By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Microsoft - Microsoft admits to dodging $29B in taxes. Yes, billion with a B.

thx1139 on 22 August 2014
Baalzamon said:
Viper1 said:

A.  Actually, it does get used.  Indirectly.  They can use it for collateral.  This reduces the cost of borrowing and/or opens new lines of credit.  And offshore accounts doesn't mean it is being spent in the country the money was earned in.  I doubt that they had $93 in revenue from the Cayman Islands or Switzerland.  And it's probably drawing a nice interst too.

B. Again, they aren't keeping and or spending the money in the country it was earned in.  It's in a bank, drawing interest.

C. So if they bring money back into the US...no taxes on it?

A. To a degree it could be used for collateral, but they would still have to pay tax on it if they brought it back and had to actually use it as collateral. It doesn't have to mean it is spent in the country it was earned. The taxes were already paid to the country it was earned, there would just be additional taxes, above and beyond what was already paid, if it was brought back to the United States

B. Again, it doesn't have to stay in that country. They already paid that country their taxes. But they would certainly be stupid to bring it back to the US, and pay additional taxes, if they can instead just spend it elsewhere and not be liable for those additional taxes

C. It has been something lobbied for years. There is literally over $1 trillion overseas that companies will NOT bring back to the US, because the US refuses to allow them to bring it back without issuing additional taxes (above and beyond the taxes they already paid the country in which it was earned). I personally think it would be a huge boost to the economy (and thus bring more tax revenue to the government even though it was not collected on the initial amount).

There was a repatriation holiday on 2004. It didnt do anything for the economy.   Just padded CEO pockets.



Its libraries that sell systems not a single game.

Around the Network
overman1 on 22 August 2014
Dark_Feanor said:
Baalzamon said:
Burek said:

You comment a lot, but you really don't know much, do you?

If I were you, I'd read up on things you write about, this way you're just embarassing yourself on a daily basis.

I'm sure you are familiar with the beginnings of the United States, no? Taxation without representation, etc. The idea being that it was unfair we were being taxed when we had absolutely no say in voting of the elections. Well, fortunately we made a country where that was no longer the case (to a certain degree, we still have the bogus electoral college system, but generally speaking, your vote counts). So citizens are now able to vote, and that justifies us being able to be taxed.

Seems to me corporations can't vote, however. Seems to me they are being taxed without representation.

Call corporations a US resident, I don't really care. I know what they are technically called.

But a name is just that, and in my mind, a corporation isn't SHIT until they get the same rights as other US residents.


Call me a Stephen Colbert fanboy, but companies in the USA can vote with their wallets when they donate to campain.

Also, lets not forget that they lobby the most in Washington



Dr.Henry_Killinger on 22 August 2014
Baalzamon said:
Burek said:

You comment a lot, but you really don't know much, do you?

If I were you, I'd read up on things you write about, this way you're just embarassing yourself on a daily basis.

I'm sure you are familiar with the beginnings of the United States, no? Taxation without representation, etc. The idea being that it was unfair we were being taxed when we had absolutely no say in voting of the elections. Well, fortunately we made a country where that was no longer the case (to a certain degree, we still have the bogus electoral college system, but generally speaking, your vote counts). So citizens are now able to vote, and that justifies us being able to be taxed.

Seems to me corporations can't vote, however. Seems to me they are being taxed without representation.

Call corporations a US resident, I don't really care. I know what they are technically called.

But a name is just that, and in my mind, a corporation isn't SHIT until they get the same rights as other US residents.

You have a poor understanding of the US government. Voting is limited to citizens, not entities. This is why corporations hire lobbyists, because they are regulated by the government, not the other way around at least by design.

Corporations also have a lot of the same rights as people, which is ludicrous because corporations cannot be sent to jail, are legally obligated to be what we would concern in humans as sociopaths, and they are immortal, but they also get a lot of benefits as well.

If you are registed as a corporation in the United States, you are represented by them, legally bounded by them, and legally taxed by them. For a Corporation to official exist it has to be registered with an offical government, who will tax them unless that money is kept in offshore accounts where it is taxed by someone else.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

Burek on 22 August 2014
Baalzamon said:
Burek said:

You comment a lot, but you really don't know much, do you?

If I were you, I'd read up on things you write about, this way you're just embarassing yourself on a daily basis.

I'm sure you are familiar with the beginnings of the United States, no? Taxation without representation, etc. The idea being that it was unfair we were being taxed when we had absolutely no say in voting of the elections. Well, fortunately we made a country where that was no longer the case (to a certain degree, we still have the bogus electoral college system, but generally speaking, your vote counts). So citizens are now able to vote, and that justifies us being able to be taxed.

Seems to me corporations can't vote, however. Seems to me they are being taxed without representation.

Call corporations a US resident, I don't really care. I know what they are technically called.

But a name is just that, and in my mind, a corporation isn't SHIT until they get the same rights as other US residents.

I don't have time to engage in a debate with you (because I've seen that you can go on for quite a while), but if you think you're paying taxes for a right to vote, you are very wrong.

Taxes are in nature called transfer payments, meaning that the reason for their existence is to transfer excess wealth from people with money over to the people who don't have money or have no ability to earn it (welfare, handicapped, children, elderly etc.) as well as to fund collectively beneficial endeavours (roads, streets, water, electricity, police, courts, military...)

 

But I seriously suggest, and really without bad intentions, that you inform yourself about things you debate about, because even though I believe your intentions are good, and you stand by your beliefs, in this case you are not anywhere near the truth. As I said, I don't know and don't care if you are a MS or XBox fan, this has nothing to do with their products, and should not be defended.



thx1139 on 22 August 2014
Baalzamon said:
Burek said:

You comment a lot, but you really don't know much, do you?

If I were you, I'd read up on things you write about, this way you're just embarassing yourself on a daily basis.

I'm sure you are familiar with the beginnings of the United States, no? Taxation without representation, etc. 

OK most people simply believe the Boston Tea Party was about tax increase. No it was about a tax break for the largest Corporation in the world so it could put small companies out of business.  The East India Company was given a tax break by  the King and small merchants were not given the same break.  The thing is the largest stockholders were the King and the English Aristocracy. So they cut taxes so they could make a far larger profit.



Its libraries that sell systems not a single game.

Around the Network
Baalzamon on 22 August 2014
Dark_Feanor said:

Call me a Stephen Colbert fanboy, but companies in the USA can vote with their wallets when they donate to campain.

There is, and always will be a difference between spending money on lobbying, and actually voting, though.

Don't get me wrong, I'm disgusted by the amount of money corporations put towards lobbying (it goes back to what I said before, they are doing what will ultimately make their bottom line the best).

The tax code will never be simplified to a point where all corporations are taxed fairly, however, unless corporate taxes are gotten rid of all together.

Also, regarding the selling to a holding company and then to other people...my understanding is Apple only does that with foreign sales, and it has absolutely nothing to do with US sales. Is it wrong that they are reducing their foreign taxes to near 0? Sure, but that doesn't justify us taxing foreign income. That justifies the other countries changing their policies so this can't take place and the income gets taxed where it is earned (where the sale takes place).



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

thx1139 on 22 August 2014
Dark_Feanor said:


Call me a Stephen Colbert fanboy, but companies in the USA can vote with their wallets when they donate to campain.

They can vote because there employees have the right to vote. Citizens United granted them the right to influence even if hey the company isnt even a US company.  Lets also not confuse the issue. Companies dont want the right to vote. That is meaningless to grant a company 1 ballot.  They want the right of overweighted influence.



Its libraries that sell systems not a single game.

Dr.Henry_Killinger on 22 August 2014
thx1139 said:
Dark_Feanor said:


Call me a Stephen Colbert fanboy, but companies in the USA can vote with their wallets when they donate to campain.

They can vote because there employees have the right to vote. Citizens United granted them the right to influence even if hey the company isnt even a US company.  Lets also not confuse the issue. Companies dont want the right to vote. That is meaningless to grant a company 1 ballot.  They want the right of overweighted influence.

And that too.



In this day and age, with the Internet, ignorance is a choice! And they're still choosing Ignorance! - Dr. Filthy Frank

overman1 on 22 August 2014
Baalzamon said:
Dark_Feanor said:

Call me a Stephen Colbert fanboy, but companies in the USA can vote with their wallets when they donate to campain.

There is, and always will be a difference between spending money on lobbying, and actually voting, though.

Don't get me wrong, I'm disgusted by the amount of money corporations put towards lobbying (it goes back to what I said before, they are doing what will ultimately make their bottom line the best).

The tax code will never be simplified to a point where all corporations are taxed fairly, however, unless corporate taxes are gotten rid of all together.

Also, regarding the selling to a holding company and then to other people...my understanding is Apple only does that with foreign sales, and it has absolutely nothing to do with US sales. Is it wrong that they are reducing their foreign taxes to near 0? Sure, but that doesn't justify us taxing foreign income. That justifies the other countries changing their policies so this can't take place and the income gets taxed where it is earned (where the sale takes place).

Which mostly comes at the expends of the average citizen.

The U.S is operating at a deficit right now...

so where do you think this money will come from if these companies dont pay taxes or recieve a tax cut?

there have been several cuts to SS and medic care and other social programs in recent years. Some one has to pay for all these cuts in other for things to keep running and that some one is always the masses. Lobbing in Washington is very heavy and it has come to the point that politicals now spend half their time fundraising rather than working for the people because they need to raise enough money to win the next election so they can reamin in office. This is were corporate lobbists come in. Easy "legal bribes"



Baalzamon on 22 August 2014

You guys are stuck on the philosophy that a corporation is receiving benefits from the US government, though, when that simply isn't the case.

A corporation is a sheet of paper. The beneficiaries of a corporation are employees, shareholders, sometimes local residents (some corporations do good things, after all). If I go start a corporation and make a million dollars. The sheet of paper indicating I am a corporation did not benefit from our public infrastructure, our schooling, our welfare system in any way whatsoever. I, as the owner, benefitted.

If my corporation has to file bankruptcy, the corporation itself isn't benefitting from that, it is the individuals that the corporation name protected that are benefitting.

A benefit cannot be realized by a corporation, it is not possible. It can only be realized by people within the corporations environment.



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.