[Am-info] Re: MS cashflow/taxes: was MS depositions

[John J. Urbaniak]

"Glenn T. Livezey, Ph.D." wrote:

>
> >So their revenues are offset by their expenses, which is what I said
> >before. In other words, they made NOTHING.
>
> You can't be serious. They get to write off the retail of a copy of
> software that 'cost' them pennies to replicate.

No, they don't.  In no way does the IRS allow a retail price write-off
for a charitable donation.  Only the cost.

> Do that enough times
> and you are talking serious money. Same with stock options in leu of
> cash. A certificate of stock is worth whatever they can convince the
> traders its worth that day. And we all know it is hyperinflated in
> price. So again, they write off an inflated value, that for tax
> purposes 'offsets' real cash money income.

No, they don't.  They can not write off more than they pay.

> What this MEANS is they
> don't pay taxes. It does NOT MEAN they 'made NOTHING'.

Yes it does.  When all revenues and expenses are accurately accounted
for, they made nothing.

>
>
> You think Bill builds and maintains his palace on credit?

Yes.  Credit and hype.  But Bill cashes in every so often - exchanges the
hype for money, just like Enron execs.  It's the stupid "investors" who
buy MSFT at a 55 p/e, with no dividend, who allow Gates to do this.  And
it's the co-conspiring "analysts" who convince the investors to buy, just
like Enron.

The only difference is that when Microsoft comes tumbling down, it will
be about six times *bigger* than Enron.

>
>
> And as for Enron closing any loopholes... I think what it has
> more effectively done is make company stock options a whole lot
> less attractive for most mid-to-low level employees who'd rather
> hold out for real money - even less real money. And that makes the
> companies who are most vulnerable, the ones using this to save big
> time on labor costs, even shakier.

Microsoft is one of those companies.  That's why they are in a shaky
position.

>
> You can bet your ass that whenever congress closes one loophole it
> opens two more elsewhere, so, the same basic wage earner will go on
> paying all the bills.

Can't disagree with you here.

John