Re: Microsoft's drug dealer tactics - Linux

This is a discussion on Re: Microsoft's drug dealer tactics - Linux ; wrote in message news:0cWdnVwmM6ZJBJXU4p2dnAA@giganews.com... > > > > amicus_curious wrote: > >>"The spokesman said Microsoft remained committed to supporting >>not-for-profit organisations and had donated more than $22 >>million worth of software to local charities last year." > > The $22 ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Re: Microsoft's drug dealer tactics

  1. Re: Microsoft's drug dealer tactics


    wrote in message
    news:0cWdnVwmM6ZJBJXU4p2dnAA@giganews.com...
    >
    >
    >
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >>"The spokesman said Microsoft remained committed to supporting
    >>not-for-profit organisations and had donated more than $22
    >>million worth of software to local charities last year."

    >
    > The $22 million is the retail price. The actual out-of-pocket
    > expenses to make a few more CDs were way less than 1% of that,
    > and Microsoft got a tax writeoff as well.
    >

    The 22 mil is the commercial value of the product. They only had to pay the
    incremental costs of fulfillment, certainly, plus whatever compensation they
    migh have offered to their distribution network of dealers, and they can
    only write off their actual costs. There is charity there regardless.

    There is no reason to give anything away to a for-profit company though. If
    there is no way to make a profit without such charity, then the whole
    business needs to be refocused as a bona fide charity.


  2. Re: Microsoft's drug dealer tactics




    amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    > wrote...
    >>
    >> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >>>"The spokesman said Microsoft remained committed to supporting
    >>>not-for-profit organisations and had donated more than $22
    >>>million worth of software to local charities last year."

    >>
    >> The $22 million is the retail price. The actual out-of-pocket
    >> expenses to make a few more CDs were way less than 1% of that,
    >> and Microsoft got a tax writeoff as well.
    >>

    >The 22 mil is the commercial value of the product. They only had to pay the
    >incremental costs of fulfillment, certainly, plus whatever compensation they
    >migh have offered to their distribution network of dealers, and they can
    >only write off their actual costs. There is charity there regardless.


    They get to write off whatever the best accountants in the world
    can convince the IRS to be the "actual costs." BTW, do they have
    to report these actual costs someplace where we can see them and
    compare them to that "22 million dollars?"



  3. Re: Microsoft's drug dealer tactics


    wrote in message
    news:jpednWf8vYIuFZTURVn_vwA@giganews.com...
    >
    >
    >
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >>
    >> wrote...
    >>>
    >>> amicus_curious wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>"The spokesman said Microsoft remained committed to supporting
    >>>>not-for-profit organisations and had donated more than $22
    >>>>million worth of software to local charities last year."
    >>>
    >>> The $22 million is the retail price. The actual out-of-pocket
    >>> expenses to make a few more CDs were way less than 1% of that,
    >>> and Microsoft got a tax writeoff as well.
    >>>

    >>The 22 mil is the commercial value of the product. They only had to pay
    >>the
    >>incremental costs of fulfillment, certainly, plus whatever compensation
    >>they
    >>migh have offered to their distribution network of dealers, and they can
    >>only write off their actual costs. There is charity there regardless.

    >
    > They get to write off whatever the best accountants in the world
    > can convince the IRS to be the "actual costs." BTW, do they have
    > to report these actual costs someplace where we can see them and
    > compare them to that "22 million dollars?"
    >
    >

    Well, it doesn't work that way at all, but why should facts interfere with a
    great hypothesis? The reality is that Microsoft declares their revenues
    which are audited by outside accountants who certify their validity and
    declares allowable expenses incurred in paying salaries, materials, and
    other costs of business. The difference is profit and that is what they pay
    tax on. They don't actually deduct anything other than direct cash payments
    for any charity. They cannot do that at all. Their charity in gifts of
    software merely show up as missing revenue that they might have obtained
    otherwise. Their expenses remain in one lump unchanged.


  4. Re: Microsoft's drug dealer tactics



    amicus_curious wrote:

    >> They get to write off whatever the best accountants in the world
    >> can convince the IRS to be the "actual costs." BTW, do they have
    >> to report these actual costs someplace where we can see them and
    >> compare them to that "22 million dollars?"
    >>
    >>

    >Well, it doesn't work that way at all, but why should facts interfere with a
    >great hypothesis? The reality is that Microsoft declares their revenues
    >which are audited by outside accountants who certify their validity and
    >declares allowable expenses incurred in paying salaries, materials, and
    >other costs of business.


    You sure have a lot of confidence in businesses! Ever here of ENRON?


  5. Re: Microsoft's drug dealer tactics

    invalid@example.com wrote:

    > rat wrote:
    >>
    >> There is charity there regardless.


    There is evil there, regardless.

    >They get to write off whatever the best accountants in the world
    >can convince the IRS to be the "actual costs." BTW, do they have
    >to report these actual costs someplace where we can see them and
    >compare them to that "22 million dollars?"


    That's a whole lot of CD's! 8)


  6. Re: Microsoft's drug dealer tactics


    wrote in message
    news:LNadneXqj77aYZTURVn_vwA@giganews.com...
    >
    >
    > amicus_curious wrote:
    >
    >>> They get to write off whatever the best accountants in the world
    >>> can convince the IRS to be the "actual costs." BTW, do they have
    >>> to report these actual costs someplace where we can see them and
    >>> compare them to that "22 million dollars?"
    >>>
    >>>

    >>Well, it doesn't work that way at all, but why should facts interfere with
    >>a
    >>great hypothesis? The reality is that Microsoft declares their revenues
    >>which are audited by outside accountants who certify their validity and
    >>declares allowable expenses incurred in paying salaries, materials, and
    >>other costs of business.

    >
    > You sure have a lot of confidence in businesses! Ever here of ENRON?
    >


    That was a shock to one and all, but it resulted in a lot more oversight
    today than there used to be. Ever hear of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act? Before
    9/11 airline pilots were just supposed to humor hijackers and not do
    anything to rile them up. Now the door is locked and re-enforced and the
    pilots are told to land the plane immediately if anyone gets out of line.
    Live and learn, it is called. Do you think that is being too wishy-washy?





+ Reply to Thread