Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses The Almighty Buck Education Government Microsoft

'Making Amazon Look Bad': Microsoft Is Backing a Major Tax On Itself and Amazon (geekwire.com) 111

Microsoft is urging lawmakers in Washington to increase the tax burden on itself and Amazon (Warning: source may be paywalled; alternative source) to help pay for a new higher education fund. "The bill, which was introduced Monday by Rep. Drew Hansen and Rep. Gerry Pollet among others, "would pour about a billion dollars over the next four years into a 'workforce education account,' to be spent on more financial aid as well as more degree slots in high-demand subjects such as computer science, engineering and nursing," The Seattle Times reports. Microsoft and Amazon would be the only two companies included in the highest tax bracket. From the report: The premise now is to put a surcharge on businesses that benefit the most from a highly skilled workforce. That means high-tech of course, as well as professional services firms. The bill proposes increasing the state business and occupation tax by 20 percent on about 40 categories of technical services, such as telecom, engineering, medical and finance. And by 33 percent on tech firms with more than $25 billion in annual revenue. But here's where this goes off the charts, into politically unheard-of territory. It mandates a top rate, a whopping 67 percent business tax increase, for those "advanced computing businesses" with "worldwide gross revenue of more than one hundred billion dollars" per year. There are only two businesses headquartered here that fit that rarefied description. And one of them, Microsoft, is the tax's biggest booster.

But that other company that would also be most on the hook? Apparently it isn't so thrilled to have been volunteered for civic duty by one of its chief rivals. "Amazon was surprised to be included in such a public 'hey, let's do this' by Microsoft," said Rep. Gael Tarleton, D-Seattle, who said she heard that lament directly from an Amazon lobbyist. Added Pollet: "Amazon has groused in meetings down here that Microsoft is doing this mostly as a way of making Amazon look bad."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

'Making Amazon Look Bad': Microsoft Is Backing a Major Tax On Itself and Amazon

Comments Filter:
  • by reanjr ( 588767 ) on Wednesday March 27, 2019 @08:40PM (#58345302) Homepage

    Microsoft doesn't decide how Amazon operates. If Amazon looks bad, it's down to Amazon alone.

    • Microsoft doesn't decide how Amazon operates. If Amazon looks bad, it's down to Amazon alone.

      You are being played.

      This is common business stuff. Usually it's large businesses getting in bed with government, because they have the heft to comply but small competitors don't.

      In this case it's a bit more nuanced, they are leveraging this against a large competitor.

      It's hardly virtuous. In fact, pouring money into computer science education is just a ploy to drive down wages of their own employees. It's a twofer.

      • It's more than that. They want everyone else to help pay for a higher standard of education in the tech sector. Yet for their relatively small share of the cost, they will reap a larger share of the rewards by recruiting the very best of those. It might drive down wages, but haven't the H1Bs done that even more?

      • Microsoft doesn't decide how Amazon operates. If Amazon looks bad, it's down to Amazon alone.

        You are being played.

        This is common business stuff. Usually it's large businesses getting in bed with government, because they have the heft to comply but small competitors don't.

        In this case it's a bit more nuanced, they are leveraging this against a large competitor.

        It's hardly virtuous. In fact, pouring money into computer science education is just a ploy to drive down wages of their own employees. It's a twofer.

        So you're optimistic that the programs will work, but pessimistic as to the motives? I'm rather the opposite: I do not believe pushing people into STEM will result in many more people competing in the field, though I think it's from a misguided effort on the corporations' part to do something about job opportunities for under served groups. I do think in ten years there will be a lot more middle managers who make their careers fiddling around in Python rather than the current crop that have made their caree

  • by mykro76 ( 1137341 ) on Wednesday March 27, 2019 @09:07PM (#58345382)

    Who employs more degree-holders in the US?

    • Amazon - 600K worldwide, but only about 60K it calls US corporate workers (likely to be degree holders) - the rest are low-wage fulfilment workers. Will pay tax on gross of 230 billion (2018).
    • Microsoft - 130K worldwide, with 80K in the US, likely to be virtually all corporate workers. Would pay tax on gross of 110 billion (2018).

    So Microsoft is likely to hire more degree holders than Amazon, yet forces Amazon to contribute twice as much to boosting the graduate pool.

    • by Kohath ( 38547 )

      If Microsoft wants to pay for education, they don't need a tax. They can just write a check whenever they want.

      Just like always, tax supporters — like Microsoft here — only support taxing themselves so they can benefit themselves by spending money other people earned. Every time.

    • Who employs more degree-holders in the US?

      • Amazon - 600K worldwide, but only about 60K it calls US corporate workers (likely to be degree holders) - the rest are low-wage fulfilment workers. Will pay tax on gross of 230 billion (2018).
      • Microsoft - 130K worldwide, with 80K in the US, likely to be virtually all corporate workers. Would pay tax on gross of 110 billion (2018).

      So Microsoft is likely to hire more degree holders than Amazon, yet forces Amazon to contribute twice as much to boosting the graduate pool.

      When amazon is so profitable the owner can have his own fucking space program yeah, maybe they should be paying more tax.

  • by SirAstral ( 1349985 ) on Wednesday March 27, 2019 @10:45PM (#58345714)

    Notice that line item on your receipts that say "Tax:$$$"... you pay that, not the business... they just collect for uncle sam from you.
    Did you also know that businesses calculate the total cost of a product they buy from whole-sellers and vendors, which they paid taxes on, which is a cost they transfer to the consumer that buys the end product?

    Did you know that when you cheer on a business paying MORE tax you are actually just cheering on the poor paying more for all of their products? People cheered windfall taxes... prices at the pumps when up... then they cried about it. I was like... huh? you cheered for this you numb-nuts!

    The poor tax is real, and it has everything to do with being ignorant about how the economy works. Microsoft is a big company, the money they make filters down to you... the lowly consumer, and NO you do not escape that cost just because you don't use windows. You buy food, your store might use Windows, you pay bills, that company might be using Windows. They all pass down the cost of buying their licenses from Microsoft to you... their customer.

    Have you wondered why your dollars do not go as far as they used to? It's not just inflation... inflation is just one component, in fact inflation is more a tax on your savings than anything else.

    Let's make this simple.

    You own a Burger Joint.
    Taxes today for a $5 burger is 10%
    Customer pays $5.50 for that burger.
    Taxes tomorrow for a $5 burger is 15%
    Customer now pays $5.75 for that burger.
    Those that cheer for taxes like this, is like the customer cheering that their burger just went up 25 cents. Hurray for you, your senators thank you for your gullibility! They will happily take 20 cents of that 25 and give it to their cronies... D or R it matters not.

    It is not a joke when they say that the poor pay for everything and it is not a joke when a reasonable minimum wage is enforced to ensure a minimum viable economy, because if the poor have no money the rich soon lose theirs as well. Look at how many rich folks also suffered in Venezuela when it ran out. Only the super rich are finding ways to survive and that is mostly because they are connected to power, not just because they have $$$.

    Couple this with the fact that another poster mentioned that Americans already pay more than enough for education, you might as well call that more than enough evidence that foul play is afoot and you need a sanity check to cheer this on any longer.

    And lets not forgot how many businesses that still get out of paying taxes through loophole laws, brought to you by none other that the very elected officials everyone that cheers for this voted in. Do you feel the daggers in your backs yet? No? Okay, that's great... it means they can dig it in further and twist a little more!

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      If I own a burger company, and my customers will happily pay $5.75 for a burger, why would I only charge $5?

      When you own a business, you price your goods to maximize revenue. You don't need a tax to raise prices.

      Given an opportunity to raise prices without alienating customers, the logical thing to do is raise prices. In some philosophies of business, the ethical thing to do is raise prices in that situation.

      When you understand that modern business ethics puts maximizing revenue above all other consideratio

      • by anarcobra ( 1551067 ) on Thursday March 28, 2019 @05:06AM (#58346604)
        You are simplifying things in the other direction from GP.
        Yes, businesses will raise their price as high as they can, but burger places are competitive, so consumers have the choice of going to a cheaper place. So there will be an equilibrium between maximizing profits and not going to far from the competition. (assuming there is no price fixing)
        A tax will affect all the competition as well, so there is a good chance the price of burgers will go up across the board.
    • by Whibla ( 210729 )

      Let's make this simple.

      You own a Burger Joint.
      Taxes today for a $5 burger is 10%
      Customer pays $5.50 for that burger.
      Taxes tomorrow for a $5 burger is 15%
      Customer now pays $5.75 for that burger.
      Those that cheer for taxes like this, is like the customer cheering that their burger just went up 25 cents. Hurray for you, your senators thank you for your gullibility! They will happily take 20 cents of that 25 and give it to their cronies... D or R it matters not.

      The manufacturing cost of a burger (including fixed costs to simply the point) is $4, and your burger joint sells 1000 burgers per financial year.
      Burger sells for $5, excluding sales tax at whatever rate you set it -> profit before (corporation) tax of $1000 dollars.
      Corporation tax @ 40% -> net profit of $600, which can be distributed as dividends back to the shareholder. tax of $400 which can be redistributed.
      Corporation tax @ 60% -> net profit of $400, which can be distributed as dividends back t

    • by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      You are describing sales tax. Corporation tax is on corporate profits, not on sales.

      The obvious flaw in your argument is that you ignore where the $5 price tag for the burger comes from. The company chose $5 based on what the market will pay for its product. If the tax increases the market won't magically be willing to pay more for its product, so price rises may result in losing more from lost sales than the tax increase is worth.

      Did Google's prices go up when they were forced to pay the back tax they owne

    • You own a Burger Joint.
      Taxes today for a $5 burger is 10%
      Customer pays $5.50 for that burger.
      Taxes tomorrow for a $5 burger is 15%
      Customer now pays $5.75 for that burger.

      Right. The Customer now pays $5.75. The person walking by on the street doesn't pay anything. So it's the people who use the resource who pay the taxes. That's fair, and efficient. Just look at how many people pay required sales taxes if not assessed at purchase time, it's basically nobody. So you tax the business, not the customer, and the customer pays for it — the business makes sure they do, because otherwise they've got a problem.

      This is why we need to increase taxes on commercial trucking. Heavy

    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by Shompol ( 1690084 ) on Wednesday March 27, 2019 @11:23PM (#58345816)
    This reminds me about that time Microsoft settled with patent trolls with the purpose of scaring Sony into paying. [techdirt.com] One of the conditions of their settlement was to get money back after Sony pays. They were not ashamed to try and enforce this agreement through court, thus making it public. Microsoft has always been a bunch of narcissistic douche bags, pretending to be a technology company.
    • Plan in my opinion is to fuck with AWS. If this forces Amazon to move and loose money great. Remember MS desperately wants Azure to succeed to the point of making a MS Linux and MS freebsd distros to attract customers.

      MS already has the upper hand with Office365 customers getting Azure already bundled since it runs off that anyway.

  • by Sivaraj ( 34067 ) on Wednesday March 27, 2019 @11:30PM (#58345832)

    I would have never believed I would say this 20 years back. That too on Slashdot. But,

    Go Micro$oft!!!

  • They already were planning to leave, then decided to just build a second HQ in New York, then decided to just expand everywhere. If this passes, it will give them incentive to setup headquarters elsewhere sooner. Boeing did it, still has factories in Washington, but HQ moved to Chicago in 2001.

  • They're going to pour money into STEM at colleges? The big companies and filthy rich individuals have been getting tax breaks at the expense of education for so long the public schools can barely teach people to read, forget about STEM. It's been great for the Republicans- unsmart people do what they're told and vote Republican, but they aren't going to do well in STEM programs in colleges.

    Maybe we'll have to let immigrants into those STEM programs... Hmmmm.... Maybe we'd better close the borders.

    Republ

  • Which is what will happen, as businesses pass costs on to customers.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Why can't they just donate the money straight into education? Award bursarys and scholarships as has always been done by benefactors. You know, it is possible to help others without extending the power of the state.

  • Why stay and get taxed punitively?

  • by VeryFluffyBunny ( 5037285 ) on Thursday March 28, 2019 @09:43AM (#58347816)

    How about govt. doing its job & making sure everyone pays their fair share of taxes in order to fund the stuff that everyone needs from their govt., e.g. public transportation, education, healthcare, urban planning, law enforcement & judiciary, & public health & safety, you know, all the stuff that improves the standard of living & quality of life for everyone?

    That means everyone, including billionaires & corporations, who are currently starving govts. of the funds they need to provide opportunities, safety, health, & security for everyone.

    Or you can carry on marching towards poverty & disenfranchisement because the billionaires & corporations fill the power void left by libertarian ideological "small govt." Does that sound democratic & civilised to you?

  • Impose an even higher tax on all companies who benefit from " highly skilled workers " but prefer to import the cheap versions from places like India vs the local workforce.

    That whole H1-B " We can't find any 'skilled' workers locally ( who want to work for minimum wage ) " bullshit to cut costs would come to a screeching halt in a hurry.

  • It will get squandered, spent poorly, and there will be no accountability when the program goes over budget and the same lawmakers look for more money to squeeze.

Real Programmers think better when playing Adventure or Rogue.

Working...