Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Microsoft is currently being sued by the IRS for hiding $130 billion off-shore to avoid taxes.
Everybody avoids paying taxes - you, me, Microsoft, Amazon. We all pay the least amount we legally can. It is just how it works. If you think Amazon is getting away with murder, than write your Congress person and tell him/her to fix the tax code because Amazon is just following the law. It is not their fault if the law let's them pay peanuts.
This post speaks volume. On one hand the Dems criticize Trump for not paying tax, on another hand, every presidential candidate wants to raise tax to fund Medicare for all, etc..
LOL. Bezos can out-lawyer the US government any day of the week. His claim has solid merit - AWS was the front runner until Trump interfered. Trump is not the king. Good for Bezos to put Trump in his place.
Let me return that LOL and raise you a ROFLMAO.
Bezos is a billionaire. The US government is a trillionaire.
Bezos has some lawyers. The US Government has the monopoly on the writing, passing, enforcing and adjudication of all law, and they are the final authority on who is and is a not a lawyer, what is and is not law, and whatever they leave out, they'll make up on the spot and kill for sassing them about it.
Bezos is clearly just one among many providers of cloud computing. The US government is the sole provider of government and law.
Bezos has whatever corporate power he possesses because of permission and protections given by the US government. The US government has whatever power i pleases, when it pleases, as much as it pleases and nobody can say otherwise.
Bezos is the CEO of his company that is a puny ant on the US governments ant hill. Trump is the CEO of the whole freaking ant hill, the grass around it, and the sky above it.
IBM tried the "we are billionaires, and we'll see you in court!" thing against Leviathan in the late 70s. Who won? Micro$oft tried the "we are billionaires, and we'll see you in court!" thing against Leviathan in the late 90s. Who won? And Amazon tried their luck when they kept refusing to charge sales tax for online retail. Who won?
Bezos will lose. Period. When people go up against Leviathan, they always lose. Even if he had a legit case, which he doesn't, he makes the big mistake of thinking his fortune is 100% independent of Leviathan, and that kind of disobedience and arrogance angers the two headed beast, and Bezos will soon find this out. Plus, what a rank hypocrite. Take for example his company's effective tax rate, or his contracting with the CIA and various other government agencies at the same time he was buying the WaPo, and Leviathan being conspicuously silent about anti-trust.
But now he has his economy of scale and market domination and thinks, like IBM and Micro$oft before him, that he can beat leviathan into submission.
LOL. He's every Greek tragedy protagonist made flesh. Hubris will be his undoing.
Microsoft is currently being sued by the IRS for hiding $130 billion off-shore to avoid taxes.
Everybody avoids paying taxes - you, me, Microsoft, Amazon. We all pay the least amount we legally can. It is just how it works. If you think Amazon is getting away with murder, than write your Congress person and tell him/her to fix the tax code because Amazon is just following the law. It is not their fault if the law let's them pay peanuts.
Microsoft has actually started paying significantly more in us taxes past two years. Largerly due to 14% decrease in corporate tax rate, which leads to them keeping significantly less profits off shore.
I agree the claim has no merit. I highly doubt Trump is intimately involved in procurement lol.
But most bidders assume this. I used to do procurement for a federal agency and it is hilarious the things the public believes occurs during the procurement process.
I bet Microsoft is the current vendor for a similar system and they just chose them because they don't want to change to a new vendor. That is typically the reason for choosing a particular software - integration with current system and not wanting extra expense with choosing a new vendor.
Microsoft has actually started paying significantly more in us taxes past two years. Largerly due to 14% decrease in corporate tax rate, which leads to them keeping significantly less profits off shore.
Bezos clearly wasn't paying attention during the Browser Wars, especially where it concerns Micro$oft. Gates went down this path, albeit not nearly as aggressively or personally as Bezos, and got pimp slapped for it. Then he learned how to play he game with keeping the skids greased, until he sorta forgot when he got Jobs bent over on their deal, but he went back and regreased those skids, and has been pretty harmonious with Leviathan ever since.
Bezos, unlike the government whose CEO he is currently antagonizing, has limited resources and even further limited powers. The person he is going after has nearly unlimited resources and power. He'll find out in a hurry what Gates' pimp slap from the early 90s felt like, because one is headed his way. You play nice with Leviathan, or you get steamrolled by Leviathan. Choose.
The Pentagon's selection had nothing to do with Trump, there is a long-established vendor selection process that has been in place long before President Trump took office. Azure is simply a better fit at the Pentagon since they standardized on Windows in the mid-90s. Bezos is unhappy since his decision to move a lot of work to the DC area, he thought that would influence the pentagon decision but that's not how DoD-selection works. I know, I was employed there for several years and understand the procurement process.
I agree with this. Didn't see it when I made my post above, but most corporations and government departments use Microsoft products so it is a no-brainer at why they stayed with them.
I'll note I have learned recently of Amazon's offerings and I do think that they will be a player in this space in the future, but they are too new. And the procurement process is on the side of the government. As long as they have a "justification" for the award, there is nothing to prove that anything fraudulent occurred.
Plus, deposing is typically done by the procurement officers, not the president, since as noted above, the president is not involved in procurement selections.
You think that's ok? You think federal contracts should be awarded based on the president's petty squabbles?
You think it's ok for a president to intimidate a judge?
What you or I think is irrelevant...I realize it probably does happen (now and in the past), its not 'right' or fair, but life is unfair, especially the world of politics and federal contracts, Im sure there has been plenty of corruption and collusion involved in attaining the winning bid...thats just how it is.
Bezos clearly wasn't paying attention during the Browser Wars, especially where it concerns Micro$oft. Gates went down this path, albeit not nearly as aggressively or personally as Bezos, and got pimp slapped for it. Then he learned how to play he game with keeping the skids greased, until he sorta forgot when he got Jobs bent over on their deal, but he went back and regreased those skids, and has been pretty harmonious with Leviathan ever since.
Bezos, unlike the government whose CEO he is currently antagonizing, has limited resources and even further limited powers. The person he is going after has nearly unlimited resources and power. He'll find out in a hurry what Gates' pimp slap from the early 90s felt like, because one is headed his way. You play nice with Leviathan, or you get steamrolled by Leviathan. Choose.
I understand the procurement process too. But I think a lot of federal employees are afraid to cross Trump. If they had picked Amazon after all of T's railing against them, T would turn his twittering against the procurement team. They don't need that kind of attention. T intimidates (bullies) people to get what he wants. It is disgusting (IMO).
Trump is not involved in procurement and if he was, they'd note it in their files. I've done the same thing whereas an ED (executive director) decided to over step boundaries and indicated that they wanted to chose a different company versus what the committee had decided upon. I did what they said since they threatened me and afterwards I noted that in the file/record and when we received an audit and a protest by multiple vendors, that ED was fired because of the note in my file. I was not. Procurement officers know what to do to not take the fall for an executive. Amazon filing in court probably has already asked for all of the determining information for the selection process (there is a process to do a protest and that is the first step - doing an FOIA request on that RFP). If there were anything of note it would have been released. This seems more like Amazon whining IMO than anything else.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TwoByFour
LOL. Bezos can out-lawyer the US government any day of the week. His claim has solid merit - AWS was the front runner until Trump interfered. Trump is not the king. Good for Bezos to put Trump in his place.
On this, I'm goiing to be blunt and tell you that you are tripping. No corporation can "out lawyer" the US government lol. I noted I worked in government agencies, I've also been a consultant for government orgnaizations/agencies where we worked with them on cases of various types. I am no longer in those positions and some of those cases are still tied up in the courts lol. This was 10 years ago. One I remember was filed in 2009 and I got word that the agency won in 2018. An entire wing of the government (the State Department) are lawyers who work on salary and don't costs $1000-$20,000 an hour like Amazon's lawyers as they'll have to hire outside counsel in most instances.
This post speaks volume. On one hand the Dems criticize Trump for not paying tax, on another hand, every presidential candidate wants to raise tax to fund Medicare for all, etc..
I never wanted to see Trump's taxes for how much tax he paid, I wanted to see how much he gave to charities. But then I don't claim to be a Democrat.
Buttigieg and Klobuchar don't want to raise taxes to pay for Medicare-for-all, so your statement about "all the candidates want to raise taxes for Medicare for all" is false.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
