Ballmer Threatens To Pull Out of the US 1142
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.'"
In other words (Score:5, Funny)
corporations corporations corporations corporations corporations corporations corporations corporations corporations...
this line added for postercomment compression filter
Re:MS CEO Steve Ballmer is a Liar (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicans need for once to grow a pair and call his bluff.
I think you got the wrong party there. It's the Democrats (as a party) that are trying to close tax loopholes and are worried about American jobs. The Republicans (as a party) spend their time and power eliminating barriers to corporations' avarice, which includes lowering taxes (even if via loopholes), instating self-regulation (like the coal industry is best suited to regulate air quality! WTF?), and moving jobs overseas.
The Republicans are not going to call Ballmer's bluff. On the contrary, they find such rhetoric useful to promote their agenda.
Re:MS CEO Steve Ballmer is a Liar (Score:4, Insightful)
If we elected the same congress and senate representatives then yes, the conditions would be the same. With only superficial differences.
Re:MS CEO Steve Ballmer is a Liar (Score:5, Insightful)
Only one Senator on either side opposed the Patriot Act [wikipedia.org], the piece of legislation which semi-authorized the "executive trespasses." Pres. Obama has gone on record since his election for supporting warrantless wiretaps [wired.com].
In short, OrangeTide isn't the only one who think that there would be only "superficial differences."
And I'm threatening.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:And I'm threatening.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sweet Irony! (Score:5, Interesting)
And I'm threatening to move to Linux.
Oh man... do you have any idea how outsourced/globalized the Linux market is? Linux as a commercial software product is almost entirely third world off-shored. Microsoft was sort of an outlier in doing so much development here in America.
Do you really think companies like Lynx or Motorola or Red Hat are doing their work here with American developers? They're not nearly profitable enough. If you want to be principled and supportive of the American business framework, then Linux is basically raping our software economy. Hell, even Solaris is more of an American product, and Sun is pretty globalized, as well.
I am fairly certain BSD is, as well.
All I am saying is that the Linux v. Microsoft argument is really really inappropriate here. It doesn't apply on any front. The American Linux development companies did this years ago. It's just a bigger deal when Microsoft does it.
If you are pro American industry and development that employs Americans and doesn't subvert out tax structure, you should be using Windows or Mac OS X. Seriously.
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:4, Insightful)
While making it VERY difficult on companies to hide tax money offshore, at the same time, why don't we cut corportate taxes severely. That way, you attract more businesses back to the US, and there is less reason to try to 'hide' the monies.
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.
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:4, Insightful)
Sveral comments:
- Ballmer sounds like an unpatriotic ass. Perhaps /I'm wrong and he's a really nice guy, but not in this article. 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.
- 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.
- 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.
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:4, Insightful)
He has an obligation to the shareholders to not be "patriotic", but instead to maximise the value of the company. He could be sued in to the ground if he didn't.
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:5, Insightful)
"avoiding extremely high US taxes."
This I don't understand.
The US doesn't have "extremely high taxes." Compared to the third world it does I suppose but if that's the comparison that has to be made then that's pretty sad.
Compared to the first world it's in the lower end.
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:5, Informative)
On the contrary, the USA has one of the higher corporate tax rates. It is minimized in peoples' minds by quoting percent of GDP, but a corporation doesn't care about GDP it cares about the tax rate.
UK: 21-28%
Spain: 25-30%
France: 33.3%
Germany: 29.8% (avg)
Italy: 31.4%
Canada: 29.5-35.5%
Australia: 30%
USA: 15-39% + 0-12% state -- 39.3 (avg)
Curiously it Barbados(40), Cameroon(38.5) and Guyana(35/45) were on the top of the list.
References:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tax_rates_around_the_world [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxation_in_the_United_States [wikipedia.org]
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:5, Informative)
Your data does not include the fast that the USA also has a ridiculous number of corporate tax deductions.
Average company in S&P 500 had tax rate of 26% between 2002 and 2006, probably the lowest in developed world.
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:5, Informative)
The problem here is the difference between the theoretical and actual tax rates that corporations are affected by in the US. Closing tax loopholes will bring these closer in line, and then we can have a more reasonable discussion about the issue. As things stand, those in favor of lowering taxes just point to the stated rates, and those that want to raise them point to the effective ones, and everybody just talks past each other.
Obama has to realize, though, that if these loopholes are closed, the tax rates will have to come down a bit to compensate for that, or else we really will have a tax system that's too hostile to corporations. I'm not sure if he's come to terms with that reality yet.
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:4, Insightful)
And, perhaps more serious, if those companies were to be protected and forced to do things by government production would become increasingly inefficient, since the incentive for efficiency would have been taken away. Inefficiency means that less money is available for the state/country/world as a whole.
The problem with that is what it leads to. Keeping a human alive is not free. Less efficiency means less money available as a whole, and as every developing country illustrates, politicians still steal enough money for 5 mercedesses and a private jet (you see sacrifices and policies only apply to others, don't they Nancy "less co2 ! everyone save ! where's my jet ?" Pelosi ?)
The end result of not letting companies move, not allowing for free trade, and "protecting" those poor (but eating) unemployed, is a whole lot more people starving to death.
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:5, Funny)
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.
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.
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:5, Insightful)
Correct. It's unlikely that Microsoft could be sued successfully in a US court for failing to evade US taxes. Corporate leadership has certain responsibilities, including remaining in compliance with the law. No judge is going to sanction a CEO for taking actions that keep the company in better compliance, even if it is possible to evade the laws legally.
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").
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:4, Insightful)
Or... You know we could actually have sane tax reform where you simply pay for what you use and you don't have to pay if you don't want to use it.
How is that even remotely viable?
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem with "pay only for what you use" is that there are many things that have substantial fixed costs (like roads, sewers, etc.). These goods give only a limited amount of direct benefit to each consumer, but, the positive externalities they justify the cost.
As a more concrete example, if we paid only for what we used, there would be no interstate highway systems.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
Providing a product or services used by billions is not seen as a benefit?
Your pitiful reasoning would lead "instantly" to the USA being a 3rd world country. This country is only as powerful and advanced as it is *because* of the innovation, services and products created by these "evil" corporations.
The majority of the US income (taxes) *comes* from these "evil" corporations. How d you plan to support the welfare needs that are already over0burdening our tax system if these corporations no longer operate in the US?
Lastly, corporations are run by individuals. These individuals *do* have rights. One of those rights is to determine *where* and *how* they do business so long as their decisions do not present a clear an present danger to the rights of others. *You* do not have the right to tell them how to do business. You *do* have the right to start your own and run it how *you* see fit.
Re:No (Score:5, Insightful)
Horseshit.
The US is what it is because of the hard work, dedication, and innovation of its people, not some legal structure such as a corporation.
It was people who struggled to open the frontiers. It was people who invested/risked their hearts, souls, and fortunes to bring this country into existence. It was people who worked hard, sacrificed all they had to make this country strong. It's people who have innovated. It's people who have created and invented.
A corporation, in and of itself, can do absolutely nothing. It's the people that run the corporation who are responsible for its success or failure. Furthermore, this country was wildly successful long before multinational corporations began to get get laws passed that coddle them and punish individuals who are guilty of the same types of actions.
This country can survive without corrupt corporations. They do nothing but concentrate wealth in as few as hands as possible and make the citizens of this country into nothing more than nameless, faceless cogs in a machine whom the corporations consider to be nothing more than pawns.
That is the antithesis of what brought the US out of nothing more than wilderness to the point of being the most powerful nation on earth.
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
One minute after Ballmer said that, MS should have ceased to be a legal operating US company. He can go try his luck someplace else
Actually, though they'd take a bit of a hit, Microsoft would probably survive just fine somewhere else - and they'd take 89000 jobs with them (and possibly millions of secondary jobs) too. You really think that's best for the US?
Re:No (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
"Taxation is not Patriotic" (Score:5, Informative)
A highly regarded judge agrees with you...
"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as
possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the
treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes.
Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister
in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone
does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any
public duty to pay more than the law demands." - Judge Learned Hand
drunkmods (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
yeah, man. the military, police, firefighters, national park/forest system, local parks, judiciary, cia, roads, and schools are a real fuckin' drain. never did me any good; but goddamn, those bourgeois grunts and jarheads sure are living the high life (at the expense of the rest of us) in baghdad and kabul.
generating wealth isn't the only measure of usefulness. i agree with a lot of the other stuff you said, but the part i quoted is downright asinine.
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?
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.
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.
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:4, Insightful)
There is absolutely nothing unpatriotic about speaking out against tyranny.
Additionally, if consumers don't pay the corporate tax, then who does? Even if it doesn't affect prices and only affects the profit margin, that is still bad because the company is not profiting as much as they would have been, thus an industry cannot satisfy demand as effectively, and consumers end up getting ripped off second hand. Cutting into profits is a very bad thing to do.
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:5, Informative)
As for taxes, this country was founded on tax resistance. Anyone who pretends that it's unpatriotic to resist taxes today needs a remedial history course.
Actually, this country was founded on, among other things, not paying taxes to a body with which they had no representation. You remember, that whole "no taxation without representation" thing.
Guess what. Ballmer has representation in this country as he is a citizen and has the right to vote.
I think you're the one who needs a remedial history lesson.
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:4, Informative)
I believe it is YOU, sir, who needs the remedial history course. This country was founded on many ideals, but "tax resistance" was not one of them. The Boston tea party was a protest against the colonies lack of representation in parliament. Ballmer, through his corporation's lobbying efforts, has more influence in congress than 10,000 middle-class citizens.
Furthermore, Andrew Carnegie was a ruthless business man, but he would never have even dreamed of having political opponents assassinated. He also happens to be one of the most important philanthropists in the history of the US. He believed it was immoral to horde wealth or to bequeath it to descendants. He believed it was the duty of the corporate leaders to use their wealth to improve the lives of US citizens in ways which they could not have if the money were dispersed among them.
The next time you think about making a comment on these forums, please take a moment to assess your knowledge of the topic. We could do with less falsities on slashdot.
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:5, Informative)
I suggest you read some history books on the Boston Tea Party.
The Boston Tea Party was in response to a TAX DECREASE.
- England was charging a high tarrif on all tea going to the colonies.
- The East Indian Tea Company was going bankrupt and threatening to wipe out a huge part of the british economy. (Sound familiar?)
- England decided it would impose the East Indian Tea Company as a monopoly on Tea in order to save it. Driving out a bunch of smaller Tea companies which weren't too large to fail.
- In order to 'sweaten' the deal for the colonies England decided that they would do two things.
1) Slash the tax rate on Tea.
2) Stop requiring ships to stop in London to pay their corporate taxes before continueing on to the colonies. Instead England would setup an officer in the colonies to collect the tarrif once they enter colonial ports.
- Several of these "revolutionairies" owned tea shops which would be put of business. So they inflamed a huge moral outrage over this severely reduced tarrif being collected on colonial soil instead of London (in order to save the colonies money on transportaiton costs) in order to save their own profit centers.
They weren't resisting taxes. They were resisting market consolidation and cutting out of the middle man brokers in order to offer direct to consumer bargain goods at a steep discount.
They were always paying the "Taxation without representation" in the form of foreign tarrifs. We STILL PAY THOSE KINDS OF TAXES on many goods. England just tried to get creative at the time and assess that tax at the point of delivery instead of the point of departure.
But you are right. Americans have been retarded hotheads about taxes since the begining.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:5, Insightful)
Heh.
I always enjoy watching somebody who has their head screwed on right destroying the phony arguments of right wing lunatics.
You couldn't have described the tax evasion crowd any better.
Leeches - they consume government services - military protection, social safety nets that keep the country stable, educated workforce, and everything else that comes with living in a modern country.
Then when the time comes to pay the bill for all these services, they can't stop making excuses.
And now what - threatening to move jobs oversees?
Microsoft has been moving jobs overseas as fast as they can for as long as I can remember. Luckily there are some things that Americans still do better than lower cost foreign workers. And now that asshat Ballmer wants to threaten to continue doing what he has been doing for years if Microsoft has to pay its taxes?
Screw Steve Ballmer, and all the other leeches that run and hide when it's time to pay the bill.
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.
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.
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Capitalist flight (Score:4, Insightful)
If MS feels that the taxes associated with doing business in the US are a hindrance, they have failed to consider that the US government might actually "value" those taxes.
That is to say, if MS becomes a foreign company whose retail products are being imported, expect the US government to set up tariffs on software imports. Expect those tariffs to draw substantially more revenue for the government than the present corporate income tax draws. Consequently, expect the net impact on the MS bottom line to go down, and go down further as the cost advantage they now enjoy over their principal competitor (Apple) evaporates, and as the security-minded DOD switches all of their computers to a US-made operating system such as Snow Leopard or a custom system from Sun, costing them an enormous contract.
I don't see how this would be a good move for Microsoft, but honestly, it would be exemplary of a larger trend: that short sighted "I only want to good parts" thinking is motivating US corporations to move most of their operations abroad to save money by avoiding US laws- such as, minimum wage and human rights standards, environmental standards, and taxation. For a few months or years, the profits of these companies SKYROCKET as their costs evaporate, but, keeping retail prices constant, they continue to sustain revenues. Until, that is, enough companies follow suit. When the US marketplace collapses due to the decimation of its labor (and thus, spending) base, there will be nobody left to sell products to- and the government begins to bleed out, as expenditures escalate on human services to mitigate unemployment, while revenues tank due to dropping taxes on all fronts.
In this move, Ballmer has stated his values. Specifically, he does not feel adequately patriotic to even want to pay his taxes, and he cares more for his stock value than for the value of the economy his products "serve".
If Microsoft leaves, let them. I will contentedly go on not buying their products, and smugly advise anyone (in the US) who cares about their country to buy an Apple product instead, which is at least designed in (and pays taxes to) America, or for that matter a product from an originally European or Asian company which at least has chosen to support its homeland.
By the way, if they were talking about "Moving to India so that we can save money on labor and taxes while simultaneously bettering the lives of our future employees there", which they are not, I would ironically be less opposed. But this is just about shouting a big "screw you" to the country that bred them.
Sure, move out. (Score:4, Insightful)
EU is much more user oriented then US.
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.
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.
Re:Sure, move out. (Score:5, Interesting)
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".
Re:Sure, move out. (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft is having huge problems with the EU because, well they are actually interested in the public good.
Microsoft is not the only one. People who want privacy, liberty, and economic stability are also having huge problems due to the "public good".
If privacy is important then Europe is better when it comes to businesses. Europe has tougher privacy laws than the US. For instance the EU's Data Privacy Directive [findarticles.com] requires businesses to protect people's privacy.
Falcon
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?
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.
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.
Re:Sure, move out. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Sure, move out. (Score:4, Insightful)
One better. If MSFT pulls out of the USA they lose the influence they have with US patent law isn't the same as the EU, and the EU will kick MSFT to the curb several times over.
While they retain those patents in the USA, they are worthless in the EU.
So I say go MSFT and let the door hit you on the way out.
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.
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"
Oh come on Steve (Score:5, Funny)
Don't tease me like that unless you really mean it.
Re:Oh come on Steve (Score:4, Interesting)
That's exactly what some people said to folks like Alec Baldwin eight years ago when they threatened to leave the country because they didn't agree with the politics of new leadership (iow, "don't let the door hit you in the ass on the way out").
But then those comments were accompanied by accusations of treason and worse... now that it's a corporation instead of a liberal, let's see if Ballmer receives the same treatment as Baldwin.
Shit (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Bonus Fact (Score:4, Funny)
It's my assumption that while making the threat he was sweating profusely.
Like Delaware (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't believe Ballmer has the ballmers to move the whole company out of the U.S., much less trade his life in the Emerald City for the Emerald Isle.
But I do believe he has a point about seeking out the lowest cost of business, and if it comes down to it, I wouldn't be surprised to see Microsoft move all accounts receivabo to a tax haven and just keep cost centers in the U.S.
Take a look at what they've already done. They have already set up development centers in low labor cost countries like India and China. Moving more of those jobs out of the U.S. would just be a natural progression in the quest for lower costs. The worst part of this is that as time goes by the developers in those up and coming countries are getting just as good as their American counterparts. At some point we're looking at a hiring crisis here in America.
We're facing a 16 year educational depression as the currently undereducated kids gets graduates and makes way for a new generation educated satisfactorily. Naturally, this begs the question, but I think Obama is the guy to make the right changes to the DOE.
Re:Like Delaware (Score:4, Insightful)
Take a look at what they've already done. They have already set up development centers in low labor cost countries like India and China. Moving more of those jobs out of the U.S. would just be a natural progression in the quest for lower costs. The worst part of this is that as time goes by the developers in those up and coming countries are getting just as good as their American counterparts. At some point we're looking at a hiring crisis here in America.
But that was under Bush's administration. Bush decided that no technology worker would be paid a fair salary (now competing with outsourced labor prices and illegal H1Bs) or receive overtime. Obama has said he will incur fees for outsourcing and tax breaks for those how don't. Should MS continue to do this, and Obama does anything he said he would (thus far he's mostly followed McCain's plan, or very closely so), MS will pay one way or another.
As a side note, has Obama actually done anything he said he would do? Has Obama done anything that McCain didn't say he would do? Has Obama given any speeches where he didn't steal from Bush?
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.
Re:And as a reward... (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Actually, the problem is that it's codified into law. The primary fiduciary responsibilities for a company's offices are to maximize shareholder value. If they take things other than cost into consideration ( such as the environment, etc ), then they are breaking the law.
That's what needs to change. Either update it, or get rid of it. But it is causing the problem.
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:
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.
Move Microsoft Employees Offshore? (Score:3, Insightful)
That sounds great. I suggest moving them about 100 miles offshore, and then dropping them. It should make a satisfying splash sound. Then comes the thrashing, and the drowning, and the bubbles.
On a more serious note, just how many employees do they think are going to pick up and leave Washington for Ireland? Was this their plan all along? I guess the climates are compatible...
Re:Move Microsoft Employees Offshore? (Score:4, Informative)
On a more serious note, just how many employees do they think are going to pick up and leave Washington for Ireland? Was this their plan all along? I guess the climates are compatible...
IBM did it. They started laying a bunch of people off, and while they were on their way out the door, they 'suggested' that they apply to IBM India. Some employees took them up on it.
Remember that 'giant sucking sound' Ross Perot was talking about back in the 90s? Everyone was laughing at him them, but look who's laughing now.
No Surprise (Score:3, Insightful)
Greed.....just as old as prostitution, war and slavery.
Personally, I'm surprised MS hasn't moved out already. Not to mention plenty of other greedy corporations like the one that I work for. More and more, I'm beginning to think that it's time to get out of IT. The "bottom line" is all these fuckers truly care about. All I know is that karma will eventually catch up to them.
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.
Please please please please please! (Score:4, Insightful)
Steve, please do it. And better still, please keep telling everyone you're going to do it. You know what, how about starting a blog and telling everyone exactly how you think the American public and the world at large should make life better for the M$ shareholders.
Please, we want to know.
Don't let the door hit you on the ass (Score:4, Interesting)
MS does not have the balls to piss off their largest group of consumers and if they did, the government and turn around and start using a Linux distro developed by Americans (they should be doing this anyway) and MS will not go for that. They'd lose far more than they would by Obama fixing the tax loopholes.
So he can make empty threats all he wants. The gov should just tell him to fuck off to Ireland.
Like Nokia did in Finland (Score:5, Interesting)
Good luck! It's an idle threat by a hothead (Score:4, Insightful)
To begin with, none of the executive team wants to live in any of those countries with super low labor availability. Sure, Western Europe, the UK -- you'll get lots of takers among management and plenty of good managers over there already. Try moving all those lifestyle employees living in the Seattle suburbs to India, Pakistan, Indonesia, or China, and you'll see a very different result.
So, now we're talking about really threatening to move the teams of "developers, developers, developers, developers" off shore. Companies that have tried this before have found that much to their shock, "developers, developers, developers, developers" are not bought and sold as commodities by the pound, but in fact are individuals who have creative ways to solve problems and work best when they can interact with the decision makers to improve the product.
The truth is, only the lowest tier of developer "meat" can be moved easily off-shore and away from the management and executive teams where decisions and management happen. If you ignore that, you get crappy product. You get crappy product because the offshore teams give you EXACTLY what you ask them for, instead of working with you to understand the goal and produce a result that makes more sense.
In summation: "FSCK-OFF" Balmer.
good riddance (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft's workforce is tiny, Windows licensing is a huge drain on the economy, they keep importing foreign workers, and they are very good at avoiding taxes. So, good riddance, the US economy would likely be better off without Microsoft.
Unfortunately, Ballmer knows full well that the regulatory climate in Europe is much less favorable to Microsoft than the US, so he won't follow through on his threat.
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.
Re:But corporations don't pay tax (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
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.
Re:Income taxes are far more fair than sales taxes (Score:4, Interesting)
I replied to the top post explaining that you can have your cake and eat it too :
You want a VAT (sales tax) with a rate determined logarithmically based upon gross corporate income. An "income adjusted VAT" will massively benefit free market competition and discourage monopoly.
You'd also move anti-trust law into tax courts, giving judges the power to penalize companies by increasing their VAT rate for future years or charging backed taxes for past periods of violations. So if your company get fines 5% for 10 years because you spent 10 years destroying your competitors, well that's some hefty fine.
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.
Re:Then boycott MS (Score:4, Insightful)
Moving operations to the lowest cost location is not illegal. Also, it is inevitable. Even if MS doesn't do it, someone will form a software company offshore that costs less to operate. Over the long term, this new company will take business from MS, making the end result the exact same.
Try as you and Lou Dobbs might, you can't stop the free market. Wealth and employment will eventually move to the most business friendly locations.
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.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
(face | fact | fall | farm | fear | fire | fish | flag | flat | fold | food | foot | fork | form | fowl | free | from | full) yeah!
Next time, just say 'fuck'.
Re:Evil, evil Microsoft... (Score:4, Insightful)
If you have held MSFT over the last 10 years you would have been better off with your money in a savings account.
June 11, 1999 @ $39 to
June 4, 2009 @ $22.14
Other than a little bump in early 2000 at the end of the tech bubble, there is not a year in the last 10 where you would have been better off holding your MSFT rather than selling.
Maybe they (and most corporations) should spend less time trying to game the tax system or the H1A system or screwing around with politics and spend a little more time trying to make a decent product. That is the ONLY thing that can increase shareholder value in the long term. And those greedy, greedy shareholders should demand it...
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?
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!
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!