If Microsoft paid taxes unnecessarily, they would be doing a disservice to their stockholders.
Senate report: Microsoft used loopholes to avoid billions in taxes
21–30 of 40 posts
Re: Senate report: Microsoft used loopholes to avoid billions in taxes
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I track down a quote from a famous US Justice from the early 1900's where he says every American is expected to try to lower their taxes, would that cause you to reconsider your view?
The "expectation" is merely because that's what any rational, self-interested person would do. I can't see how it's logically possible to escape that.
That is exactly it. And though I do not have the quote in front of me, I can tell you this is how the justice who said it approached every issue.
Maybe "encouraged" and "engrained" were not the right words. How about "endorsed"? I think rational self-interest is a concept that might vary in the degree to which it is adopted into people's behavior as you move from country to country. That's only a theory. Certainly, in the US, reducing tax liability, and doing so vigorously, is believed to be the rational thing to do.
But if I'm the taxing entity, is it rational for me to endorse the idea of paying less? That would seem to lead to a reduction in the amount I will collect as those being taxed adopt and refine their tax reduction strategies.
Re: Senate report: Microsoft used loopholes to avoid billions in taxes
#23The problem is that loopholes are largely monotonic. Every loophole that exists was originally a political favor to some important constituency. There are always important constituencies seeking political favors, or embattled politicians or parties seeking new allies; so there will always be pressure to create new loopholes. If a loophole's in danger of going away, its constituency will scream bloody murder. Republic…
The only way we could conceivably get out of this situation is if our tax code becomes so complex, everyone -- even the beneficiaries of the loopholes -- is angry and upset at the complexity and costs of paying, and decides to support throwing the whole thing out and starting fresh. This scenario probably requires a united government
The last time it happened in 1986, the House was Democratic and the Ways And Means Committee was run by famously corrupt but effective old-time Chicago pol Dan Rostenkowski. The Senate was Republican and liberal West Coast Oregon Republican Bob Packwood was running the Senate Finance Committee. President Ronald Reagan and his tax policy chief Donald Regan were more right wing than the Koch brothers and Michelle Bachmann combined.
Together they pushed through the biggest tax reform in the nation's history.[0]
There was nothing united about US government in 1986. It's hard to imagine a political spectrum as disunited and full of genuine differences today. Nevertheless, Reagan bet his second term policy agenda on tax reform and Rostenkowski arranged an unprecedented public media campaign and put himself on television selling the Reagan idea to the people and his own party. The reform was pushed through with bipartisan support and only oil companies and employee benefits escaped unscathed. All the other pressure groups had to give for the national good.
The difference is not a united government. We had united government in 2003-04 and 2009-10 and it didn't do any good. The difference is leadership. This year we don't have much leadership available in Washington from either party and the challengers in the coming election seem even less likely to offer any.
So don't get your hopes up.
[0] Showdown At Gucci Gulch by Murray and Birnbaum is the classic book about the 1986 reform
Re: Senate report: Microsoft used loopholes to avoid billions in taxes
#24A new congressional investigation claims Microsoft has been able to avoid paying $6.5-billion in taxes since 2009 thanks to the complicated tax structure in the U.S. The role of a CFO (and his office) is to do exactly what resulted above. Build a team of accountants, lawyers, and financial analysts that makes sure that the financial health of the company is strong. "Is this a tax credit we can take advantage of, do i…
> why is this even an issue? Because the Democrats want to press home the message that corporations and wealth are inherently evil in this election cycle, and the chairman of the committee quoted in the article is a Democrat, as the article mentions, twice. An unfortunately large percentage of the US population apparently isn't capable of formulating the good and simple question in the last sentence of your post -- a…
>Because the Democrats want to press home the message that corporations and wealth are inherently evil
Excuse me while I go pick up my eyes that just rolled across the floor. This isn't even remotely true - there's nothing wrong with wealth or corporations in general - but when corporations begin doing evil things in the pursuit of wealth, big surprise, people are going to complain.
Re: Senate report: Microsoft used loopholes to avoid billions in taxes
#25Can we get back to discussing topics of a more technical nature? There are a million websites for this sort of useless unresolvable back and forth debate, ranging from Daily Kos to RCP to Human Events, any of which are better suited to this than HN.
I love a good political debate as much as the next person, and enjoy HN for the specific reason that I can avoid this sort of bullshit. And yes, I've read the guidelines and have flagged this.
Re: Senate report: Microsoft used loopholes to avoid billions in taxes
#26The problem is that loopholes are largely monotonic. Every loophole that exists was originally a political favor to some important constituency. There are always important constituencies seeking political favors, or embattled politicians or parties seeking new allies; so there will always be pressure to create new loopholes. If a loophole's in danger of going away, its constituency will scream bloody murder. Republic…
The only way we could conceivably get out of this situation is if our tax code becomes so complex, everyone -- even the beneficiaries of the loopholes -- is angry and upset at the complexity and costs of paying, and decides to support throwing the whole thing out and starting fresh. This scenario probably requires a united government The last time it happened in 1986, the House was Democratic and the Ways And Means C…
> President Ronald Reagan and his tax policy chief Donald Regan were more right wing than the Koch brothers and Michelle Bachmann combined
I think this is where your memory skews.
By the standards of the time, that is true.
But today? Reagan supported AMNESTY. He supported a tax reform bill that RAISED some taxes. EITC??? That's a means-tested welfare program to try to lift working poor above the poverty line.
I grew up a liberal. I still am, but I'll be honest, my idealism is tested by our tax rate and fiscal ignorance. If you have no kids or mortgage, live in California and make over 100k -- in other words if you're like most software engineers in bay area startups -- you pay an obscene tax rate. And I'd even be OK with that if Sacramento and D.C. were good stewards of our tax dollars. But, of course, they're not.
Still, I have no choice but vote Democratic. I could vote 3rd party and waste my vote. But today's breed of hyper-partisan, non-fact-base Republicans just are not a serious alternative.
Re: Senate report: Microsoft used loopholes to avoid billions in taxes
#27Every once in a while, a publication will run something like this about major companies [1][2]. It seems to be standard practice among large corporations. As a company, if you are allowed to save large amounts of money by using existing loopholes (read: things that are within the scope of the law), wouldn't you be silly not to? [1] http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_44/b42010431... [2] http://www.nytimes…
If you work for a public firm and know that the 'loophole' exists, I wonder if share holders could take action against you if you did NOT utilize it.
On the flip-side, how is it that publicly elected officials are not indicted or held responsible for creating these loopholes after being lobbied and end up costing their shareholders - the public, some real coin. I think of the whole thing as a closed loop ecosystem and somebody has to be losing, if a group of shareholders is gaining.
Re: Senate report: Microsoft used loopholes to avoid billions in taxes
#28Earlier quoted context omitted.
The "expectation" is merely because that's what any rational, self-interested person would do. I can't see how it's logically possible to escape that.
That is exactly it. And though I do not have the quote in front of me, I can tell you this is how the justice who said it approached every issue. Maybe "encouraged" and "engrained" were not the right words. How about "endorsed"? I think rational self-interest is a concept that might vary in the degree to which it is adopted into people's behavior as you move from country to country. That's only a theory. Certainly, i…
> But if I'm the taxing entity, is it rational for me to endorse the idea of paying less?
It's rational for you to accept the fact that people will work to minimize their tax liability and construct policy under that assumption.
Re: Senate report: Microsoft used loopholes to avoid billions in taxes
#29Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only way we could conceivably get out of this situation is if our tax code becomes so complex, everyone -- even the beneficiaries of the loopholes -- is angry and upset at the complexity and costs of paying, and decides to support throwing the whole thing out and starting fresh. This scenario probably requires a united government The last time it happened in 1986, the House was Democratic and the Ways And Means C…
> President Ronald Reagan and his tax policy chief Donald Regan were more right wing than the Koch brothers and Michelle Bachmann combined I think this is where your memory skews. By the standards of the time, that is true. But today? Reagan supported AMNESTY. He supported a tax reform bill that RAISED some taxes. EITC??? That's a means-tested welfare program to try to lift working poor above the poverty line. I grew…
California taxes pay for California, and SV engineers owe their industry to Californka being California.
Re: Senate report: Microsoft used loopholes to avoid billions in taxes
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only way we could conceivably get out of this situation is if our tax code becomes so complex, everyone -- even the beneficiaries of the loopholes -- is angry and upset at the complexity and costs of paying, and decides to support throwing the whole thing out and starting fresh. This scenario probably requires a united government The last time it happened in 1986, the House was Democratic and the Ways And Means C…
> President Ronald Reagan and his tax policy chief Donald Regan were more right wing than the Koch brothers and Michelle Bachmann combined I think this is where your memory skews. By the standards of the time, that is true. But today? Reagan supported AMNESTY. He supported a tax reform bill that RAISED some taxes. EITC??? That's a means-tested welfare program to try to lift working poor above the poverty line. I grew…
"Yesteryear's Republicans were reasonable. It's just this crop that's a bunch of know-nothing radical fascist reactionaries" was said in the 1980's as much as it's said today. It was said in 1994 about Newt Gingrich and Co. just a few years before they worked with President Clinton to reform welfare and balance the budget. "This is not your father's Republican party" was a favorite line of House Minority Leader Dick Gephardt, if I recall correctly.