Microsoft, HP Accused of ''Skirting'' U.S. Taxes

[bllue]

[citation][nom]knight_of_baawa[/nom]What makes you erroneously believe (and beg the question) that only a government and taxes can provide such things?[/citation]
Then who else will? these corporations? If they're not even willing to pay taxes they're certainly not going to spend hundreds of billion on public infrastructure. As for the people, most have the "fuck you i have mine" attitude so it's unlikely that some will band and fund these projects. With the attitude of people here, you'd have some entire counties look like third world countries

 

[Dan_H]

None of the things these companies are accused of doing in this case is illegal. None of the things Mitt Romney has been accused of in these comments are illegal. If you do not like the laws, your problem is with the Congresspeople who make those laws, not the people who are following them. If you think you are not paying enough taxes, there is no law stating you cannot pay more.

 

[aft_lizard01]

[citation][nom]jaquith[/nom]I'd say take 'your time' and prove me wrong, most of those 'Red' Republican states don't have anymore hard expenses than any other state in the union (US). I suggest you search 'Welfare States' and 'Deficit Surplus per President' then maybe we'll have something to talk about.[/citation]
The onus of proof is on the individual that presents the data. I suggest you research who actually creates and votes on budgets...hint its not the President. Secondly do your own leg work. It's a fact that Arizona and Florida have the most retirees per capita. It's a fact that Mississippi and Alabama have very large minority populations, as do a few other states. It's a fact your graphs nor do the source of the graphs provide empirical demographic data on where the funds go, who receives them, what party do they belong too etc..It's a fact most welfare emanates from the federal government and not the states(ie it doesn't really matter that states per capita may receive more it's not the state governments who pay it), its a fact red states have more national parks, military bases, etc etc than blue states. So tell me again what do I need to prove? You presented the graph, now back it up. Otherwise you are just another sheep trotting along in the herd borrowing info from liberal think groups.

 

[aft_lizard01]

[citation][nom]jaquith[/nom]Listen today unless your household income is near a $100K you're barely making it. Those folks, whom you referred to, may get some money back but it's nearly impossible to get it all back from withholding's, and never your SS or MC deductions. Under $50K family income you're essentially the working poor (my definition); under that level is unthinkable to me and I sincerely don't know how a family can manage on less. I give folks all the credit and respect them that are hard working with low incomes.[/citation] Oh BS. Unless you live in NYC or San Fran 30-50k is more than enough for a family to make it. If they can't then they are living beyond there means. I am a olderr college student living alone making less than 20k a year, paying bills, rent, insurance, etc and I more than make it. Heck I even find time once a month to hit the casino. The problem with the EITC is that its one lump sum and many of those people tend to blow it on big box items instead of saving it for the year.

 

[wemakeourfuture]

According to Apple's 10K Filings they paid an effective tax rate of 31.8% way above Microsoft.
(Numbers also backed up by forbes.com)

 

[jaquith]

[citation][nom]madjimms[/nom]People with less than $50K a year is poor & below is unthinkable? My wife gets paid about $14,xxx a year... & I can't find a job. What do you call us?[/citation]

I give folks all the credit and respect them that are hard working with low incomes.

What more can I say here??!! Families under $50K have very little disposable income. I assume you're watching every single penny, or am I wrong?

I feel for you and it must be very difficult if you don't have family to provide help or a large amount saved. Yeah, your situation is unthinkable, I'm sure it's not what you wanted (hence unthinkable). Wealthy and greedy folks pooched the economy, vote Democrat. Republican's cater to folks with 7-8 figure plus incomes and do the bidding of those even wealthier.

If you read what I said in this article, I'm on your side. I like a world where everyone has some peace and prosperity.

If I had it 'my way' all those involved in the Mortgage-Backed Securities would be in jail and many of them with life sentences. They're much worst than Madoff; Billions vs Trillions. Especially those at S&P who gave their bought AAA-Rating on those very same securities and have the balls to lower the US and many Counties ratings -- their ratings are a joke and in reality fraudulent.

 

[jaquith]

[citation][nom]aft_lizard01[/nom]Oh BS. Unless you live in NYC or San Fran 30-50k is more than enough for a family to make it. If they can't then they are living beyond there means. I am a olderr college student living alone making less than 20k a year....once a month to hit the casino.[/citation]
I said 'Families' and if you have the '1.8' (2) children or four (4) people in your family, in most places, it's very hard to manage with a combined 'family income' under $50K per year, and with that income you'll be in deep 'trouble' hitting the 'casinos' with a spouse with any form of self esteem.

 

[f-14]

they could fix this if they really wanted to by having all fund leaving and coming into the united states going thru IRS offices before they can be deposited in banks.

Merchants have no country. The mere spot they stand on does not constitute so strong an attachment as that from which they draw their gains.
Thomas Jefferson

 

[captainnemojr]

Taking advantage of a loophole is not tax evasion--it is legal. These big companies take advantage of the loopholes, but small businesses cannot. Fix the loopholes and lower the tax rate. The US has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.

 

[SteelCity1981]

jaquith bush tanked the global economy so bush is to blame for every nations failure in the world? LOL i stopped reading your post when you said that. Just goes to show you have left you are it's the old blame bush for everything excuse again.

 

[velocityg4]

[citation][nom]kcorp2003[/nom]i see some single family survive on net income of less than 22,000 a year (and support at least 1 kid). and they pay their taxes.[/citation]

At $22,000 a year they aren't paying any taxes. After all the low income tax credits, withholding allowances and so forth any money taken out during the year from their paycheck would be returned with their tax return. I suppose there may be some state taxes I know mine wouldn't have any at this income level.

 

[jaquith]

[citation][nom]SteelCity1981[/nom]jaquith bush tanked the global economy so bush is to blame for every nations failure in the world? LOL i stopped reading your post when you said that. Just goes to show you have left you are it's the old blame bush for everything excuse again.[/citation]
The Mortgage-Back Securities (including the Sub-Prime) were Global, Systemic, and yep we the US (Busch) almost took-out the Global Economy; US was the linchpin, first Domino - call it what you will. Many Banks outside of the US were Nationalized otherwise they would have failed. BTW - I live in FL, USA near ground zero, and have zero debt so I wasn't part of it. However, I know folks that were and went from their 4+ million dollar homes, Maybach's, Bentley's and lavish lifestyles down to bottom; I have no pity.

Then read this Global Financial Crisis -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007%E2%80%932012_global_financial_crisis

Weren't you following any of this or were the words and concept too big for you to grasp or were you living in a cave?

We're not of of the woods yet, and the second wave has been stalled-off and with efforts from Obama hopefully some numbers reduced. I would much rather see folks sign their homes back to Bank or lender as part of a leaseback deal than suffer the affects from mass foreclosures part two. Also, since many of the Option-ARM loans (second wave) involved 'robo-signing' Banks and lenders had to stall off the foreclosures, but there are currently millions of potential new foreclosures, and they've started foreclosures again. Some folks haven't made mortgage payments in 2-3+ years, and those will be foreclosed.

This graph shift-right 2-3+ years the second wave (robo-signing delays):

Unless there's a miracle get ready for a second trip down.

 

[acadia11]

[citation][nom]aicom[/nom]Maybe if the taxes on profits weren't so high, companies wouldn't try to evade them.[/citation]

That's a ridiculous argument unless taxes are 0 or lower than the salaries of the corporate attornies companies hire to avoid paying taxes what incentive does any business have to pay any taxes. Business exist to make money for their share holders , not to pay taxes, not to provide jobs, not to support the economy ... their singular purpose is to make money for their owners. That's it. So no rate would conceivably be "low enough" that they would pay them or try not to avoid them.

 

[cmcghee358]

[citation][nom]aicom[/nom]Maybe if the taxes on profits weren't so high, companies wouldn't try to evade them.[/citation]

Maybe if Windows didn't cost $120-250 people wouldn't pirate it.

Oh software pirating is bad you say? Strange how the same rule doesn't apply for the corporations.

 

[acadia11]

[citation][nom]mcd023[/nom]well, they were paying taxes at the lower rate before 2009, it seems. Now, the gov't isn't getting as much as it would have with a lower rate. But at 35% (Are you freaking serious!?!?), I'd be finding ways to keep my money, too. that's[/citation]

Completely false. I hate political debates because people tend not to talk in facts but on their particular political affiliation perceptions, the tax rate of 35% has existed for decades. And as far as taxation is concerned you are wrong on that one too , taxes have been lower since 2009, yes, under Obama taxes have actually gone down. Another historical myth Democrats spend and Republicans don't. Actually, deficits have increased the largest under republican administrations, in fact, republicans like to cite Obama ... spent this that and the third, incorrect, Obama inherited a $1+ trillion annual deficit, and he like his predecessor has continued to lower taxes (as response to the reccession) but the countries expenses have maintained the same in terms (paying for MM, social security, military) etc ... Anyway back to taxes the country took in $2.1 trillion last year in taxes, compared to Bush's lowest year of $2.7 trillion which was 2008 and 2007 was the beginning of the recession, more over corporations in fact are having record profits and have higher earnings today ... but pay smaller percentage of those profits in taxes.

 

[acadia11]

Also, another myth the corporate tax rate is excessively high at 35% ... ironically in China it's 40%. Moreover, taxes have been on steady decline since the 40's... today we have some the lowest tax rates historically for this nation. I find this ironic in that people think some how todays taxes are high, certainly not compared to the past for the US.

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]madjimms[/nom]To FUND SOCIAL NECESSITIES! DURR DURR![/citation]
If you have to explain the joke, it just aint funny anymore

 

[back_by_demand]

[citation][nom]acadia11[/nom]Also, another myth the corporate tax rate is excessively high at 35% ... ironically in China it's 40%. Moreover, taxes have been on steady decline since the 40's... today we have some the lowest tax rates historically for this nation. I find this ironic in that people think some how todays taxes are high, certainly not compared to the past for the US.[/citation]
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/rates/corp.htm
...
Come to the UK, it's 24% and dropping to 23% next year, we will happily take Microsoft's business if you don't want it

 

[knight_of_baawa]

Then who else will?

Anyone who wants to. Who will build the supermarkets, restaurants, hospitals, etc? Same.

 

[10tacle]

[citation][nom]jaquith[/nom]Oddly, Republican's are a LOT more Socialist, it's funnier than hell to me. Even California pulls it's weight!!![/citation]

Funny thing about those charts, Mr. Democrat: Obama has deficit spent more than every president listed there...COMBINED. Secondly, you need to look at the "welfare" states in so-called "red" states and break the numbers down by racial demographics relative to their percentage of the population as a whole. You'll see an entirely different point of view, and it won't be in your liberal favor.

Third and finally, Clinton's budget "Surplus" warrants two responses: 1), Republicans ran Congress and forced Clinton to the budget table and 2), there really IS no such thing as the Clinton budget "surplus" because America has had a continuing growing deficit since WWII...EVERY YEAR. Here's a similar comparison: if you are proud of yourself and spending less than you take in, great! But that doesn't mean you are in a surplus...or positive flow balance sheet...if you still owe $100,000 on your mortgage and $10,000 on your car.

 

[10tacle]

[citation][nom]acadia11[/nom] I hate political debates because people tend not to talk in facts but on their particular political affiliation perceptions, the tax rate of 35% has existed for decades.[/citation]

And that's only half the story. Look up the historical effective tax rates on Americans. You Democrat liberals love to talk about that 65% top tax rate that happened decades ago. Well, there were a lot more tax breaks back then than there are now that Democrats got rid of. So while that 65% top tax rate may look good to you liberals on paper, it was NOT what people effectively paid.

[citation][nom]acadia11[/nom]And as far as taxation is concerned you are wrong on that one too , taxes have been lower since 2009, yes, under Obama taxes have actually gone down. [/citation]

And they're getting ready to go back up after the Bush-era tax cuts expire that Obama and Democrats will not extend.

[citation][nom]acadia11[/nom]Another historical myth Democrats spend and Republicans don't. Actually, deficits have increased the largest under republican administrations, in fact, republicans like to cite Obama ... spent this that and the third, incorrect, Obama inherited a $1+ trillion annual deficit [/citation],

Wow you really are a Kool Aid drinker. DEMOCRATS haven't passed a single budget in over THREE YEARS, and they led by that clueless empty suit Obama have elevated the deficit by FIFTY PERCENT since Bush left office...with NO wars other than meddling in Libya! And we see how well that turned out. So where the hell did all that money go? It sure wasn't pumped into the ecomony like that near trillion dollar "stimulus" bill rammed through Congress in 2009 that was supposed to keep unemployment from going above 8% (Biden's words) and create millions of shovel ready and green energy jobs (Obama's words...which later turned into "I guess those shovel ready jobs weren't so shovel ready).

You liberals really are a delusional piece of work.

 

[SteelCity1981]

[citation][nom]jaquith[/nom]The Mortgage-Back Securities (including the Sub-Prime) were Global, Systemic, and yep we the US (Busch) almost took-out the Global Economy; US was the linchpin, first Domino - call it what you will. Many Banks outside of the US were Nationalized otherwise they would have failed. BTW - I live in FL, USA near ground zero, and have zero debt so I wasn't part of it. However, I know folks that were and went from their 4+ million dollar homes, Maybach's, Bentley's and lavish lifestyles down to bottom; I have no pity.Then read this Global Financial Crisis -> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2007% [...] ial_crisisWeren't you following any of this or were the words and concept too big for you to grasp or were you living in a cave?We're not of of the woods yet, and the second wave has been stalled-off and with efforts from Obama hopefully some numbers reduced. I would much rather see folks sign their homes back to Bank or lender as part of a leaseback deal than suffer the affects from mass foreclosures part two. Also, since many of the Option-ARM loans (second wave) involved 'robo-signing' Banks and lenders had to stall off the foreclosures, but there are currently millions of potential new foreclosures, and they've started foreclosures again. Some folks haven't made mortgage payments in 2-3+ years, and those will be foreclosed.This graph shift-right 2-3+ years the second wave (robo-signing delays):Unless there's a miracle get ready for a second trip down.[/citation]

you get your infomation from wiki? lol that says it all. I'm living in a cave? hoe about living in reality unlike the kool-aid drinker that you are. It's clear that you are a heavily bias troll that has to come on here and quote everyone that disagrees with you because you are trying to convince yourself that you are right. Either that or you are a loser and don't have anything else better to do but to sit on your computer and hit the refresh button every 5 minutes just to see if someone quoted you on your post.

Oh yes because bush was respionseable for all those ninja loans back in the 90's that lead to the housing market to crumble that was apporved by the FDIC. Yes bush was responseable for Japans economic collapse that started in the mid 90's. What you want to blame bush for greece's economic demise due to their enititlement scoiety that has lead their gov on the verge of bankruptcy? too. And please spare me your obama lover shit people elected him to fix the problem not add more to the debt he's basicly trying to spend his way out of debt, which is like paying your debt off with a credit card. then again this was the same prez that said he can't fix washington from the inside. lol And for the record i'm not a rep but unlike you my glasses aren't fogged up beyond belief. So quit dick riding obama already mr so called thinks he knows everything about the economy, because if you had half the brain that you think you do about the economy you would be up in washington fixing the problem instead of on toms hardware qwating for people to reply to your comments every 5 minutes.

 

[jasonpwns]

[citation][nom]jaquith[/nom]Hey as long as our laws permit it companies and folks like Mitt Romney will go offshore to shelter themselves from taxes, or hell Eduardo Saverin renounced his US Citizenship before Facebook went public to avoid windfall taxes. Ever look at where your US based CPU (Intel or AMD) is manufactured?? Wealthy companies and individuals control these laws and seem to be fine and dandy raping the rest of the folks. You're the dumb-asses who put these folks in office! The only folks that are legitimately Republican are those who earn over $1M, otherwise you're kidding yourself. China pays its' way into the WTO and while they're allowed by the few to screw you for profits.The problem is we're all (remainder of the modern world; those folks = you) about tapped-out and broke.So what do we do, we ague & fight over nothing while 'these' folks LOL at you and level-shift the arguments over further exploitation and pit the '99%' against each other. The system is broke: morally, financially, corruption -- you name it.[/citation]

You couldn't be more wrong. Romney released his taxes and everything showed up just fine. No cheating the system. All legal.

 

[Kami3k]

[citation][nom]jasonpwns[/nom]You couldn't be more wrong. Romney released his taxes and everything showed up just fine. No cheating the system. All legal.[/citation]

What? No he didn't. Fucking idiots here.

 

[Christopher1]

[citation][nom]mcd023[/nom]well, they were paying taxes at the lower rate before 2009, it seems. Now, the gov't isn't getting as much as it would have with a lower rate. But at 35% (Are you freaking serious!?!?), I'd be finding ways to keep my money, too. that's[/citation]

Missing the fact that most normal average joe's are paying 13% of their income in taxes each year, even the ones who pay no income taxes.

So a 35% corporate tax rate might not be all that goddamned bad. It's only that high because of the nitwits who keep on trying to avoid paying taxes. Frankly, I feel if you try to do that? Life term, no parole for even ONE criminal conviction of that.