This argument comes up a lot but nobody is paying 50% income tax in the US. Even if you make a million dollars a year in W2 income, in California, which has the highest marginal tax rate, you'll pay roughly 40% effective, almost entirely to the federal government. Realistically you're going to make a lot less than that W2, which drives the effective rate down considerably, and as remote work becomes more of an expectation, living in a state with high income taxes will become more and more of a choice. Plenty of states have bustling urban centers and low single digit income taxes.
Also I think it's pretty disingenuous to assume that MS wants to see computer courses taught in school to drive down the cost of labor.
>Also I think it's pretty disingenuous to assume that MS wants to see computer courses taught in school to drive down the cost of labor.
So, what's another good explanation as to why software heavy businesses want more software engineers? It seems to me that it's to increase supply to lower costs. If the claim is that they can't capture enough, they can raise comp even more to capture people who don't work in their businesses, train them on the job by reestablishing employer/employee loyalty, etc. Plenty of options there that aren't being pursued, the most obvious explanation as to why is because those options are costly.
Such businesses have been trying to lower expensive technical labor costs for decades now, trying all sorts of strategies (non-compete hire agreements, outsourcing/offshore teams, pushing more towards capturing recent grads with lower expectations, FLSA overtime exemptions for computer professions, reducing employment mobility by increasing hiring barriers, institutionally and indirect built in ageism, ...). I tend not to give 'the boy who cried wolf' too many chances, and that ship has long sailed.
Remember that Microsoft also benefit from more other businesses becoming software businesses, and it seems like more people in the workforce knowing at least the basics of computers would help with that.
- the world is bigger than the US, there are places in Europe where a 50 or 55% tax rate is a thing (hi Netherlands)
- if it’s not to drive the cost down, why else increase supply? It’s a sellers market at the moment and the big five hate it because it means they must pay engineers more because they have to, gasp, compete (for talent in that case)
> Also I think it's pretty disingenuous to assume that MS wants to see computer courses taught in school to drive down the cost of labor.
SWEs are some of the largest cost for any tech company, why do you feel it is disingenuous? It's a company, makes profits, if they drive down labour costs their profits increase, as any company naturally will tend to (even more larger public ones). Driving down cost of labour is basically all the motivation towards automation since time immemorial, SWEs can't be automated yet, the best course of action is to pump more SWEs to drive the labour cost down.
Not sure what else you think that would compel Microsoft to do that, interested to hear.
The thread is specifically about income taxes. Everyone always wants to act like $0.75 of every dollar they make goes to The Man but it's just not true. Most of the money you make, you keep, to spend on your needs and wants.
People making a quarter million a year whinging about income taxes is offensive by its own right, but it becomes even more so when they arbitrarily double the amount actually paid to try to prove from technolibertarian talking point nonsense.
The world extends beyond the US and there are places in the EU where a 50–55% marginal tax rate is a thing.
I’m not against paying taxes at all, my comment was about MS (in that case) making over 300bn and paying 0.00$ of taxes while individuals make 10–100k and pay significantly more taxes than MS Ireland did on their 300bn. I don’t think that’s fair. Furthermore, individuals are unable to make business deductions that MS and other companies can (and spend pretax dollars to buy things while the rest of us spends after tax dollars)
My post was to point out that corporations are massively advantaged in comparison with actual, alive human beings.
Companies pay, behind the scenes, another chunk of payroll tax that is roughly equal to what the employee pays. It doesn’t make the total 50%, but the taxes paid on your salary are higher than just 25%, even if it doesn’t show up on your paystub.
The amount paid is directly proportional to your payroll cost, just like your income taxes. Both amounts are paid by the company directly to the IRS. The only real difference is that one amount is just put on your pay stub, one is not.
It seems disingenuous to not consider it a part of the taxes paid based on your income (though it certainly sounds better to say that we only pay, say, 25%, instead of 40%).
Since this cost is associated with payroll (a.k.a. your income, as a worker), it's fair game to put the employer contribution to FICA under taxes on worked income.
I am not saying you are wrong; just providing another perspective. When every penny you *spend* or *save* is taxed, you end up paying more than 50% of what you made to The Man. Either tax the income or tax the spending, not both, is my argument.
Also I think it's pretty disingenuous to assume that MS wants to see computer courses taught in school to drive down the cost of labor.