'cause Amtrak sucks. From where I am (Chico, CA), to go to Portland OR using Amtrak, it takes 14 hours and costs $100. In comparison, it takes 12 hours and costs $59 by Greyhound.
Something even more strange is it's 12 hours from San Jose to southern Oregon (about 20 miles north of the CA/OR) border. Driving time: 7-8 hours.
I took Amtrak once along that route, it was the stupidest experience. It's cheaper to drive, and you can save at least 4 hours.
Gas taxes in washington state are the highest in the nation-- never mind that the state spends something like %5 of its budget on transportation.
I drive to Washington to get gas. I live in Oregon. It is about $0.10 cheaper per gallon at Shell, and about $0.07 cheaper at Chevron. I don't think their taxes are that high.
I feel less geek. I've had some werid abhorration towards wrist watches for as long as I can remember... even the calculator variety. However it didn't stop me from grabbing my friends arm and playing with their calculator watch.
And so I switched to AT&T Wireless, and now I get good signal (except for a few days this summer, when things were just odd... maybe they had a local infrastructure problem?)
I've been a happy customer with AT&T for years. Signed on in 1998, wouldn't dream of switching even when I have to deal with their trained chimpanzees in their receivables department that have their head shoved so far up their ass when they blink shit falls out. Everywhere I go I get decent reception, I just got a T68 and noticed some level of degredation in my signal quality but it is still good.
The T68 introduced dead spots, but my old Nokia had perfect service everywhere (AT&T covered). I also get a hell of a good price. If you are a long term customer with AT&T, they will treat you very good. Such as paying $40/mo for a package that costs $80+ elsewhere. Out of all my friends that use other providors (and AT&T) I get more minutes and more perks.
My friend has an AT&T account and pays the same amount for half the minutes, and doesn't have as many perks. I'm not saying they're good, but i strongly believe they are the lesser of the evils. So.. I won't change.
It depends partly on where you are from. It is possible to make a decent living as an International Master (the next step down) or even lower, just by playing lots of tournaments with cash prizes. But, it is easier in certain countries.
Sorry, have to interject here. It's not quite right. Currently, FIDE recognizes 565 individuals as being Grand Masters. There are 108 World Grand Masters, which is different than International Master. (FIDE is rather strange with how they work)
The way you make money as a Master+ is not through tournaments. Most tournaments you wont win a purse big enough unless you are in the top 50. However, you can still make a good amount of money. Teaching and authoring is one of the best ways to make a living as a chess player. You do not have to be a Grand Master or International Master to teach and get paid. 2200+ (Master rating) will get you enough prestige to be paid well. I can make money (1800+) teaching, but only about $10/hour, so I'm better off programming.
Other than Fischer the Russians have owned the World Championship since at least the '60s.
True, but that was purely because Chess was/is a career in Russia/USSR. Look at the history of Tal and Keres (They each have pretty detailed autobiographies) where they played chess from early on, and that was the only job they knew/know.
You can make big money in tournaments, but it isn't likely. I teach chess for free to anyone who asks, but my lessons aren't as intense as one a master would give. It's good for the starting players, especially someone who wants to get into "cafe chess"
That's why Fischer's win against Spassky in '72 was so incredible. Basically, one man with relatively little support took down the best the Russian chess organization could send. Other than Fischer the Russians have owned the World Championship since at least the '60s.
This is also why Fischer is so resentful towards the US. The US still failed to offer him any support even after the defeat Spassky took. He changed the US image in FIDE (There are over 170 countries that are members of FIDE) -- it's like soccer. No one expects the US to ever win the world cup, then you get one person that wins it single-handedly, then the US doesn't really acknowledge a damn thing. I can understand his resentment, not to the point of applauding terrorist attacks, though. It's not hard for one man to beat 5 of Russians best. It is hard to still not get any support from the nation you are playing for.
The US did a lot of bad things to Fischer, and I for one don't expect him to forgive the US. However, I don't support him or think he's a nice fellow. I can just understand a set of his feelings. My idol is Paul Keres
The original post stated that Microsoft has no right to take a loss on the XBox because they would thereby be reducing the government's tax revenue. Let me be perfectly clear on this; the government has no right to prevent Microsoft from taking a loss. None. Whatsoever.
Wrong. The original post said that it's bullshit that companies can legally evade paying taxes because they are selling hardware and commodity goods at a deliberate loss to ensure market inception to gain more profit later. I know, I wrote it.
If Microsoft wants to take advantage of a tax loophole to offset the losses encountered in starting up their XBox division, then that's their right. If you don't like the law they're using, vote for someone who will change it.
So now you are actually being relevant. A very strong change. That was merely what I was saying, is that personnaly I don't agree with deliberate losses being tax writeoffs. That's my whole point, you are the one who went off on another tangent. Now that we are back on subject, it's just an opinion.
On top of this, Microsoft has every intention of making a profit from the XBox; otherwise, they wouldn't have made it. So, your argument doesn't hold true anyway. In the end, either their will be profit and the government will have its payday,
Wrong, the government is actually helping Microsoft by subsidizing the cost of the X-box making it so that Microsoft doesn't lose anymoney. As long as they continue to report a loss on the Xbox hardware, the government continues to pay for them. Not in the direct payment method, but by allowing microsoft large write-offs on their tax liability. This is compensated by other people paying taxes. That isn't right. Because Microsoft is selling product A at a gross loss of $20/unit and ships 1 million units, they now have a write off of $20M. Now, If Microsoft has tax liability of $20M, how much do they pay? That means that for every X-Box sold, the government basically gives them $20.
How can you think that's a-ok? My guess is naivity, but you may honestly agree with that. If so, that's fine. I don't have an Xbox, and I don't want my tax dollars to go to some snot nosed kids Xbox either.
The XBox loss is not a real loss. Understand Microsoft is not losing any money, and if they are it is a small margin, on the Xbox because the government allows subsidization through tax write-offs. It's an excellent way for Microsoft to infiltrate the market and the US government helps it the whole way.
This is damaging to competitors who are breaking into the market because they don't have the profit margin for government subsidization.
Either way, Microsoft's duty to make the most money possible is to their shareholders, not to their government.
Wrong. Almost right, but it's "Microsoft's duty is to make the most money legally possible to their shareholders, not to their government." I just propose selling commodities at a loss to establish tax writeoffs illegal. It won't happen, because too many politicians get contributions, and they don't really care. Taxes pay their salary, so as long as they get their money, why should they care?
And considering I'm currently playing through games on my XBox and PS2, and eyeing a Gamecube for Metroid Prime, let's ditch the fanboy bias, shall we? Besides, your list of games included a stack of cross-platform titles (THPS, SSX, Max Payne,) a game that sucked (TM:B) and the two titles I mentioned (GTA3, VC.) And you're accusing me of not being on top of the latest games? There's a laugh.
You said that only one PS2 hits was produced by a non-Japanese studio. Not my fault you are an idiot.
Now, Microsoft's money is its own. It's capital. If there's any profit there, it's already been taxed. So, the only money the government is going to make off of that pile is tax on the interest. Go ahead and figure out the value of that, then compare it to the amount of money they'll make taxing Intel and Nvidia for the income from selling CPU's and GPU's to MS.
Ok, you have completely and totally ruined any chance for a logical argument. Let me break this down for you, maybe it will make sense, if not, go study accounting.
Microsoft has $1B at the beginning of Q1 2002. They spend $500M in their operating budget, and $250M in their Xbox project. The overall gross return is $1B, leaving $250M as profit. Now, the Xbox project had a revenue of $50M, leaving a $200M deficit.
Therefore, their $250M profits can now be said to be only $50M (even though it's bunk) and they don't pay taxes.
I hope this makes sense, but I doubt it will. If you have no idea how tax laws work, go educate your damn self before arguing. Every sentence in your post has absolutely nothing to do with anything relevent. We're talking purely about Microsofts tax liability, and nothing more.
I'm sorry if you somehow think you're entitled to a little piece of MS' money. You're not, unless you're a stockholder. It's theirs, to spend, profit from, lose, make hats out of, etc. I'm sorry if you somehow think you're entitled to any sort of opinion in a field you are completely and totally clueless about. Go educate yourself, than discuss. Don't worry, when you get older you will realize you don't know everything.
Doesn't time seem to crawl when all you do is read and post to/.? Or is it just me? I really wish I had some work to do:\
I've written about 200 lines of code today. It all is with this desktop app that takes forever to build. It's just interface changes for the most part, but I'll be damned, I've been in for 6 hours so far and I'm going nuts. I'm leaving now, come in tomorrow, and get a head start on my moving (Moving tonight, yay!)
Hire people as temps or contractors initially with no promise of perminent employement you can't tell what a person's really worth based on a couple of interviews and a resume anyways. After a couple of months you can hire the good ones on full time.
That's (for the most part) what this company does for a lot of the positions. I got brought on for a 3 week contract. That was 1.5 years ago. I'm still a contractor. Not that I care, I'll be here for quite a while (Until I decide to leave) as either a contractor or an employee. I've seen a couple contractors get axed after a week.
They've gotten some major dumbasses in here on contract. My favorite was this guy, after getting let go early, asked if he could get a full time position at the company.
I concur, though I did not mean forcing 8 hours of work as much as forcing being at work 8 hours a day, even if the actual goal that needs done will take less (not so applicable to dev or QA as IT)
Yeah, I knew what you meant, I was just expanding on the topic.
Anecdote: I had a manager a few years back who would come into my cube, see I was either staring into space or writing meaningless code. He would get pissed off, "What are we paying you for?" My answer: My brain, which is actively working while my hands aren't.
He got asked for his resignation because he was useless, but always at his computer.
But I'm still aiming to get a BS CS, because I enjoy computer science. What I've seen so far in my job hunt implies that I'm screwed if I'm not a superb programmer with multiple years of experience in 5 different languages.
Take really low entry level positions. They come up sometimes. It's cheap labor, usually done on short term contracts. $15-$20/hour. If you are in a metro area, try to get on board with a tech. consulting firm. Explain you are just starting out, and would like any jobs they have.
I'd rather not work in retail the rest of my life - any suggestions? Just work in retail until the IT industry stabilizes? Just a joke, but learn learn learn. Open source work on your resume does have a lot of positive results. On my resume, I list my open source experience, and in the "What is Open Source?" paragraph (put that in, so they know) I had a sentence "I code not for a job, but for love."
That got me a $77/hr project right there. They hired me out of the other candidates because of that one sentence (that and I can prove what's on my resume)
Correction, they think they will get it back. By this definition, no dotcom ever made a loss, because they all expected they were going to get it back. Well, it only works if you turn a big enough profit, really.
55k was good? Hell when I was laid off a year ago I was making just over 30k a year as a software engineer 2, at a major company. My goal one day was to make 35k a year. I'd seriously consider myself ultra-rich if I made 55k a year. With 70k, man I can't even fathom what that feels like. Blink. I checked out your resume, and I hope you enjoy positive criticism. First, open source development helps. Real development experience, being part of the development cycle, is what matters. I will not interview someone who has not been part of a development cycle. Yellow is a bad background color on your resume. Understand the people that are looking at your resume are generally not technical people. They want nice fonts, with nice layouts. A plain text or non-formatted HTML resume isn't going to get you far past HR, or on a hiring managers desk.
Keep in mind in the bay area $50K/year is poverty line for a family of four.
I totally agree, though unfortunately hiring practices are not leaning towards hiring smart people that actually work 8 hour days, but hiring 'experienced' people and forcing them to work 8 hour days (usually 9-12).
My boss doesn't expect me to actually work 8 hours a day. He expects me to be here 8 hours a day, but he knows the time I spend working is probably half that. Good programmers don't always type, only about 30% of programming involves a computer. More people need to realize that, too.
The majority of work I've ever seen done by IT or devs has been done by smart people who still have naivete towards business while being directed by someone that can channel the naive workload into something management really wants.
I would definitely agree with that. My manager knows IT well enough to understand what we're talking about, and knows business well enough to get our projects approved and budgetted. He's the best manager I've had so far. I know a lot about business, I'm starting one, but could never do management. Upper management and grunt work, but no middle ground. Hiring should be done by the peers working, the manager should merely select the potential candidates from the paper. Just my belief...
Microsoft has a right to their money. They've earned it, they own it, and they can sit on a pile of it and wear money hats if they so choose.
Right. Their money. Losing money, on purpose, so you can write it off on taxes should not be allowed. Tax money is the governments money. The government is letting Microsoft off the hook on a huge amount of tax liability. That is not a skewed view of capitalism.
Instead, they develop a product with it (thereby employing American engineers) using components from two major American chip companies (more employed engineers) and then market it, creating demand for games (employing American programmers) and demand for add-ons such as online gaming (employing American telecommunications workers.) Then sell it at a loss, costing tax payers money, and piggy back on the wonderful loop holes of corporate tax. I hope everyone takes the obvious utopian route, as you seem to think it is, so the burden of maintaining America is purely on the citizens and not the corporations. You have a skewed version of taxation.
If you're really that concerned with the government losing tax dollars, go stop people from buying PS2's. All that money's heading straight for Japan, and only one hot title is from a non-Japanese studio (two, if you count the recently released "sequel.") Glad you stopped making sense long ago so I can just discount this as stupid. Import tax? PS2s aren't sold at a loss. Japanese people import from American people, there by creating more American jobs and more American money! As for one hot title, dumbass. Many more than one hot title. I know that, and I don't even own a PS2. Tony Hawk, SSX, SSX Tricky, GTA, GTA Vice City, Twisted Metal: Black (Sony America), Max Payne.
I'd think from most of your comment you are 12 or 13 years old, but if you were you would know the video games that are out.
You know, there was a time in the countries history when there were no direct taxes. We had a military, roads, services, and a pretty free country (though sadly not for Native Americans, Blacks, Women, or Children). Yep, but evolution dictates change. Better or worse, in favor of the stronger. Too bad the strong don't realize choking their food source is a bad thing.
Look at from a longer-term view. Microsoft does not intend to lose money forever. They want the books to be positive at the end of the day. The government allowing Microsoft to deduct losses now is an attempt to help Microsoft to become profitable in the future. Profitable in the future means revenues to the government. It doesn't do the government any good if they kill companies in the start-up phases before they get a chance to produce taxes. So they continue selling XBoxes at a loss, and other things, further evading paying fair taxes? I'm saying that corporate tax needs reformation. That is where the bulk of tax money comes from, and Microsoft shouldn't be allowed the exemptions they have, nor should many other companies. You realize how profitable Microsoft is, right? You think that if they didn't get their $177M tax write-off, they would be less profitable or less market hungry? It'd just be slower, which is better for the economy anyway.
1) It wouldn't do anything for the schools, since this is mostly federal taxes. Schools are locally financed (although, the feds have been sticking their nose more and more where they shouldn't lately) Ok, no schools, lets do a mars mission. Lets dump it into alternate power research. Something that will A) create jobs and B) better humanity (or at least the US, since it's the American government)
2) I'd rather have Microsoft grow and create jobs for the parents of the children, rather than have the government take MORE of our money. The government has more than enough money to fix the schools. Insist on efficiency, not higher taxes. I'd rather have other companies grow, and Microsoft not grow. They are big enough. If Microsoft grows, they provide jobs in a few areas. Disperse $100K amongst 100 companies as seed money in 100 different locations. Pick good, solid, companies that need seed funding, and see how far $100M goes towards creating jobs. If I got a lien-free seed fund of $100K I'd be at profitability next year. Creating at least 10 jobs in the first year. Probably 50 the next, if that was our goal.
In the meantime, there are a lot of happy consumers who have a nice cheap gaming system. At the expense of millions of dollars in lost tax revenue, because Uncle Sam is taking a hit by giving MS this tax break.
Maybe we should just think of the XBox as our own little tax return from Xbox. Fine, for those who bought them. Understand that everyone who has an Xbox, my taxes helped pay for that. Doesn't seem right, doesn't seem fair, does it?
Uhm, what? The government isn't subsidizing anything. MS lost 177 million. You don't think they are paying much what? Taxes? On the -177 Million?
Well, you are just wrong. Microsoft didn't LOSE $177M. The XBox project had an expense of $177M. That gets written off on taxes.
Uhm, what? The government isn't subsidizing anything. MS lost 177 million. You don't think they are paying much what? Taxes? On the -177 Million? Go read a book on corporate accounting.. hell, if you don't know about write-offs go read a book on personal accounting, too.
On a totally unrelated topic there was a time in this country when corporations only existed to further the public good; our founding fathers feared and were fleeing the religious and corporate tyranny. I feel that this forgotten legal decision [tourolaw.edu] is one of the most important in our history; it essentially empowered corporations as what we know today: semi-autonomous beings capable of owning property, being wronged, and having the rights of a citizen (where comes the term 'corporate citizen'). It established that: "Corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States". For all those and bitch and rave about globalization, corporate power, corporate abuse, the pedaling of political influence, and the like and wonder to themselves 'how did we get here?', this is a good place to start. I would love to discuss this sometime on slash, another day, another topic...
It is related, and you are absolutely right. Business evolves right next to humanity. I only hope that humanity overcomes the tyrannical abuse being sought after many corporations. A bloody revolution every 300 years...
The problem is not with Microsoft. Lots of corps and smaller companies have divisons that report profits/losses on an individual scale. Its been part of corproate world since day #1. I read that here:
Not that I'm saying Microsoft is bad for following this practice, it's common practice in many markets.
From my original post.
The inane rules of taxation thought up by your astoundingly bright elected officals is the problem. I am sure they didnt intend this loophold (well, reasonably sure), but its still there. Unintended consequences of "fixing" the tax code every 2-4 years.
Tax laws either need to be so simple with black and white cases, or so complex you have to have a dedicated accountant following you around. Otherwise loop holes get in, this is just one of the more glaring loop holes I take issue with. I always buy the razors and not the refill cartridges because I know they take a loss with each one. If you do it on special, you can actually save money doing it yourself too.
According to your logic, if the gamble doesn't pay off in 5 years, would they get to write it off as a loss then? Or are you saying write-offs shouldn't be allowed at all? If so, wouldn't this make new venture spending even less appealing for businesses? No, I'm saying that gambles are fine. If a company is profitable and sells a product at a loss (knowing it is a loss, like the Xbox) they should not be able to write that off. They should just suck it up. Expenses that are done purposefully to gain market share, that can be avoided by not selling the product at a market loss, should not be able to be written off.
You seem to have some need to punish success, but the purpose of government is to serve the people, INCLUDING Microsoft. If Microsoft is successful with XBox, that means more American jobs are created at the expense of jobs in Japan. This is exactly what the American government should be doing.
It's not a need to punish success, it's a need to take care of the American people. I object to the American populace losing ~$100M of tax money from Microsoft because Microsoft purposefully and deliberately priced the Xbox so low they knew they would have this loss. They could have charged $350 for it and it still would have sold and MS wouldn't have a substantial loss, government has more money.
$100M could do a lot towards fixing our schools so there aren't 55 kids in a kindergarden class. It's a start...
Slashdot Mirror
'cause Amtrak sucks. From where I am (Chico, CA), to go to Portland OR using Amtrak, it takes 14 hours and costs $100. In comparison, it takes 12 hours and costs $59 by Greyhound.
Something even more strange is it's 12 hours from San Jose to southern Oregon (about 20 miles north of the CA/OR) border. Driving time: 7-8 hours.
I took Amtrak once along that route, it was the stupidest experience. It's cheaper to drive, and you can save at least 4 hours.
Gas taxes in washington state are the highest in the nation-- never mind that the state spends something like %5 of its budget on transportation.
I drive to Washington to get gas. I live in Oregon. It is about $0.10 cheaper per gallon at Shell, and about $0.07 cheaper at Chevron. I don't think their taxes are that high.
Robot Insurance? Yep, it's not a laughing matter for some people.
For when the metal ones come for you...
I don't know that we were all that guy.
I feel less geek. I've had some werid abhorration towards wrist watches for as long as I can remember... even the calculator variety. However it didn't stop me from grabbing my friends arm and playing with their calculator watch.
And so I switched to AT&T Wireless, and now I get good signal (except for a few days this summer, when things were just odd... maybe they had a local infrastructure problem?)
I've been a happy customer with AT&T for years. Signed on in 1998, wouldn't dream of switching even when I have to deal with their trained chimpanzees in their receivables department that have their head shoved so far up their ass when they blink shit falls out. Everywhere I go I get decent reception, I just got a T68 and noticed some level of degredation in my signal quality but it is still good.
The T68 introduced dead spots, but my old Nokia had perfect service everywhere (AT&T covered). I also get a hell of a good price. If you are a long term customer with AT&T, they will treat you very good. Such as paying $40/mo for a package that costs $80+ elsewhere. Out of all my friends that use other providors (and AT&T) I get more minutes and more perks.
My friend has an AT&T account and pays the same amount for half the minutes, and doesn't have as many perks. I'm not saying they're good, but i strongly believe they are the lesser of the evils. So.. I won't change.
It depends partly on where you are from. It is possible to make a decent living as an International Master (the next step down) or even lower, just by playing lots of tournaments with cash prizes. But, it is easier in certain countries.
Sorry, have to interject here. It's not quite right. Currently, FIDE recognizes 565 individuals as being Grand Masters. There are 108 World Grand Masters, which is different than International Master. (FIDE is rather strange with how they work)
The way you make money as a Master+ is not through tournaments. Most tournaments you wont win a purse big enough unless you are in the top 50. However, you can still make a good amount of money. Teaching and authoring is one of the best ways to make a living as a chess player. You do not have to be a Grand Master or International Master to teach and get paid. 2200+ (Master rating) will get you enough prestige to be paid well. I can make money (1800+) teaching, but only about $10/hour, so I'm better off programming.
Other than Fischer the Russians have owned the World Championship since at least the '60s.
True, but that was purely because Chess was/is a career in Russia/USSR. Look at the history of Tal and Keres (They each have pretty detailed autobiographies) where they played chess from early on, and that was the only job they knew/know.
You can make big money in tournaments, but it isn't likely. I teach chess for free to anyone who asks, but my lessons aren't as intense as one a master would give. It's good for the starting players, especially someone who wants to get into "cafe chess"
That's why Fischer's win against Spassky in '72 was so incredible. Basically, one man with relatively little support took down the best the Russian chess organization could send. Other than Fischer the Russians have owned the World Championship since at least the '60s.
This is also why Fischer is so resentful towards the US. The US still failed to offer him any support even after the defeat Spassky took. He changed the US image in FIDE (There are over 170 countries that are members of FIDE) -- it's like soccer. No one expects the US to ever win the world cup, then you get one person that wins it single-handedly, then the US doesn't really acknowledge a damn thing. I can understand his resentment, not to the point of applauding terrorist attacks, though. It's not hard for one man to beat 5 of Russians best. It is hard to still not get any support from the nation you are playing for.
The US did a lot of bad things to Fischer, and I for one don't expect him to forgive the US. However, I don't support him or think he's a nice fellow. I can just understand a set of his feelings. My idol is Paul Keres
The original post stated that Microsoft has no right to take a loss on the XBox because they would thereby be reducing the government's tax revenue. Let me be perfectly clear on this; the government has no right to prevent Microsoft from taking a loss. None. Whatsoever.
Wrong. The original post said that it's bullshit that companies can legally evade paying taxes because they are selling hardware and commodity goods at a deliberate loss to ensure market inception to gain more profit later. I know, I wrote it.
If Microsoft wants to take advantage of a tax loophole to offset the losses encountered in starting up their XBox division, then that's their right. If you don't like the law they're using, vote for someone who will change it.
So now you are actually being relevant. A very strong change. That was merely what I was saying, is that personnaly I don't agree with deliberate losses being tax writeoffs. That's my whole point, you are the one who went off on another tangent. Now that we are back on subject, it's just an opinion.
On top of this, Microsoft has every intention of making a profit from the XBox; otherwise, they wouldn't have made it. So, your argument doesn't hold true anyway. In the end, either their will be profit and the government will have its payday,
Wrong, the government is actually helping Microsoft by subsidizing the cost of the X-box making it so that Microsoft doesn't lose anymoney. As long as they continue to report a loss on the Xbox hardware, the government continues to pay for them. Not in the direct payment method, but by allowing microsoft large write-offs on their tax liability. This is compensated by other people paying taxes. That isn't right. Because Microsoft is selling product A at a gross loss of $20/unit and ships 1 million units, they now have a write off of $20M. Now, If Microsoft has tax liability of $20M, how much do they pay? That means that for every X-Box sold, the government basically gives them $20.
How can you think that's a-ok? My guess is naivity, but you may honestly agree with that. If so, that's fine. I don't have an Xbox, and I don't want my tax dollars to go to some snot nosed kids Xbox either.
The XBox loss is not a real loss. Understand Microsoft is not losing any money, and if they are it is a small margin, on the Xbox because the government allows subsidization through tax write-offs. It's an excellent way for Microsoft to infiltrate the market and the US government helps it the whole way.
This is damaging to competitors who are breaking into the market because they don't have the profit margin for government subsidization.
Either way, Microsoft's duty to make the most money possible is to their shareholders, not to their government.
Wrong. Almost right, but it's "Microsoft's duty is to make the most money legally possible to their shareholders, not to their government." I just propose selling commodities at a loss to establish tax writeoffs illegal. It won't happen, because too many politicians get contributions, and they don't really care. Taxes pay their salary, so as long as they get their money, why should they care?
And considering I'm currently playing through games on my XBox and PS2, and eyeing a Gamecube for Metroid Prime, let's ditch the fanboy bias, shall we? Besides, your list of games included a stack of cross-platform titles (THPS, SSX, Max Payne,) a game that sucked (TM:B) and the two titles I mentioned (GTA3, VC.) And you're accusing me of not being on top of the latest games? There's a laugh.
You said that only one PS2 hits was produced by a non-Japanese studio. Not my fault you are an idiot.
Now, Microsoft's money is its own. It's capital. If there's any profit there, it's already been taxed. So, the only money the government is going to make off of that pile is tax on the interest. Go ahead and figure out the value of that, then compare it to the amount of money they'll make taxing Intel and Nvidia for the income from selling CPU's and GPU's to MS.
Ok, you have completely and totally ruined any chance for a logical argument. Let me break this down for you, maybe it will make sense, if not, go study accounting.
Microsoft has $1B at the beginning of Q1 2002. They spend $500M in their operating budget, and $250M in their Xbox project. The overall gross return is $1B, leaving $250M as profit. Now, the Xbox project had a revenue of $50M, leaving a $200M deficit.
Therefore, their $250M profits can now be said to be only $50M (even though it's bunk) and they don't pay taxes.
I hope this makes sense, but I doubt it will. If you have no idea how tax laws work, go educate your damn self before arguing. Every sentence in your post has absolutely nothing to do with anything relevent. We're talking purely about Microsofts tax liability, and nothing more.
I'm sorry if you somehow think you're entitled to a little piece of MS' money. You're not, unless you're a stockholder. It's theirs, to spend, profit from, lose, make hats out of, etc.
I'm sorry if you somehow think you're entitled to any sort of opinion in a field you are completely and totally clueless about. Go educate yourself, than discuss. Don't worry, when you get older you will realize you don't know everything.
Doesn't time seem to crawl when all you do is read and post to /.? Or is it just me? I really wish I had some work to do :\
I've written about 200 lines of code today. It all is with this desktop app that takes forever to build. It's just interface changes for the most part, but I'll be damned, I've been in for 6 hours so far and I'm going nuts. I'm leaving now, come in tomorrow, and get a head start on my moving (Moving tonight, yay!)
Nice chatting with you ^_^
It must be a common thread :)
Doesn't surprise me with the amount of bile in skin suits in the industry.
I wish these builds didn't take so long.. I've posted almost 40 comments today.
Hire people as temps or contractors initially with no promise of perminent employement you can't tell what a person's really worth based on a couple of interviews and a resume anyways. After a couple of months you can hire the good ones on full time.
That's (for the most part) what this company does for a lot of the positions. I got brought on for a 3 week contract. That was 1.5 years ago. I'm still a contractor. Not that I care, I'll be here for quite a while (Until I decide to leave) as either a contractor or an employee. I've seen a couple contractors get axed after a week.
They've gotten some major dumbasses in here on contract. My favorite was this guy, after getting let go early, asked if he could get a full time position at the company.
I concur, though I did not mean forcing 8 hours of work as much as forcing being at work 8 hours a day, even if the actual goal that needs done will take less (not so applicable to dev or QA as IT)
Yeah, I knew what you meant, I was just expanding on the topic.
Anecdote:
I had a manager a few years back who would come into my cube, see I was either staring into space or writing meaningless code. He would get pissed off, "What are we paying you for?" My answer: My brain, which is actively working while my hands aren't.
He got asked for his resignation because he was useless, but always at his computer.
But I'm still aiming to get a BS CS, because I enjoy computer science. What I've seen so far in my job hunt implies that I'm screwed if I'm not a superb programmer with multiple years of experience in 5 different languages.
Take really low entry level positions. They come up sometimes. It's cheap labor, usually done on short term contracts. $15-$20/hour. If you are in a metro area, try to get on board with a tech. consulting firm. Explain you are just starting out, and would like any jobs they have.
I'd rather not work in retail the rest of my life - any suggestions?
Just work in retail until the IT industry stabilizes? Just a joke, but learn learn learn. Open source work on your resume does have a lot of positive results. On my resume, I list my open source experience, and in the "What is Open Source?" paragraph (put that in, so they know) I had a sentence "I code not for a job, but for love."
That got me a $77/hr project right there. They hired me out of the other candidates because of that one sentence (that and I can prove what's on my resume)
Correction, they think they will get it back. By this definition, no dotcom ever made a loss, because they all expected they were going to get it back.
Well, it only works if you turn a big enough profit, really.
55k was good? Hell when I was laid off a year ago I was making just over 30k a year as a software engineer 2, at a major company. My goal one day was to make 35k a year. I'd seriously consider myself ultra-rich if I made 55k a year. With 70k, man I can't even fathom what that feels like.
Blink.
I checked out your resume, and I hope you enjoy positive criticism. First, open source development helps. Real development experience, being part of the development cycle, is what matters. I will not interview someone who has not been part of a development cycle. Yellow is a bad background color on your resume. Understand the people that are looking at your resume are generally not technical people. They want nice fonts, with nice layouts. A plain text or non-formatted HTML resume isn't going to get you far past HR, or on a hiring managers desk.
Keep in mind in the bay area $50K/year is poverty line for a family of four.
I totally agree, though unfortunately hiring practices are not leaning towards hiring smart people that actually work 8 hour days, but hiring 'experienced' people and forcing them to work 8 hour days (usually 9-12).
My boss doesn't expect me to actually work 8 hours a day. He expects me to be here 8 hours a day, but he knows the time I spend working is probably half that. Good programmers don't always type, only about 30% of programming involves a computer. More people need to realize that, too.
The majority of work I've ever seen done by IT or devs has been done by smart people who still have naivete towards business while being directed by someone that can channel the naive workload into something management really wants.
I would definitely agree with that. My manager knows IT well enough to understand what we're talking about, and knows business well enough to get our projects approved and budgetted. He's the best manager I've had so far. I know a lot about business, I'm starting one, but could never do management. Upper management and grunt work, but no middle ground. Hiring should be done by the peers working, the manager should merely select the potential candidates from the paper. Just my belief...
Microsoft has a right to their money. They've earned it, they own it, and they can sit on a pile of it and wear money hats if they so choose.
Right. Their money. Losing money, on purpose, so you can write it off on taxes should not be allowed. Tax money is the governments money. The government is letting Microsoft off the hook on a huge amount of tax liability. That is not a skewed view of capitalism.
Instead, they develop a product with it (thereby employing American engineers) using components from two major American chip companies (more employed engineers) and then market it, creating demand for games (employing American programmers) and demand for add-ons such as online gaming (employing American telecommunications workers.)
Then sell it at a loss, costing tax payers money, and piggy back on the wonderful loop holes of corporate tax. I hope everyone takes the obvious utopian route, as you seem to think it is, so the burden of maintaining America is purely on the citizens and not the corporations. You have a skewed version of taxation.
If you're really that concerned with the government losing tax dollars, go stop people from buying PS2's. All that money's heading straight for Japan, and only one hot title is from a non-Japanese studio (two, if you count the recently released "sequel.")
Glad you stopped making sense long ago so I can just discount this as stupid. Import tax? PS2s aren't sold at a loss. Japanese people import from American people, there by creating more American jobs and more American money! As for one hot title, dumbass. Many more than one hot title. I know that, and I don't even own a PS2.
Tony Hawk, SSX, SSX Tricky, GTA, GTA Vice City, Twisted Metal: Black (Sony America), Max Payne.
I'd think from most of your comment you are 12 or 13 years old, but if you were you would know the video games that are out.
You know, there was a time in the countries history when there were no direct taxes. We had a military, roads, services, and a pretty free country (though sadly not for Native Americans, Blacks, Women, or Children).
Yep, but evolution dictates change. Better or worse, in favor of the stronger. Too bad the strong don't realize choking their food source is a bad thing.
Look at from a longer-term view. Microsoft does not intend to lose money forever. They want the books to be positive at the end of the day. The government allowing Microsoft to deduct losses now is an attempt to help Microsoft to become profitable in the future. Profitable in the future means revenues to the government. It doesn't do the government any good if they kill companies in the start-up phases before they get a chance to produce taxes.
So they continue selling XBoxes at a loss, and other things, further evading paying fair taxes? I'm saying that corporate tax needs reformation. That is where the bulk of tax money comes from, and Microsoft shouldn't be allowed the exemptions they have, nor should many other companies. You realize how profitable Microsoft is, right? You think that if they didn't get their $177M tax write-off, they would be less profitable or less market hungry? It'd just be slower, which is better for the economy anyway.
1) It wouldn't do anything for the schools, since this is mostly federal taxes. Schools are locally financed (although, the feds have been sticking their nose more and more where they shouldn't lately)
Ok, no schools, lets do a mars mission. Lets dump it into alternate power research. Something that will A) create jobs and B) better humanity (or at least the US, since it's the American government)
2) I'd rather have Microsoft grow and create jobs for the parents of the children, rather than have the government take MORE of our money. The government has more than enough money to fix the schools. Insist on efficiency, not higher taxes.
I'd rather have other companies grow, and Microsoft not grow. They are big enough. If Microsoft grows, they provide jobs in a few areas. Disperse $100K amongst 100 companies as seed money in 100 different locations. Pick good, solid, companies that need seed funding, and see how far $100M goes towards creating jobs. If I got a lien-free seed fund of $100K I'd be at profitability next year. Creating at least 10 jobs in the first year. Probably 50 the next, if that was our goal.
Sounds like fuzzy math.
It's called accounting.
In the meantime, there are a lot of happy consumers who have a nice cheap gaming system.
At the expense of millions of dollars in lost tax revenue, because Uncle Sam is taking a hit by giving MS this tax break.
Maybe we should just think of the XBox as our own little tax return from Xbox.
Fine, for those who bought them. Understand that everyone who has an Xbox, my taxes helped pay for that. Doesn't seem right, doesn't seem fair, does it?
Uhm, what? The government isn't subsidizing anything. MS lost 177 million. You don't think they are paying much what? Taxes? On the -177 Million?
Well, you are just wrong. Microsoft didn't LOSE $177M. The XBox project had an expense of $177M. That gets written off on taxes.
Uhm, what? The government isn't subsidizing anything. MS lost 177 million. You don't think they are paying much what? Taxes? On the -177 Million?
Go read a book on corporate accounting.. hell, if you don't know about write-offs go read a book on personal accounting, too.
On a totally unrelated topic there was a time in this country when corporations only existed to further the public good; our founding fathers feared and were fleeing the religious and corporate tyranny. I feel that this forgotten legal decision [tourolaw.edu] is one of the most important in our history; it essentially empowered corporations as what we know today: semi-autonomous beings capable of owning property, being wronged, and having the rights of a citizen (where comes the term 'corporate citizen'). It established that: "Corporations are persons within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States". For all those and bitch and rave about globalization, corporate power, corporate abuse, the pedaling of political influence, and the like and wonder to themselves 'how did we get here?', this is a good place to start. I would love to discuss this sometime on slash, another day, another topic...
It is related, and you are absolutely right. Business evolves right next to humanity. I only hope that humanity overcomes the tyrannical abuse being sought after many corporations. A bloody revolution every 300 years...
I read that here:
From my original post.
The inane rules of taxation thought up by your astoundingly bright elected officals is the problem. I am sure they didnt intend this loophold (well, reasonably sure), but its still there. Unintended consequences of "fixing" the tax code every 2-4 years.
Tax laws either need to be so simple with black and white cases, or so complex you have to have a dedicated accountant following you around. Otherwise loop holes get in, this is just one of the more glaring loop holes I take issue with. I always buy the razors and not the refill cartridges because I know they take a loss with each one. If you do it on special, you can actually save money doing it yourself too.
According to your logic, if the gamble doesn't pay off in 5 years, would they get to write it off as a loss then? Or are you saying write-offs shouldn't be allowed at all? If so, wouldn't this make new venture spending even less appealing for businesses?
No, I'm saying that gambles are fine. If a company is profitable and sells a product at a loss (knowing it is a loss, like the Xbox) they should not be able to write that off. They should just suck it up. Expenses that are done purposefully to gain market share, that can be avoided by not selling the product at a market loss, should not be able to be written off.
You seem to have some need to punish success, but the purpose of government is to serve the people, INCLUDING Microsoft. If Microsoft is successful with XBox, that means more American jobs are created at the expense of jobs in Japan. This is exactly what the American government should be doing.
It's not a need to punish success, it's a need to take care of the American people. I object to the American populace losing ~$100M of tax money from Microsoft because Microsoft purposefully and deliberately priced the Xbox so low they knew they would have this loss. They could have charged $350 for it and it still would have sold and MS wouldn't have a substantial loss, government has more money.
$100M could do a lot towards fixing our schools so there aren't 55 kids in a kindergarden class. It's a start...