backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 279 comment(s) - last by Spuke.. on Jun 11 at 3:03 PM


Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer
Microsoft isn't happy about a new tax on companies foreign profits

It takes an incredibly powerful company to threaten the U.S. government in hopes of impacting a significant decision, but that's precisely what Microsoft is doing.  Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer made headlines when he publicly attacked President Barack Obama's plan to cut tax breaks on U.S. companies' foreign profits, a plan which is currently awaiting Congressional approval.

Mr. Ballmer suggests that if the tax succeeds, Microsoft may begin a significant move out of the U.S., taking with it tax revenue and jobs.  He states, "It makes U.S. jobs more expensive.  We’re better off taking lots of people and moving them out of the U.S. as opposed to keeping them inside the U.S."

The plan, proposed by President Obama on May 4, seeks to help raise tax revenue and balance the budget by rolling back $190B USD in tax breaks for offshore companies over the next decade.  Microsoft is not the first to oppose the measure -- the National Foreign Trade Council, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable are among the numerous others to voice their disapproval.

Previously, companies could defer paying corporate rates as high as 35 percent on most types of foreign profits, contingent that the company invests the money overseas.  The idea was that foreign profits are not the domain of the U.S.  President Obama disagrees, arguing that U.S. corporations' profits are U.S. earnings.  He believes that by taxing foreign profits, companies will be more likely to invest in the U.S., rather than shelter their money overseas.

Thanks to the current provision Microsoft enjoyed a very low tax rate of only 26 percent in 2008 on its profits.  A company report describes, "Our effective tax rates are less than the statutory tax rate due to foreign earnings taxed at lower rates."

Some, like Barry Bosworth, an economist in Washington at the Brookings Institution research center, accuse Microsoft and others of wrongdoing.  He says the company has exploited the system, and expensive abuse that has cost our nation tax revenue and domestic investment.  Indeed, Microsoft's shell game is a bit strange -- it typically develops products like Windows and then transfers the licenses for free to an Ireland subsidiary.  This subsidiary then proceeds to sell them, free of U.S. taxes.

Mr. Bosworth states, "What Microsoft wants to do is deduct the cost at a high tax rate and report the profits at a low tax rate.  Relative to where they are now, the administration’s proposals are less favorable, so there will be some rebalancing on their part."

Symantec Corp. and some smaller companies such as privately held Bentley Systems, an Exton, Pennsylvania-based maker of engineering software, carry out similar practices and are similarly opposed to the measure.  Symantec says it’s frustrated with being called a tax cheat.  Symantec Chairman John Thompson adds, "It is a little bit ironic that most of our most significant trading partners and partners globally have taken the tack that they’ll reduce corporate tax rates to stimulate economic growth and not raise corporate tax rates." 

Mr. Ballmer, perhaps the most outspoken critic, did acknowledge that the Obama proposal preserved research and experimentation cost tax breaks.  He warned, though, that the cuts to foreign exemptions would raise the cost of Microsoft's 56,552 U.S. employees.  He says this could necessitate moving them overseas.  Microsoft was previously embroiled in a controversy over whether it should lay off foreign workers before U.S. ones. 



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

But!
By Zstream on 6/4/2009 9:21:23 AM , Rating: 2
But, but... we need free healthcare for all! We need to give people who are literally idiots a place to work. We need to give everyone money so they can have more kids and not work. We need to prop up the illegal aliens and provide them with money (not like there is a legal way to do thinks, seesh).

Money, money moneh! For everyone!




RE: But!
By invidious on 6/4/09, Rating: -1
RE: But!
By BZDTemp on 6/4/2009 6:30:22 PM , Rating: 5
:-) Compared how Bush was spending money Obama is counting every cent.

I think it is ugly how egotistic people are. Of course one should pay taxes so the society can function for all even those which aren't able to provide for them self.

Here is some food for thought.

I live in one of most heavy taxed countries in the world (it's us or Sweden that are #1). Gas cost 7 bucks per gallon, you buy one car but pay for three because of taxes, there is a 25% sales tax on every thing, income tax can reach 60%+ for high income....

All this may suck however:
- The government financial numbers aren't red.
- All education is free and there are even like a thousand bucks per month to let you pay rent, food and all while you study.
- Health care is free except you pay some for prescription drugs and dentist work is not free except for those on welfare.
- There is very little violence on the Global Peace Index we rank #2, or so, while the US is like #82.
- We have like no corruption (like the other Nordic countries)
- Nobody has to live on the street - ever.
- Work weeks are 37 hours. You get at least 5 weeks paid vacation every year.
- Parents get a combined total of 84 weeks maternity leave for every child. Many get full pay during that time and your are sure to get at least something like 3 grand a month.

And big surprise we are the most happy nation in the world.

http://www.nsf.gov/news/news_summ.jsp?cntn_id=1117...

Spend right the tax money can make a country rich and happy. It takes time but try to imagine just living in a place where every one can go to college and nobody has to live on the street or worry about health insurance.


RE: But!
By CommodoreVic20 on 6/4/2009 6:57:31 PM , Rating: 2
I love your country. I am a U.S. citizen and live in the U.S., what is the immigration policy over there?


RE: But!
By joos2000 on 6/5/2009 1:14:23 AM , Rating: 2
RE: But!
By srgill on 6/5/2009 5:10:53 AM , Rating: 3
Well I doubt merely immigrating is going to get you all those free education and health care benefits. I am going out on a limb and guessing you need to be a citizen to obtain that.

So perhaps the question should be, what's the policy on obtaining citizenship and are you ready to give you your US citizenship to do so?

Most countries would require you to be a tax paying resident for several years first. So while your paying 60% on your earnings a year for what, 5 years.. you can think how much that free education is worth to you when you quit your job assuming your application for citizenship is successful...


RE: But!
By BZDTemp on 6/5/2009 8:34:52 AM , Rating: 2
It used to very easy to get into the system here but it had to be changed due to lots of immigrants arriving with little skills past being able to collect well fare.

I think the system now is pretty much like everywhere else including the US. Still even if you're not a citizen it is not like you will be left out on the street.

The 60% tax is reached when you make more than $100.000 or so per year and it is a sliding scale so only what you make above that will be taxed like that. So I would say if you was not able to go to university in the US due to lack of funds and see no way to get there - an option could be to come here, become a citizen and then get that university education. This would of course take like a decade so you may perhaps better think of it as a way to ensure your future kids get to go to university regardless of your financial situation.


RE: But!
By jhb116 on 6/5/2009 10:48:47 AM , Rating: 5
Maybe I'm reading this wrong - but it sounds like you reach the 60% tax rate much sooner than that. Alot of people make the mistake of stopping the tax burnden at the federal income tax. It sounds like your taxes for the rich are closer to 80% including the sales tax, taxes on cars and the price of gas. I'll bet you are (assuming you less than that 100K 'rich class') so you are probably paying 60+% in taxes.

Alot of people in the US don't realize that they won't be able to afford these big stinking houses, multiple TV's, game systems, computers, cars ect ect ect. People need to smarten up - each system has it advantages and disadvantages. The US system allows people much more opportunity to prosper where many of the EU nations provide so much but at huge costs. You can't have both.....


RE: But!
By BZDTemp on 6/5/2009 1:14:25 PM , Rating: 2
I did simplify things a bit.

While there are sales tax on anything you buy in a shop (with a few exceptions) it is not the case with housing. Also there are tax deductions for commuting, donations to fx. the Red Cross, interest you pay on loans, money you put in a pension fund and you should you be paying alimony you can deduct that as well (it's meant to help the party bringing you the kid(s) not to encourage divorces).

But in principle you are of course right taxes are not just income tax but putting together the numbers is a complex business and totally dependent on what you buy, what you earn and so on.


RE: But!
By Viditor on 6/6/2009 12:15:06 PM , Rating: 2
60% tax rate???
http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.ht...

Correct me if I'm wrong but the highest bracket is 35% (for over $372k) as far as I know...and while there are other taxes (like most countries), the US has some of the highest rate of deductions as well.
Here in Aus for example, tax on $180k is $90k (plus medicare 1.5%, council fees which is like state tax, and 10% GST on everything you buy). But, more importantly, almost nothing is deductible...
For example, in the US you can deduct your mortgage interest...not here.

The US has some of the lowest tax rates in the world, at least net net they do...


RE: But!
By BZDTemp on 6/6/2009 6:23:00 PM , Rating: 2
I was not talking about US tax rates but about the tax rate in Denmark which is like the highest in the world. Only people forget how much we get for those money.


RE: But!
By Penti on 6/6/2009 9:23:42 AM , Rating: 2
What they need to start realize is that the US doesn't afford to import (all consumer tech are imports) much more then the eastern european countries do. US is not really a low tax country. You have to pay for what you use/do. It's also a high cost country. Especially when considering all the costs, taxes + private insurance and pension schemes. Administration costs in health care are higher then any other country. You got as much tax money going in to health care as Sweden who has universal health care does. (as % of GDP). It's not buying ridiculous large houses that's causing your trade deficit however. Its all the cheap and expensive stuff you buy from China, Taiwan, Japan etc. And inefficiencies in your system. In a country like Sweden most live in their own houses btw. And are very much individuals.

Take this for example the taxes for self employed in the US in essentially on par with taxes for self employed in Sweden! So you won't have higher costs here! We also encourage people to run their own business a lot. It also means that having an employee doesn't cost more here then in the US. It just means taxes instead of obligatory fees. Like HMOs. Getting rid of taxes essentially just means getting fees instead (and they are usually higher). As more privatization you has the more it costs for the most time. In a country like Sweden private schools usually get more money then communal schools but it's still payed by the local government and tax revenue. I.e. increases tax pressure on you. All this doesn't mean the government should run car companies, Sweden don't. Helping business is not communismen however neither does it make those businesses inefficient. It's different for services where the state is both the payer and employer. For normal businesses they still need to cater their customers and adhere to market forces. No matter if it's owned directly by the state or through pension funds. They still has a incentive to make profit.


RE: But!
By Penti on 6/5/2009 8:45:04 AM , Rating: 4
Actually higher eduction like college and university is free for foreign students, they just need to show they can pay for living expenses and that's pretty tough for people from Africa, but if your some high communist party members kid from China or from a rich US family your ok. Health care are given to the same terms to every one who's a resident here. Of course you have to leave if you lose your job when you got a work permit as the work permit is for that specific job or get a new one. But you got tree months to look for another job. If unable to find a job and with no money you can contact the police to get sent home at the states expense but that's about it. (You can get welfare if you have been here for more then tree months till the day the police sends you home so starving is not necessary). Otherwise it's the immigration bureaus responsibility. But that's for asylum seekers.

It's just when your on a visit to Sweden you have to pay cash for your health expenses (and should therefore have some type of insurance from home for it.). There's no deal between Sweden and the US that pays for any medical expenses. It's not on common with conventions signed between countries that cover some expenses though. And residents within EEA are insured through there home countries when just on a visit.

Becoming a neutralized citizen is quit hard - see here: http://migrationsverket.se/english/emedborg/emedbo... As said 5 years before you can become a citizen and apply for a student loan (+student grant). And live on welfare for the rest of your life. Without being kicked out from the country. So well if you can get a work here and are uninsured and sick it might cost less to move to Sweden to get treatment. But if you can do that you could probably get a job with a adequate health insurance in the US. It's not like people are flooding in to get medical treatment and health care.


RE: But!
By sbtech on 6/5/2009 4:33:47 AM , Rating: 5
So, I can study, like for ever and some idiot will work his ass off, and pay 60% tax so govt can finance my "study" time? Nice nice - for me, that is. I just have to make sure I brush my teeth twice a day, eh?

If I am "penalized" by so high taxes, wonder why I would ever try to work, at least in the high income bracket.

You say your country is a happy country? Yeah sure, for those who don't work, or work but not ambitious enough to reach higher places. Once I reach over a certain income bracket, I would definitely try to move out of your country - resulting in a brain drain.

Please oh God, please. Don't let the US be like this. Let effort be rewarded.


RE: But!
By BZDTemp on 6/5/2009 8:18:09 AM , Rating: 3
You have missed the point.

Of course a few people are abusing the system but even so almost everyone are happy to pay their taxes. There is a quality of life in knowing that not only are you and everyone you know ensured a good living but that goes for everybody.

Also remember that while our taxes are high we do not need to spend money on health insurance, college funds, rent-a-cops and so on. If you put all that into an budget and call it tax I think you will find that our taxes aren't really that high - the main difference is really that those things are mandatory.

As for the happy part. We have a level of unemployment similar to the US (maybe even lower lately) and the surveys that asks people how happy they are includes all sorts of people. It's an US made survey so I would assume they made sure it was done right.


RE: But!
By Penti on 6/5/2009 8:57:13 AM , Rating: 2
You will have to repay your student loans (largest portion of the student financial help that's available). You can't get student grant money and student loans for more then six years at university level. It's just that higher education is tuition free (even for foreign students on a student visa). That's at least a 40 000 US dollar loan for six years of studying. Most people do work in Sweden, the unemployment is no worse then in the US. Rich people are still rich. Poor is poor.


RE: But!
By BZDTemp on 6/5/2009 12:48:29 PM , Rating: 2
Eh, Penti. You're giving information for Sweden. It's different in Denmark where for example student loans is not needed unless you want to study and go out every weekend and not have a student job.


RE: But!
By Penti on 6/6/2009 9:49:26 AM , Rating: 2
True but you don't really need it in Sweden either if you live with your parents. You can't get student grant/aid forever in Denmark either either way. Schools are state funded in both countries. But a student from US has to pay tuition in Denmark which he hasn't to in Sweden.

Statens Uddannelsesstøtte doesn't give you more money then CSN, except when your not living at home with your parents. So less loans when living in a student appartement. You also have to pay taxes for the grants/aid, which you don't do in Sweden. It doesn't give you a plus economic wise in either country. You have to work in order to make any real amount of money which was my point.


RE: But!
By dxf2891 on 6/5/2009 2:35:04 PM , Rating: 1
Effort without success is what we call failure. In the U.S. it is not a reward system to help those who can't feed themselves. Let's say the place you work goes completely out of business and you get nothing.

Let's say the place you worked was rather large and surrounding business grew and prospered because of the place that you worked. Now you and everyone you know is suddenly out of work and all the places you could get work to tide you over until you found a compatible job, are now out of business.

Are saying that the government (Unemployment payments are the government) should ignore you and everyone you know because if they help you you are being rewarded for your short-sightedness of working in an industry that could destroy your entire community?


RE: But!
By Denigrate on 6/6/2009 9:05:34 AM , Rating: 5
Tell that to the unions who priced themselves out of a job, and killed the rest of the community while they were at it.


RE: But!
By wallijonn on 6/9/2009 6:10:02 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Effort without success is what we call failure.


Doers that mean that "Success without effort" is the way to get rich? There are plenty of people who would rather sue this or that company to get rich. Or you turn over real estate. Or you start a dot.com. Etc.

Sooner or later the chickens come home to roost. Job out sourcing may be one of those bubbles now that the job less rate has gone up and the real estate bubble has burst, leaving municipalities in the lurch, without income taxes to cover costs. Spiro Agnew would be proud.


RE: But!
By hyvonen on 6/6/2009 3:39:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You say your country is a happy country? Yeah sure, for those who don't work, or work but not ambitious enough to reach higher places. Once I reach over a certain income bracket, I would definitely try to move out of your country - resulting in a brain drain.


That's because you think money=everything. Maybe you'll reconsider when you reach your "higher place" after 20 years of 60h work weeks, just to realize that your wife is divorcing you for never being home, and your kids don't recognize you.


RE: But!
By Spuke on 6/11/2009 1:33:36 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
That's because you think money=everything.
Money ISN'T everything. But what the hell is wrong with hard work and reaping the benefits of that work. If someone is happy working 60 hrs a week, then have at it. Are we all only supposed to be satisfied with doing no more than our neighbors? Some of us have goals and aspirations that the person next door doesn't have and we live in a country where we can pursue those aspirations without penalty. I came from below the poverty level and had a single parent. I'm was a prime candidate for gang membership and should be in jail right now according to statistics. I have a degree and a great job that pays good and has good benefits. I also have a wife that has a degree, a career and also gets paid well with good benefits. We live a good life and are reaping the rewards of hard work.

Was I supposed to be satisfied with doing what my peers were doing? My peers were poor, gang members, had criminal records, etc. Sure others were not in this category but they worked hard to not be where their peers are and so did I. How does one instill a drive in a person growing up under those conditions to rise past those conditions but at the same time tell that person that they can only go so far? LOL! Because your "neighbors" will eventually think you've gone "too far" with your success?

NO! If you are angry at my success, wealth, or lifestyle you'll just have to be mad. I apologize to no one.


RE: But!
By Penti on 6/5/2009 6:14:47 AM , Rating: 2
Actually it's Denmark who has the highest taxes. However Sweden still has cheaper (labor cost in total) autoworkers then the US.


RE: But!
By KingConker on 6/5/09, Rating: 0
RE: But!
By Penti on 6/5/2009 9:15:25 AM , Rating: 4
The biggest difference is really that Sweden don't have 30+ years of trade deficit in it's recent past dragging it down. It (we) adopted neoliberal policies too. Giving up Keynesian ideas and a regulated currency. And of course due to social democratic rule we where not really afraid of the word socialism. That didn't stop us from illegally monitoring communists though. It didn't hinder us from enjoying James Bonds movies or anything hollywood either.

Trade surplus and spending much less on health care got us to were we are. And of course not borrowing money for wars and finance big budget deficits with. We spend much less on administration costs in health care then US just because it's better regulated with less players involved. You spend as much tax money on health care as we does. But we manage to provide universal health care with the same amount of money.


RE: But!
By hyvonen on 6/6/2009 3:53:02 PM , Rating: 2
+1. Way too much money in US health care goes to:
1) insurance companies that are for-profit organizations (unnecessary middle-man not present in a universal health care system)
2) billing administration (result of insurance company policies - also not present in a universal health care)
3) treating diseases too late; more expensive than preventative treatment that never took place (because patients didn't want to pay the still-high fee, and waited until it was absolutely necessary)

These inefficiencies could be reduced or eliminated in a universal health care system, resulting in cost savings. But there are too many powerful players that would lose their paycheck if that happens, that it's better for them to scream "socialists!" and hope for status quo.


RE: But!
By goobersnotch on 6/5/2009 11:04:13 AM , Rating: 5
On the flip side you have England, a country as equally socialist if not moreso than yours, and they have a huge problem with unemployed people living off the hard work of others because the govt pays them to live indefinately.

Yes your country may be the happiest and yes everyone is reaping the benefits of paying high taxes by sharing their wealth and allowing people to have a free education and health care, but is your country at the frontier of technology? When you force everyone to share and be as close to equal as possible, you create a society where people hardly advance because there is less need for competition and less need for people to outdo each other. Surely the benefit is that people don't fall back, but not allowing failures to fail is quite contrary to "survival of the fittest" if you ask me. It doesn't benefit society at all to keep the weak around as long as possible at the expense of the strong.

And claiming "no corruption/crime" is a result of your socialist society is wrong. Japan is one of the most capitalist countries in the world and has an absurdly low crime rate. Surely there are much different factors to consider when it comes to that, and it has nothing to do with how much people are taxed.

The US may not be a perfect society for everyone, but that's the way it is here. It is a country for people who have what it takes to earn their living. If you don't have what it takes, I suppose you could always move to Canada and mooch off their govt.


RE: But!
By BZDTemp on 6/5/2009 2:43:23 PM , Rating: 2
I never claimed low crime was a result of a socialist society. Our low crime is because of many things but for sure a major factors are good education and nobody being poor as all are at least what you'd properly call lower-middle class.

In Denmark 61 out of 100.000 people are in prison in the US that number is 760 out of 100.000. Just imagine the amount of hardship, suffering behind those numbers.

As for technology I think we are very much at the forefront as a general high education level and a good climate for business will do that. Some 20% of our electricity comes from wind power, we are doing great in biotech, medicine, architecture, space tech, green tech... broadband internet usage in 2007 was 31.8% (US 21.4%)... the biggest Microsoft development department outside the US is in this country. Obama is looking at us for inspiration into using IT in the health sector and the list goes on.

I'm am sorry but your "survival of the fittest" theory is only relevant in a world where there is a lack of resources. In our world carrying for "the weak" is part of what makes us human and I really do hope you're not serious about that "at the expense of the strong" thing. That philosophy is right out of the mouth of some Austrian painter some 7-8 decades ago!


RE: But!
By rcc on 6/5/2009 4:48:37 PM , Rating: 3
I think his point was that if there is little reward in exceling, there is no motivation to excel. You end up with a static system of mediocraty.

I'm glad you're happy there, many of us wouldn't be.

Fortunately, there is room for all of us. :)


RE: But!
By BZDTemp on 6/5/2009 6:25:14 PM , Rating: 2
If that was his point then he has some wrong assumptions. Of course there are rewards for being successful it is not like everyone gets the same. There are danish companies in the Global 1000 with the top one being in spot #131 and there are Danish billionaires, exotic cars sell pretty well over here and so on.

It seems to me that many in the US think that just because nobody is left to live on the street then everybody has to be just making due. That is a big misunderstanding and for example our social safety net means one can take chances starting one own company without it meaning no medical coverage for ones family.

The whole reason I started this information campaign is not to say we are right or the US is wrong. It is simply to point out that while making money is great making money AND making sure there is ample support for those who can't is even greater and that is where the taxes come in.


RE: But!
By hyvonen on 6/5/2009 7:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
+1. This is exactly how it is, and I think it's beautiful. This is why I say the (Northern) European model works.

A lot of people commenting here see the word "socialism" and think of long lines for food stamps, health care clinics etc... too much propaganda was spread during the cold war.


RE: But!
By William Gaatjes on 6/6/2009 5:47:38 AM , Rating: 3
Indeed, i totally agree.

These people fail to see that when you take the burden away of having to worry about your next meal or if you still have a roof over your head next month, you actually have time to think about life and how to use that free time in a good way. In our countries we have the time and the chance to solve our personal problems. To grow by studying and thus use that gained knowledge to get a the job you always wanted, start that new hobby, meet new friends, helping people out who can use some help. It is no longer about having to be a hunter/gatherer. Because being a hunter /gatherer is being more of an animal then being a human : Your reptilian brain is more in control then your cortex is. And when a human does not think but acts instinctively the chance of behaving antisocial becomes a reality. And thus criminal behaviour is born.

http://thesop.org/index.php?article=4453



RE: But!
By hyvonen on 6/6/2009 4:00:08 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The US may not be a perfect society for everyone, but that's the way it is here . It is a country for people who have what it takes to earn their living.


Doesn't mean that that's the way it has to be in the future. Things change, sometimes even improve.

It doesn't benefit society at all to keep the weak around as long as possible at the expense of the strong.

Are you one of those that believe elderly should be given (expensive) medical care because they don't benefit the society anymore? They shouldn't stay around at the expense of the strong?


RE: But!
By Octoberblue on 6/5/2009 12:48:06 PM , Rating: 4
There's one reason why socialist countries can survive, and that is because America has not been a socialist country. Historically we have been producers, so your little socialist hamlet gets all kinds of superior prescription drugs, medical equipment and techniques because WE developed them. Socialist countries are not able to create wealth for anyone else, or even themselves. All of the wealth that they have is because of the success of non-socialist countries. If the US goes on down the socialist track, our economy will tank and so will yours.


RE: But!
By William Gaatjes on 6/5/2009 2:01:07 PM , Rating: 3
You really think we do not have any industry of our own do you ? Socialist countries always had very good industries delivering high quality products for a decent price. These industries are still alive. We may produce for example less medicines but that is because we do not allow medicines with to much side effects on the market. However, because of using the loose cannon free market approach we are flooded with cheap medicines with side effects nobody ever heard of. And guess where these midecines where developed ? For as far as i am concerned, you can keep them.
The US has done great many things but has it's many flaws as well. Luckely here in europe we are all sure about one thing . The friedman market principle does not work and never has. Non stop consuming is required and that is something that is just not possible with finite resources.

On a sidenote :
You have to realise that peace on this earth cannot be accomplished by one big country. We all need to work together and the best way is a socialist free market.

A loose cannon free market approach just changes a captalist country into a hidden communistic capitalist country. Because nobody really has a choice. The people just think they have it. Your new president is doing great things. Be happy with it.


RE: But!
By Penti on 6/6/2009 8:31:49 AM , Rating: 1
Mixed-economies in Europe have developed plenty of drugs and technical innovation. Much have moved away due to market liberalization and become multinational however. Everything doesn't come from the US. Which publicly founds most of said innovations any way. The US is an important market for the innovations though. The Comecon did a lot for the developing world even if you do not wish to acknowledge it. But then again markets are important. Comecon provided one where much of the money went to the developing world and the new world market that appeared after the collapse provided many other opportunities for those who where not excluded.

Even socialist countries in the sense of soviet influenced countries didn't like budget deficits like you do. They corrected their economies like the US are unable too. Your economy has already tanked. It has gone for 30 years without a correction. Spending mostly occur during conservative leadership. Stop borrowing and Walmart will have no goods on it's shelfs. Btw Comecon markets where sanctioned from importing advanced technology, that's why they had copies. And western europe had licensed produced goods. Or there own tech witch they illegally exported to the soviet block :)


RE: But!
By TSS on 6/8/2009 3:13:41 PM , Rating: 1
last year america was the no.1 country in the world with a trade deficit. you guys imported more then any other country in the world (even beating the combined EU's trade deficit).

the number 1 country with a trade surplus? Communistic China. the number 2 country? Socialistic Germany.

america isn't a producer and hasn't been for the past 25 years. you guys are consumers extreme, sending trillions to the middle east and asia.

i wouldn't even call it kapitalism anymore. there isn't any competing. just consuming.


RE: But!
By Denigrate on 6/6/2009 9:02:55 AM , Rating: 2
Wow, I love all your "free" socialist benefits. Too bad everyone is paying the vast majority of their wages to the government where it is essentially wasted on those who won't work. What incentive does anyone have to actually contribute to society? If they succeed, they are punished. If you fail, you are rewarded.

Great system.


RE: But!
By Grast on 6/6/2009 12:27:13 PM , Rating: 1
If you really are a citizen of Sweden, then good for you for living in a Socialist society. How about you butt out of U.S. business and shut-up. Your opinion on how my country tax and what services are offered is our buisness.

Why dont you go surrender the Germany or Russia and shut the hell up. I could care less about Sweden's socialist view.

Later idiot.


RE: But!
By hyvonen on 6/6/2009 3:34:41 PM , Rating: 1
I sense jealousy...

What I'm saying is that the "socialist" society under discussion here seems to work well (=my opinion, but some others seem to agree), and US would benefit from implementing some of those "socialist" programs (universal health care, heavily subsidized college education...).

And since I live in the US and pay taxes here, is it my business. If you can't contribute anything useful to the discussion, please shut up yourself.


RE: But!
By Penti on 6/7/2009 10:16:06 AM , Rating: 1
He's danish, both Sweden and Denmark is however currently ran by Conservatives. But you wouldn't know it seems. But the scale is different here Obama is much more conservative. Neoliberalism, market liberalization and deregulation was very prevalent in Europe. Doesn't mean we did get rid of universal health care though and it doesn't mean you can't have it.


RE: But!
By dare2savefreedom on 6/6/09, Rating: 0
RE: But!
By BZDTemp on 6/7/2009 8:40:00 AM , Rating: 1
Wauw - seems obvious you know very little of the world. Do we have a Fox viewer here :-)

Just so you know Denmark was in Iraq, we have headed the flotilla of ships taking care of the African pirates and we have people in Afghanistan. In fact looking at the number of casualties vs population Denmark is the coalition country which have lost most of it's sons in the fighting in Afghanistan so I think you should shut up. Our guys are based in the Hellman province and it is where most of the heavy fighting is happening at this stage.

We should not have been in Iraq and in fact we only went there because of the US lies about WMD and Al-Qaeda . Are you proud of those lies? Are you proud of the way your "police" used torture sanctioned by Bush and his henchmen? Are you proud of the concentration camp that is Guantanamo?

Yes, I ride a bike but I also have a Japanese sports car and with regards to oil Denmark is exporting oil. Thanks to economic cars (as in NOT trucks), houses that are not card board boxes and green energy we have more oil than we can use :-)

As for me talking shit I did no such thing you're the one making it personal. I have commented that I think the US should consider doing things differently and that taxes done right can lead to a better life for all. I find it egotistic to think of part of ones earning going to those less fortunate. I'm shocked there are even some people reacting with "survival of the fittest"-theories which is something straight out that Austrian painters mouth (Yes, that is Hitler I refer to). Seems I hit a nerve you!

I did not make the surveys I quoted and in fact some of them was done by the US. Instead of taking it personally and reacting like a Fox host why don't you think about how come high taxes and personal happiness works out.

Oh, and as for D-day. Yes. It was a good think the US helped out Europe back then and no one here has forgotten that. But since you bring it up exactly what part did you play in that?

WWII is a long time ago and while a I have high praises for what the US, Canada, India and other countries not directly under threat from Hitler. I do not even want to speculate about the reasons as to why the US did not join in earlier as it is the end result that matters.


RE: But!
By Penti on 6/7/2009 9:57:14 AM , Rating: 1
Sweden is not a NATO country neither do we have any US military bases or nukes like Germany. Still we contribute forces world wide for peace keeping and UN missions. We're not leeching of anyone. Damn even Finland manage to keep the peace with the Soviet union without becoming some US puppet state full of military bases. No aid has ever gone to Sweden as it was an untouched country after WW2. You were busy propping up military right wing dictators with billions of AID and deployment of nuclear weapons, not ensuring peace for all. Sweden was never occupied.

Btw Sweden patrols the horn of Africa with three Corvetts.

HOW ARE WE GETTING THAT OIL?

May be we produce it in the north fucking sea and Norwegian sea. Stop being retarded, Swedens oil come from Denmark, Norway and Russia. I.e. Denmark has much more then it needs something the US doesn't. Stop being so fucking ignorant, narrow minded and clueless. Your totally and completely of on this one.


RE: But!
By sprockkets on 6/7/2009 2:46:37 AM , Rating: 2
Not to mention all the women in your country are tall and hot.


RE: But!
By phxfreddy on 6/8/2009 7:23:08 AM , Rating: 2
WTF? What is up with the DT rating system? This socialist clown rants about how Obama, who is spending in deficit to the tune of 2 trillion whilst at the same time proposing every new program under the sun!!??? ....

Obama is outspending Bush by 4:1 minimum! ... worse yet he has the federal reserve printing unsuppporte fiat money.

All this and you mod him up to +5.

DT management needs to look at their system...its been hacked. The fools are in charge.

Unfortunately when the narcissist presidente Obama gets done we are going to look fondly back on Bush to some degree....and that will take some doing!


RE: But!
By wsgroves on 6/9/2009 8:54:34 AM , Rating: 2
BDZTemp, you state that spending the tax money in the right way can make a country rich and happy.
I totally agree.

The problem in the States now though is that our gov. only intends to destroy America, not make it rich and happy. Well maybe themselves happy. I wish it was not so but it just shows you how smart people over here are anymore!!


RE: But!
By mdogs444 on 6/4/2009 9:41:16 AM , Rating: 2
I hope they do start to pick up and move jobs overseas to show the government that socialism and entitlement have no place here. Taxation is nothing more than redistribution of wealth, no matter how you spin it. I find it so ironic that the left wants to stop rewarding businesses for failure...yet they want to reward lazy people for failure.

Like Maggy Thatcher once said "Socialism is only good until you run out of everybody elses money".

I like to say, Socialism only works until they stop giving their money to you....which I hope Microsoft leads by example.


RE: But!
By MrBungle123 on 6/4/2009 11:47:53 AM , Rating: 2
I hate to say it but I agree with you...

If it takes companies packing up and moving for people to realize what makes the world go round then so be it. Its going to suck but lets get this over with so we can move on.

The leftists that took over the school system decided not to teach history and gave us a generation of ignorant idealoges so now we all get to relearn these things the hard way.


RE: But!
By FeralMisanthrope on 6/4/2009 11:57:10 AM , Rating: 3
There exists a redistribution of wealth that is inherent to our economic system, where wealth is redistributed to the wealthy. Money is allowed to gravitate towards greater concentrations of money, forming black holes of wealth. These black holes are able to generate ever greater wealth without producing anything of value; literally sucking our nation's prosperity out of the hands that produced it.

Any attempt to stifle these gravitational forces is instantly met with bombastic cries of "Socialism!" or even "Communism!" from those with power and influence (i.e. the wealthy). The cacophony of manufactured outrage that permeates our collective consciousness sustains the convergence of wealth by convincing the rest of us that it is a good thing.

For decades, the wages of the productive classes have been held down to maximize shareholder value (the primary obligation of any corporation) and supplemented with ever greater lines of credit. Now that the majority of Americans have been squeezed to the breaking point and have nothing left to mortgage our economic system is collapsing under its own weight. Is it any coincidence that the concentration of wealth that we see today mirrors that which existed prior to the Great Depression?

No one is advocating some communist-style redistribution of wealth, but laissez-faire capitalism is not sustainable. The opportunities to exploit the system have to be kept in check.


RE: But!
By MrPeabody on 6/4/2009 12:07:26 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
For decades, the wages of the productive classes have been held down to maximize shareholder value


I'm a productive fellow, and I'm also a shareholder. Now what?


RE: But!
By MrPoletski on 6/5/2009 4:47:55 AM , Rating: 2
Rip yourself off!


RE: But!
By mdogs444 on 6/4/2009 12:54:55 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
generate ever greater wealth without producing anything of value

Wow, talk about dream land. When was the last time someone with no money created jobs and paid their employees to produce things? Only people with money to invest can create jobs, I hate to break it to you.
quote:
is instantly met with bombastic cries of "Socialism!" or even "Communism!" from those with power and influence (i.e. the wealthy).

False. Middle class cries these as well. In fact, the only ones I don't see having a problem with it are the poor who have no money so they don't worry about taxation, and the people who inherited the wealth so its already been taxed leaving them no worries either.
quote:
wages of the productive classes have been held down to maximize shareholder value (the primary obligation of any corporation)

Do you still make the same amount as you did decades ago? If so, I think you better start blaming something other than just those "evil corporations".
quote:
Now that the majority of Americans have been squeezed to the breaking point and have nothing left to mortgage our economic system

We're in this mess because we did mortgage our economic system. You can buy something with money you don't have. A federal stimulus package only boosts numbers, until you have to pay it back.
quote:
Is it any coincidence that the concentration of wealth that we see today mirrors that which existed prior to the Great Depression?

You mean because we have people who were there, and people who are now, fiscally responsible, smart, and have taken their educations seriously to market themselves as high in demand workers? What coincidence - I thought thats what you were supposed to do?
quote:
No one is advocating some communist-style redistribution of wealth,

On the contrary - taxation is redistribution of wealth, no matter how you spin it. And welfare, food stamps, section 8 housing, universal health care, unemployment, cap & trade....anything for social welfare programs ARE communist. Take from the successful and give just enough to the unsuccessful so they are dependent on you, you control them, and you own their vote.


RE: But!
By metasin on 6/4/2009 1:45:50 PM , Rating: 5
Another "greedy evil rich folk" idea I can't stand is the accumulation of wealth idea. This propaganda about the wealthy hoarding all their money is complete and utter nonsense. The only purpose of which is to promote class envy and reinforce the “victim” mentality. Where does Warren Buffett keep all his billions? In a hole in his yard? No. It is invested in financial mechanisms that allow other companies and investors to have access to liquidity to create jobs and wealth which benefits all of us. That money is doing the "little guy" more good invested than it would if it was divided up and given to all the "working" people in the country.


RE: But!
By FeralMisanthrope on 6/4/2009 2:16:28 PM , Rating: 5
400 Americans now have more money stashed away than the combined bottom 150 million Americans. Some $1.6 trillion bucks. This was accomplished by selling off or shipping out every available asset, from jobs to seaports, smashing usury and anti-monopoly laws, raiding the public coffers, manipulating the medium of exchange and blackmailing the peasantry regarding common needs such as heath care and energy to keep their asses warm, to name a few.

The ultimate coup was to convince the entire nation that the well being of the rich, meaning the well being of Wall Street, was indeed the common man’s well being. Wages have consistently lagged behind the rate of inflation, while CEO compensation has skyrocketed by comparison. Had the minimum wage risen as fast as CEO compensation since 1980, it would now be around $55 an hour. Executive compensation is money that can't be used to hire more workers or increase wages.

Buying and selling stock does not create jobs. Buying and selling goods does. The financial services industry represented 40% of our GDP without producing anything tangible. This was loan-sharking on the grandest of scales. Things have reached the point where there's simply nothing left to defraud the public out of, nothing left to steal from the nation’s productive capability.

Don't like socialism? Fine. Get rid of all publicly funded education, police, fire departments, public libraries, the postal service, and all the other institutions that have made our nation's productive capability possible.


RE: But!
By HueyD on 6/4/2009 4:51:50 PM , Rating: 5
We should get rid of all FEDERALLY funded projects and leave it up the the STATES to decide. It the State wants to fund public schools fine, but keep the Federal out of it.
The only job of the Federal Gov't is to keep the States safe from external threats and to sign treaty's


RE: But!
By afkrotch on 6/5/2009 10:57:55 AM , Rating: 2
Umm....US States do fund public schools. Public schools are funded via National, State, and Local. It's also run that way. Hence the whole State Board of Education and Local Board of Education.


RE: But!
By HueyD on 6/5/2009 1:19:57 PM , Rating: 2
Yes, I know the State and local gov't help fund the schools, but a large part of their funding comes from the federal gov't.


RE: But!
RE: But!
By Keeir on 6/4/2009 6:34:49 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Wages have consistently lagged behind the rate of inflation, while CEO compensation has skyrocketed by comparison.


Sorry, your wrong on wages lagging behind inflation

Wages
http://www.ssa.gov/OACT/COLA/awidevelop.html

Inflation
http://www.inflationdata.com/inflation/inflation_r...

Over the course of 2001 to 2007
Inflation Increase : 20.4%
Wage Increase : 22.6%

Given the discrete source events that occured in this time frame, a general wage increase over inflation is acceptable

If we examine the time period 1991-2000
Wage Increase: 47.4%
Inflation Increase: 31.8%

Much more typically, although this was a good decade.


RE: But!
By Denigrate on 6/6/2009 9:18:15 AM , Rating: 2
Most of that was under a president who taxed the bejesus out of everyone.


RE: But!
By Denigrate on 6/6/2009 9:17:01 AM , Rating: 2
Wrong. Buying stock does create jobs. How in the hell do you think companies raise capital to expand and create new jobs. You are an idiot.


RE: But!
By Penti on 6/6/2009 10:10:31 AM , Rating: 2
Depends on who your buying the stocks from.


RE: But!
By Yawgm0th on 6/5/2009 12:55:57 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Do you still make the same amount as you did decades ago? If so, I think you better start blaming something other than just those "evil corporations".
Actually, accounting for inflation, the average American makes substantially less than decades ago.

quote:
On the contrary - taxation is redistribution of wealth, no matter how you spin it.
Which is why being philosophically against any taxation simply because it is taxation is childish at best. Your entire premise implies that everyone is either a communist or believes there should never be taxes.

Do you think we should repeal all taxes, or are you a communist? Is it really a straw man when I ask, given that I'm using your own premise?


RE: But!
By Headfoot on 6/5/2009 3:40:37 PM , Rating: 2
No.

Read the comment with sources directly above your un-sourced claims.


RE: But!
By croc on 6/5/2009 3:51:10 AM , Rating: 2
Privatise everything... Start with the roads, pay per mile * GVW. No need for gas taxes now, eh? Sorry about the food prices, tough luck if you don't have enough.
Next, the health system. Dying? Show your credit card at the door. No more health care costs for businesses, eh?
Next the police. Call emergency, and tell the person your credit card # to get a private policeman out to see you. Want next day service? $50 / hour. Emergency service? $500 / hour, portal to portal. No no need for property taxes.
Legal system? User pays. Judges from $500 / hr. / case, lawyer, well.... Don't forget the courtroom rental, $1000 / day. $2000 evenings and weekends. Now no need for local, state services.
Armed forces? Outsource the lot. All users will be billed on a monthly basis, but in an armed conflict that bill will escalate. Now no need for national defense.

I like it...


RE: But!
By Penti on 6/5/2009 9:45:47 AM , Rating: 3
Many countries with free health care and "socialism" are very successful with large trade surpluses creating every lasting (or new) wealth.

Sweden don't spend a tax dime more on health care then the US does. So for half the cost we get a country that brings in money on it's exports (got a good balance of trade) and provides universal health care at about 8% of GDP compared to US 16% which don't achieve it.

You really must accept that the US isn't a laissez faire economy. It was a high tax country with large government control over industry and still is you just get tax cuts financed by large budgets deficits witch you have to borrow your own money from abroad to finance. It's administration costs in health care are huge compared too countries that got more regulation in health care i.e. "socialized medicin".

The subprime loan and housing bubble is just a tip of the iceberg. The real problem is large before the Obama gov 800 billion budget deficits witch is really there because the 700 billions trade deficit. Which is why many us critics have long foretold of a collapse. US is borrowing wealth since well the 70's. Instead of correcting it's economy like any other country would be force to do. Markets needs working rules and are effected by many things.


RE: But!
By Ringold on 6/4/2009 1:37:37 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
These black holes are able to generate ever greater wealth without producing anything of value; literally sucking our nation's prosperity out of the hands that produced it.


When companies expand production or service capacity, and thus create jobs, where do you think that money comes from? The stock market and the bond market. Who puts their money in to those? People with wealth, and people trying to build wealth. Astounding, those peoples audacity, expecting something in return for companies borrowing their money! This cycle seems socially beneficial to me, even if you think a "rich" individual have ill-gotten gains, the money is still recycled via financial markets and banks back in to the wider economy.


RE: But!
By BiuTech on 6/4/2009 6:54:16 PM , Rating: 4
The present and past US administrations have been advocating redistribution of wealth. What do you think these forsaken Stimulus bills were all about, definitely not "stimulus." What else do you think this gravitates towards but Socialism. I wouldn't doubt that our founding fathers are spinning in their graves from the idiocy of all this. And it's not that capitalism is not sustainable, our debt is not sustainable. We have lived beyond our means.


RE: But!
By joos2000 on 6/5/2009 2:20:19 AM , Rating: 3
Well said, I would uprate this if I could.

What is needed is a good balance between a free market echonomy and socialist echonomy. Companies cannot exist without government to keep it true to society. At some point, greed and shareholder interest will forego the interest in the well being of the society as a whole and everyone in the society (except a clique elite) will suffer deteriorating living standards.

The other way around doesn't work either, since a governments don't work well in the private sector, where competition and constantly increasing demands is necessary.

A fine balance is necessary to create a society that is good for all of its population.


RE: But!
By Penti on 6/5/2009 10:07:00 AM , Rating: 2
Laws and regulation is not socialist. Nobody wants a soviet style system where you only produce by quotas and everything (resources) has to be assigned by the government. It just lags every development and only the elites gets the money to play with. It managed to create wealth and stability which is why they don't look back to it with horror, but the people ultimately toppled it and began market reform. Which was not always successful. For example eastern european countries use must less fossil fuels then during the communist years. Regulation don't mean you don't have markets you actually need regulation to have a market. Besides competition even existed in the Soviet union with firms competing for contracts. Their biggest problem was that they didn't have a market economy in the sense of supply and demand. Producing what you can sell..


RE: But!
By Denigrate on 6/6/2009 9:11:02 AM , Rating: 1
Bullshit. Someone else took time to actually give a coherent response, but your post says that you don't actually have a logical mind, so it's a waste of time. Please don't breed.


RE: But!
By rudy on 6/8/2009 10:11:03 PM , Rating: 2
Here is the real problem, and this is why stupid politicians are always so full of failure.
OK I get both sides of the argument both are right and wrong. It is wrong for bad tax laws to encourage foreign investment over domestic, but at the same time it is a crime to be charging US corps 35% tax making it hard for them to compete in the global economy. What should have been done is to gather support for the tax by offering a tax break. Lower the corp tax to something more reasonable then eliminate the loop hole on foreign profits. Then you end up with only a few companies really getting hurt but most ending up net even.

Similar stupidity was tried in MI a year or 2 ago when they tried to extend sales tax to services but they forgot to give anyone a break any where so there was lots of lobby and support against the measure but very little support for it. It ended up getting repealed and turning into a giant waste of time and money.

The logic is simple apparently to simple for politicians to figure out. If you want to take something away from someone you need to offer them something in return. What is it going to be?


RE: But!
By rudy on 6/8/2009 10:13:35 PM , Rating: 2
I should add the real benefit is more domestic investment in exchange for no loss in revenue. If you make a compromise. But alas politicians never get it they always think you screw one group while benefiting the other rather then trying to keep everything even so no one really gets screwed just adjust the laws to encourage internal growth.


Global Economy
By Bal on 6/4/2009 9:55:29 AM , Rating: 4
Obama is making one very poor assumption, that companies will remain in the US. Any company that takes significant advantage of the current structure will by the very nature of the tax, have the capability to move the core of their organization outside the US.

I honestly think in 8 years (I fully expect stupid public to put him back ion office again) the US will be more like Europe, and China will be the new world US. China may not have the inherent individual freedoms we do, but they sure as hell have the business freedom to move into the position. Hell they own our debt, have been purchasing our companies for years, and all thats left is for them to begin leveraging it.




RE: Global Economy
By invidious on 6/4/2009 10:07:49 AM , Rating: 4
You mean that wasn't the change you voted for?


RE: Global Economy
By mdogs444 on 6/4/2009 10:23:37 AM , Rating: 3
Haha.

Like my bumper sticker says: "I'll be my Guns, Religion, & Paycheck. You can keep the change."


RE: Global Economy
By mdogs444 on 6/4/2009 10:25:27 AM , Rating: 2
Mean to say "I'll KEEP my Guns, Religion, & Paycheck"

(that's what i get for typing an email at the same time.)


RE: Global Economy
By AMDJunkie on 6/4/2009 10:12:58 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
China may not have the inherent individual freedoms we do, but they sure as hell have the business freedom to move into the position.
That's a very interesting analysis you make there, for the reason that it implicitly presents the argument that business freedom does not equal individual freedom.

But I would not be so sure that China is exactly a laissez-faire economy; workers are migrated from their homes to industries, homeland industries have central planning, etc. I do not think that a communish regime, even if only in name, would have low taxes either. I think you will find that the main concern that companies have is a low TCO. And China would have a very low operating cost; but why is that? It's not just because the government is letting them set up shop for free, I'll say that...


RE: Global Economy
By Iaiken on 6/4/2009 10:55:50 AM , Rating: 5
Business freedom my ass. A former co-worker of mine had his business seized by the Chinese government and handed off to another business because he was a Canadian-born Chinese.

He lawyered up and made a legal stink about it so they deported him and he is now banned for life from returning to China.

If you rock the boat, the Chinese government will simply push you overboard.


RE: Global Economy
By Penti on 6/5/2009 10:11:49 AM , Rating: 2
Actually the US has to start producing goods in the US for export, to being more like Europe, not flee the continent entirely.


RE: Global Economy
By Spuke on 6/11/2009 2:57:15 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hell they own our debt, have been purchasing our companies for years, and all thats left is for them to begin leveraging it.
No they don't. They own 23% of all of the foreign owned debt. The American people actually own most of our debt.


overseas msoft?
By redeyedfly on 6/4/09, Rating: 0
RE: overseas msoft?
By mdogs444 on 6/4/2009 11:17:45 AM , Rating: 3
Wouldn't you just rather petition to stop paying, or at least lower, the domestic taxes in order to increase jobs, make more money, and have cheaper & more competitive products?

You'd definitely be blaming the wrong side on this one, and it would be completely counter-productive.


RE: overseas msoft?
By PARANOID365 on 6/4/2009 12:35:17 PM , Rating: 3
Wow, do you really think that you're little base camp matters so much, that your little hissy fit would really make a dent in Microsoft; talk about a megalomania complex !!

Everyone really needs to understand a very simple concept here before this really gets out of hand. If there are no companies, there are no jobs, so then there are no tax revenues, and are little perfect bubble bursts.

Do you actually think , "big business", doesn't have the power to push the government around; it's been happening since the beginning of time, and it will continue whether the government want's to push it's chest out, and act tough, or not.

It's very simple, "money makes the world go round", and big business has it, and we all know the government doesn't have shit, so, "big business has the power"; Period !!

Now you and I may not like any of this one bit, but unless you or I join the ranks of big business, there is not a damn thing we can do about it, and that's just the truth plain and simple.


RE: overseas msoft?
By Kenenniah on 6/4/2009 1:06:15 PM , Rating: 5
Answer me this then. If you have a choice of building a house on one side of a street and paying 12% property tax, or building on the other side and only paying 6%, which would you choose? Or what if your state decided to raise income tax rates to double or triple what other states ask for, would you at least consider moving to another state? Why is it different when it's countries and businesses?


RE: overseas msoft?
By Kenenniah on 6/5/2009 10:57:23 AM , Rating: 3
For example, look at....
http://www.taxfoundation.org/publications/show/229...

Think about that for a minute. Consider the fact that the economy is now global and American companies increasingly have to compete with foreign companies. Now imagine 2 businesses, one in the US paying up to 41% in taxes, and the other in Ireland paying 12.5%. If all other factors were equal, which do you think would have a competitive edge? Which would have more money to lower prices and spend on R & D? Of course all other things aren't quite equal, but at what point does the extra tax burden outweigh the benefits of being a US company?

Forget that this article is about Microsft and remember that US tax policy affects all corporations. Microsoft might not have to deal with much foreign competion, but plenty of our other companies do.


RE: overseas msoft?
By rudy on 6/8/2009 10:19:41 PM , Rating: 2