing I find the most annoying about budgets especially at the local level is that when money gets tight they'll always raise money for "schools" or "police" or something when really the cost over runs are because of something completely different.
And instead of cutting spending where it got out of control... they instead jack up taxes for "the children"... and then divert all that money to some other project.
I've even seen tax bills written such that that was specifically supposed to happen... and they looted the fund anyway in contravention of the law... and who is going to prosecute? Not the AG.
I think we might need a fourth branch of government that does nothing but hold the other three accountable.
Anyone ever read Herbert's the "Whipping Star" or its sequel? It has this concept in it... he called it "the Bureau of Sabotage"... they did nothing but fuck up the other branches so they couldn't pull any tricky slights of hand, fuck over the democratic system, break the law, etc... the bureau slowed the other branches down... so that they couldn't subvert due process.
Something like that at every level might fix a lot of our problems.
People would point out that that would be expensive... I would would ask... more expensive than rampant corruption and subverted law?
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
I think we might need a fourth branch of government that does nothing but hold the other three accountable.
We have that - it's called the press. Combined with an informed electorate it's pretty effective in the long run. It's not official in the government but you really don't want it to be. An official branch of government that isn't accountable itself is called a dictatorship. I'm pretty sure you wouldn't like that.
This comes up in Massachusetts every so often. They have the normal rate for income tax but they also have an optional higher rate if people want to contribute more to the state government. So what happens? When people start calling out for people to pay more to support the schools or other issue of the day, the media starts pulling tax records and pointing out that those same people did not elect to pay more themselves.
Or even more hypocritical, someone took a picture of a state legislator license plate from Massachusetts at a New Hampshire liquor store. The legislator had just voted to up the tax on alcohol in MA and was evading it by buying in NH. So it's okay for others to pay more, but it's not okay for the people complaining the most to voluntarily pay on their own.
it's, at best, a strawman (non-)argument to call them a tax dodge or to claim they owe your hypothetical billions. Tax evasion and tax avoidance are two entirely different things.
They said Tax Dodge. You even posted Tax Dodge, then you transformed it into "Tax Evasion" which nobody else said and burned the strawman that you built. That's a nice slight of hand you tried to pull there. Nowhere is the word "Evasion" aka an illegal tax dodge used in the article or the summary or the headline.
However, I disagree with the principle of what you said, even if they had said "Tax Evasion". Considering the amount of lobbying and corruption that multi billion dollar a month corporations wield over governments, it's perfectly fair to say that even if you legally evade taxes, it's still tax evasion when you are the de-facto rule writer for yourself. Following the letter of the law while violating the spirit of the law means we can still judge the company as an asshole even if they are following what's written in ink.
But it's, at best, a strawman (non-)argument to call them a tax dodge or to claim they owe your hypothetical billions.
If they took extraordinary action to avoid paying taxes while still staying within the letter of the law then they ARE dodging taxes. Any argument otherwise is merely equivocation.
Tax evasion and tax avoidance are two entirely different things.
Just because something is legal doesn't make it right. And I don't buy your argument because it is basically a "might makes right" argument. Just because they have the ability to hire lots of lawyers and accountants to do clever tricks avoiding taxes does not mean it should be acceptable. Finding clever loopholes that force others to make up the slack in civil society is not something to be applauded.
But if you're going to attack someone else for not paying more tax than they are legally obligated to
I'm not. I'm attacking them for paying less than they are ethically obligated to. I don't care for a moment that they aren't technically breaking the law. The fact that the laws were imperfectly written does not excuse their behavior. I assure you that I am paying a FAR larger portion of my income in taxes than Microsoft is AND even if we paid the same percentage Microsoft would feel less financial pain from doing so. So until Microsoft starts paying an amount of tax that hurts them as much as what I pay hurts me your argument is bogus.