4 ms·
2017 article so pretty old by now, but: > Microsoft in the year ended June 2016 had $20.1 billion in foreign income and a domestic loss of $300 million. Micros
by Apocryphon 2y ago
2017 article so pretty old by now, but:
> Microsoft in the year ended June 2016 had $20.1 billion in foreign income and a domestic loss of $300 million. Microsoft’s income tax expense was $3.3 billion, for an effective rate of 16.5%. Alphabet, the parent company of Google, posted a $4.7 billion tax expense, or 19%. Such “avoision” will continue as long as foreign income is subject to lower rates than domestic.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2017/04/18/what-americas-biggest-companies-pay-in-taxes/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2017/04/18/wh...
> There's no reason to hand the market over to another country.
Who's to say that the other country's Google-killer won't prove to be a greater boon to American consumers? Let the global market decide.
- WalterBright 2y ago> Who's to say that the other country's Google-killer won't prove to be a greater boon to American consumers? If you do it by hobbling American businesses, they aren't a greater boon.
- Apocryphon 2y agoBut maybe the consumers derive greater service satisfaction or pay less. Why should the American customer care for the plight of American businesses?
- nickpp 2y agoAs a consumer a care greatly about the fate of businesses: they are the ones providing the services and products I enjoy. The government gives me nothing. Less than nothing, actually, since they are taking most of my income for the crap they provide. And I care about every single business since I know that the more competition there is - the better and cheaper the products and services will be.
- Apocryphon 2y agoRight, and in this hypothetical scenario, foreign businesses are providing you with potentially higher-quality services and products at lower costs.
- nickpp 2y agoSo far, in software, no they don’t. Still want their competition: keeps the local business on their toes. I want them both.
- Apocryphon 2y agoPerhaps the fall of a dominant company will spur on greater competition as rival claimants attempt to fill the power vacuum.
- nickpp 2y agoOnly if that fall comes as a result of natural competition and market forces (like what happened to IBM for example). But if the fall was the result of government culling and interference with the free market, a chilling effect will take place among the most vulnerable in the business chain: startups and entrepreneurs now thinking twice before starting new startups. The end result will be even less competition and more monopolies - inviting additional government intervention in a vicious cycle that ends up with only large, incumbent, too-big-to-fail corporations on an overregulated market. Like how it's in the EU for example. Or the aerospace industry in the US. Politicians are quite happy with this state of things since their role is expanding and everyone is asking for their help. The ones suffering are, of course, the consumers having fewer and crappier choices...
- Apocryphon 2y ago> startups and entrepreneurs now thinking twice before starting new startups Debatable. Microsoft falling prey to antitrust only led to a new generation of even bigger tech companies, including its old rival Apple. > The ones suffering are, of course, the consumers having fewer and crappier choices... Going back to the original thread, that’s where foreign competitors come in for customer choice.