Meanwhile, individuals are paying 20–50% income tax.
What a wonderful world.
It cost money to "train" engineers , better use taxpayer money to train those damn "human ressource" rather than those 300Billions of Profit.
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.
Call it what you will, add up the local taxes and registration fees and and and people may as well be in Europe instead of the States...
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.
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%).
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.
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.
In Europe they've bribed most of the school systems so computing is basically just Word and Excel.
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.
- 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)
You can verify in the link below: 330K federal taxes, 106K state, 30K FICA (employee contribution) and 30K FICA (employer contribution)
That adds up to 496K / $1M in taxes on income, or effective rate of 49.6%. If you're married, however, that drops to ~45% effective.