New York Wants To Tax Internet Downloads 485
An anonymous reader writes "NY is considering taxing 'video and music' downloads to offset a burgeoning budget deficit." How long before we all have meters on our routers? This version is just a 4% tax on movies and songs downloaded from services like iTunes, but I'm sure if they could figure out a bit tax, they would.
Old news is old (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Old news is old (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Old news is old (Score:5, Insightful)
*sigh* I agree...BUT: Why should there be a tax on Internet traffic for any reason? I mean a true, cogent reason? New York has contributed nothing so why should it profit from that which it has contributed nothing to? Secondly it offers no protectionism. This is taxation without representation. Thirdly how much tax dollars is wasted in New York and given to the rich? Fourth what is the purpose of a Federal Tax deduction if it's going to be added to state and local taxes? Fifth if New York is going to raise taxes then it shouldn't get any bailout money because it contradicts what the Federal Government is doing?
There needs to be correspondence between what the Fed does and State and Local Governments are doing in order for the stimulus to work. We can't pull two different directions. Taxing downloads is an invasion of privacy anyway. It's not about pr0n it's about taxation without representation. The reality is tax money as well as tax deductions are given to corporations for the purposes of conventions centers and etc... which does nothing for the areas except deplete taxes for the purpose of benefiting rich corporations. They claim to make jobs, however the jobs do not pay a living wage and further taxes the economy through social programs.
Enough is enough!
=Smidge=
Re:Old news is old (Score:5, Funny)
New York has contributed nothing so why should it profit from that which it has contributed nothing to?
Nonsense. New York has given us Credit Default Swaps.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I beg to differ: This is taxation by our representation, at least for those in New York. Please refrain from hyperbole.
Now, whether or not the entire NY State Congress should be first against the wall when the revolution comes is another matter entirely *grin*.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, whether or not the entire NY State Congress should be first against the wall when the revolution comes is another matter entirely *grin*.
If you want to put the New York State Legislature up against the wall after the revolution you'd have a lot of New Yorkers volunteering to serve on the firing squad. Can we start with Sheldon Silver?
Re:Old news is old (Score:5, Insightful)
New York has contributed nothing so why should it profit from that which it has contributed nothing to?
This amounts to nothing more than a sales tax on internet commerce. Don't act so surprised. You didn't honestly think government was going to sit idly by, forever passing up yet another opportunity to milk taxpayers for all they're worth, did you?
On a different note, I found the following excerpt from TFA quite hilarious.
But not everyone is on board with the idea of profiting off porn. The chairman of New York's Conservative Party says that taxing it legitimizes it.
The National Republican Congressional Committee had no problem taking money from the porn industry [cbsnews.com] at a 2005 fundraiser attended by President Bush.
Christian evangelical leaders called for an explanation. The only one they got, at least in public, was from a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, who said: "We'll take that money and use it to elect more Republicans."
I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning. It smells like... politics.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Money spent on cyber-crap takes away from irl-crap purchased in NY state. Who would pay $107 for your books at a brick and mortar bookstore when you can get them for $100 for them (with free shipping) on amazon.com?
2. Poor people don't have the wherewithal to purchase things on the internet. So taxing goods purchased irl while not taxing cyperspace transactions becomes a very regressive tax.
Re:Old news is old (Score:5, Interesting)
Most online retailers hate New York because we have horrible taxes, I believe NewEgg stopped requiring users to pay the tax in NY which caused them some issues. This will only exacerbate the intertube hatred of NY
You wouldn't think that a state could tax interstate trade, but if NewEgg (which appears to operate out of California) really did experience "issues" then I have a solution to that. Nothing would get the attention of the state of New York quite like every out-of-state online retailer refusing to sell to any NY resident or to ship items to a NY address. When customers complain, refer them to the problems NewEgg experienced and encourage them to take it up with the NY state legislature. The point is to make this an utter failure. That's definitely in our interests because if NY does this successfully, you can count on other states following suit.
If this happened, I doubt it would have to happen more than once to put an end to this sort of BS. Just imagine the precedent it would set.
Re:Old news is old (Score:5, Informative)
Well, the precedent would last until some retailer sued the state in federal court on the exact grounds you've brought up - regulation of interstate commerce is a matter explicitly reserved by the federal government.
Re:Old news is old (Score:5, Informative)
"You wouldn't think that a state could tax interstate trade"
A little known fact is that the 'sales tax' is more a 'use tax'. If someone in NY drives to PA to by cloths and save the tax money they are legally required to pay NY taxes on it (few actually do this). This is why NY (outside of the City) is dying, its not just Buffalo but everywhere except Albany (seat of state government) is hurting. Taxes in NY are just way to high for business to start setting up shop and competing with neighboring states.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
California has the same thing, I just found out. We are required to cite "out of state" purchases that we didn't pay sales taxes on and pay sales tax on it. It is very, very stupid.
Re:Old news is old (Score:5, Insightful)
and Connecticut too. I list untaxed internet purchases when I do my tax returns. Sales tax keeps our states running!
Then give me a complete refund on my income taxes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Hey, Atlas... (Score:3, Interesting)
Nothing would get the attention of the state of New York quite like every out-of-state online retailer refusing to sell to any NY resident or to ship items to a NY address.
*shrug*
Re:Old news is old (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I'm just lame with your annoying legal policies, but I fail to see how materially, a tax shouldn't be applied on internet purchases vs. store-fronts. In fact, by not supporting online taxation, your punishing local retailers that are legally obligated to charge you.
If this keeps up, you'll simply speed up the death of all brick and mortar stores and further kill your dwindling retail markets. It may not be SOOO bad for the consumer (besides the ability to walk into a store and purchase something), but It'll mean a hell of a lot less jobs for those retail peeps.
Re:Old news is old (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe I'm just lame with your annoying legal policies, but I fail to see how materially, a tax shouldn't be applied on internet purchases vs. store-fronts. In fact, by not supporting online taxation, your punishing local retailers that are legally obligated to charge you.
Local retailers receive a bunch of services from the local and state governments: police protection, roads, etc. Internet retailers do not.
Besides, it's reasonable for a local retailer to support one taxing jurisdiction. It isn't reasonable for an internet retailer to support thousands of us.
Re:Old news is old (Score:5, Informative)
Um? My guess would be:
a) Via the internet, which you pay for
b) Via postal mail, which you pay for
c) By plane, train, or automotive, for which the fuel surtax and others are paid for by the transporter and then considered as part of the bill paid for in (b)
Re:Old news is old (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>Maybe I'm just lame with your annoying legal policies, but I fail to see how materially, a tax shouldn't be applied on internet purchases vs. store-fronts.
>>>
Based upon your answer I'm going to assume you are non-American. For the New York Legislature to force a California or other state business to file taxes with New York, is equivalent to the British parliament collecting taxes from a German business. Just as a German citizen is not subject to foreign British taxation, neither is a
Re:Old news is old (Score:4, Insightful)
It's worse than that. Once states get their piece, counties and cities will want to get in on it as well.
I work for a company which does direct sales all over the US, and we collect taxes on all of it to any jurisdiction. Between tracking and remitting taxes to every potential entity we spend A LOT of money just keeping up with taxes at numerous levels. And that's when we're not being audited. Add a tax audit and the work involved becomes insane.
Compliance costs would completely drive small web shops out of business. As with most things government does "for the good of the people" the unintended consequences of online taxes would help out massive corporations everywhere who could easily eat the costs involved while punishing the small business.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
>>>if NewEgg (which appears to operate out of California) really did experience "issues" then I have a solution to that. Nothing would get the attention of the state of New York quite like every out-of-state online retailer refusing to sell to any NY resident
>>>
I have a better solution. As a PA ebay seller I'm supposed to file sales tax forms with New York State. I continue selling to NY residents, but to the NY Legislature I say, "Fuck off. No taxation without representation in your le
Re:Old news is old (Score:4, Informative)
The upside (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Since 99% of home users don't understand what is going on, all it would mean is more computers would be going to the shop for simple cleanings.
Interesting. (Score:4, Interesting)
If more boxes are going to the shop to be cleaned, that means those shops would be hiring more cleaning techs. At least in theory.
Not to mention the sales tax on the cleaning service.
So, all in all, this just MIGHT help their local economy.
Re:Interesting. (Score:4, Interesting)
So, all in all, this just MIGHT help their local economy.
Helping local economies is about finding efficiencies and creating value where there wasn't previously. If cleaning people's computers ultimately saved them more time than the cost offset, then cleaning people's machines would help the local economy. My suspicion is that it would ultimately just be a drain... a tax on the uneducated that pays out to Best Buy.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
More likely, we'd see more computers going to the landfills, as users realize that its almost as cheap to purchase a new computer as to have the one you own serviced.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Since 99% of home users don't understand what is going on, all it would mean is more computers would be going to the shop for simple cleanings.
You say that like it is the users fault, however, poor documentation and complex UI design (although completely off topic) is equally, if not more at fault ..... Does a pilot ridicule you when you fly on his plane but don't understand the aerodynamics?
It is their fault.
Users can always decide that compromised security is absolutely unacceptable. Deciding that means they'll do whatever they have to do to prevent it. With that mindset, poor documentation and UI problems are merely inconvenient obstacles to be overcome and are not showstoppers. There is more than one well-maintained, reasonably secure computer on the Internet and only one is needed to prove that this can be done. It's just a matter of whether the user is going to passively wait aroun
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The downside would be that you actually pay for those 5MB webpages that would be 300k without the annoying advertisements everywhere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The Tax Man Cometh (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's about taxes. Logic is actively opposed. (Score:5, Interesting)
Think about it for a moment. We have enough processing power that we can tie taxes to specific projects at the fraction of a cent level.
Why not let the voters vote for projects AND the taxes to fund them? If they want another school, then they get a property tax increase of $3.15 on all property in area X.
If they want to fill in the pot holes on 1st Avenue then they increase the sales tax by 0.013%. And when the project is finished, the tax is repealed.
Let the people see EXACTLY what they're spending the money on.
If someone runs for office claiming to want to "cut taxes" then let them specify EXACTLY what projects will be cut and the people can see how much they'll be saving.
Re:It's about taxes. Logic is actively opposed. (Score:5, Insightful)
the tax is repealed.
Uh huh.
Just like every other "temporary" tax has been repealed.
Re:It's about taxes. Logic is actively opposed. (Score:4, Interesting)
They repealed the luxury tax on telephones a few years ago. It was enacted to pay for the Spanish-American war. So they do repeal them, but sometimes it takes 107 years. http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/06/5056.ars [arstechnica.com]
Great for increasing piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
No tax on torrents? Cool! Bye Bye iTunes.
That might make torrents a lot more dangerous for NY residents. Now, instead of being the civil tort of copyright infringement, it could be criminal tax evasion. I'm definitely not a lawyer so this is just my unqualified opinion, but this is exactly the sort of thing I've come to expect from government.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
If that were true they'd get all thieves on tax evasion, and as far as I know, they've never ever charged one with tax evasion for not paying the tax on a product they stole.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You do realize we already pay a tax for bandwidth.
Look at your internet bill.
Not a tax. (Score:4, Insightful)
You do realize we already pay a tax for bandwidth. Look at your internet bill.
Really? Because I thought it all just went to the ISP, which used it to upgrade their infrastructure^W^W^W hand out golden parachutes.
No problem for me (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah but then your md5/sha1 hashes will never verify...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How the states can get their sales taxes (Score:5, Funny)
Don't worry, with having to pay for the bail out and sundry little extra added expenses, you will soon see a simplified 1040 form:
1. How much money did you make?
2. Give it to us.
No need for complex calculations.
I want to see a provision in the stimulus package (Score:5, Insightful)
Why is this so hard to comprehend? (Score:2, Informative)
I believe that provision is in the bill (Score:5, Insightful)
right next to the part where Congress holds themselves to account.
Honestly, everything you attributed to NY and California is attributable to the Federal Government. Worse, they Feds have no restraint whereas states do. The Feds aren't even bothering to try and balance the budget.
Face it, through years of manipulation Congressmen have managed to lay the blame for all things at the feet of people who have money while themselves spending money they don't have.
Congressmen vilify the businessman who sends his kids to private school, flies private jets, and vacations overseas, all the while doing the same thing on our dime. Congress chides the business for laying off people, losing money, or asking for money, all the while doing the same thing.
Look, the majority has spoken, they want all they can get from those who make money while there is still some to get.
Re:I believe that provision is in the bill (Score:4, Insightful)
Congressmen vilify the businessman who sends his kids to private school, flies private jets, and vacations overseas, all the while doing the same thing on our dime.
Uhh....huh? I have never understood the divorce from reality on slashdot when it comes to politics. We have had EIGHT YEARS of congressmen in control who think being wealthy is a sign of supreme virtue. Anyone who points out that extreme disparity in wealth might not be a good thing is instantly vilified as a communist. Your point of view has been the majority one for years, and it has run this country into the ground. How dare you suddenly pretend to be a persecuted minority.
Re:I believe that provision is in the bill (Score:5, Insightful)
I suppose you're somehow showing the the poor old rich guys are getting beaten over the head with high taxation and the such, but you fail to explain or elaborate on how this hurts society as a whole?
It (raising taxes to punitive levels on the wealthy & corporations) hurts society on myriad levels.
The corporations don't pay taxes. Their customers do. Tax, like any business expense, is rolled into the price charged for products and services. This hurts the people who depend on the corporations' products and services.
If taxes & regulations rise to where the corporation must raise prices to the point where they become uncompetitive in the world economy, they simply leave the country in question for less-costly locations, taking all their jobs and tax revenue with them. This is why so many US corporations are either outright leaving, or moving operations out of the country and outsourcing jobs.
Individual rich people have even less reason to stay in a country where they must pay high tax rates. They simply move their money and then themselves away.
Eventually there is not enough of a tax base left able to pay taxes, the country finds itself with nobody willing to buy treasury notes to finance more debt, and the countries' economy collapses and the government soon follows. The US is currently in the run-up stage for the economic collapse portion as politicians continue to spend more money to buy votes to get re-elected, more and more rich people and US corporations flee to remain competitive and protect what they've worked hard for, and the available tax base shrinks.
Politicians, rather than attempting to correct the problems, borrow huge sums against future generations' livelihood in an attempt to prop up the house of cards long enough for them to extract their share of wealth, after which they simply don't care. Meanwhile they keep the population distracted with political sideshows, meaningless wedge issues, drugs, and bread & circuses. When it all comes crashing down, they'll be residing in mansions in a warmer clime, sipping drinks and enjoying the wealth they stole.
Unless people wake up, stop listening to the politicians' empty promises, storm the capitols with force of numbers, and take back their country. Being that most are too lazy, disconnected, cowardly, and distracted I have little faith this will happen.
Strat
Re:I want to see a provision in the stimulus packa (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The likes of California and New York clearly have no concept of what it means to "spend less,"
Yes, the above tax is stupid, but your comment is pretty silly too. I've loved living in California, where a salary that pays cost of living automatically puts me in a Jumbo mortgage and a high federal income tax bracket. I didn't hear anyone complaining about CA and NY when the economy was booming and people were using my tax dollars to pay for Nebraska farmers to NOT farm their land. Wait, they still are. How abo
Re:I want to see a provision in the stimulus packa (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I want to see a provision in the stimulus packa (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:I want to see a provision in the stimulus packa (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I want to see a provision in the stimulus packa (Score:5, Informative)
It isn't exactly true that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. For example, many illegal immigrants use a fake social security number so they can get a job. Just like any other worker, part of their income is withheld and sent to the government (especially FICA and payroll taxes). In fact, since they are using fake social security numbers, they can't file for any refund and often times end up paying more than they would have if they had been legal citizens (since many lower income workers end up receiving money back at tax time). While some illegal immigrants work under-the-table jobs and don't pay any income taxes, they still pay sales taxes and other non-income taxes. In addition, many illegal immigrants avoid taking advantage of social services out of fear of being deported, making them less likely to be a drain on these taxpayer-supported institutions.
While illegal immigration is a complex and vexing issue, do not make it out that illegals do not pay taxes. Here is a look at the issue: http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1424.html [taxfoundation.org]
Re:I want to see a provision in the stimulus packa (Score:5, Insightful)
California has almost 3 million illegals. That's almost 8% of the state's population who are not paying taxes,
You know, I hear this all the time here in TN, where we have a 9.25% sales tax and no state income tax. Maybe you can answer the question that your intellectual kinsmen here never can seem to answer.
Where is it that these illegals are buying groceries? And gasoline? Where do they live that there isn't a property tax? I'm serious when I ask this. I have to pay taxes on most stuff that I buy, but then I find out that illegals don't. Are they simply shopping at the same places as me, and producing an "illegal alien" identification card that lets them skip paying the taxes? Does the gas pump knock off the 18 cent federal tax and 21 cent state tax on gasoline if a car pulls up with an unlicensed driver? I've looked closely many times when Mexicans were getting gas and the pump shows the same $/gallon as my pump, but maybe that's to fool me and when they go to pay the cashier knocks the tax off?
Let me know, if you can. The mouthbreathing racists around here seem to turn into stroke victims when I ask them such questions.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know who you're debating with, but most of the people I talk with who are against "illegal immigrants" actually want loosened immigration restrictions so that a lot of these people who are here illegally can enter legally. I've heard calls for migrant visas and working holiday visas. Some of the most conservative guys I know also want a program to give green cards to foreign students studying science and engineering in the states.
I'm sorry that you live around a bunch of racist fucks, but a lot of
Re:I want to see a provision in the stimulus packa (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Grrrr (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Grrrr (Score:5, Insightful)
Time to go after the pork. Scaling the military-industrial complex down to a defensive level instead of an imperial level suddenly frees up nearly half our federal revenue. Imagine all the social programs that would benefit.
Re:Grrrr (Score:4, Informative)
Social programs are pork as well.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
In the middle are all the shades of gray, and each and everyone one of those shades has social programs they'd cut as unnecessary, so it's a little pretentious t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Says somebody who obviously never needed social programs. It's everybody's responsibility to uphold a civil society by helping the truly needy, because they would expect the same if they needed it.
I'm only speaking for myself. I would love to see my tax dollars go out and help people out, but only if it meant that those that are being helped would eventually become productive members of society. It does them no good if they only collected a cheque but were never in a position to help themselves. I've always felt that the point of having any social program was to send people assistance so that they could help themselves get back on their feet. Once they get back on their feet, they are then able to co
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously though, I don't see a decrease in our military spending anytime soon. Far too many people are making far too much money off it.
Re:Grrrr (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Um. Defense is one of those few things in the US Constitution that is MANDATED of the federal government. Unemployment checks are not.
IMO, the way it should go is this: We have $X dollars. We are required to do $Y and $Z, so let's do those first. After that, with our leftover money, let's do the social programs not required of us.
Right now, the government and most Americans seem to think the other way around. Social programs are more important than the Constitutional mandated actions of the federal gov
Re:Grrrr (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm sick of the attitude "we've got stuff to pay for and we need to figure out how to raise revenue to do it" regardless of how they choose to raise it. Here's a novel approach to government: we've got X dollars, how can we spend it to maximize the quality of life of our citizens? I don't get to randomly pull in more money from secondary sources if I decide I want a bigger TV this year, so why should the government?
That's easy. There's this common misconception that politicians don't understand things like balanced budgets. They do. They're power-hungry liars but otherwise they are not stupid. They know how to play this game and they know that the average person is far too trusting and naive.
The reason why they don't carefully spend our money and otherwise respect and honor the citizens is because there is no political power to be had by doing that. That is the nature of political power. I wish we'd be more open and honest about that instead of beating the drum of patriotism and claiming that the expansion of government is "for the children" or "for our safety". A minimal government that is fiscally responsible and leaves the citizens alone as much as possible just doesn't satisfy the sort of fevered egos who are attracted to positions of political power.
As a side note, to get a better idea of the sort of manipulation that goes on, just research "problem, reaction, solution" which is also known as Hegel's "thesis, antithesis, synthesis". If you can notice that pattern just one time you'll start seeing it everywhere. See that and patterns like it and perhaps then you, too can experience the joy of predicting the outcome of political "debates" in the media (it's easy -- whichever prefabricated solution does the most to expand government is the one that will probably "win") for people who neither believe you nor question the high success rate of your predictions. There's just not a lot of understanding of the idea that our politicians have been going down the same path for quite some time and that they intend to travel further down that same path.
porn tax (Score:5, Interesting)
TFA says that this will include a tax on porn, but not all of the lawmakers are on-board with the idea of taxing porn. Apparently taxing "legitimate" movies and music is fine, but a porn tax is bad.
Things that make you go hmmmm....
Porn Taxation (Score:3, Insightful)
fee on all music and video downloads â" including pornography. ... But not everyone is on board with the idea of profiting off porn. The chairman of New York's Conservative Party says that taxing it legitimizes it.
Evidently, giving porn a tax exemption wouldn't legitimize it at all.
Um... Isn't Wall Street in New York? (Score:2)
Y'know. Where ALL the money goes.
Hmmm. Lets tax internet downloads... Genius at work. Aren't you glad your representatives are as highly effective as they are?
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, all the money goes there. But it turns out if you happen to need it back, they don't have any clue where it's gone, because it sure as hell isn't there anymore. As far as I can tell, to the Wall Street guys that's a feature, not bug.
Meters on our routers? (Score:2)
Well, in effect us comcast users already do.
NYS wants to encourage piracy (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure this was proposed over a $1000/plate fund-raiser dinner.
Re: (Score:2)
Most things we do for pleasure nowadays are taxed (Score:2)
You know...thingy.
No shit, sherlock. (Score:3, Interesting)
This 4% rate is exactly identical to the state sales tax rate for everything else in New York. Hell, they're being ridiculously nice -- it's half what you'd actually pay in most cities (which add their own rate, usually in the vicinity of 3-5%, on top of the state rate).
The fact that downloads don't get taxed in some states is a bizarre anomaly, and has no logical basis. CDs and DVDs are not exempt from sales tax, exempting their online counterparts is wildly inconsistent. Argue all you want about the merits of taxes in general or sales taxes in particular, but there's nothing remarkable here. Just a state closing a silly loophole.
Re:No shit, sherlock. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Out of Control Spending (Score:3, Insightful)
State, Local & Federal governments have been as irresponsible as the financial sector they set the rules for and then didn't oversee, probably because of donations and revolving door employment between government and the companies in that sector.
They have never admitted that taxes can be too large and stifle investment and productivity.
Reagan showed that it was possible to stimulate activity by lowering taxes, but now all we are hearing is raising taxes. Nowhere have I yet heard anything about reducing government spending programs.
The mega-push for Socialism has reached steam-roller stage.
Re: (Score:2)
Off shore servers (Score:2)
So you just buy your itunes from an off shore account ( no tax ) then FTP your file home.
Taxation is not a solution for budget shortfalls (Score:2, Insightful)
I understand the need for Taxes. I'm willing to pay taxes. There is a benefit of the state providing some services.
Your problem is that you've run out of money. Yes, you can ask the citizenry to give you more money, but then what happens when you erroneously spend that money?
Budget shortfalls are a symptom of poor budget expenditure. Yes, New York state likely is receiving less funding than it was previously, but that also means that services are not being used to the extent that they were previously. Make
The economy we knew is dead (Score:2)
There's no way to revive it. As REM had foreseen [stlyrics.com], the world we knew has ended, and now we're just drifting until a new wind catches our sails.
If the Federal government would just fix the debt problem [realitysandwich.com], all these other problems would rapidly fix themselves.
Federal Law (Score:2, Insightful)
NY and you are ignoring three very basic points:
1) The US Constitution prohibits states from taxing anything crossing state lines.
2) A server can be located anywhere.
3) People will minimize their tax paid.
If NY puts this law into effect, then the affected servers will be moved out of state, and no tax will be due or collected.
As a side-note, we produce and sell packaged software. We're in California. We get sales-tax returns mailed to us from Louisiana. We throw them out, unopened.
Re: (Score:2)
So what do you call the taxes levied on alcohol and cigarettes? Those have state taxes slapped on them too.
Just redefine what "is" IS. (Score:2)
Instead of downloading something that YOU bought and now own. You are renting/licensing code or essentially just using someone else's property under contract.
If the tax man decides to tax bandwidth useage (electric-meter style), just imagine how expensive the NetFlix movies will now cost via mail since nearly every DVD movie disc is just over 7GB+ each!
(Reminds me of the phrase "never underestimat
Hate to Say it. (Score:3, Insightful)
But just read and grasp what the whole concept of this is here. NY wants to TAX you for NOT shopping in their state. You want to save money by buying online, they want to TAX you for saving money.
I'm not going to get into any Republican vs Democrat ideals here; I just want everyone in NY to understand what is fundamentally happening. You exercised your right as a consumer to not shop somewhere, and you are being charged for it.
Obvious Answer (Score:4, Insightful)
And I'll probably get marked troll for this...
But spend less money. Stop trying to tax us to death.
Just how are they planning to collect this?! (Score:4, Informative)
Since this is a "4% tax" it sounds like they must be planning to levy it as a sales tax to be collected by any vendors who have to collect New York sales tax for transactions within the state; otherwise it doesn't make any sense to talk about "4%". One alternative would perhaps be that it could be a bandwidth tax to be collected by all of the New York ISP's - which would be more collectible: in most cases, your ISP certainly knows where you live even if (as in the case of wireless) it's only where you receive your bill.
But if it's going to be a standard sales tax, that raises all sorts of other problems. Most obviously, it provides a significant disincentive for companies selling downloads to locate in New York; it would be hard for them to collect tax from some company based in Canada, for example. But it also raises the question of how a company knows who they're dealing with; with many payment options, the customer's location need not be given, and since this is an Internet download if the company does ask for an address it would be easy enough for the customer to enter an out-of-state address to avoid paying the tax, and the company would never be the wiser. If the state requires them to use IP addresses to determine the customer's tax liability, it can often be difficult to determine the exact state for an IP address in a border area or in many other situations, and doesn't even address the problem of proxy servers that might be used deliberately or otherwise to avoid paying the tax.
Since the TFA is rather short on specifics, it's hard to tell how unworkable this might be, though whenever the Legislature - any Legislature - is in session, hare-brained schemes abound. It does sound like they're trying to see just how many people they can annoy with this kind of law.
As a New Yorker (Score:3, Informative)
This guy is going to have his 1 partial term in office and then he's going to fade into the background when we elect ourselves a more qualified governor in a couple of years.
The amazon tax, is illegal. I don't think it's going to last, at least I thought so.... but I've been searching for lobbying groups to join to fight the implementation of it..but can't find anyone willing to stand up and do something about it. Bunch of sheep.
I don't know what 'taxing downloads' really means...more sales-tax? Or is the Mother-Fracker looking to tax bits/bandwidth used? The latter is kind of funny actually--he'd get a windfall in torrent derived revenue. :P
But yeah, this guy isn't going to last in office..I can only hope that the 'process' drags on long enough so that he's out before it comes up for the proper votes.
What about on-demand stuff? (Score:3, Interesting)
The really neat question will be, IMO, things like the on-demand/live streaming service from places like Netflix and Comcast. I believe that they have physical infrastructure in NY, so that would mean they are impacted.
The movies and TV shows that they stream DO have a value, even if that value is calculated as a fraction of the monthly subscription one pays. How much of that monthly subscription should be the basis for the tax that NY wants to collect?
TFA is silent on this point, but I'm curious how they'd be able to implement something like that via legislation..
Corrupt Politician mistress tax (Score:4, Funny)
New York doesn't tax everything... (Score:4, Informative)
The New York Yankees are getting $1.312 billion from tax-free bonds for financing their new stadium this year. The New York Mets are getting a mere $636 million from tax-free bonds to finance their new stadium this year as well. That's only $2 billion in tax-free bonds for professional baseball teams that New York City has given out this year.
Overall, this is costing New York taxpayers alone, $1.2 billion, which includes lost revenue and infrastructure improvements (such as improving public transportation).
Everyone is complaining that New York State taxes everything (an 18% soda tax was proposed by our governor recently) but we know that the government loves giving major giant corporations like the Yankees and Mets tons of tax-free money.
- - - -
Anyways, regarding online pornography, the industry brought in $2.84 billion in 2006. The cable, pay-per-view and phone sex industries brought in $2.19 billion that year. The governor merely looked at data of what business made good money (this also applies to all digital music and movie downloads) and said "how can we take some of their money for ourselves?" to his advisers. He did the same thing for online retailers like Amazon and NewEgg and said "New York State wants their money".
And the reason that some of the government heads are objecting to taxing porno...
"By taxing it you're legitimizing it," said Michael Long, chairman of New York's Conservative Party. "You're sending a message to the children, you're sending a message to the teenagers, if you're taxing it -- how can it be wrong? I don't know how you can sink much deeper."
So by that logic, you shouldn't tax fatty foods, soda, beer, or cigarettes as those things are actually physically harmful but because they've been taxed, teenagers think they are legitimate and not harmful. I know when I was young, the moment I heard that they taxed cigarettes and they were legitimate (whatever the hell that means) I said "I have got to smoke me some".
And yes, pornography is extremely harmful to all of our teenagers, my eye exams have gotten worse and worse since I first discovered adults films and other activities.
Half of this post is serious, half is in sarcasm. Either way I haven't liked hearing the words 'New York' and 'tax' within fifteen sentences of each other for a long time. Go Mets (and tax free this season!).
Frankly.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm just G** D***** taxed more than enough already, taxed, fee'ed, surcharged and I'm fed up. The government has to learn to downsize, layoff, force paycuts to the highest paid workers, furloughs whatever it takes but I'm tired of the "government" constantly reaching into my pocket whenever they say "Oh revenue is down"!
Re: (Score:2)
No one does this? What parallel universe do you live in? Everybody running for office says that. They have a federal agency, the GAO, whose SOLE purpose is to monitor the federal budget. Do you just not read the paper or watch the news or listen to any sort of political discourse?