For Microsoft, $93B Abroad Means Avoiding $30B Tax Hit 316
walterbyrd (182728) writes "Microsoft Corp. is currently sitting on almost $29.6 billion it would owe in U.S. taxes if it repatriated the $92.9 billion of earnings it is keeping offshore, according to disclosures in the company's most recent annual filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The amount of money that Microsoft is keeping offshore represents a significant spike from prior years, and the levies the company would owe amount to almost the entire two-year operating budget of the company's home state of Washington."
Okay... and? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why should they repatriate it? What's wrong with keeping money earned abroad, abroad?
Re:Okay... and? (Score:5, Insightful)
The summary, of course, missed Microsoft's legitimate response to people's enquiries:
The company says it has "not provided deferred U.S. income taxes" because it says the earnings were generated from its "non-U.S. subsidiaries” and then "reinvested outside the U.S.”
It's almost like the editors wanted to publish a biased article or something. Scandalous.
Re:Okay... and? (Score:5, Informative)
I'd be interested to know if the majority of that money was in Ireland. If it wasn't, this is a non-story. If it was... well, there are ways of making the money "non-US" and you can rest assured that MS knows ALL of these ways. Their tax lawyers are just as good as IBM's IP lawyers.
Re: (Score:2)
It's only resting in our account...
Re:Okay... and? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Okay... and? (Score:5, Informative)
It's almost like the editors wanted to publish a biased article or something.
Or a truthful one, see below.
And to those apologists who claim it's the laws that are at fault, not Microsoft, the thing to remember is that all those millions of dollars Microsoft has used to buy those laws were extorted from their customers. They charged massive monopoly rents for their lockin-based software so they could have enough cash to buy as many legislators as they needed to avoid funding infrastructure and civil protections in the states and countries they're based in.
Microsoft has a massive system by which to avoid taxation, detailed in another Senate report from last September.
American companies keep 60 per cent of their cash overseas and untaxed, some $1.7 trillion, according to a U.S. Senate HSGAC Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations released in September 2012.
That report used Microsoft as a case study for the leaps and bounds that U.S. corporations go through to minimize their tax exposure, and illustrate the current flaws with the international corporate tax regime.
The Senate investigation found that Microsoft reduced its 2011 federal tax bill by a whopping $2.43 billion — or 44 per cent — by using a wide, international network of controlled foreign corporations and the exploitation of various loopholes in the U.S. corporate tax code.
According to Microsoft, the company paid $3.11 billion in federal taxes in 2011.
According to the full Senate report, Microsoft Corp does 85 per cent of its research and development in the United States. Of its 94,000 employees, 36,000 are in product R&D. The company had reported revenues of $69 billion, but with a federal tax liability of $3.11 billion only paid an effective federal tax rate of 4.5 per cent. That’s much lower than the top statutory rate of 35 per cent for corporations.
Puerto Rico
Microsoft Operations Puerto Rico (MOPR) is the company that pays for the right to sell Microsoft products in the Americas. MOPR makes digital and physical copies of Microsoft software and sells it throughout the United States and the rest of the Americas through different regional distributors.
When an American buys a copy of Microsoft Office in a Best Buy in Manhattan, that was produced in and shipped from Puerto Rico.
MOPR is owned by a Bermuda-based entity, MACS Holdings, which in turn is owned by Round Island One, a fully owned Microsoft subsidiary that is based in Bermuda but operates in Ireland.
To review: An American buys a copy of Microsoft Office at Best Buy in Manhattan. Best Buy bought that copy of Office from a Microsoft distributor. The regional distributor bought that copy of Office from Microsoft Operations Puerto Rico. Microsoft Operations Puerto Rico is owned by MACS Holdings, which itself is owned by Round Island One, which itself is owned by Microsoft Corp.
The reason for that convoluted supply chain — the reason why that copy of Office wasn’t just shipped from Microsoft Corp in Redmond, Washington to Manhattan — is that 47 per cent of the profits from that sale go to Puerto Rico, untaxed by the U.S. federal government.
Those profits were taxed by Puerto Rico at an effective rate of 1.02 per cent in 2011, a massive savings from the U.S. corporate tax rate of 35 per cent. Over three years, Microsoft saved $4.5 billion in taxes on goods sold in the U.S. alone. The company saved $4 million per day by routing domestic operations through Puerto Rico.
Ireland
Microsoft Ireland Research (MIR) is the entity that buys into the R&D cost sharing agreement in exchange for the right to sell Microsoft in Europe, the Middle East and Africa.
MIR doesn’t actually create or sell any products to any customers. Instead, MIR immediately licenses the Microsoft intellectual property rights to Microsoft Ireland Operations Limited
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. It's exactly the same thing Apple, Google and everyone else has.
Hell, in Apple's case, it's cheaper to borrow the money in the US than repatriate it. When Apple needed $17B, they took on debt against future US earnings, because it would cost them less to pay back that principle plus interest than it would if they were to bring in the money from offshore into the US (which I think would've been close to $30B to
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Okay... and? (Score:5, Insightful)
Apparently Microsoft is no exception to that, nor even all that exceptional if that's all they've "shielded" from US taxation.
Re:Okay... and? (Score:5, Informative)
The USA is unique in considering all income earned anywhere to be taxable in the USA, even if that money never actually touches America. No other country has a tax system that works like this, perhaps because it's stupid. Instead they have double taxation treaties so if money is earned abroad and you pay taxes there, you can spend the money back home at your HQ without it being taxed a second time. America doesn't, so companies that earn a lot of money abroad simply don't spend it on their HQ. They find things to spend it on in other countries instead.
Re:Okay... and? (Score:5, Informative)
Instead they have double taxation treaties so if money is earned abroad and you pay taxes there, you can spend the money back home at your HQ without it being taxed a second time. America doesn't,
[Citation Needed]
Rebuttal: The US system works by requiring Corporations to pay the difference between the foreign and US taxes.
Citation: http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/International-Businesses/United-States-Income-Tax-Treaties---A-to-Z [irs.gov]
/Personal income is likely to get double taxed, but that's not what we're talking about.
Re:Okay... and? (Score:5, Interesting)
Despite the URL, that page only talks about individuals, not companies. Can you show me I'm clearly wrong for companies? Additionally it says the states do their own thing as well and some simply ignore tax treaties.
That said, I might well be wrong! The US tax code is notorious for being amongst the worlds most complicated, in fact it probably is the most complicated tax code in the developed world at least. So if I'm wrong that would not be surprising, although even if your statement is correct for companies too it still amounts to paying tax on the same income twice. Even if it's at a lower rate than US income, this is nonetheless double taxation.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, they are trying to create an economy out of complicated tax code, and provide a job to tax preparers. If everyone could do their taxes, then you'd have less economic activity, and less tax revenue. But creating a negative value, just to create jobs, to give someone a job over it is equivalent to me walking down the street and smashing windows in with bricks because it creates jobs for contractors, economic activity, and more tax revenue for the government. Fuck economic activity like that. You need an
Re: (Score:3)
/Personal income is likely to get double taxed, but that's not what we're talking about.
You can deduct taxes paid to foreign governments, even as a private citizen.
Re:Okay... and? (Score:5, Insightful)
You can deduct it from your income, just the same as if it were a business expense, but they still tax you on that money anyways. If you had made that money inside of the US instead of somewhere else, you'd be taxed quite a bit less.
Or to put it another way, that's just sugar coating the fact that you're still really being taxed twice just for the privilege of having a US citizenship, even if you've never had anything to do with the US (which is why the US is pretty much the only country whose citizenship people will renounce for tax purposes.)
Re:Okay... and? (Score:4, Informative)
You can deduct it from your income, just the same as if it were a business expense
It's a credit against tax due [irs.gov] not a deduction from income. Big difference.
Re:Okay... and? (Score:5, Informative)
/Personal income is likely to get double taxed, but that's not what we're talking about.
You can deduct taxes paid to foreign governments, even as a private citizen.
Which is the entire point, which, it seems, everyone rebutting GP missed.
If you are an American, working in country X, and paying $Y tax in country X. If $Y is less than the tax $Z you would have paid in America, then you need to pay American Govt $Z-Y (i.e. Z was deduct, which is your point), even though your work, your job and your company have absolutely no relationship with America. You paid $Z-Y just for the privilege of being an American citizen.
If you were from most other country in the world, working abroad in country X, then you pay $Y tax in country X, and then END OF STORY.
Most of countries in the world don't tax their citizens working and living abroad at all, which was GP's point, there is nothing to deduct.
Re: (Score:3)
To add to that: generally, personal income is not double taxed either in this respect. Anything one hears to the contrary is usually political FUD.
Quote below from IRS. Heck, they even point out how to give them the least of your money. http://www.irs.gov/Individuals... [irs.gov]
--------
If you paid or accrued foreign taxes to a foreign country on foreign source income and are subject to U.S. tax on the same income, you may be able to take either a credit or an itemized deduction for those taxes.
Taken as a deduction,
Re:Okay... and? (Score:5, Informative)
To add to that: generally, personal income is not double taxed either in this respect. Anything one hears to the contrary is usually political FUD.
That's very much incorrect. It's treated as a deduction, which means you still pay the US tax anyways, in addition to the foreign tax.
Say you live in Australia and made $200,000USD one year. Australia would tax roughly $68,500USD off of it. That leaves $131,500 to you. The US then taxes you on that amount. How much of that you pay in US taxes depends on the source of the income, and how you're employed. If you're self employed, your tax liability for that amount is 28% base plus 16% to make up for US payroll taxes (your typical US worker sees about 8% payroll taxes and the employer pays the other half, but since you have no employer you have to pay the whole thing.) If this is earned income (i.e. not dividends, not capital gains, not income made from charging rent) then you're liable for about $36,500 of it, otherwise you're liable for the whole thing.
So yeah even though you're potentially taxed less, you're still very much taxed twice, possibly even completely double taxed depending on how you make your money.
This is why some people who make a lot of money overseas and have jack diddly to do with the US will go out of their way to renounce their citizenship. The US really is the only country that actually sends you a bill just for being a national, regardless of whether or not you make use of its utilities.
Re: (Score:2)
That's very much incorrect. It's treated as a deduction
Read the site.
If you paid or accrued foreign taxes to a foreign country on foreign source income and are subject to U.S. tax on the same income, you may be able to take either a credit or an itemized deduction for those taxes.
You're assuming it is always option 2 (acts as a deduction), and ignoring option 1 (acts as a credit).
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Fail.
They are paying taxes on them. In the domiciles abroad. Near the end of TFA is:
It is conveniently politically correct to refer to other countries with lower tax rates as "tax havens". The reality is if the US tax rates we
Re: (Score:3)
Fail.
They are paying taxes on them. In the domiciles abroad. Near the end of TFA is:
It is conveniently politically correct to refer to other countries with lower tax rates as "tax havens". The reality is if the US tax rates were at (or at least near) the foreign rates than funds which could be repatriated would be. Note the word could. No company would bring home 100% as they are operating businesses overseas and need to invest there too.
0 is 10% or less
Re: (Score:2)
No company would bring home 100% as they are operating businesses overseas and need to invest there too.
Especially if they are held hostage like Nokia in India.
Re: (Score:2)
because they don't pay tax on it there either.
Re:Okay... and? (Score:5, Insightful)
because they don't pay tax on it there either.
But shouldn't that be up to the foreign countries where the money is earned? If a country doesn't want to tax earnings in its borders, that's their business. It doesn't mean the US or any other country should have a claim on it.
Re: (Score:3)
If it's earned there, yes, though that's not always the case. Companies play a lot of games with where they choose to book expenses and income. Lots of companies are officially earning a lot of money in places like Luxembourg and Ireland that is really earned elsewhere.
tax by transaction (Score:2)
What if we had a 1 penny tax on transactions, any transaction. For example there are 300 million bank transactions in the country a day. thats 30 million in taxes per day, JUST on bank transactions.
add in all the rest, fast food, shopping plazas, and wallstreet with micro/nano transactions
i need to do some more of the math, but if we add up 1 penny to all
Re: (Score:2)
And how would subscriptions work? And why wouldn't everything be a subscription? A VAT can be made to work, but this is so game-able.
Plus, you're missing the key fact about government: they never give up a tax. Any tax you propose will be in addition to existing taxes, not in place of them.
Re: (Score:2)
Alas for your theory, we don't have ten cents to the dollar in the USA. 300 million bank transactions is only $3 million.
Note, by the by, that $3M is about enough money for 25 seconds of Federal spending....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
What, no Value Added Tax?
Re: (Score:3)
Okay. Well, actually I applaud that. The tax on groceries hits the people with the lowest wages the hardest (relatively), reducing their intake of vegetables even more. Locally, I think the VAT is reduced to one third of the standard percentage for essentials like food.
Re: (Score:2)
No dude, it's *every* transaction. Like when you give your kid their pocket money or take a penny from the "need a penny" dish (oh, wait...)
Re: (Score:2)
Take a Penny? from the crippled children????
Re: (Score:2)
The uncrippled ones are harder to get away from.
Re: (Score:2)
No it wouldn't since he was only using bank transactions. His idea is to charge that penny on ALL transactions including every transaction made on the stock markets which counts in the hundreds of millions if not billions a day. Add in all the other transactions that occur daily and it is easily in the trillions a day.
Re:Okay... and? (Score:5, Informative)
RTFA.
-Microsoft develops product in U.S, generating tax credit for R&D.
-Microsoft shifts ownership, or "Profit Rights" of product off-shore, to say....The Bahamas.
-Microsoft Bahamas subsidiary sells U.S developed product to Americans.
-Microsoft Bahamas claims all profit. Microsoft America gets all Tax Credits.
And that's how they avoid paying taxes. It's legal. It might not be "right," but it's legal, and won't change until our nation's useless politicians do something about it. This debate has been going on for a decade or more.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
RTFA.
-Microsoft develops product in U.S, generating tax credit for R&D.
And paying salaries to U.S. employees who pay income tax on it and spend their money in the US, thereby also paying US sales taxes.
-Microsoft shifts ownership, or "Profit Rights" of product off-shore, to say....The Bahamas.
Which only makes sense, since the US is one of the few countries in the world to tax people's oversea earnings. Only makes sense then that people and companies would move those profits offshore. If tax policies in the US were more reasonable, Microsoft wouldn't have to do that.
-Microsoft Bahamas subsidiary sells U.S developed product to Americans.
On which those Americans pay sales tax.
-Microsoft Bahamas claims all profit. Microsoft America gets all Tax Credits.
But as you said in your first part: the tax credits are for R
Re:Okay... and? (Score:5, Insightful)
The 1% pushing the tax burden off on the 99%, who can't play international games with their finances.
No, that's not relevant. They play a shell game to make sure that all earned profits are earned in areas with little to no tax, then claim they made no profits. Or, if you're GE, you claim you made a $1B loss while reporting billions in profits to your shareholders.
Like what, pledging fealty to corporations and letting the people of the country subsidize their existence?
Which helps local municipalities only - ignoring that sales taxes are regressive.
Indeed, they claim the tax credits and losses in the US, but the profits outside. It's a massive scam, really.
Re: (Score:3)
-Microsoft develops product in U.S, generating tax credit for R&D.
And paying salaries to U.S. employees who pay income tax on it and spend their money in the US, thereby also paying US sales taxes.
That is so incredibly irrelevant. We're talking about the taxing of one legal entity, don't try and push the conversation to knock on affects to other legal entities.
Oh, what the heck, let's talk about those other legal entities. If Microsoft paid all of the taxes from revenue generated in the US, those employees would have a lower tax bill, and could have better lives. As a matter of fact, perhaps all citizens of the US would have a lower tax burden. That might really help those who are just trying to find
Re: (Score:2)
They should have forfeited and been required to repay any research credits or expense deductions when the intellectual property was sold.
But it didn't happen by accident. Lawmakers knew perfectly well what they were doing.
Re: (Score:3)
without US political and military might, Microsoft wouldn't be nearly as safe doing business abroad as they are now.
i don't know exactly how much they should owe for this service, but it's stupid to say it's nothing.
By your logic everyone in the world should pay taxes to the US for keeping the world a safe place to do business.
Re: (Score:3)
While the dollar is still the currency of choice for buying oil, they are.
Not likely to last much longer though the rate they're printing them at.
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic the companies have already paid taxes regardless of this article because they use the dollar.
Whatever sense that makes.
Re: (Score:2)
Effectively. Technically it's different but the effect is similar. The governments preferred companies see the benefits (Sachs et al)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah... Now you see the logic of Empire.
Re: (Score:3)
because washington state wants to tax every penny microsoft makes around the world
Re: (Score:2)
If the money actually is abroad, then it shouldn't be taxed.
But I have a feeling there's something about the definition of 'abroad' that we might be missing.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should they repatriate it? What's wrong with keeping money earned abroad, abroad?
The tax law, as originally written, once required companies to remit the difference between local taxes and US taxes.
So if Irish taxes are 10% and US taxes are 25%, Ireland gets its 10% and the USA gets 15%.
Then the law was changed so that as long as the money stays overseas, [Company] can defer having to pay that 15%.
Instead of actual business being conducted overseas, the majority of those deferred earnings are the result of transfer pricing.
US Company will give its I.P. to an overseas subsidiary and then
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, there's a political agenda in the current climate that is pushing that abiding by tax laws which means paying less taxes is the same as tax evasion and is tantamount to stealing. This witch hunt is often lead by those who wrote the laws in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
What I am confused about is how this is happening. I keep hearing on slashdot that the US has the lowest tax rates for corperations and the rich so how come it is cheaper (tax-wise) to go to another country - especially since from what I have read here, the US treats it's employees the worst as well as underpays them while stealing their benifits.
Surely, those comments were not just US hating propaganda?
Re: (Score:2)
Why single out Microsoft? Many multinational corporations have overseas divisions and not all income is brought home to be taxed, then sent back abroad to pay the workforce.
Re: (Score:2)
Why should they repatriate it? What's wrong with keeping money earned abroad, abroad?
A main issue is that when the money is abroad, it is being invested abroad, instead of coming home and investing in projects in America.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Okay... and? (Score:5, Interesting)
Most of it is not actually earned abroad, due to accounting practices. MS USA sold all of their IP to MS Ireland, and pays MS Ireland a fee for every copy of MS software sold in the USA. That fee is almost certainly for an amount nearly (or actually) equal to the sales price. As a result, they claim a write-off on every title sold that's just about equal to that title's sales price. As a result, MS USA says they earned nothing on those titles. It's all based on technicalities that are unavailable to real people. Only corporations are allowed to account for profits and losses in such a way as to reduce their tax bills to nothing.
Why should they? (Score:2, Interesting)
So why this assumption that they should be paying tax on this money to the US taxman? ;-)
Presumably it was all earned outside of the US.
As a UK taxpayer, I'd be much happier if they would pay UK tax on it (maybe we should offer them a deal - 1% of something is a better deal than 50% of nothing
And no doubt French, German, Japanese, Australian, etc tax payers would feel the same way.
So what's so special about the Americans?
Re: (Score:2)
We are the ones who get a "Participation Trophy" just for showing up.
Re: (Score:2)
Globalization is interesting.
Say my manager is from the USA (he was, for about 3 years, now I have another manager who's from Denmark). I live in Eastern Europe.
My manager gives me a project. I, working in Eastern Europe, do the heavy lifting. My manager sits on his ass and asks "are we there yet?" every day, because it's all he's able to do. When work is finished, who's actually making the profit?
With hardware, it's relatively easy. The product is build *here* so the profit is registered *here*. But with s
Been there, done that. (Score:3)
They're all hoping that they can get the tax law changed so that they can repatriate the profits without paying the current tax rate.
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
The more you tax something... (Score:2)
The less you get of it. One of those damn Econ 101 rules.
Wait a second! (Score:3)
Wait a minute. Let's follow legal reasoning.
Corporations are people, right? When a person lives and works overseas, even though the money is earned overseas, they're still supposed to file a return and pay taxes on those earnings, right? How can Microsoft claim legal personhood, and then neglect to pay taxes on their offshore earnings?
Don't forget the Nokia and Skype purchases (Score:2)
Notice the numbers in TFA are following the Nokia and Skype purchases from several years ago. Skype cost Microsoft about 8 or 9 billion. Nokia cost Microsoft about 3 billion dollars (50% less than Ballmer paid for the Los Angeles Clippers basketball team, and using his own money).
In other words, The U.S. based Microsoft Corporation (HQ'd in Reno, NV to avoid paying taxes to Washington State) bought those non-US companies with off-shored income having paid very little tax to anyone, for anything. You and I c
Re: (Score:2)
one correction to what I just wrote above: Steve Ballmer paid 50% *more*, not less, for Nokia (about 3 billion dollars total) than he did for the LA Clippers basketball team (2 billion).
OK, buying the Clippers was his personal transaction using his own money, and the other was a Microsoft transaction under his authority, having ruined the Nokia Mobile Devices unit in the first place, but let's not try to split any of Ballmer's hair over that detail.
Re: (Score:2)
"Earned" offshore, when 99% of the work is not the sales but the engineering -- which is very much onshore effort.
This is a place where Europe's VAT approach has it right.
Re: (Score:2)
These are the comments I love. These are the same people that bitch that the government is spending more then it brings in. They are also the people that bitch that we are just "printing money". Hey here is an issue where people are stealing services and should be paying in as everyone else does so maybe we are not bankrupt... nope.. they will hold the party line. No taxes, the government should learn to repair roads, offer services, etc by magic....
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
And?
I thought people were allowed to have their own beliefs in this country without others attacking them for it.
I don't agree with a lot of people's personal, political, and religious beliefs, but that doesn't mean I should attack them based on those beliefs.
You can attack them for making stupid arguments in support of their beliefs, no problem. But to call someone out like you did, simply because they might believe something you don't like, is bullshit.
Re:Don't feed the parasites! (Score:5, Insightful)
Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of your speech, sweet cheeks. He's free to associate with a disgusting ideology that holds certain people inferior because of how they're born, I'm free to mock him for it. For that matter, I'm free to mock your ignorance.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of your speech, sweet cheeks. He's free to associate with a disgusting ideology that holds certain people inferior because of how they're born, I'm free to mock him for it.
Personally, I agree that you are free to mock him for it. It just seems like so much hypocrisy when the liberal mantra for the last twenty years is "You can't judge me!" Now that you have a voice, all you can do in the face of opposing views is attack and mock. In my view, your attitude is no different than what you claim his attitude is. Intolerance for people who are not in your group.
Go on, attack and mock those who you don't agree with. Attack me all you want. It just shows your intolerance. Not that th
Re:Don't feed the parasites! (Score:5, Insightful)
Go on, attack and mock those who you don't agree with. Attack me all you want. It just shows your intolerance. Not that those who agree with you care that you are all intolerant. Intolerance is now the greatest virtue of the liberal mind, as long as it is in support of liberal ideology.
It's amazing, isn't it, just how many conservative victims are on /. these days. Bonus points for whining about someone not tolerating your intolerance, and for whining about it in an intolerant way.
And here I thought conservative ideology was that we should man up and not worry about hurt feelings or political correctness. Shows what I know.
Re: (Score:2)
As I say in a reply further down, a few of those anti-whatever positions you mention would be directed at me and my family. It isn't my beliefs I'm defending, intolerant or otherwise.
As for political correctness, you are the one advocating it. I'm just pointing it out.
I'm going to insert a portion of my previous post that I decided to remove before posting, because it may have been a misinterpretation on my part. From your response, I now know it is spot on.
I would suggest working on your reading comprehension. But from recent discussions I've had with your fellow liberals, I know you can't possibly read something from another person's viewpoint to get a better understanding. You will read my comments with the greatest ill intent, because I will neither agree with you, nor knuckle under to your views.
Even after having it explained to you, reading from another's view is an impossible task. Which is ironic, because that probably is what you would want your opponents to do so that they would have a better understanding of people they disagree with.
Yes, I cut that from my previous post, in case I w
Re: (Score:2)
That's an amazing lack of self-awareness in your criticism, but one expects that from posters here.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
You may be surprised to learn I am not conservative. Let me enlighten you a bit:
I am not religious. I don't believe the Bible or Koran or Vedas are divinely inspired. If all men could live in peace with no religion, it wouldn't bother me at all.
I think all drugs should be decriminalized. Not legalized, because that implies the government is 'permitting' their use. It isn't the government's business what I put into my body. Also, I don't do drugs and rarely drink alcohol.
I told people twenty years ago that t
Re: (Score:2)
Im not clear what intolerance you saw in his post that youre trying to defeat. So far youre CLAIMING intolerance but I dont see it.
Re: (Score:2)
Freedom of speech isn't freedom from consequences of your speech, sweet cheeks. He's free to associate with a disgusting ideology that holds certain people inferior because of how they're born, I'm free to mock him for it. For that matter, I'm free to mock your ignorance.
Go on, attack and mock those who you don't agree with. Attack me all you want.
The implication in your reply being that he mocked and attacked you because he disagreed with you?
Either that's a strawman or you really weren't paying attention.
The paragraph you replied to was mocking you not because he disagreed with you on a matter of opinion, but because your belief that "people were allowed to have their own beliefs in this country without others attacking them for it" was *factually wrong* (and by implication showed that you really don't understand what "freedom of speech" does a
Re: (Score:2)
You are wrong. He was specifically not attacking me because of my simple rhetorical phrase. He was attacking me because he thinks that I don't agree with his views, or he thinks I agree with the views of the person he originally attacked.
He even says so:
It's amazing, isn't it, just how many conservative victims are on /. these days. Bonus points for whining about someone not tolerating your intolerance, and for whining about it in an intolerant way.
He assumes I am a conservative, and that I have the same intolerance as the OP. He is wrong on both counts.
I can see how it appears that he is attacking my specific phrase, but he showed his true intentions soon enough.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called "ad hominem" and the Internet is full of it.
Re: (Score:2)
I know. I just have to point it out every so often.
The silly part is they now think I support whatever group that guy has in his sig, when a few of those anti-whatever positions would attack me and my family.
by the way, you had a great comeback to the AC.
Re: (Score:2)
I am entitled to have some fun every now and then :)
Re:Don't feed the parasites! (Score:5, Funny)
You bastard, you're wrong!!!
I suck dicks for free.
Re: (Score:2)
So are you attacking him for being gay, or for supporting legalization of drugs? Why are you a homophobic supporter of Big Pharma?
Re: (Score:2)
And I'm trolling you for intolerance, when my whole point is intolerance for people with opposing views. You're no smarter than you think I am.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would you think so, when the very First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech?
However, attacking someone for spreading an outright evil belief is perfectly okay.
Re: (Score:2)
Hoo, boy. You're equating supporting affirmative action and gay marriage with white supremacy. You are a fucking piece of work.
*plonk*
Re: (Score:2)
You don't see how one racist viewpoint is equivalent to another racist viewpoint?
As I said above, you can't possibly see the world from anyone's view but your own.
Re: (Score:2)
What he *was* clearly doing was defending Third Position's "right" to express his opinion without being attacked for it. Which is, of course, stupid and ignorant, because no-one has such a "right" under the freedom of speech in the US constitution (which I assume is what "I'm New" has
Re: (Score:2)
Thank you for the defense.
Also, do I have to make a [Rhetorical] tag for future statements of a similar manner?
Re: (Score:2)
Calm down Francis.
First, as I have stated a few times above, it was rhetorical.
Second, supporting someone's right to their own beliefs does not mean I share those beliefs.
Third, Nimey is the one who wished to take away someone's right to Free Speech. As would you. Which means you would only fight as far as is convenient, which is probably where it is too far past the couch to reach the remote and bag of Cheetos.
Re: (Score:2)
Second, supporting someone's right to their own beliefs does not mean I share those beliefs.
Given your user handle it may be appropriate to warn you: On slashdot, speaking up for someone means you must burn alongside them.
Re: (Score:3)
Bill Gates openly supports creating an income tax in Washington to pay for education.
Just because Bill Gates is successful at the capitalist game doesn't mean that he is a capitalist. Same goes for Warren Buffet.
Re:And ironically (Score:4, Insightful)
I'll take "No True Scotsman" for $1000, Alex.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Do they want to collect taxes form people who work in other countries? Good luck with that.
Actually, that's the law [irs.gov]
Re: (Score:2)
Of course a US citizen must file with the IRS. I meant you can't collect taxes from citizens of other countries who are working in their own country.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:How can it be... (Score:4, Interesting)
(GP here) By the same logic I used in my post: even if you change your name while abroad, you are still the same person, and have to keep paying taxes. Besides, the US is already applying extra-territorial measures against a number of countries (Cuba/Iran/Russia/etc.). If the US govt. doesn't apply this to corporations, it's because the govt. doesn't want it.
I will reply to my own question: this all shows that the US is all about corporatism.
One man talked about this some 80 years ago:
I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class muscle man for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914. I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested. Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler#Lectures [wikipedia.org]
The tragicomic part is that US people are expecting these corporations to give something back... They will just leave and find a more profitable place. Corporations are said to be people, but in reality, they don't even have a nationality, their only authority is money.
Re: (Score:2)
It's destroying the company.
So finally Microsoft decided to do the right thing?