Slashdot Log In
Ballmer Threatens To Pull Out of the US
Posted by
Soulskill
on Sat Jun 06, 2009 08:18 AM
from the tax-schmax dept.
from the tax-schmax dept.
theodp writes "Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer is threatening to move Microsoft employees offshore if Congress enacts President Obama's plans to curb tax avoidance by US corporations. 'It makes US jobs more expensive,' complained billionaire Ballmer. 'We're better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the US as opposed to keeping them inside the US.' According to 2006 reports, Microsoft transferred $16 billion in assets to secretive Dublin subsidiaries to shave billions off its US tax bill. 'Corporate tax is part of the overall advantage of doing business in Ireland,' acknowledged Ballmer in 2005. 'It would be disingenuous to say otherwise.'"
Related Stories
[+]
Battle Lines Being Drawn As Obama Plans To Curb Tax Avoidance 1505 comments
theodp writes "Barack Obama has squared up for a major battle with big business, announcing a crackdown on offshore tax avoidance and evasion by US multinationals that's designed to raise $210B and make it easier for companies to create 'good jobs here at home'. Obama cited a building in the Cayman Islands where more than 18,000 US companies are housed: 'Either this is the biggest building in the world or it is the biggest tax scam in the world,' he said. 'I think the American people know which it is.' The administration says that more than a third of US foreign profits in 2003 came from Bermuda, the Netherlands and Ireland, and noted US companies paid an effective tax rate of just 2.3% on the $700bn they earned in foreign profits in 2004. Among tech companies affected by the crackdown, Microsoft joined 200 companies who signed a letter complaining that the proposed tax changes would put them at a disadvantage with their rivals, Cisco moaned that the measures 'would adversely impact our ability to invest and grow our business in the US,' and Google declined to comment for the time being."
[+]
Technology: Steve Ballmer Directing "House Party 7" 359 comments
theodp writes "What are you doing on Oct. 22? Microsoft is putting a Tupperware-style twist on the upcoming Windows 7 rollout, launching a new initiative to encourage thousands of employees, partners and technology enthusiasts to throw parties in their homes and communities to demonstrate and help spread the word about its new OS. People accepted as official launch party hosts will get their own copy of Windows 7 Ultimate Edition, and a chance to win a computer. Host spaces are very limited, so apply now, kids. Hey, what could possibly go wrong?"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
In other words (Score:5, Funny)
corporations corporations corporations corporations corporations corporations corporations corporations corporations...
this line added for postercomment compression filter
And I'm threatening.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And I'm threatening.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:5, Insightful)
"Besides, IMHO...corporate tax is useless, it is just a hidden tax on the consumer, since a corporation just passes this off onto the consumer as part
of their cost of a product."
Why does this ridiculous soundbite keep getting regurgitated *every single time* this topic comes up?
If corporations don't pay tax as so many Internet corporate lick-spittles shriek, then they wouldn't need ridiculously twisted foreign tax accounts and be prancing around like sooks when someone comes along and tells them to meet their obligations in their home countries would they? They would just happily pass this tax burden it along.
That's right logic doesn't come into a discussion where fanatical ideologists are hopping up and down does it?
Second the same argument could be made for *anyone* who runs a business. "Small business owners don't pay personal income or sales tax, they just pass it along in the price of the goods & services their business sells, so they shouldn't be taxed".
The whole "argument" completely ignores competition, elasticity and old fashioned out of date sneered at "patriotism".
Good god.
The worst thing about it all, is you all point to Ireland as some sort of bastion of economic freedom and some sort of idol, completely ignoring the fact that Ireland has been hit harder than *any* other country since the depression due to it's low tax rates and lax corporate regulations and now has a debt of 800% of GDP and all the multinationals that used and abused her are now running back to their safe secure and regulated home countries post haste!
But yeah, the US should definitely aspire to be more like Ireland or Poland or fucking "Mumbai" as some tool below puts it. What a great idea.
"Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak........."
I'll say...
Parent
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:5, Insightful)
"If corporations don't pay tax as so many Internet corporate lick-spittles shriek, then they wouldn't need ridiculously twisted foreign tax accounts and be prancing around like sooks when someone comes along and tells them to meet their obligations in their home countries would they? They would just happily pass this tax burden it along."
Ok, smartass, WHY DO THEY AVOID TAXES?
And the answer is...
Because it increases profits. There, I said it.
Should we allow tax policy to encourage moving profits offshore to avoid taxes and increase profits? Does Microsoft have ANY responsibility to pay their fair (or legal) taxes in the U.S., the country that does, largely, make their success possible? Should we not perhaps have a tax policy that discourages moving jobs offshore merely to avoid taxation? Can we in fact craft a tax policy that does any of this?
Corporations are now pretty much driven by self-interest, in a shortsighted way. Quarterly results, dividends, thwarting competition instead of out-competing, I suppose it was inevitable, but Ballmer's threat to move offshore exposes the culture of 'profit first last and always' at Microsoft.
This culture has resulted in so many industries in the U.S. being moved offshore, most notably to China. Can you buy a single piece of PC hardware that isn't made in China? What does it take to avoid Chinese-manufactured products? Is it ok to send U.S. jobs overseas only to maximize profit?
Ballmer's threat should spur this debate.
Oh, and for what it's worth, if we DID reduce or eliminate corporate taxes, prices probably wouldn't go down - you're right. Greed dictates that corporations take that opportunity to increase profits. Unless one says there is enough price pressure to lower theirs. Then the market starts working again.
Parent
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:5, Insightful)
Whenever I buy something in a store, there is very, very, very, little that the government did for me.
Other than provide the safety regulations to minimize the risk the product harms you, the advertising regulations to minimize the chance you are scammed, etc, etc. Your commercial transaction occurs in a complicated environment, much of which is government funded, much of which serves to protect you (nominally, obviously you can debate the efficacy).
In general, I don't think there are many government services that you can fund on a pay-per-use basis. Fire department? Are you kidding? Many places in the country, they have to put your fire out to keep it from spreading to your neighbors. Having a patchwork of private providers mixed in would be a nightmare. For police, similarly -- take all the issues we have with police brutality, privacy violation, etc, and now throw in groups who are not directly run by a group (nominally, at least) constrained by Constitutional limits? No thanks.
Throw in the fact that you're going to have to construct an enormous infrastructure to monitor who's paying for what, whether you get access to x y or z service, etc, and I think a lot of the purported benefit is going to go out the window. Also, for many of these (e.g., libraries), there is more benefit than simply "what do I get today?" Sure, you could allow for private libraries, but they would be driven solely by profit motive. Public libraries serve as important record-keepers and generally provide a service to society in a more general sense than just a pay-for-service sense. Look at the book selection in your typical bookstore and compare it to that in the library. In my experience, the library is a much better place for obscure or old books-- the purpose of the library is to preserve information. The purpose of the bookstore is to sell books. They're both valuable, but sometimes very different.
Parent
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:5, Insightful)
The costs end up on the consumer either way. If you tax the corporations, then they raise the price of their goods, consumers pay more. If you don't tax the corporations, then the government will directly tax the people even more to make up for the income that they aren't getting from corporate taxes.
We pay either way. The government requires money to meet its many obligations, and it's going to collect that money through taxes of one sort or the other.
The corporation that I'm buying from is reliant on the highways and bridges that it has to truck its products across, and those highways and bridges need to get paid for. Either I pay the company which than pays the government, or I pay the government directly. If the company is paying, it factors that cost into its prices, and then as a consumer, I can see those extra costs and make a more informed purchasing decision. And a well designed corporate tax system would have the added benefit of compelling companies to use those public resources more efficiently, which would lower their tax burden, and then lower their prices.
Parent
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:5, Insightful)
"Because you fail to understand basic economics, that's why."
No no I don't. And you've set up one big fat straw man to knock down there in your long ideologically driven fairy tale.
I get it - you found religion in Randian free market economic theory. Very nice, the *real* world has what we call leeching bastards. People who will *live* in a country, use said countries resources as paid for by *everyone else* to make themselves billions of dollars and then work as hard as they can to pay NOTHING into the system that everyone else has worked towards setting up and maintaining that protects said leeching bastard to allow them to make that sort of money in the first place.
I suppose you think the old aristocracies deserved their position as well. Well I guess they had plenty of lick-spittles too!
"Socialist Worker's Paradise Reality" Lol ok what? That was a joke if you read my last post. I'm a contractor - self employed or in other words a small business. You know the real engine of every economy on earth. I'm about as far from "Socialist" as is *realistically* possible without becoming...well, like you.
I'm also allergic to religious fanatics.
Parent
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is that you can't cut corporate taxes far enough to stop the whining and threats. Corporations are used to being spoiled by fascists and will threaten to leave the country for absolutely any reason. Trade agreements like the WTO just make it worse since free trade undermines the ability of nations to look out for their own interests. As long as countries like China and Japan refuse to play by the same rules as everybody else, we're going to see this sort of thing. Ultimately MS cheats quite a bit and probably ought to be investigated for those fraudulent visas they've been using.
The point of corporate taxes is that if you remove it is that you lose the ability to impact how the corporation does business. You're restricted to out right bans on certain practices rather than influencing the cost curves.
Parent
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:5, Insightful)
Internet "libertarians" seem to forget one imperative thing: Corporations are a 100% Government created *legal* entity. There is NO natural right to form a corporation, "God" or whoever must have forgotten to include that in the package and I'm sure he's very sorry Randians.
So without government power there's NO SUCH THING as a limited liability Corporation. All that exists are sole traders.
So if the government creates it, the government can tax it, destroy it or rule it as it sees fit. If the corp doesn't like it, it may disband at any time and the owners can become sole traders and not be liable under these regulations.
Pretty bloody simple isn't it?
Sometimes I think that many people here long for an aristocracy to rule them.
Parent
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:5, Insightful)
The purpose of business is to make money. Not to be a patriotic cash funnel that supports governmental pet programs. Keep viewing corporations as ATM machines and they *will* relocate to more desirable locations because there are a lot of countries out there that see the benefits of all the jobs that large companies bring. We seem to have lost sight of that fact. Now watch as companies relocate and the country loses ALL of that tax revenue and ALL of those jobs.
Those in charge in government like to think they "create jobs". No, a government job is not a "good" job, it is a drain on the tax base because it generates no wealth. It only helps the individual at the expense of the rest of us. But when the government makes the business climate desirable, businesses come and create good jobs that help both the individual and the nation by generating wealth that feeds back in the economy. Then the government benefits from that added taxation. Everyone wins.
Parent
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:5, Insightful)
- Raising corporat taxes doesn't affect the consumer as badly as you believe. Yes some prices get raised, but increased taxation also leads to more cuts internally like plastic desks instead of mahogany, fewer free trips to Vegas, snd so on.
Which in turn depresses the mahogany desk business and Vegas travel business, which causes them to close factories and lay off staff. There is no free lunch, there is no free tax. Right now Vegas is really hurting because people like you think it's really neat to punish businesses that have conventions in Vegas. In the same vein, people who buy heavily-taxed or -regulated goods are choosing not to buy these goods, instead opting to buy something without such hidden added costs -- or opting not to buy at all. If you want to see the results of this, just look at Detroit and how artificially inflated labor rates and benefits (thanks, unions) have made domestic cars expensive, inferior, and unprofitable.
He's turning his back on the country that gave Ballmer opportunity to be where he is today. Industrialist Carnegie came from Scotland and loved the U.S., and maintained loyalty until his death. He would have never entertained the idea of moving factories to China for cheap labor.
And what do you suppose will happen if MS doesn't move? Foreign competition that isn't subject to a crushing corporate tax will then have an advantage over MS. You don't move your labor base because you want to, you do it because if you don't, your competition will. It has nothing to do with greed (a favorite word of the class warfare monger) and everything to do with how the world works in a global labor market.
If California's standard of living drops, then wages will drop, and eventually the factories will move back here because WE will be the cheaper labor than the Chinese.
California's standard of living would have to drop below that of a peasant Chinese factory worker living in a hut with 20 other people before that would happen because that's what labor is like in China. Somehow I don't see that happening.
What could happen -- but won't because people like you refuse to understand basic economics -- is the U.S. government could drastically reduce corporate taxes. If you want see what kind of effects that can have on attracting and keeping new businesses to your country, try here [wordpress.com]. Corporate taxes were lowered. Businesses flocked to it. Tax reveneues increased because of a larger tax base despite a lower marginal rate. The general standard of living for everyone went up. And you're against this idea?
Parent
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:5, Insightful)
With that said, who would Microsoft threaten to move? More support operations (which are mostly in India now)? Other teams that are not too far in the hierarchy?
I doubt that this is a big deal.
Parent
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:5, Informative)
To be fair, the US labor market of Carnegie's day was on par with that of most other countries, his railroad empire was largely built on the back of indentured labor (a substantial portion of which had consisted of Chinese immigrants [cprr.org]). He maintained a private army [nytimes.com] to hedge against an armed workforce uprising, which eventually [battleofho...dation.org] happened [wikipedia.org] -- and during which he retreated to the safety of his personal Scottish castle [carnegieclub.co.uk]. Afterward said labor force was promptly replaced with a force entirely composed of desperate immigrants [google.com].
It is widely believed his later philanthropic activities were entirely motivated by his damaged reputation and desire to right a fortune built on questionable ethics and ruthless business practices [google.com]. What do you buy someone who already has everything? Posterity.
Parent
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:5, Informative)
Please, please, won't people on Slashdot please stop repeating this tripe? Corporate leaders have a high degree of flexibility about how their companies are operated; it is not as simple as this stupid mantra that has cropped up here to explain away all misdeeds and bad decisions.
Anyone can be sued. For anything. Doesn't mean it has merit. And there are always countervailing forces to all business decisions - does a short-term move to avoid American taxes actually have hidden long-term costs? Are there ways of considering value beyond immediate quarterly costs vs. earnings? Did you know corporations frequently count "good will" as an asset? Did you know a smart leader can see how patriotism may, in fact, be an asset? Perhaps it means a better chance at contracts with the Federal government; perhaps it simply means helping to maintain the business environment in their single largest market.
Parent
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:5, Interesting)
Please, please, won't people on Slashdot please stop repeating this tripe?
Man, I've been trying forever. Unfortunately, the people with rolled-up sleeves on CNBC tell them that they're right, several times a day.
It's not likely to stop, either. It's a very convenient idea for officers who would like to act badly, for one thing. Second, nearly all of the people on Slashdot who talk about financial news get it from places like CNBC, which is not only run by officers who enjoy this misapprehension of the law, but whose programming consists of mostly brown-nosing officers who were, or are currently, running companies in this way.
On the bright side, I have seen a new meme rise up; Free marketeers are starting to realize that their purer market will require strong tort... They're starting to accept the reality that "tort reform" and an efficient market are incompatible. It's not worth accepting the rest of dogma, but at least the drive to disable lawsuits has been weakened.
Back on topic: As Obama said at the outset, corporate tax reform is on the table, but only if every closed loophole is not portrayed as a tax increase. For one thing, reform is impossible without knowing what the current tax burden is precisely (i.e. figures for the top corporate rate are a lie). It's a subtle thing with what Ballmer and others are saying; they're not protesting a statutory tax increase, they're protesting increased difficulty in being a scofflaw.
Parent
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:5, Insightful)
He's alienating the business and personal user buyers ("Everyone's working together in these difficult economic times .... except Microsoft"), he's damaging future military sales ("If we continue committing stategically to this company's products, there's no guarantee that the support for these systems won't be under the jurisdiction of a foreign power in five years' time"), and he's also damaging Microsoft's influence over governmental sales and government legislation ("Now we're finally free to pass laws and directives that might hurt Microsoft sales (such as deciding to move to open-source), because if anyone complains that we're risking US jobs, we can now reply that Microsoft's CEO has suggested that those US jobs are liable to disappear anyway, at short notice").
Parent
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
corporations have to also be of the public benefit, ie, for the citizens inside the nation where they are GRANTED their incorporation charters.
No, they just have to comply with the letter of the laws that set the terms of their incorporation.
Corporations that threaten to pull out should have their charters instantly revoked.
Great. Capricious moves like that are a real incentive for investment.
You want all of the benefits, all the profits possible, but none of the *responsibilities*.
On the contrary. Corporations, just like individuals, should be held to whatever obligations they freely agree to.
traitorous scumbags.
Fuck you too, Adolph. People are not the property of the state, and neither are corporations.
-jcr
Parent
Ballmer threatens to pull out? (Score:5, Funny)
Too bad Ballmer's father didn't pull out.
-
Re:Ballmer threatens to pull out? (Score:5, Funny)
Ugh, thank you. Now I have this image of a sweaty Steve Ballmer Sr. saying "...I...love...this..company...YEAH!...come on baby, give me your face"
Parent
Oh come on Steve (Score:5, Funny)
Don't tease me like that unless you really mean it.
Move employees offshore (Score:5, Funny)
It's just like moving rack mounted servers offshore. Just box them, ship them, and install in the new offices.
And as a reward... (Score:5, Interesting)
While it is a requirement of a corporation to maximize the shareholders' value, Ballmer is simply grandstanding and expecting the government to roll over for MS' benefit. The current administration is much less submissive to corporate political desires.
The Administration should VERY publicly call them out and recommend government offices immediately develop a schedule for converting as much of the IT infrastructure as possible away from MS software.
Re:And as a reward... (Score:5, Insightful)
While I agree with the rest of this statement, the crap like "it is a requirement of a corporation to maximize the shareholders...." blah blah blah need to be RETIRED. Repeating this corporate dogma garbage just strengthens the hand of blowhards like Ballmer.
It is NOT HAPPENING in the U.S... it's all about doing what's best for the corporate elite at the very top. Even if you accept the "corporations work for the betterment of the shareholders" argument for a second you then need to take into account that the biggest shareholders by far are the Board members and CEOs at the top anyway and they are STILL just working in their own best interest.
Parent
Not very bright... (Score:5, Insightful)
First off, it just isn't a very good idea to start going tit-for-tat with the US government. That's especially true for a convicted monopolist, not to mention the fact that the previous administration essentially cancelled anything so severe as even a wrist-slap.
That judgement could be re-examined.
Second, that's just a really patriotic, really American thing to do. Or does it mean that patriotism is defined one way for corporations and their heads, and another way for "merely working Americans"? For one of the most profitable corporations in US history to in all essence say, "I don't want to pay my fair share, I'm taking the rest of the American jobs overseas," is a real slap in the face. It's also not as if this is meant to be a tax increase, it's meant to be eliminating a tax shelter. For you and me, using such a tax shelter would be cheating, avoiding doing our fair share.
Third, I'm sure "Vista for the US Army" isn't a done deal. Also don't forget, Linus Torvalds is a US resident, and I'm sure *he* pays his income taxes, as do the various US-residing RedHat, Novell, etc, employees.
Re:Not very bright... (Score:5, Interesting)
First off, it just isn't a very good idea to start going tit-for-tat with the US government.
No duh. If it happened (or started to happen), I'd see three possibilities:
Parent
US == Software Patents (Score:5, Insightful)
Seeing that the US is one of the few countries that have Software Patents, Ballmer might want to reconsider. Currently the EU does not have Software Patents, and hopefully never will. Seeing that Microsoft's strategy lately is to patent everything and spread FUD about Linux infringing on it's patent portfolio, threating to move the company outside of the US would mean there would be less of an incentive for the US to maintain it's position on Software Patents.
Parent
On pulling out (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft: exploits loopholes in law to avoid paying corporate taxes.
People: exploit loopholes in Windows activation to avoid paying for a license.
Pure FUD. (Score:5, Insightful)
The sad thing is that this is all Microsoft has become. Microsoft won't leave the US. For one thing there's a lot more to running a business than a freaking tax shelter. This is just another instance of Balmer blowing smoke. It's really a large portion of how he tries to exert influence.
I think Balmer is going to soon learn this is simply NOT the time to start drawing lines in the sand between greedy corporations and everyone else. Public opinion of Microsoft DOES matter, and painting your corporation as a bunch of dickweeds that'll just up and leave over some legislation is just idiotic.
Pull out, already (Score:5, Funny)
On the other hand, Steve himself is a good candidate for the title "America's Asshole". I'm all for anyone with financial clout standing up to Obama and congress, but the enemy of my enemy is not automatically my friend.
Like Nokia did in Finland (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Sure, move out. (Score:5, Insightful)
Exactly what I was going to say. Move your main operation to Ireland and the EU has much much more control over windows. Microsoft is having huge problems with the EU because, well they are actually interested in the public good.
Parent
Re:Sure, move out. (Score:5, Insightful)
And Dublin, what an excellent idea... just because they used to have good tax breaks for large relocating corporations doesn't mean that will continue. Not when the IMF steps in and tells them how to run their economy after their debts destroy it; even Dell has pulled out of Ireland and is moving from Limerick to Poland.
Perhaps if MS was under the jurisdiction of the EU, they'll do what the DoJ should have done and will break it up into several MiniSofts.
Parent
Re:Sure, move out. (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Sure, move out. (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps if MS was under the jurisdiction of the EU, they'll do what the DoJ should have done and will break it up into several MiniSofts.
Those would be "picosofts".
Parent
Re:Sure, move out. (Score:5, Interesting)
Or, how will US government (e.g. its military) view the idea of using a 'foreign' OS?
It would not surprise me if such a move would hasten a 'turning away from windows' trend in US government.
And if the US government is anything like the EU on this, the consequence would be that other businesses would start migrating away from windows as well...
I am no consultant with Mircrosoft, but if I were, I would advise against it... The strength of the Microsoft brandname is largely due to its US connection. Cut it, and it might very well dwindle overnight?
Parent
Re:Sure, move out. (Score:5, Interesting)
Or, how will US government (e.g. its military) view the idea of using a 'foreign' OS?
Well I know that the Norwegian Military (particularly parts of the intelligence operations) decided that they would no longer trust or use Windows some years back.
Parent
Re:Sure, move out. (Score:5, Interesting)
Well I know that the Norwegian Military (particularly parts of the intelligence operations) decided that they would no longer trust or use Windows some years back.
That's likely because they either were not bribed or simply did not accept said bribe. Remember, in the US, MS' OS were put in place despite explicit regulations disallowing its use. Which is to say, it was not on the approve OS list for use which means it should have never been deployed. Yet somehow it magically happened. Endless factual accounts consistently proved every time this type thing happens, its because large bribes have been paid. If it were not for such bribery, its very unlikely MS would ever be in any system other than desktop and unclassified server systems.
One could even argue MS has taken the first step is destroying national security in the US. Hell, they've managed to take destroyers out of commission.
Parent
Re:Sure, move out. (Score:5, Insightful)
If they go out of US, to who M$ will complain to prevent unlicensed use of Windows?
It's SO unfair that people pirate our products! We made those products and we deserve our cut damn it!
It's SO unfair that we have to like obey our nations tax laws!
Yeah lets go after those that break the laws we like and lets use all our lawyers and accountants to avoid the laws we don't like.
Parent
Re:But corporations don't pay tax (Score:5, Informative)
Depends on the market. In the case of Microsoft software, the consumers don't pay the tax. Microsoft's main titles (Windows & Office) are both mostly market monopolies, which means that the price is set based on how much people are willing to pay for the software. The price is set based only on the contrast between number of sales and price per sale to optimize for maximum product.
In cases like this, the industry ends up paying the taxes. While the monopoly company has less funds to develop improvement in the software, users of the software receive less functionality. Software developers and domestic employees are hurt the most, having less employer competition due to work being outsourced.
Parent
Re:But corporations don't pay tax (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:But corporations don't pay tax (Score:5, Insightful)
Right; most taxes are based on transfers of capital. There's no fundamental difference between a tax on a corporation / income tax or sales tax. The money has moved from control of one (legal) person to another. Also the grandparent is assuming that companies charge for their products according to their costs which is garbage. They charge according to what they can charge. If MS starts paying fair taxes and increases product costs to cover it, that would give linux distribution builders who have to pay full income tax a more fair chance in the market.
Parent
Re:But corporations don't pay tax (Score:5, Insightful)
The reasons are sad, but ultimately, my experience working with all manners of the mythical "poor people in America" (they actually do exist) shows them.
First, you can't just expect people to go from "physical workforce" to "idea producers" because you tell them to. Unfortunately, not everyone is creative. Not everyone is intelligent. Similarly, not everyone is strong or has manual dexterity. Some people are very well suited to chopping down trees, digging holes, and assembling circuit boards. Other people are very well suited to inventing things, drafting documents, making things pretty, and directing/managing. Some people are good at both categories, and choose the one that they prefer, in places where they have the choice. But it is not true that MOST people are well suited to idea work. Many, but not most.
Second, you can't assume that Americans naturally make for better "idea producers" than Chinese etc- if you try to set up America as a country of designers and managers, while having other portions of the world simply be the labor force, you (ie, corporate America) are attempting to set up a global caste system. Very dangerous. Yet, even then, there would remain jobs which must be performed physically and locally. Janitor. Pavement repairer. McDonalds cook. Chef. Doctor. If you set up an economy where "most people" are "supposed to be" concept workers, then you are conveying the social message that other work is inferior, and thus, other workers are inferior. Not a good message for a government, of all groups, to promulgate.
Additionally, consider that, even if they are capable of it, many people would despise office-type work. Myself, I am bound to it by ability (err, by lack of physical ability otherwise) but, especially working with the physically disabled, I meet people all the time who would rather starve to death than work in an office- they would rather build things or chop down trees. Many people feel that they haven't worked if their muscles don't feel it at the end of the day, and in fact, my father, being one of those people, actually looked down on people who worked with paper and computers.
Parent
Re:But corporations don't pay tax (Score:5, Insightful)
Not true.
Companies are constrained from passing on the full value of their tax to their customers by the price elasticity of demand for their product. Which in turn depends on the how much their customers need their product (can they put off buying them or do without, do they yearn for it?) and the availability of substitute products and the degree to which those substitute products are suitable (Linux and Mac OS X are pretty good, as is OpenOffice).
If he could pass on the full cost to his customers Ballmer wouldn't care about a tax increase.
Parent
Re:Get rid of our horrible tax system (Score:5, Interesting)
You know, cause the Republicans and George W Bush are evil.
Or it might be because 30 years of supply-side greedfest has destroyed our economy... One of the two. Yeah, it's probably because they're evil though, because slashdotters are too stupid to notice something like economics but we all consult our priests and/or crystal balls daily.
Nid ad hominem though, I really felt part of a group there for a second.
Parent
Re:Bite the hand that feeds... (Score:5, Insightful)
The U.S. is becoming increasingly hostile toward business. I certainly wouldn't blame Microsoft, Google, Intel or any big company for leaving the U.S. if they can find a country that does not view them as a cash cow, does not attack them with anti-trust, and does not punish their energy-use with cap and trade.
A smart country could displace the U.S. as the economic leader in the world by recognizing and protecting the liberties required for individuals and companies to survive and prosper. If there were a country with minimal tax, strong protection from the government, freedom to think and act - I know I would move there.
Thank you! Why is it that corporations who want to keep the money they earned by selling products and services are evil and greedy, but the government wanting to take more and more of that money is perfectly fine? What makes government more entitled to that money than the person or entity that earned it? You can hate and bash MS or any company for thinking of offshoring jobs to save money, but what about rethinking our punitive tax policy?
Parent
Re:Bite the hand that feeds... (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, cause clearly the government has done nothing to help the companies within its borders. It certainly doesn't provide education for their workforce, roads for their commuters, patent/copyright/trademark protection, investment in pure research that forms the basis of private R&D, emergency personnel to save them from natural disasters, military protection, retirement and insurance benefits for their employees, regulation of the markets so their stock can't be manipulated, and so forth.
Yup, those greedy government bastards! Demanding we provide the money for the services they provide!
Parent
Re:Bite the hand that feeds... (Score:5, Funny)
Better start packing then. This place [wikipedia.org] is a Republican wet dream come true. Minimal taxes, practically no government, and a free market economy! Check out their site [somali-gov.info] for tourists!
Parent