>I do not understand how people can not understand that a percentage tax, by it's definition, does have the largest companies pay more.
They don't understand it because it isn't true on a proportional basis (and in some cases on an absolute dollar value basis, too).
Larger companies have access to tax avoidance strategies which are unavailable to smaller companies[1] which substantially changes the calculus.
I've gone through the books of plenty LargeCos. The playing field is not even.
[1] issues include inability to finance high-end tax structuring advice, writing of grants or negotiate valuations, lack of ability to amortize risk associated with an unfavourable tax ruling, lack of capital to access directorship services in tax havens etc.
I do not understand how people can not understand that a percentage tax, by it's definition, does have the largest companies pay more.
I do not understand how people can not understand that the largest companies pay a lot of money to structure their taxes so that they pay proportionately less of their income in taxes than smaller companies do despite deriving significantly more economic benefits from the stable economic system those taxes enable.
Also, the percentage tax does not by definition mean that the largest companies pay more. It means that the most profitable companies (on an income tax basis) pay more taxes on an absolute basis than a similarly-sized company that makes less profit. However, Apple, Google, and GE are all (or at least in GE's case, was) highly-profitable companies that pay ridiculously low taxes for their profit because their "taxable" income is significantly less than their economic income.
I'm quite sure that the President and CLO of Microsoft who said that understands exactly what he said. "More" in context means more than they're doing now. Not "do more than a lemonade stand that made $200 last quarter," which no shit, they're doing already.
How much tax are you going to get when Amazon shifts to HQ2? Bezos deliberately started Amazon here in Washington because there was no state tax.
I’ve been an Amazon employee and I’ve paid a lot of taxes here and have seen the government waste that money. Our property tax has gone up by hundreds of dollars a month and our schools, roads, and police forces are still in disarray. I don’t mind paying tax as long as it’s ised effectively and efficiently.
Property and sales tax are necessary in Washington in lieu of an income tax.
If you live in Seattle, schooling, roads and even the police aren’t that bad (compared to other cities), heck, you can choose to live in Bellevue where all those things are better (though at the cost of being boring). In general, taxes get used pretty darn well in WA, at least compared to other states.
If he can convince thousands and thousands of employees to pack up everything and move across the country on a whim, then he can go ahead. No stopping that.
Washington state has already been through this shit with Boeing.
Well, if you move to New Jersey you will be in for a surprise with your property taxes. This tax proposal hits the corporation, not the employees. And its laughable, and shameful, how little tax Amazon pays.
Isn't the general argument that state taxes mean almost nothing to businesses like Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon, et al (in Washington State) but are actually a huge pain in the ass for small/mid-size businesses? The quote featured in this headline underscores an editorial bias that is pro-Microsoft (who keeps their campus in the suburb of Renton) and anti-Amazon (the scapegoat for rising Seattle real estate).
>Isn't the general argument that state taxes mean almost nothing to businesses like Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon, et al (in Washington State) but are actually a huge pain in the ass for small/mid-size businesses?
"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."
Not sure if you read more than the headline but I don't think this bill targets small/mid-size businesses.
Most of the Microsoft main campus is in Redmond, not Renton. They have some buildings in Bellevue and Seattle. But as far as I know, Microsoft has no office space at all in Renton.
> I don’t know what’s gotten into Microsoft lately. Remember when it was the Death Star, monopolistically glowering over technopolis and threatening to cut off the air supply of competitors and regulators alike?
Microsoft is a relative underdog now (among the tech giants). Underdogs tend to benefit more, personally, from the greater good, and also have less clout with which to push others around. This makes them come off as being more humble, and if they're smart they lean into that image in their public relations. Just look at AMD and T-Mobile.
With this move Microsoft is trying to fertilize a shared resource, investing some of its own money but also hoping to pressure Amazon - the company it's trying to get a leg up on - to invest alongside it. Amazon has less need for the shared resource and would have to contribute a greater amount to it. On top of that, Microsoft gets some positive PR. It's a smart move.
Edit: I've been informed that Microsoft is currently #1 in market cap, so not an underdog overall. They feel like an underdog in most isolated product categories, but maybe this really is purely a PR move.
>Microsoft is a relative underdog now (among the tech giants).
How do you define a Tech giant?
By Market cap they are #1. Here are top 5.
1. Microsoft $895B
2. Apple $888B
3. Amazon $867B
4. Google $816B
5. Facebook $473B
They have been in top 3 for last 30 years with a robust business model. They missed on Mobile and search but hey it would be hard for any tech company to top in each market.
[+] [-] RHSeeger|7 years ago|reply
I do not understand how people can not understand that a percentage tax, by it's definition, does have the largest companies pay more.
[+] [-] ABCLAW|7 years ago|reply
They don't understand it because it isn't true on a proportional basis (and in some cases on an absolute dollar value basis, too).
Larger companies have access to tax avoidance strategies which are unavailable to smaller companies[1] which substantially changes the calculus.
I've gone through the books of plenty LargeCos. The playing field is not even.
[1] issues include inability to finance high-end tax structuring advice, writing of grants or negotiate valuations, lack of ability to amortize risk associated with an unfavourable tax ruling, lack of capital to access directorship services in tax havens etc.
[+] [-] gamblor956|7 years ago|reply
I do not understand how people can not understand that the largest companies pay a lot of money to structure their taxes so that they pay proportionately less of their income in taxes than smaller companies do despite deriving significantly more economic benefits from the stable economic system those taxes enable.
Also, the percentage tax does not by definition mean that the largest companies pay more. It means that the most profitable companies (on an income tax basis) pay more taxes on an absolute basis than a similarly-sized company that makes less profit. However, Apple, Google, and GE are all (or at least in GE's case, was) highly-profitable companies that pay ridiculously low taxes for their profit because their "taxable" income is significantly less than their economic income.
[+] [-] wlesieutre|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] brianberns|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mnm1|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pikapikamtf|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MuffinFlavored|7 years ago|reply
Mom + pop e-commerce retail sites are dying
Jet/Walmart capture what percentage of market share? If I had to guess, it'd be like... 5%?
[+] [-] influx|7 years ago|reply
I’ve been an Amazon employee and I’ve paid a lot of taxes here and have seen the government waste that money. Our property tax has gone up by hundreds of dollars a month and our schools, roads, and police forces are still in disarray. I don’t mind paying tax as long as it’s ised effectively and efficiently.
[+] [-] seanmcdirmid|7 years ago|reply
If you live in Seattle, schooling, roads and even the police aren’t that bad (compared to other cities), heck, you can choose to live in Bellevue where all those things are better (though at the cost of being boring). In general, taxes get used pretty darn well in WA, at least compared to other states.
[+] [-] blang|7 years ago|reply
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest...
[+] [-] anth_anm|7 years ago|reply
Washington state has already been through this shit with Boeing.
[+] [-] kerng|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|7 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] IXxXI|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] hbosch|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] almost_usual|7 years ago|reply
"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."
Not sure if you read more than the headline but I don't think this bill targets small/mid-size businesses.
[+] [-] chihuahua|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _bxg1|7 years ago|reply
Microsoft is a relative underdog now (among the tech giants). Underdogs tend to benefit more, personally, from the greater good, and also have less clout with which to push others around. This makes them come off as being more humble, and if they're smart they lean into that image in their public relations. Just look at AMD and T-Mobile.
With this move Microsoft is trying to fertilize a shared resource, investing some of its own money but also hoping to pressure Amazon - the company it's trying to get a leg up on - to invest alongside it. Amazon has less need for the shared resource and would have to contribute a greater amount to it. On top of that, Microsoft gets some positive PR. It's a smart move.
Edit: I've been informed that Microsoft is currently #1 in market cap, so not an underdog overall. They feel like an underdog in most isolated product categories, but maybe this really is purely a PR move.
[+] [-] rlanday|7 years ago|reply
Microsoft is currently the largest company in the world by market cap.
[+] [-] mallocfree|7 years ago|reply
How do you define a Tech giant?
By Market cap they are #1. Here are top 5.
1. Microsoft $895B 2. Apple $888B 3. Amazon $867B 4. Google $816B 5. Facebook $473B
They have been in top 3 for last 30 years with a robust business model. They missed on Mobile and search but hey it would be hard for any tech company to top in each market.
[+] [-] jermaustin1|7 years ago|reply
How so? According to NASDAQ, MSFT is valued higher than all of the FAANG companies. It's north of $900B right now.
[+] [-] CPLX|7 years ago|reply
lol
[+] [-] kerng|7 years ago|reply
They sure do a lot of things right lately though.