‘Making Amazon look bad’: Microsoft supports a state tax on businesses(seattletimes.com)
seattletimes.com
‘Making Amazon look bad’: Microsoft supports a state tax on businesses
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/making-amazon-look-bad-the-unique-and-welcome-way-microsoft-is-getting-amazons-goat/
73 comments
>I do not understand how people can not understand that a percentage tax, by it's definition, does have the largest companies pay more.
They don't understand it because it isn't true on a proportional basis (and in some cases on an absolute dollar value basis, too).
Larger companies have access to tax avoidance strategies which are unavailable to smaller companies[1] which substantially changes the calculus.
I've gone through the books of plenty LargeCos. The playing field is not even.
[1] issues include inability to finance high-end tax structuring advice, writing of grants or negotiate valuations, lack of ability to amortize risk associated with an unfavourable tax ruling, lack of capital to access directorship services in tax havens etc.
They don't understand it because it isn't true on a proportional basis (and in some cases on an absolute dollar value basis, too).
Larger companies have access to tax avoidance strategies which are unavailable to smaller companies[1] which substantially changes the calculus.
I've gone through the books of plenty LargeCos. The playing field is not even.
[1] issues include inability to finance high-end tax structuring advice, writing of grants or negotiate valuations, lack of ability to amortize risk associated with an unfavourable tax ruling, lack of capital to access directorship services in tax havens etc.
Why is that important?
I have two taxpayers, Roy the rich ($1000 / month) and Peter the poor ($100 / month). Today we will have a 10% flat tax. Peter pays $10. Roy pays $100. The total tax take is $110 and Roy is paying 91% of it.
If we imagine a 'comfortable' lifestyle costs $200/month then there is an argument against using this flat tax system, but it is difficult to escape from the fact that Roy is doing almost all the heavy lifting from the who-is-funding-society perspective. Even if Roy has a very good team of accountants and is managing to only pay 5% of his income in tax (grossly unfair!) he would still be paying 83% of the total tax take (50 / 60). If we use percentages, the rich are going to be paying for most of what the government does, whether they pay personally or through corporate tax.
Most people overestimate how profitable companies are, the economics of business tend to squeeze margins. I've seen a lot of arguments in Australia whinging that not enough taxes are paid by companies like Quantas because they don't understand concepts like depreciation and carrying losses forward. Those concepts are quite fair once it is accepted that maybe assets take a few years life in them before they need to be replaced.
EDIT Bit slow this morning, I figured out what you meant by proportional basis.
I have two taxpayers, Roy the rich ($1000 / month) and Peter the poor ($100 / month). Today we will have a 10% flat tax. Peter pays $10. Roy pays $100. The total tax take is $110 and Roy is paying 91% of it.
If we imagine a 'comfortable' lifestyle costs $200/month then there is an argument against using this flat tax system, but it is difficult to escape from the fact that Roy is doing almost all the heavy lifting from the who-is-funding-society perspective. Even if Roy has a very good team of accountants and is managing to only pay 5% of his income in tax (grossly unfair!) he would still be paying 83% of the total tax take (50 / 60). If we use percentages, the rich are going to be paying for most of what the government does, whether they pay personally or through corporate tax.
Most people overestimate how profitable companies are, the economics of business tend to squeeze margins. I've seen a lot of arguments in Australia whinging that not enough taxes are paid by companies like Quantas because they don't understand concepts like depreciation and carrying losses forward. Those concepts are quite fair once it is accepted that maybe assets take a few years life in them before they need to be replaced.
EDIT Bit slow this morning, I figured out what you meant by proportional basis.
There's multiple glaring problems with your example, but the main issue for the economy is that Peter the poor spends a much larger proportion of his income as a necessity to survive.
Society as a whole benefits from Peter the poor paying proportionally less in taxes because Roy the rich simply does not consume the same proportion of his income (let's keep in mind, that in real life, Roy is 100,000 times richer than Pete, not 10x). Taxing Roy proportionately more is not only the ethical thing to do, but also the rational thing to do if you want a strong economy.
These policies aren't about what you find fair, they're in place because they are what make society prosperous.
Society as a whole benefits from Peter the poor paying proportionally less in taxes because Roy the rich simply does not consume the same proportion of his income (let's keep in mind, that in real life, Roy is 100,000 times richer than Pete, not 10x). Taxing Roy proportionately more is not only the ethical thing to do, but also the rational thing to do if you want a strong economy.
These policies aren't about what you find fair, they're in place because they are what make society prosperous.
There seems to be a repeated response to what I said, so I'll just respond once. The fix for companies using loopholes to avoid taxes is not to raise the tax rate. The fix is to remove the loopholes.
>The fix is to remove the loopholes.
Is it, though? This is a situation where Chesterton's Fence is important to consider.
No single government regulates tax worldwide, and each is iteratively attempting to balance a multitude of concerns, while remaining competitive to capital.
Additionally, many of the loopholes aren't legislative tax exemptions on the books. They're determinations regarding how and when certain things are recognized on the books. 'Fixing' those problems doesn't 'remove' loopholes. It just creates new rules which are then exploited.
Finally, with respect to tax simplification in general: Simplifying the tax code is akin to refactoring code. Sure, there are some areas where it could be engaged in without causing problems (and which would result in efficiency gains!), but much of the appeal of refactoring code lies in how we ignore the tricky edge cases when designing a new utopic system in our heads.
The legal project of re-digesting a highly complicated body of law and producing a more functional version would take, at the very least, a decade of work. So now we're hitting the complexity limits of an administration's compute ability too. Shit.
All in all: it's a bit harder than that. I wish you were right, though.
Is it, though? This is a situation where Chesterton's Fence is important to consider.
No single government regulates tax worldwide, and each is iteratively attempting to balance a multitude of concerns, while remaining competitive to capital.
Additionally, many of the loopholes aren't legislative tax exemptions on the books. They're determinations regarding how and when certain things are recognized on the books. 'Fixing' those problems doesn't 'remove' loopholes. It just creates new rules which are then exploited.
Finally, with respect to tax simplification in general: Simplifying the tax code is akin to refactoring code. Sure, there are some areas where it could be engaged in without causing problems (and which would result in efficiency gains!), but much of the appeal of refactoring code lies in how we ignore the tricky edge cases when designing a new utopic system in our heads.
The legal project of re-digesting a highly complicated body of law and producing a more functional version would take, at the very least, a decade of work. So now we're hitting the complexity limits of an administration's compute ability too. Shit.
All in all: it's a bit harder than that. I wish you were right, though.
Chesterton’s Fence would apply to tax rates and new taxes as well.
Why not both? People selling physical goods bake a certain percentage of shrinkange into the price of their goods whilst also finding new ways to prevent theft.
A decent chunk of the tax savings from loopholes is channeled back into preventing those loopholes from closing.
[deleted]
I do not understand how people can not understand that a percentage tax, by it's definition, does have the largest companies pay more.
I do not understand how people can not understand that the largest companies pay a lot of money to structure their taxes so that they pay proportionately less of their income in taxes than smaller companies do despite deriving significantly more economic benefits from the stable economic system those taxes enable.
Also, the percentage tax does not by definition mean that the largest companies pay more. It means that the most profitable companies (on an income tax basis) pay more taxes on an absolute basis than a similarly-sized company that makes less profit. However, Apple, Google, and GE are all (or at least in GE's case, was) highly-profitable companies that pay ridiculously low taxes for their profit because their "taxable" income is significantly less than their economic income.
I do not understand how people can not understand that the largest companies pay a lot of money to structure their taxes so that they pay proportionately less of their income in taxes than smaller companies do despite deriving significantly more economic benefits from the stable economic system those taxes enable.
Also, the percentage tax does not by definition mean that the largest companies pay more. It means that the most profitable companies (on an income tax basis) pay more taxes on an absolute basis than a similarly-sized company that makes less profit. However, Apple, Google, and GE are all (or at least in GE's case, was) highly-profitable companies that pay ridiculously low taxes for their profit because their "taxable" income is significantly less than their economic income.
[deleted]
> I do not understand how people can not understand that the largest companies pay a lot of money to structure their taxes so that they pay proportionately less of their income in taxes than smaller companies do despite deriving significantly more economic benefits from the stable economic system those taxes enable.
I understand it that just fine. I just prefer to fix the problem, not the symptom.
I understand it that just fine. I just prefer to fix the problem, not the symptom.
With apologies to Tony Hoare:
> There are two ways of constructing a corporate tax system: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no loopholes, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious loopholes.
> There are two ways of constructing a corporate tax system: One way is to make it so simple that there are obviously no loopholes, and the other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious loopholes.
I'm quite sure that the President and CLO of Microsoft who said that understands exactly what he said. "More" in context means more than they're doing now. Not "do more than a lemonade stand that made $200 last quarter," which no shit, they're doing already.
Amazon nearly doubled its profits to $11.2 billion in 2018 from $5.6 billion the previous year and didn’t pay a single cent of federal income taxes.
They will have paid a lot in payroll taxes and sales taxes. Their employees will have paid taxes on their income as well.
I say this because when people make a simplistic statement about a company not paying much or any taxes on profits a lot of people are mislead into believing the company is somehow not contributing to government revenue. Which is obviously not the case at all.
I say this because when people make a simplistic statement about a company not paying much or any taxes on profits a lot of people are mislead into believing the company is somehow not contributing to government revenue. Which is obviously not the case at all.
Why is personal taxes of the employee considered taxes paid by the company?
If it's fair for a company to have the legal rights of a person, it's only fair they pay the same rate of taxes as a natural person.
If the share holders of the company is legally indemnify against the debts/risks of the company, then they shall also pay their fair share of taxes, and should not deduct it from the already paid portion of company tax. So this way, if you want legal protection of a limited liability corp, you have to pay double taxes. But if you accept legal responsibility if the company, then you don't get double taxed.
If it's fair for a company to have the legal rights of a person, it's only fair they pay the same rate of taxes as a natural person.
If the share holders of the company is legally indemnify against the debts/risks of the company, then they shall also pay their fair share of taxes, and should not deduct it from the already paid portion of company tax. So this way, if you want legal protection of a limited liability corp, you have to pay double taxes. But if you accept legal responsibility if the company, then you don't get double taxed.
I'm simply putting out there that a ton of the revenue Amazon takes in ends up as government revenue.
I don't really have an opinion on anything else you're talking about.
I don't really have an opinion on anything else you're talking about.
Maybe because they see that Amazon (and other companies) paid nothing in federal taxes last year despite federal taxes being a percentage tax.
i don't think it takes any effort to make amazon look bad
yet there's no competitor even close to capturing its marketplace share
Mom + pop e-commerce retail sites are dying
Jet/Walmart capture what percentage of market share? If I had to guess, it'd be like... 5%?
Mom + pop e-commerce retail sites are dying
Jet/Walmart capture what percentage of market share? If I had to guess, it'd be like... 5%?
How much tax are you going to get when Amazon shifts to HQ2? Bezos deliberately started Amazon here in Washington because there was no state tax.
I’ve been an Amazon employee and I’ve paid a lot of taxes here and have seen the government waste that money. Our property tax has gone up by hundreds of dollars a month and our schools, roads, and police forces are still in disarray. I don’t mind paying tax as long as it’s ised effectively and efficiently.
I’ve been an Amazon employee and I’ve paid a lot of taxes here and have seen the government waste that money. Our property tax has gone up by hundreds of dollars a month and our schools, roads, and police forces are still in disarray. I don’t mind paying tax as long as it’s ised effectively and efficiently.
Property and sales tax are necessary in Washington in lieu of an income tax.
If you live in Seattle, schooling, roads and even the police aren’t that bad (compared to other cities), heck, you can choose to live in Bellevue where all those things are better (though at the cost of being boring). In general, taxes get used pretty darn well in WA, at least compared to other states.
If you live in Seattle, schooling, roads and even the police aren’t that bad (compared to other cities), heck, you can choose to live in Bellevue where all those things are better (though at the cost of being boring). In general, taxes get used pretty darn well in WA, at least compared to other states.
> police aren’t that bad (compared to other cities)
You mean the police department that was investigated by the DOJ for being engaged in a "pattern or pratice" of violating constitutional rights through excessive force, specifically against minorities?
The same police department that turns a blind eye to _any_ property crime?
Just making sure that we're talking about the same Seattle Police Department here. SPD has been a disgrace for the past 10+ years.
In fairness, they are improving IMO.
You mean the police department that was investigated by the DOJ for being engaged in a "pattern or pratice" of violating constitutional rights through excessive force, specifically against minorities?
The same police department that turns a blind eye to _any_ property crime?
Just making sure that we're talking about the same Seattle Police Department here. SPD has been a disgrace for the past 10+ years.
In fairness, they are improving IMO.
1) i presume youre talking about the consent decree and mou dating from ~2011. Which spd has been in full conpliance with. And IIRC this is the last year of “sustainment” monitoring.
2) thats SPD abiding by prosecutor enforcement priorities. Go ask the king county DA why they dismissed 1500 misdemeanors last year, why they wont prosecute theft or vandalism, or why illegal firearm possession is book and release.
2) thats SPD abiding by prosecutor enforcement priorities. Go ask the king county DA why they dismissed 1500 misdemeanors last year, why they wont prosecute theft or vandalism, or why illegal firearm possession is book and release.
> why illegal firearm possession is book and release.
Wait, seriously?
Wait, seriously?
Relative to other cities, the SPD isn’t bad. They are putting up with typical boom town problems, but that is really nothing new for Seattle given its historically enhanced position in the boom/bust cycle.
I've heard Chicago and LA have it worse, and the taxes pay for it.
People do often complain about the property taxes in Washington, which always makes me chuckle, because I grew up in New Jersey:
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest...
https://wallethub.com/edu/states-with-the-highest-and-lowest...
If he can convince thousands and thousands of employees to pack up everything and move across the country on a whim, then he can go ahead. No stopping that.
Washington state has already been through this shit with Boeing.
Washington state has already been through this shit with Boeing.
Well, if you move to New Jersey you will be in for a surprise with your property taxes. This tax proposal hits the corporation, not the employees. And its laughable, and shameful, how little tax Amazon pays.
[deleted]
These tax hikes are protectionist and designed to stifle american business so that asian and european tech sectors can be more competitive.
Isn't the general argument that state taxes mean almost nothing to businesses like Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon, et al (in Washington State) but are actually a huge pain in the ass for small/mid-size businesses? The quote featured in this headline underscores an editorial bias that is pro-Microsoft (who keeps their campus in the suburb of Renton) and anti-Amazon (the scapegoat for rising Seattle real estate).
>Isn't the general argument that state taxes mean almost nothing to businesses like Boeing, Microsoft, Amazon, et al (in Washington State) but are actually a huge pain in the ass for small/mid-size businesses?
"The bill proposes increasing the state business and occupation tax by 20 percent on about 40 categories of technical services, such as telecom, engineering, medical and finance. And by 33 percent on tech firms with more than $25 billion in annual revenue.
But here’s where this goes off the charts, into politically unheard-of territory. It mandates a top rate, a whopping 67 percent business tax increase, for those “advanced computing businesses” with “worldwide gross revenue of more than one hundred billion dollars” per year."
Not sure if you read more than the headline but I don't think this bill targets small/mid-size businesses.
"The bill proposes increasing the state business and occupation tax by 20 percent on about 40 categories of technical services, such as telecom, engineering, medical and finance. And by 33 percent on tech firms with more than $25 billion in annual revenue.
But here’s where this goes off the charts, into politically unheard-of territory. It mandates a top rate, a whopping 67 percent business tax increase, for those “advanced computing businesses” with “worldwide gross revenue of more than one hundred billion dollars” per year."
Not sure if you read more than the headline but I don't think this bill targets small/mid-size businesses.
That's true, but what is the rate now?
If it's going from 3% to 5% that's not as bad as 10 to 17 or whatever.
If it's going from 3% to 5% that's not as bad as 10 to 17 or whatever.
The B&0 tax is off the top based on gross revenue generated in Washington state. For my small company, 5% would put me out of business. I don't recall the exact rate we pay but it's nowhere near five.
Most of the Microsoft main campus is in Redmond, not Renton. They have some buildings in Bellevue and Seattle. But as far as I know, Microsoft has no office space at all in Renton.
Reminds me of this classic Almost Live segment about the 425 area code switch over: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=V9jlo4Ht2YA
At the end, an east side Bellevue woman snobbishly complains about 425 containing Renton.
At the end, an east side Bellevue woman snobbishly complains about 425 containing Renton.
Or this one ("Cops in Redmond"): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7pxGDSucCEI
> And if you cannot afford a lawyer...well, uh, what are you doing living in Redmond? Maybe you meant Renton? They do sound similar, Redmond, Renton...
Also, Pat Cashman is a treasure. "Did you have to dial a one...before?"
> And if you cannot afford a lawyer...well, uh, what are you doing living in Redmond? Maybe you meant Renton? They do sound similar, Redmond, Renton...
Also, Pat Cashman is a treasure. "Did you have to dial a one...before?"
Ya, and the communities are so different. The only time an east sider will intentionally go to Renton is if they need to go to IKEA (unless they work for Boeing or Wizards of the Coast).
Looking back on Almost Live, its local humor is an unintentional treasure of what Seattle was like in the 90's.
Correct. I live in Renton, which is very far and terrible drive to redmond 6:15-10 am and from redmond 2pm-6:30pm.
They might have a marketing area, but I haven't seen it in the downtown area.
They might have a marketing area, but I haven't seen it in the downtown area.
> I don’t know what’s gotten into Microsoft lately. Remember when it was the Death Star, monopolistically glowering over technopolis and threatening to cut off the air supply of competitors and regulators alike?
Microsoft is a relative underdog now (among the tech giants). Underdogs tend to benefit more, personally, from the greater good, and also have less clout with which to push others around. This makes them come off as being more humble, and if they're smart they lean into that image in their public relations. Just look at AMD and T-Mobile.
With this move Microsoft is trying to fertilize a shared resource, investing some of its own money but also hoping to pressure Amazon - the company it's trying to get a leg up on - to invest alongside it. Amazon has less need for the shared resource and would have to contribute a greater amount to it. On top of that, Microsoft gets some positive PR. It's a smart move.
Edit: I've been informed that Microsoft is currently #1 in market cap, so not an underdog overall. They feel like an underdog in most isolated product categories, but maybe this really is purely a PR move.
Microsoft is a relative underdog now (among the tech giants). Underdogs tend to benefit more, personally, from the greater good, and also have less clout with which to push others around. This makes them come off as being more humble, and if they're smart they lean into that image in their public relations. Just look at AMD and T-Mobile.
With this move Microsoft is trying to fertilize a shared resource, investing some of its own money but also hoping to pressure Amazon - the company it's trying to get a leg up on - to invest alongside it. Amazon has less need for the shared resource and would have to contribute a greater amount to it. On top of that, Microsoft gets some positive PR. It's a smart move.
Edit: I've been informed that Microsoft is currently #1 in market cap, so not an underdog overall. They feel like an underdog in most isolated product categories, but maybe this really is purely a PR move.
> Microsoft is a relative underdog now (among the tech giants).
Microsoft is currently the largest company in the world by market cap.
Microsoft is currently the largest company in the world by market cap.
Hmm, that's surprising. It has a dodgy foothold in mobile, Amazon (and possibly also Google?) has it beat in cloud services, Google Docs has taken a chunk of Office's territory, Chrome OS is overtaking Windows in education, Mobile+Apple+Chrome OS are swallowing it in personal computing and (I believe) gaining some ground even in enterprise. It doesn't seem like Microsoft has dominance in anything but desktop OS right now.
It's just a general perception, as a casual observer, that Microsoft has been ceding lots of territory lately and not really gaining much.
It's just a general perception, as a casual observer, that Microsoft has been ceding lots of territory lately and not really gaining much.
I think of them as the trust fund babies among the tech giants. A lot of people who have actually worked on both Azure and AWS/Google Cloud remark that Azure is awful in comparison, but its their only option because (some reason which ties back to Microsoft's dominance 15+ years ago). In search, after MSN Search, Windows Live Search, Bing Rewards and what not, Microsoft still didn't really put a dent into Google's marketshare. In mobile, they are an also ran. They had to do a 180 on their open source policy to come back to relevance. In other words, if you took away their OS/Office stronghold, it is hard to see them actually competing and winning in any business which has strong competitors.
Which reminds me. I knew some folks who worked at Microsoft who used to talk about open source as if it was cancer - in 2005. Now they display equal enthusiasm for the opposite view. If you have actually seen it, it looks quite like a comedy scene from one of those movies which spoof corporate life, where all employees act gung-ho no matter what.
Which reminds me. I knew some folks who worked at Microsoft who used to talk about open source as if it was cancer - in 2005. Now they display equal enthusiasm for the opposite view. If you have actually seen it, it looks quite like a comedy scene from one of those movies which spoof corporate life, where all employees act gung-ho no matter what.
I'll just provide.an anecdotal counterpoint in that I've used GCP, AWS, and Oracle cloud, and Azure is night and day a better experience.
Where are your casually observing eyes focused? If Hacker News is your main internet watering hole, maybe expansion is called for...
I just... I miss the old Hacker news... This isn't reddit...
Microsoft used to be a boxed software business, now they're transitioning to saas. It's really that simple.
Right, but Amazon and Google are arguably better than them at SaaS. AWS is second to none for cloud hosting, and Google is second to none for AI.
I think Microsoft is the best SaaS provider overall. Google has some quirky offerings with GSuites that honestly arent comparable to other enterprise offerings from a quality perspective- especially if you are used to Office, Outlook and AD. And when it comes to cloud computing Google is a distant third.
Microsoft understands customer service though, and Google refuses to learn. Surely that’s relevant to SaaS.
Cloud hosting isn't SaaS. Think productivity, CRM, business apps ...
Only if you ignore the categories of software where Microsoft leads -- Active Directory and Office 365 are SaaS offerings that Microsoft has that are seeing massive adoption, and Microsoft is using that to leverage businesses onto their other cloud offerings.
Google is second to none for AI.
Definitely going to disagree there. While Google has done more work on commercializing piss-poor AI, MS Research has been at the forefront of AI research since before Google learned how to make money. Google is definitely the second fiddle when it comes to AI research, and it's not even close.
Definitely going to disagree there. While Google has done more work on commercializing piss-poor AI, MS Research has been at the forefront of AI research since before Google learned how to make money. Google is definitely the second fiddle when it comes to AI research, and it's not even close.
What metric are we basing on here?
Since I'm arguing from the research standpoint, published research or citations by other research.
Really? Try Office 365 vs Google Docs and get back to me! There's no comparison. Microsoft is better.
Maybe it's just better diversified than its competitors, and it's only an underdog in each individual product category (except desktop OS, for now at least), and not as a whole.
They have shown a remarkable ability to survive complete paradigm changes, keep growing and stay profitable. The FAANGs still have to prove that.
It's not surprising if you pay attention.
> Amazon (and possibly also Google?) has it beat in cloud services
No, not google.
> Amazon (and possibly also Google?) has it beat in cloud services
No, not google.
[deleted]
>Microsoft is a relative underdog now (among the tech giants).
How do you define a Tech giant?
By Market cap they are #1. Here are top 5.
1. Microsoft $895B 2. Apple $888B 3. Amazon $867B 4. Google $816B 5. Facebook $473B
They have been in top 3 for last 30 years with a robust business model. They missed on Mobile and search but hey it would be hard for any tech company to top in each market.
How do you define a Tech giant?
By Market cap they are #1. Here are top 5.
1. Microsoft $895B 2. Apple $888B 3. Amazon $867B 4. Google $816B 5. Facebook $473B
They have been in top 3 for last 30 years with a robust business model. They missed on Mobile and search but hey it would be hard for any tech company to top in each market.
Settling for #2 in search and cloud isn't exactly a bad consolation prize.
> Microsoft is a relative underdog now
How so? According to NASDAQ, MSFT is valued higher than all of the FAANG companies. It's north of $900B right now.
How so? According to NASDAQ, MSFT is valued higher than all of the FAANG companies. It's north of $900B right now.
If that's what people believe, it's brilliant! Part of the strategy of Apple's resurrection was making people think they were the little guy; the hip, cool alternative for people who "think different." Now Microsoft can play the same game.
As of right now, MSFT market cap is $895B and AAPL is $888B. Some underdog!
As of right now, MSFT market cap is $895B and AAPL is $888B. Some underdog!
> Microsoft is a relative underdog now (among the tech giants)
lol
lol
Underdog? It's the largest company by market cap in the world. That can be viewed as being the most successful company there is (over time).
They sure do a lot of things right lately though.
They sure do a lot of things right lately though.
I do not understand how people can not understand that a percentage tax, by it's definition, does have the largest companies pay more.