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.
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.
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.
The only problem with your plan is that failure to pay taxes is criminal not civil. For all your strong words, when you are looking at a decade in jail you will settle just like everyone else does.
And if you are famous or will get newspaper articles written about your prediciment you will still go to jail, just ask Wesley Snipes. He followed the advice of one of those tax crackpots and he went to jail for 3 years, even after buckling under to the government and paying back everything he owed plus the interest and penalties. The guy that convinced him to do it? 17 Years in jail. The IRS has their own courts and you are guilty in those courts unless you can prove otherwise.
Messing with the IRS is very foolish.
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.