Slashdot Mirror
New York Court Says Telecommuters Must Pay NY Tax
hal9000(jr) writes "The Boston Globe is running this
story on an out-of-state programmer working for a New York company who had to pay state taxes. '"New York has the right to tax 100% of a nonresident employee's income derived from New York sources," according to
the 4-3 decision by Court of Appeals. The court relied on a fairness rule called the "convenience of the employer" under law that says a worker's income is taxable if he chooses to live outside the state, as opposed to if he or
she was transferred there.' The dissenting opinion: 'Judge Robert Smith argued that the basis of the majority's decision that all income is taxable is "that the commissioner says it is ... The majority cites no authority at all, and offers no persuasive reason, in support of this new interpretation."'"
He will get taxed the NY Income Tax AND where he is currently located? That would suck.
By the same logic, it's for my (and all my coworkers') convenience that the Delaware based media company I work for's main office is in NYC and therefore I should ask NYS for a refund for the past 4 years. This is a dangerous precedent. -Mike
He lived in the state of TN... what were his taxes like there? Doesn't New York hit you for only a certain percentage? The article made it sound like his entire income was taxable. is it taxable in both states?
That would royally suck and would certainly scare me off of doing any interstate telecommuting gigs. Yikes.
This is kind of like Washington going after people that go across to Oregon to shop. (Or people that live in one state and cross the river to work in the other) - can't have teh cake and eat it too.
When I was a kid, I lived in Vancouver, Washington (no state income tax.) I worked in Portland, Or (has state income tax, which I had to pay.) Nothing to see here, move along.
Give me the right to vote, and I'll pay your damn taxes. Till then, up yours. I've got tea, you've got a harbor.
So does that mean that he doesn't get to keep any of his money? ;)
Seems like a very badly ambiguous way of putting it.
Qu'on me donne six lignes écrites de la main du plus honnête homme, j'y trouverai de quoi le faire pendre.
I also think this is going to get appealed to the Federal courts. I live in Texas and work for a company that has an office here, but is headquartered in Massachussettes. I can't imagine paying MA income taxes, but it sounds like this court ruling says that I should (assuming the MA courts rule the same way).
And the men who hold high places must be the ones who start
To mold a new reality... closer to the heart
.. lets just have everyone pay tax in every state, just in case.
air and light and time and space
So what if, hypothetically, I live in NY and telecommute to Florida? That should mean that 100% of my income is [i]non[/i]taxible by the state of NY, right?
Or is the rule just "if we want your money, we can take it"?
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
The government rules they can tax yet more of our money.
if you work for a NYC company and you do work for that office you should pay tax, those kids schools,roads, public transport etc etc have gotta be paid for somehow and those rich folks with offshore accounts and do everything they can to avoid paying *any* tax are the real traitors who make the tax on the rest of us seem unfair
The majority cites no authority at all, and offers no persuasive reason, in support of this new interpretation.
is judicial activism really that surprising anymore?
Evolution is a state-sponsored, state-protected religion.
how about working freelance and charing the NY company, would that be a reasonable work around and keep everyone happy?
Karma: Bad. Calmer, good.
Interesting issue though. It may be fair for NY to tax in some telecommuting cases. But I don't see why CA should be able to tax me on my income because I telecommute from Massachusetts. I have never worked in CA.
25% seems to low a fraction to claim the right to tax. NY is not providing any services to the employee and that is the basis on which taxation should be decided. If they want to recover the costs of providing services to the company they should tax the company.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Typically you pay a portion of taxes for the time you spent in each state. If you spend 50% of your time in each of two states, they usually have you pay 50% of your taxes in each. But that's if you are PHYSICALLY there.
This sounds as if you could end up paying full income tax in the state your company is in, plus full taxes in your own state - because your local state will consider you a full-time resident (since you do live there full time).
Not only that, but . . . how is New York offering him any representation for the taxes he pays there? He isn't a resident. He doesn't use their services. He doesn't commute. He doesn't have anything to do with anything there - other than it is where his employer is based.
For that matter, shouldn't companies overseas who contract with American companies to provide, say - tech support - have to pay American federal income taxes? I don't see how that would be any different from this scenerio whatsoever...
I'd sure hate to be stuck paying 56% in state income taxes, before even coming to my federal and county income taxes!
This sounds like a big federalism issue, I bet it leads to direct review by the Supreme Court, or will at least work its way up to a circuit split.
Topic says it all, and it's not rhetorical. I'm really curious about this.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Lately it seems that any government entity sees money, it reaches out to grab a slice, whether merited or not.
There was some old saw... "No taxation without representation..." or something like that.
And no, our gerrymandered Tweedledee/dums don't really count.
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
As long as I am only taxed in one state. Last year I was taxed in 2 states because my residence was listed in one and I worked in the other. But now that I want to file a refund to get that money back in one or the other, neither will want to give me anything back.
My wife telecommutes from OH to CA. We lived in CO for half the year, and she pays state tax in all three. Yeah, her company isn't too happy about it either. States are like sharks these days with your paycheck...but that is for another topic!
So does this now open the doors to trying to collect employment taxes on all those offshore workers?
That would have an interesting effect.
Do these have to pay the same taxes aswell?
I work for a company were I technically have a home office but travel all across the NoVA, DC and Maryland area consulting for the federal government so who do I pay?
I wonder if this would also apply to employees offshore as well.
... is that a few years ago NYC's own commuter tax was ruled unconstitutional.
Granted, this means NYC workers who live out of state are merely double fucked instead of triple fucked.
And NYC people get the fist thanks to upstaters getting more for their tax dollar than NYCers.
Viva the Free State of Gotham!
Oregon also has an income tax -- most states do actually. Oregon's tax instructions specifically state that for non-residents, they are taxed only on the income they earn while in Oregon. Since he's telecommuting, he would not have to pay Oregon income tax unless he flew to Oregon and put in some time.
I have a feeling this may eventually become a state's rights issue since Oregon and New York have conflicting laws. I wonder if he still has to pay his Tennessee income tax, assuming there is such a thing.
What a shocker: NY state court decides that non-resident should pay NY tax.
If this stands, companies will simply employ tele-commuters from TX or some other state with no state income tax.
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
I'd take a job schlepping burgers at McDonalds before I'd ever stoop to working anywhere in New York.
No matter where you go... there you are.
What happened to no taxation without representation? Can the worker now vote in NY? Does he loose his voting rights where he owns his house (assumed) and pays property taxes? If I hire a US citizen to telecommute to Canada, does he pay US income tax, Canadian income tax or both?
- The Google Toolbar has a spell checker button AND it works, consider that before hitting submit next time k?
why not make it easy and have the same tax rates wether you are in NYC or Alabama, look at all the companies/traitors incorporated in Delaware to avoid paying any tax yet they reap all the benefits of the communities they operate in to the tune of billions (and they have the cheek to call themselves American)
a unified tax would even things out
Wouldn't this decision mean it's better NOT to work in NY remotely? Leave it to guys in India. I am sure NY will be happy with 10x less money they can collect on smaller salaries (I also would love to see them try to collect the tax :) Though they probably demand employers to deduct the tax and pay it directly, rather than wait for individual to pay up).
Hyperom.com
As a full-time telecommuter, I can tell you that many companies choose to hire people as telecommuters to avoid paying the in-city salaries. I make much less than my urban counterparts.
If the unlucky bastard were to make as much as his NY counterparts, it wouldn't be so bad.
NY politicians need to ask why that particular region of the country is taxed to the hilt, yet they still need additional sources of income.
They need to ask why retirees flee the wretched place en masse, heading for FL with pensions in hand.
back in my day (long long ago) i managed to eek out nearly a decade playing professional baseball... (yeah, and most was spent in the minors) but the fact was that when a major league baseball player played a series in say New York or Seattle the city they played in were allowed to TAX you based on the number of days you spent in their town... My problem was that I spent more time in the bush leagues than the major leagues and you had to convince the cities sending you their 'bill' as to your real time spent there... was a total waste of EVERYONES time...
sig goes here!
But isn't the state providing services to the business? Don't businesses deserve police protect, fire service, etc.?
Is there some sort of compromise? Imagine what would happen if all businesses were in one state, and all persons lived in another state, and all telecommuted. Both states would need taxes.
this from the state that raised cigarette taxes then went after people getting them out of state. if the music industry needs to look at its business model, governments need to look at their taxation model - both a looking for all the cash they can get.
always mosh clockwise
This is kind of like Washington going after people that go across to Oregon to shop. (Or people that live in one state and cross the river to work in the other) - can't have teh cake and eat it too.
Off topic, perhaps, but still...
The state considers "going after Oregon shoppers" the reciprocal of the agreement that lets Oregon residents avoid paying state sales tax by showing valid ID, at least in SW Washington (Clark county, et al). On the other hand, it simply isn't cost effective to enforce for anything less than a major purchase (vehicles, perhaps a few other things). And since vehicle dealers go through so many hoops already, one more is easy to add.
But more on topic, if you live in Washington and work in Oregon, you ARE liable for non-resident income taxes. Which is made more evil by the fact that Washington doesn't have its own income taxes.
My company is based in Chicago. I live in Arizona. If I get a second job in New York, will I soon have %300 of my base income taxed? This is ridiculous. I can see paying tax on wages earned while in the state. I can see paying taxes on wages earned from a specific company in a state. But %100 of my income as a basis for taxation? I don't think so.
-Hope
and no Cure / Robert Smith jokes yet? shocking.. maybe this isn't turning into fark after all.
So, if you're a New York company that hires programmers, consider relocating (either in toto or a subsidiary) to Texas, where your dollar goes further, and you get to keep more of it.
We have BBQ, TexMex, and sane gun laws (i.e., the law-abiding can own one). What we lack: 3 months of snow, subways, and george Steinbrenner.
Up to you.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
Garnishing wages fater than a speeding rate of inflation!
Leaping state lines in a single bound!
He's TAXMAN!
Everybody seems to be pointing out the issue of two states potentially taxing, however, it's worse than that. Say I live in the US and telecommute with a company in the UK. Do I have to pay country taxes for both? How about I work in one state, and telecommute to two different locations for a company in two different states. Do all three states get to tax me? Because each state will fail to recognize the other's taxes for the same amount (it's their income to tax after all), you could be left in a situation where you owe more money in taxes then you even made. The ONLY reasonable interpretation is that you made the money in the physical location you were actually at, and that's it.
I moved out there from the Bay area 10 years ago.
I was getting 150K yr, but found 68% of my income went to taxes!
The City tax was higher then my federal!
My take home after everything was $3500 a month. I couldn't make ends meet and all in all lost over $30K in the move there and move back + the operating at a loss the whole time I was there.
With this new tax rull people who commute from New Jersey would end up paying taxes to two states!
I am so glad to be in California...
I am always doing that which I can not do, in order that I may learn how to do it. - Pablo Picasso
Since this decision only applies to the NY jurstiction, who exactly is going to enforce the law?
The NY police don't have much juristiction in other states...
94% of Repubs and 21% of Dems voted to renew the Patriot Act
I think the dissenting judge's opinion in the matter is interesting:
... The majority cites no authority at all, and offers no persuasive reason, in support of this new interpretation."
In a strong dissent, Judge Robert Smith argued that the basis of the majority's decision that all income is taxable is "that the commissioner says it is
I live in California and just took a contract position with a company in New York. This ruling does not say anything about contractors vs. employees, but knowing New York's tax system, I would guess they want it to apply to me, too. I of course do not intend on paying NYS a single cent, since as far as I can tell they have no authority over me whatsoever, but IANAL.
Any tax lawyers care to comment on this?
In setting up remote sales, and development people for a company in different locations, we often encountered many different laws (including our own gov'ts laws) about how the employees were paid in those regions. In most cases the solution was to set up a branch office - rent the space from the employee in his house and move on.
The rock, the vulture, and the chain
If his employer would cooperate, he should form a quick and dirty DBA, get paid as a business rather than an individual and he can do his OWN taxes... (and not have social secrity taken out to boot!) Of course that would also remove him from other benefits such as 401K, healthcare, etc...
But shoot, doing a little homework here and there, a smart person could create those benefits for himself and probably do better.
My rule of thumb -- Jobs are taxed based on where they are located. Employees (_employer_) may need to pay an additional "tax", for the duration of the job, to the LOCAL [Union], if applicable. In most cases [NOT] as contracting with the Local in the appropriate field and hiring enough % of employees from the Hall for that job covers the "tax". Employees are taxed [income] based on where they LIVE. Add local County and Municipality based taxes as appropriate (and yes, I see THAT all the time).
... I certainly would think of moving it down the road...
All I see happening is NY having litigation with a LOT of various local governments -- probably a-joining states. I done jobs in of and [mostly] out of NY. Not a NY based company and have NY based employees -- who also rarely happen to actually work IN the state of NY. Heck, they're home maybe 2 months of the year total (now go add up YOUR weekends, holidays, random days off). Does this mean they DON'T have to pay the NY tax, but I can tax them at a lower tax rate of the home office? Or [pick a job site in whichever state with the most spent time]?
They're trying to open a NASTY can of worms that'll bit them back. If my company was a NY based on the border
Don't tax income... Move there..
Growing up, we lived in CT, and my father at one point worked in NYC... Had to pay income tax in both CT and NY... God bless the lefties...
Yeah, Washington DC has that quotation on their license plates. They get no representation in congress but they still have taxes. Funny that our nation's capital is a perfect example of something the founding fathers despised.
Karma: Meh (Mostly from meh.)
NY already has one of the highest tax burdens in the USA. Now this...
"New York has the right to tax 100 percent of a nonresident employee's income derived from New York sources,"
Each employer distributes their own W2. This ruling states that 100% of the income earned from a New York based employer is subject to tax. A person who telecommuntes to New York 50% of their time and San Francisco the other 50% of their time can only be taxed by New York on the income generated from the New York Employer.
Michalangelo Progr
Well duh. Of course they should pay NY income tax! It's all a matter of jurisdiction. I live in massachusetts, so I'm subject to all the laws in massachusetts and NOT Iowa, Utah, Canada, China, etc. However, If the company that is paying me is doing so in NY, then income that is derived from said area would be subject to whatever laws govern that source of income regardless of where one actually lives geographically.
It's all a matter of jurisdiction.
Now is where the flaming begins. It is because of jurisdiction that most people are not truly liable for federal income tax. The federal income tax jurisdiction is extremely limited, being incurred only on people living in the TERRITORIES of the US or doing business with said territories while actually living in the 50 states.
But, this will get modded down to oblivion by people who haven't actually looked for the law at all... yet claim to be experts (this includes CPAs, lawyers, and judges), for it's assumed to be true.
Here's one of the many resources that lays it all out on the line, with links to all the relevant United States codes, statutes, and regulations.
http://www.supremelaw.org/sls/31answers.htm
I've done my public service announcement... now it's time for a whole bunch of FUD responses... but it's all jurisdiction folks. If you don't understand that, you might as well just pay Canada's income tax as well.
No REALLY REALLY Shitty schools..
And so hot that you can't go out of summer
My cousin lives there, and she's thinking of leaving..Moving back to NY..
He doesn't use NY roads, his kids don't use NY schools, he deosn't get to vote for NY legislators, senators or anything, he doesn't use NY public transport. Why should he pay NY tax?
PS: I am a NY resident myself.
Lately it seems that any government entity sees money, it reaches out to grab a slice, whether merited or not.
That's right. I heard NY City keeps the recycling deposit that's supposed to be given back to citizens who turn in recycleables. Folks in San Francisco wants to put a $0.17 USD tax per plastic bag you get from the grocery store to "help" the environment. The California state government wants to levy a per-mile vehicle tax for every mile you drive on California roads. And the list goes on...
The bad part is that these government officials don't realize that when you have less money coming in, you need to spend less money. There's a limit to how much you can steal from the next generation before it bites you in the ass.
Heh, try that with your big New Jersey or Vegas win - just deduct it off your income (if the casino gave your a W2-G or 1099) - say "wasn't in NY".
Let us know how you make out.
All kidding aside, most states have provisions for not paying taxes on income taxed by some other state/foreign govt. In most cases you are not double taxed, at least in the obvious way.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Do you work for the Texas economic development board? You provide a very enticing description.
Just say that you're working in the other state, and that your job involves the internet. Problem solved.
IANAL, but aren't there issues here involving interstate commerce, and isn't that governed by Federal law? SCOTUS here we come, right?
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Can an NY Court's ruling be imposed on a non-resident? Do they even have jurisdiction to enforce that ruling?
if you watch TV shows produced in that state.
-pyrrho
/got nothing
All this will do is continue to fuel the contractor setup. Instead of being an employee, he can just invoice them every month... NY maybe is able to beat up on poor programmers, but they will never beat up on accountants. They know the laws better than the government that wrote them.... :-)
When did taxes become a natural law? I thought that taxes were derived from the people of the area where the taxes were used for the purpose of SERVING those paying the tax. It gets kind messy when talking about the Federal Government but it's pretty easy with regards to the States. Especially when one does not reside in the state.
This is just plain wrong. IMO.
LoB
"Anyone who stands out in the middle of a road looks like roadkill to me." --Linus
I lived in MA and moved to NY on a temp assignment for the company's NY office. I didn't have to pay NY taxes as I was based in MA.
Then I got transfered to the NJ office and moved to NY.
NJ/NY have part time resident tax forms. MA has a partial year provision.
It worked out OK, but was confusing.
States typically charge if you have an employee working out of the office (based physically at).
When I worked in NY temporarily my home office was still MA so I didn't have to pay NY taxes. I was a MA employee.
Yeah, I suppose there's a first for everything, even karma whoring. Either way, here's the decision, in PDF format.
Additionally, the post is misleading; the dissent only says that the majority does not support its interpretation of the Commerce clause with authority, not that the Commissioner's word is law.
Telecommuting just adds a new twist to an old problem. There have long been issues with poeople who earn part of their income in a state with an income tax (e.g. NY), and part in a state that has no income tax (e.g. TN). The state with an income tax tries to claim that the person's entire income is taxable by them. IANAL, and I don't know where this stands in the courts. I was warned by an accountant when I moved from CA (high taxes) to NV (no taxes) that CA may try to tax my earnings for the entire year, and not just the part I earned before I left the state. It didn't happen to me, but apparently it has happened to others.
We should get this judge to decide whether NY State suburban commuters to NYC jobs should have to pay the "commuter tax". Because they spend 8-hours sleeping in suburbs with little public amenities, where poor people can't afford to buy/rent homes, they suck up the services here in the City. Which we residents pay for, and they don't. Sir Giuliani got rid of that tax, which made them pay for at least some of the services we give them. Maybe this judge could make Giuliani cover their tabs.
--
make install -not war
I think it'd be a pretty good idea if you went to H&R Block this year. Probably bring along that tax return you nuked last year too.
"Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
As someone who lives in the state of New York, but telecommutes to a company based in California via servers in Bangalor, I look forward to no longer paying NYS taxes, since I'm there out of convenience...
#include "standard_disclaimer.h"
Why was this even tried in a state court? It's a case of interstate commerce...wouldn't that fall under federal jurisdiction? The fact that the state court didn't dismiss the case outright, to me, shows their bias and/or incompetence. Anybody have any insight into why a state court would hear this case?
In other words, this seems common practice and I really don't see that this hinders telecommuting unless the state of residence also attempts to tax those same wages.
Here's an interesting bill called the Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act. From it:
Being taxed on his entire salary seems ridiculous to me.
That's not taxation without representation since he is free to move to New York.
I disagree with this decision... but only because it's telecommuting. If he physically commuted into the state then he's getting substantial services from the state (or city) without compensating them. Police and fire protection, roads, etc. Paying double taxes and not having a voice in who runs the government sucks but, again, he could always choose to live and work in the same state.
In contrast somebody who is telecommuting does not get any services from the state or city. No police or fire protection, no road use, nada. If he makes occasional trips to the offices, he's paying for these services in hotel room and car rental taxes. If this is taxable, then you could make an argument that he owes taxes for every state his network connection goes through.
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong. -- H L Mencken
Canada has a tax treaty with the US.
The general rule is that you have to pay taxes. If you are a Canadian working in the US you have to prove to the Canadian Revenue Agency (our version of the IRS) that you paid taxes in the USA, otherwise you have to pay in Canada.
Same applies to a yank working north of the border.
Washington State has no state income tax, but does have business tax, B&O tax, high sales tax, and high property tax.
Oregon has income tax, but no sales tax I believe.
Anyone care to discuss this issue? Specifically, when someone crosses the boarder to buy from another state, AND the prices reflected in goods due to the hidden cost of income taxes.
I've lived in the Delaware/Maryland area all of my life and have had jobs in the opposite state a few times over the years. Because there's no agreement between the states, you basically pay the higher of the two. You file out of state first, paying non-resident rates and you can deduct most or all of that from your home state as a credit. Telecommuting could considered a bit different, but as long you work as an employee, I'm sure they'll want to treat it the same. If the difference between the tax rates is overwhelming maybe become an independent contractor and scare up a few other minor clients (friends and family?) to make it legit.
The federal government will be able to tax all those Indian programmers too?!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
I completely misread that as "you now owe 100% of your income to New York", as opposed to "we will apply income tax to 100% of your earnings in New York".
Man, that was scary^Hier for a second.
Assume I was drunk when I posted this.
So, if New York passes a law that says that anyone who's ever watched the ball drop on New Years Eve has to pay NY income tax, then it's not taxation without representation because all such people are free to move to New York?
I hope you see the problem with your statement.
I'd want them to start to have to pay for school, roads, parks, police, etc here in Arizona. That's what your lower-level (as in less than federal) taxes fund. In the case of state taxes it's all state highways, and roads on state lands, the state universities, DPS, and so on. In other words: things I and my community use.
New York helps pay for none of that, regardless of if I work for a company based there or not. Thus, I don't see any possible reason why they need the money. Arizona needs it because living here I use those services. I don't live in NY, they don't need it.
So ya, if they give me the right to vote in state elections, and start sending money back to my state to pay for things, I'll call this fair. Until then, I'm saying it's an issue for federal court.
This would be the next logical step from this decision. "NY has the right to tax 100% of an investor's income derived from NY sources". Makes as much sense as the ruling and for the same reasons (ie "because we said so!"). I doubt that Wall Street would accept such a ruling though...
Oh, I get it! You're trying to equate the rate of the spread of a deadly disease with a court decision on taxation...wait, I don't get it. What exactly is your point? Seriously. I don't understand your comment at all.
Boycott everything - they're all trying to fuck you one way or another
I like this, so anyone living in India working on projects in NY now have to pay NY income tax?! I LOVE IT, too bad it will be overturned. (IMHO)
There are too many people who live across state lines, states are not going to give up income just because some other state passes a unconstitutional law.
They use a flaw'ed argument, the employeer might provide the job, but where the person lives that the taxes pays for the roads, public services. Its the employee that pays the taxes on his location not the employeer.
The employeer gets tax breaks, so they try to make it up with taxing the out of state employees? Nice try NY.
no problem, I"ll drop off the check next time I'm in the office.
There is absolutely no way I would pay NY state taxes if I took a telecommute job there. Zip, zero, nada.
This is pretty par for the course in New York state.
This year, I had the fun experience of doing my taxes as a part-time New York resident, and half of my income was foreign-earned and tax-exempt for that time. In order to not pay New York state income tax on the part that was foreign-earned and federally-exempt because I was physically not in the country, I had to demonstrate that I had only been a part-time tax resident of New York.
The thing about tax residency is that it's separate from voting residency, and one of the criteria for being a "New York tax resident" is "income is derived from a New York source." I forget the exact wording on the tax forms, but basically, if I had lived in Pennsylvania full-time but my work was at a New York company, I'd have to pay New York tax on it.
I also got screwed once when I moved away to Pennsylvania for college and didn't realize all of this crap about tax residency, and the fact that New York will continue to try to collect taxes on all your income until you are cold in your grave if you've ever been a resident. I'd worked part of the year in New York, moved to PA, and worked there in college, and ended up having to pay New York income taxes on my Pennsylvania income. Why? Because I didn't know to file my taxes as a "part of the year" resident. In the following years I remembered to file my forms as a "Pennsylvania tax resident" despite still having my pernament residency in New York.
This worked because 1) I was not physically present in New York *AND* 2) my income wasn't derived from New York sources.
The thing is, this doens't surprise me at all because the working of "derived from NY sources" is certainly vague enough to include "telecommuting to a New York company." I don't think it includes, as one other poster was raving about, "if you work in another state at the office of a company that ALSO has an office in New York you will get hit with New York taxes."
In short my state goverment is a bunch of thieving bastards. (can i also be bitter that they take this income tax and then spend it all on new york city? bastards. *shakes fist at gaping pot holes in road*)
According to TFA, he lives in Tennessee, spends maybe a quarter of his time at the New York office. Ok, so New York State (and City?) wants a full load on his salary. BUT, he is also consuming plenty of services in his home state of Tennessee. Is he ALSO liable for Tennessee state income taxes on 75% of his salary, ON TOP of the 100% that New York has decided to take?
Or does Tennessee have no state income tax?
I'm posting anonymously because I live in New York City, and I run a company here. I hate it more every day. New York State (and City) are running amok with their fucking taxes, and it makes less and less sense to put up with their shit.
I live in Maryland. Just across the Potomac River is the DC-area regional office for my employer, in northern Virginia. The reason I telecommute, rather than drive 20 miles to the office, is that driving means about 3 hours of commuting per day. This would be because Virginia can't raise the tax money to build enough roads to make the commute livable for all of the employees that do business in the Dulles corridor. So, my company is more than happy to get that extra couple of hours of productivity out of my not sitting in the car - but Maryland is more than happy to tax my income. If Virginia joins in these NY shenanigans, I'll need a gigantic raise to tolerate the VA taxes, Maryland's very high rate, plus the 60% rider that my local county tacks on. Oh, and city taxes, of course. I'm avoiding a drive into Virginia, and not using their infrastructure (um, except the onsite office resources, and the company's paying plenty of corporate taxes in VA already). But you can bet that any offer to do the same for a company in NY would have to come with a real premium, now. Wow.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
In the 15 years I have been in the "Wonderful World of Work", I have seen a few things.
First, a guy that I know who works in the same DoD company as I do spends quite a bit of time in Maryland. He is a Colorado Resident. He has to do two different state tax returns. One for MD and the other for CO. He mentioned it is a pain to deal with.
Second, in the same company, a few of our people spend quite a bit of time working in California - job site at an Air Force base. They have to do a CO and a CA tax return. According to company rules, if you spend a cumulative number of days that is greater than 30, you have to pay tax to and do a return for the other state.
Third, over ten years ago, I worked in a company that was based in Indiana and when I was an IN resident at the time. We had several people who worked in NY for several months. A new plant was being built and they were installing the computer equipment such as serial and ethernet lines and hooking connections to the factory equipment. If I remember right, they never had to pay NY tax even though the cumulative time spent there was 3 or 4 months. If this happened today, this would be a different story epsecially if Corporate Legal had something to say about it and how cautious companies are to toe the line to cover their proverbial rear end compared to even 10 years ago.
First, the NY court only said that 100% of his income is taxable and not that his income is taxable at 100%. Second, when you live in one state & work in another you're obliged to pay tax to the state in which you're employed and, possibly, your domicile state. For example, I live in Connecticut but work in California (insane I know, but there we are). CT taxes at 6%, CA at 9.3%. So I pay 9.3% to CA & nothing to CT. If the rates were reversed I would pay 6% to CA and 3.3% to CT. next year when I do the annual tax blood-letting, I will owe CT nothing because I've paid more to CA than CT would have gotten. I will have my accountant work out what i would have paid to CT if I had not been commuting & my employer will reimburse the difference (suitably inflated for all those taxes). And the tax preparation work will be a reimbursed expense. Not nice but reasonably straightforward.
It sounds to me like the question was handled at the wrong jurisdiction. The Interstate Commerce Commission should handle [the case], rather than the State of New York.
just my 2 cents.
"Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us." -Jesus Christ The Lord's Prayer
hmmm...is the tax expodential to mileage...this might finally put an end to outsourcing ;-)
The joy of living and working in Texas - no state income tax. Even the fact that we are graduating talking monkey's is OK because its a lot less competition in the job market! ;-)
Aids is a disease of deception. The way folks get this disease is largely that someone they trust lies to them about past sexual behavior.
New York is the city of lies. This unconstitutional court decision is yet another example of the hypocrisy of which that city is famous for. Perhaps it is time to turn that entire city over to the UN.
Employment is commerce. The power of taxation implies the power to control. States should have no right to tax something that happens between states, including the purchase of labor. I say NY and TN should duke it out in federal court as to who gets to tax what, because they certainly don't both get to tax (i.e., control) the same portions of a telecommuter's labor compensation.
...because "hacker" sounds way sexier than "code drone."
Now every company can do a simple paper transfer of their head office to Nevada (which has no personal income tax, iirc). Then they can say that they've just given all employees a signifigant pay raise in the form of tax benefits. Employees are happy they get more $ and shareholders are happy that the company does not have to give out raises for years. Alternately transfer telecommuters on paper one at a time to the Nevada offices at the moment they should receive raises. Not as nice, but gets the same effect.
This is just another reason, imho, that sales tax has always been a smarter way to go.
> We don't need you prostate subjects, you just screw the whole thing up
> for everyone with your worshipping of the government [...]
The goverment seems to fail to ensure equal access to education but, luckily, slashdot can rectify that.
The subject of today's lesson is the difference between prostate and prostrate.
Well, it's nice that Texas doesn't punish people who are productive, but Texas property and sales taxes are pretty high. (well not compaired to NY and CA or Boston, but high compaired to most places.)
While it does suck for this one guy and perhaps his place of work, it does establish some important ground work. This would enable the state to collect taxes from companies who are hiring their tech support and call centers off shore or out of state. This should be something that makes it that much harder to give my job away.
You very clearly have no idea what you're talking about. +5 insightful means that apparently the mods are newcomers to the term activist judge as well.
An activist judge is one that, rather than ruling based on local, state, or federal laws, or on the constitution, bases his or her ruling on something else. Usually, this amounts to "because I want it to be so" or "we think it makes us look good." Gay marriage is just one of these cases. So is the taxation case that started this topic. It is not based on local, state, or federal laws, and it is not based on the state/federal constitution.
In the MA case, the judges issued a ruling REQUIRING that the state legislature write a law legalizing gay marriage. This is a very clear violation of separation of powers. The court does not have the right to write laws, any more so than the governor has a right to decide trials. Furthermore, and most importantly, no branch of government has the right to exert direct control over the activities of another. The court had no basis in the MA constitution, which it cites, for its decision. They plucked a passage from the article, and have intentionally misrepresented what was written in order to justify their agenda-based decision. (The constitution was not intented to extend marriages to gay couples - just look at who wrote it.) This is similar to a semi-recent case in which the supreme court cited laws and constitutions of other nations to justify a ruling. 'Nice try.'
the judiciary branch is increasingly the only branch of government that an average person can actually use to get anything accomplished.
No, the average person does not necessarily want the rulings of an activist judge. Gay marriage was on the ballot in 11 states in 2004. It lost in ALL of them. Very clearly the "average" person does not want it in their state. While the judiciary -- working mainly through JURIES, not judges -- is a check upon the misbehavoir of the various branches of government (including, hopefully, itself), the government still exists to serve and implement the will of the majority.
The NY case is one in which the state's tax collector egregiously overstepped its rights to taxation. The NY tc should not have jurisdiction over the monies earned via telecommuting. What's next? Charging income tax for people who route their VPN packets through NY, on their way from NH to FL? The dissenting judge is correct and I hope the case is overturned.
You need to consider the following whenever you've become a contractor, telecommuting or not:
1) Incorporate, so you're not an "employee" - it becomes interstate commerce. (Best Bet)
2) Get hooked up with an "umbrella" company, (e.g., PACE - pacepros.com) who can cover you as an employee, while you conduct yourself as a "cost center" in that umbrella so you can maintain your own business.
3) Consult an experienced accountant/tax attorney.
Just beware of the "body shops" out there.
It is odd how if you BUY something - you are taxes according to where you LIVE ; if you work somewhere, you are taxed according to where the company is.
Look at it this way. The government services I use from the federal government are:
From my state I get:
From my local municipality I get
By my count about 25% of my federal payroll and income taxes, and NONE of my state sales taxes actually go to pay for services I use (or have any intention of using/desire for).
I don't see how NY taxing a TN resident is all that different...
The next generation is going to bite me in the ass?! To hell with that, I choose not to reproduce. That'll show 'em, the ingrates!
Taxation Without Representation
It's really that simple. I am not sure why the courts cannot understand it. Any third grader in a history lesson can understand that.
Other than having a job in Anytown, USA:
I would think that any of the founding fathers would not stand any of this ridiculousness. It was a foundation of a revolution.
Of course, I may be a little facetious, but taxation is just out of control.
Whew! I feel a little better.
Coderz 4 Life
You don't need to pay anyone to do you taxes: http://www.pcworld.com/resource/article/0,aid,1196 60,pg,1,RSS,RSS,00.asp
Shit, I've never been to H&R. I do my own taxes by hand and I was doing my parents' when I was 16 (not too smart for them, but I did them right).
I was just talking about the guy who just filed taxes in like 18 states. I figure he could fuck up turbotax. He needs H&R.
Baghdad court says that occupying coalition forces must pay Iraqi taxes.
Here's why: The revenue is going to states like NY instead of where the employee is using the resources. Even if every state did this, it still wouldn't be fair to states that do not have a lot of oursourcing.
This is clearly designed to let NY gather other state's tax bases without doing shit. They had better prepare for massive state-to-state lawsuits.
"...Well, there's egg and bacon; egg sausage and bacon; egg and spam; egg bacon and spam; egg bacon sausage and spam..."
You want a 'persuasive reason'? Talk to the hand! Specifically the middle finger w/the NY hello...
What we lack: 3 months of snow, subways, and george Steinbrenner.
Tiny text disclaimer: If you live in the panhandle, you will get tons of snow, and you won't even have pretty snow-laden forests. Dallas and Houston do have "light rail" which isn't as smelly as subways (yet) but stops at traffic lights and (special Houston bonus!) cars have a tendency to ram your train. Jerry Jones may or may not be as bad as George Steinbrenner.
=)
We, your government masters, know how your life should be run, and how much money you need. Since keeping more than what you need is greedy and immoral, it is our duty to take that excessive wealth and give it back to the people you trod upon to attain it.
You are not allowed to question our decision; doing so will expose you as the greedy opportunist you are, and will show us that you are unwilling to fulfill your duty to your fellow, underprivileged man.
So shut up and pay your taxes. It's easier than going to jail.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
NY have been very clever: a way to increase taxes that the residents will actually like!
Engineering is the art of compromise.
I'm not a tax lawyer, nor do I live or work in NY. However, I am a telecommuter who lives in a different state than I work.
In my situation, there is no double taxation of my individual income tax at the state level. I vaugely remember that there might be a law that prevents this. If 100% of my income were to come from an employer in a different state that does not have a presence in my state, I would pay income tax at the appropriate bracket to that state where the company resides. Furthermore, if the tax bracket is higher in my state than the other state I am paying income tax to; I would need to pay the difference in taxes to my home state.
Also, any income earned through interest or dividends would be paid to my state of residence. If I were to be laid off from my job, unemployment would be paid through the other state's system.
No, I don't have a vote and am paying for schooling, etc in the other state. However, I do have a vote in my home state, and other than property taxes, I don't pay income tax here.
Remember, I am not a tax lawyer, you should find your own tax professional.
So, do you get to vote in both states?
No taxation without representation and all that jazz...
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
Does this mean that he doesn't have to pay state taxes in the state where he's located?
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
And this doesn't even get into using agencies as a cut-out, keeping the employment local but sending even more money out of state.
--Mike Perry, Seattle, Author: Untangling Tolkien
I work for a Fortune 500 company at their Oregon campus. The main campus is in New York. If I fly back to spend a week consulting at the New York site, I'm required to file a W-4 form so they can withhold my New York state income tax.
Add to this our screwed up home insurance rates, and our property taxes going up like crazy (even in my small town in central Texas - south of Dallas, north of Austin) - and you get the equivalent of state income tax. If not more so.
And don't get me started on the Trans Texas Corridor - imminent domain snatching up a half million acres for unnecessary toll roads - which WILL fail, and then the TWO HUNDRED BILLION DOLLAR project will be bailed out by Texas taxpayers... mark my words...
"If you don't like living in the United STATES then LEAVE"
Probably one of the most Un-American thing I have ever heard. Yet, I keep hearing it. I look at those people and wonder what country they are visiting from. America is about the right to have different opinions and to CO-EXIST PEACEFULLY together.
Party at O'zorgnax's Pub! Buy me a Slurmtini aye?
People in the Up of Michigan do not like paying taxes for the lower part of the state.
Geez,
It's official! New York really is more Communist than California now.
signed,
A prisoner of the Peoples Socialist "Republic" of California
Is here [pdf].
of employers leaving New York, or at least employees
All your tax base are belong to us.
fine support folks in India? Seems reasonable to me...
that in Tennessee, there is no income tax on earned income. I wonder if it is this that is making New York feel even more "entitled" to levying tax.
BTW, if my source are correct, there is no income tax on earned or unearned income in Alaska, florida, Nevada, S. Dakota, Texas, Washington, wyoming, and there is no income tax on earned income in New Hampshire and Tennessee.
To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
Someone else said it already. This is Taxation without representation. He doesn't get to vote in New York, and he doesn't get to elect a representative.
I've got something else to chip in too though.
I live in New Hampshire. If I commute to work in Massacusetts, I will have to pay tolls in Mass. Tolls are taxes.
Now if I do this, for each Toll I pay, I can get a reciept. And at the end of the year, I can file in Massachusetts to get every cent back of those tolls.
Why?
Because they are taxation without representation.
Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, I rest my case.
this is true in philadelphia as well, where an even larger percent of workers live outside the city
http://www.unc.edu/~cigar/PhilInqEIT.htm
(The mistake that was made here was in the "telecommuter" paying NY state tax for the 25% of the time he was spending in New York.)
Do IBM Austin employees pay NY state tax for the time they spend at IBM's headquarter facilities?
Me thinks telecommuters should lease back their home office to their employers for a $1 a month.
I left home at six but this 500 mile commute is a killer.
"If an employee is permitted to perform services/duties from his home or a place other than the within the state where he would normally report for work, and when such person's employer has no business reason[3] to have the employee work outside of the office/facility, such state could attempt to subject the income to tax"
Isn't that one of the points being made though?
These people would not normally report for work in New York. They physically could not. It is not a matter of convenience. They just would not take the job.
What ever happened to the concept of no taxation without representation in the US? Has that concept gone completely by the wayside?
all the best,
drew
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free
Unfortunately for you, if you telework for a NY company from Arizona, you will likely pay. Under the full faith and credit clause Arizona must give effect to any NY court judgement ordering you to pay back taxes.
I'm thinking scotus would uphold this ruling, so I think your only chance is for the feds to use the commerce clause to stop the practice. Either that, or stop working for a NY company.
should pay the tax. The programmer should only have to be concerned what he nets. The company is in New York. They make the profit from the programmer's work. If the state wants to skim some of the action everytime money changes hands, they need to go to the entity that resides in that state. Any problem with that?
What?
but what about "no taxation without representation?"
Knowing how New York tries to get tax money wherever it can, I wouldn't be surprised to see them attempt to extend this to all IBM employees just because the W2's have a New York address.
Well, maybe they don't pay taxes. As a demographic, many convited felons are probably not high-earners. The gov'ts own stats say almost 1/2 of all "taxpayers" don't pay anything, and 80% of all income tax is paid by 20% of us. (I am sure even minimum wage drones get tagged for social security and medicare, just not any significant income tax).
So, the flip side is this; why not "no representation without taxation"? Say $100 per vote, vote as much as you wish. Would you still vote?
When the country was founded you had to be a white male property owner. Obviously that wouldn't fly today, and I personally have no bias against any race, sex, or even sexual orientation, but logically, what is so wrong that stakeholders and producers (taxpayers) should have more say than those who don't? It sure seems to be getting to the point where have-nots are simply voting for the haves to give.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
So honestly, under such a wide view of state/commonwealth taxation rights, why couldn't DE and NY both tax the same individual if one has the incorporation and the other the principle place of business?
Or be a white male property owner who happens to be a resident alien.
You pay state and federal taxes, income tax and sales tax, but you're not allowed to vote, even though you've never committed a crime.
"No taxation without representation" failed. The American revolution failed on its own terms. Time to try again?
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
While to a certain extent this is taxation without representation, there is another issue here. I live in Utah but work in Nevada, now I still have to pay Utah taxes because Nevada doesn't have any state taxes.
However, if I was working in Colorado (where they have state taxes) my company would withhold my colorado taxes, and then in Utah I would be able to use the taxes paid to colorado as a tax credit (not a deduction, but a credit meaning if colorado charges 10% tax and utah charges 15% I only have to pay 5% to Utah, cause the full 10% that went to colorado is credited).
I'm not double taxed, I pay exactly what I would if I worked in Utah, so there is no advantage to me to live in Utah and work in Nevada (except that I make more money working in Nevada), but there is a big advantage to my company (they save nearly 4 million a year because there is not corporate income tax in Nevada either).
If the company were forced to withold taxes for each state in which they employed people, it would be a complete nightmare and cost a whole lot more for the company. It makes sense for the company to withold taxes in whatever state they operate. It is the easiest way for the company to operate.
What this should cause is companies to flock to low tax/no tax states like Nevada, Texas, etc.. because no one should pay California, Mass, or NY taxes.
I live in New Hampshire and worked for a Massachusetts company for a few years. Massachusetts siphoned off its full income tax during those years with absolutely no recourse to me because New Hampshire has no income tax. Now that doesn't for a moment mean that I don't pay tax in New Hampshire. We make up for that tax free status by having outrageous real estate taxes instead.
But do you suppose Massachusetts cares how much I pay in real estate taxes? Boohoo.
The real killer last tax year (2004) was that at least half of my income came from Florida. And because my deductions on the Massachusetts form are factored by the percentage of income from Massachusetts, they wanted even more of my money than usual. The more I earn outside of Massachusetts, the more I pay to Massachusetts in taxes. Go figure!
There's been a lot of condemnation of this, but it sounds OK to me. A lot of people who live in NJ (for example) commute to NYC to work. It's understood that they pay taxes.
They do not get to vote in NY, but they pay taxes because that's where they make the money. Everyone is OK with that.
If someone lived in NJ and only came into the office 1 day a weekm they still have to pay same NY taxes, because the fact that their employer kindly let them work from home doesn't change the fact that they work in NY. They don't pay 1/5th of NY's tax.
Instead of coming in once a week, this guy doesn't come in at all. But it's not so different than the guy who only comes in once a week. The employer lets him work from home, but he's an employer of a NY office. He works in NY.
Some mentioned the reasons why this must be the case. NYC makes ample investment to attract employers, and it's meant to make that money back in income taxes. The company this guy works for benefits from these advantages. If he's really offended at having to pay the tax in a state where he works (even if he doesn't show up) then he should find a job in-state so that he'll only have to pay one tax.
The fact that he doesn't use NY's resources is a non-issue. The fact that you don't use some service doesn't entitle you to a refund, and he's no different.
Ecce Europa - Web Design for Business
...as chattel of the government. Go to another country and do something which is perfectly legal there but illegal here, you will be punished for breaking a law that has no jurisdiction where it is being applied. No different than Mississippi trying to enforce its laws in Louisiana. The feds do it, the states do it, next thing you know the town you are born in will charge you taxes no matter where you move to. You are essentially property in their view.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
http://www.givemeliberty.org
2nd circuit court decision, the IRS has no teeth anymore, they cant supena you!
This applies to the states because those bastards have brought federal law on to the land in the states, this ruling is correct and will hold.
Now, what the hell are all you slashdotters going to do about the media not talking about this ruling?
Thats one for the books, gentelemen. We won't see that quote again anytime soon.
(IANAL) In Ohio, for example, I believe that a convicted felon cannot vote while incarcerated, but can vote after being on parole or probation.
Some other states are similar, but I have heard that some states absolutely do not allow convicted felons to vote even after they served their time. If that is true, then I think it's just plain wrong.
Coderz 4 Life
The state/commonweath where the principle place of business is or the incorporation is will not be able to tax telecommuters who work in and telecommute to other places as such laws would also apply to people who don't telecommute. Too many people would be affected. If the courts wouldn't stop it, Congress would be forced to act.
That leaves the places where people telecommute from and telecommute to (like NY here) who can likely get away with taxing. My guess is too few poeple are in the situation of telecommuting across state/commonwealth lines to cause Congress to act, so it is up to the courts.
I still think that a person telecommuting to another place certainly benefits from the other place's laws, so courts there will have jurisdiction over the person and will enforce the tax laws that apply.
I've lived in NYC for 10 years. I can't see how it is possible that if you are making 150K per year (federal tax bracket averages out to about 25% or so) is going to be less than the 2-4% you pay in NYC (depending on the year, in general city taxes have been lowered year after year during the 1990's but slipped up again after the budget crisis that occurred after 9/11)
Maybe if you had a bunch of crazy deductions or something I suppose it is possible.
As far as 68% of your income going to income taxes, I can't see that either.
In 2003 I made 100K:
paid ~19K in federal Tax
paid ~6K in NY State Tax
Paid ~3K in NYC Taxes
I don't have a single deduction, excluding the personal deduction, so my tax percentages are a bit higher then most people in the US at my income level (most people in my income bracket are paying morgages, so they get to deduct that)
So I paid about 28% of my income to taxes.
How the hell di you get up to 68%! I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm just wondering how you pay 40% more of your income in taxes.
Peace, or Not?
New York provides the job, New York provides the professional opportunity, and New York should be able to tax that income, even if the employee for his own convenience was working outside of New York state,
This is an amazingly important quote, because it shows the psychology of these people.... New York doesn't provide the job, the company does!. New York provides the schools, roads, and other things which tele-commuters do not use. This is such an amazingly incorrect and self-serving decision... I hope it goes to appeal.
So don't expect any NYC firefighters to come put their lives on the line to pull you from a burning building.
BTW, I doubt you have much to worry about, you don't pay city or state taxes unless your place of work is considered to be in NYC, as far as I know. I used to work for a big corp in NYC, and we had contractors working on projects for us but they lived in NJ and we just got the NJ office to cut the paychecks.
Peace, or Not?
Non-citizens can't vote, period. No government in history has allowed such a thing (that I've ever heard of.) Perhaps the bored may ponder the inanity of your statement more deeply, I haven't the patience.
I think there should be a radical restructuring of the entire U.S. tax code. There are several things I would put as highest priority:
- You cannot be taxed twice on the same income
- all services, goods, and fees which are mandated by any government entitiy are counted as taxes
- total taxes paid, including all income taxes, fees, sales taxes, etc., cannot exceed a certain percentage of your income. Anything in excess of, say 40% (though I think 20% would be more reasonable) of gross income gets refunded.
- a flat tax rate instead of the ridiculous graduated tax rates. (Where I can actually make more money and end up with less because my tax percentage jumps.)
- taxes are subject to jurisdictional delineations; if you are not using the services provided by a jurisdiction, you cannot be taxed by that jurisdiction (including the Federal government if you live outside the U.S. (except a small stipend to help support the Embassy/Consul in your country of residence)).
- The inheritance tax should be abolished altogether. It is simply unconscionable.
..Telecommuters say "No."
Great... now half of New York's population will be migrating to Florida!
:-(
Oh wait... that has already happened
Libertas in infinitum
Fuck NY and Fuck Taxes!
Property taxes
-
The problem with property tax is that it doesn't allow true ownership of property if the government can take it away from you if you default. It's regressive cause what if the title owner has a low income, or perhaps no income for a few years due to a lost job?
"Taxing people"
-
That is one of the worst things someone could do, tax a person so they can remain a citizen. It treats people like cattle. It's like, "Oh, you're too poor, so we're not going to help you."
Education
-
It definately helps out economy. Better a nation of skilled workers than a nation of "idiots" for the lack of a better term.
Here's an idea.
1) Create a pool (and I'd prefer by a 1 cent sales tax).
2) Limited to in-state public colleges. Limited to those who never attended college before (tranfers from community colleges allowed).
3) Limited to those who graduated with a 2.0 GPA. Graduates would send their transcripts into a state organization which would enter their GPA into a database. Everyone's GPA gets added up for a year.
4) Out of the pool, divide up the revenue among all the GPA points. So 0.1 points equals a dollar amount. Then redistrubute to help pay off some of the loans for the students. So if 0.1 points equals $400, then someone with a 3.7 GPA would get $14,800. It may not cover all, but it will help prevent the harshness of debt versus how it's (not) done now.
Sales tax
-
In my opinion, it's fair cause you essentially opt into how much you wish to pay in taxes. However, to make this progressive rather than regressive, here's what needs to be done.
1) A list of exemptions.
2) Fix the sales tax rate to get the necessary revenue.
What will happen is it will allow poor people to feel relief, and allow the rich to aid them.
Health care
-
Not everyone can afford health care, and it is a drain on society when people are sick and can't get the help they need. It's just a humane thing to help. It may also have a positive effect on the job market.
1) Create a pool of money, perhaps by sales tax like I said previously.
2) Do one of the below options.
2a) Limit it to every resident.
2b) Limit it to minors.
2c) Limit it to minors who are enrolled in school and also those under age 5.
2d) Limit it to anyone who is enrolled in school, whether k-12 or college.
3) Take the pool and divide it among all residents eligible.
4) Send out medical coupons in the form of $10 each. So if it's like $163.72 per person in number 3 above, then that's 16 $10 coupons. The excess $3.73 each stays in the pool.
5) Coupons would work like this. Each pharmacist, clinic, hospital, and anything else I can't think of, would have a special account given to them, with appropriate password/key to log in, in which they could take the special serial-key from the coupon, enter it in the system, and have the money transferred to their bank account.
6) Coupons would expire after like a 2 year period. Expired coupons would add money back into the pool, which very well could raise the amount each person gets the next time around. Probably an annual thing, but coupons would expire every 24 months.
Another idea...
-
Make it illegal to compound interest during the first seven years of a loan. If someone has a $100k loan with 20% annual interest, here is how it would work. Let's say they pay $10k the first year, so there's $90k on the, principle and 20% of $90k would be $18k for the interest. After year two, the person pays $40k, so the priniple is down to $50k, but the interest would be $18k plus $10k equaling $28k. The next year, the person pays off the $50k owed on the principle. After the seven year mark since the loan began, that $28k in interest will start compounding at 20% per year.
Why should rich people pay more in taxes than poor people?
-
Do you really want a revolt if the gap between rich and poor becomes so big that the poor people symbolically pick up pitch forks and storm the mansions of their employers?
What happens if it gets so worse the poor population decides not to honor the currency the rich people have?
First of all, for all you "Taxation without Representation" people, you need to read your US History and Tax law. You don't have a Constitutional right to have a vote in each locality where you pay some sort of tax or levy. The Founding Fathers understood that each State had to have to right to set taxes and levys without interference from the Federal Gov't. It's a states right's issue, part of the core idea of having a balance of power between federal, state and local gov't and private citizens.
The reason Colonists complained so much is that they were being excluded from any sort of representation, both at their home in the colonies, in the English Parliment, or in the English Courts. They had all the duties of a British Citizen and more, but none of the privileges. Here in the US you have many ways to get yourself represented.
For example, if your rights are stepped in in NYC by some aggressive policy officer, you can sue the City, no matter what state you are coming from. You can sue in city and state courts, or in many cases you can sue in Federal courts.
You can petition your federal representative to help you in an issue where you believe a state is stepping on your rights.
Additionally, you can choose to not deal with the State at all, just pick up and move to a place where things are more to your liking.
British Colonists had no such rights.
So Don't complain about Taxation without Representation.
If you work in NYC, whether you live there or not, you ARE using City services. You are riding subways and buses maintained by the city (the $2 per ride doesn't cover all the costs) and you are riding on roads in taxis being maintained by city workers. You are living in buildings that are inspected by city saftey officials. You are riding in elevators that have been reviewed by a city inspector. You are eating at places that have be checked by city health inspectors.
You are relying on City Police to enforce the law and protect you. If a crime is commited against you in NYC, you will find a host of people ready to help you and fight to find justice for you.
City firefighters will come to your rescue whether you are a city resident or an illegal alien. Just remember how many people that worked in the World Trade Center did not live in NYC. Yet hundreds of City workers laided down their lives on Sept 11, 2001 to try to save and help them.
NYC provides a business infrastructure that you can't just get by crossing the river to NJ. People come to NYC to get work done, and we have an incredible system working here to help.
NYC people are hard working and have a tremendous sense of community. NYC people know how to organize to get stuff done. We also have a ready pool of some of the most talented people in the world, in every possible field. If there is something or someone you need, you will be able to get it 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Try finding that in Texas!
The truth here is that NYC is still hurting after 9/11, trying to balance it's budget and still offer essential services. A very small percentage of people are trying to selfishly squirm out of paying the same taxes that everyone who works in the city pays, and the courts said no to this behavior.
Since 9/11 and the War on Terror, NYC has had to shell out billions. Costs are high because we are still a number one target. We gladly do our part to help protect this country, but we need everyone to pitch in and pay their fair share of the costs.
If you work in NYC but live in NJ, you are crossing bridges or tunnels that are seen are prime terrorist targets. A lot of money goes to trying to protect those sites, which is directly protecting you.
Additionally, NYC spents money to protect landmark sites, such as the Statue of Libery and other places of national heritage.
Another truth is that those of you affect by this court case came to NYC to get work. I have to assume if you could get it where you live that you would do
Peace, or Not?
If you've ever worked in New York - even for as little as 6 months - New York will also tax your retirement income and pension.
So... since they're there to interpret the constitution does that mean the letter or the spirit? A democracy by it's very nature dictates the democratic people represented in it's government should be the ones who's rights are protected, regardless of political bent.
And for those who have read the constitution the original document contains almost nothing to do with minority rights, the BILL OF RIGHTS and subsequent ammendments were created for this purpose. Ammendments to the constitution have created what we hope is minority rights encompassing the populous. If what you're saying is that by it's nature it allows for Judicial Activism then the constitution is flawed as well as those mis-using their positions of power.
IMO, IANAL blah blah, their are examples of both good and bad cases of judicial activism, (good being following the spirit of common law, and bad going against the spirit of common law.)
If Thomas was smart, he would have talked to an accountant who works with small businesses BEFORE he started that job (telecommuting from home in one state for a company in ANOTHER)
I know it's not always possible, but he should have formed an LLC (limited liability company) and asked his "employer" to pay his company instead of making checks out to him directly.
At the end of the year his company, based in TN, would get a 1099 instead of him. His SSN would be off NY's radar and he wouldn't be dealing with this shit - $5k tax bill plus possible penalties.
...New York has the right to tax 100% of a nonresident employee's income derived from New York sources...
100% TAX!!!
Thats what I call a hefty tax!
If we ran the US like that, it would still be Britain, and Canada would have all the liberty, courtesy of the American colonists who would have followed your advice and left. But we don't - at least those of us who are patriots, who believe in liberty. The reason we have the most stable significant-sized government in the world is because it's self-modifying. The "American Way" is to change the government to suit the people. It's "love it or leave it" traitors like you who ruin our country, by reducing it to the level of any tyranny, where the people are stuck with the government they get. I encourage traitors like you to leave, or else get left behind as we change your country around you.
--
make install -not war
How do you define the "telecommute to" point? Physical presence? Can I have a minimal physical presence in a no-income-tax state and thereby avoid state income tax?
Now, as long as this is an employee/employer relationship this is one thing, but what about a consultant or contractor? If I am a freelancer consultant and work for three companies in three states, who do I pay tax to?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I fail to to see the relevance of this story. A good deal of the /. crowd live outside the US. And I can't really see it opening up a general discussion about where income taxes ought to be paid.
-- Make America hate again!
Or is the rule just "if we want your money, we can take it"?
This guy isn't an independent contractor. He's an employee of a NY company, with no presense in the state he telecommutes from.
Doing it any other way would present a number of problems:
1) Increased administrative overhead on the part of the employing company due to dual tax rates and paperwork requirements.
2) Liability - if employee, working in Jersey, gets injured, his he going to sue under Jersey law, or NY law? For that matter, could it be considered fair to the NY company to require them to hire legal counsel for Jersey?
3) Numerous others: Employee benefits? Medical care?
New York is right here, folks. This guy is an *employee* of a NY company. Nothing here prevents you from starting your own company, and contracting out of state...
I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
Portland Oregon is a 1 million person metro area mostly in a state with no sales tax. About one quarter of the metro area is in Washington State with a 5% (I believe) sales tax and much lower state income tax.
Most people try to take advantage of this situation by residing in Washington and working in Washington State (if possible). Then they shop for durables in Oregon. Oregon's state income tax is quite high, much more so than WA. If you live in WA and work in OR, OR state makes you pay their income tax.
In a dual tax situation like this, the various governments watch everyone's financial situation closely to maximize their revenue. Everyone pays different amounts of tax. People who live in the no-sales-tax state are not required to pay sales tax on purchases of big-ticket items like cars that are bought in the sales tax state. One state has $15/yr car registration and the other has registration fees about ten times higher. There are also arrangements for college students not having to pay out-of-state tution to attend schools in the metro area that are technically out-of-state.
There aren't many metro areas that have state borders in the center of them. Kansas City, New York City, St. Louis, DC, Philly, Omaha, Cincinati. There are only two major metro areas with international borders cutting through them: El Paso and Detroit. Miami is one of the most important cities of Latin America even though it isn't actually in Latin America. It's a special case; everybody's neutral ground.
This tax situation is just going to get worse as the ultra-rich continue to pay a smaller percentage of their income to taxes through off-shore tax shelters and bribing state legislators to put specific loopholes for near individual situations into general laws. This is where someone introduces a law that no one would vote against (like making it illegal to expose your penis within 50 feet of an elementary school), and then puts a clause in the bill that would apply specifically to an individual large campaign contributor. The result of all this is that the tax burden gets shifted more each year from the rich to the middle-class.
The smarter elements of the middle class will use the internet to increasingly take advantage of offshore tax shelters on a much smaller scale. A company needs a network analyst. In the past they would hire someone to do this as an employee. In the future someone agrees to set up and maintain a network for $1500. The person sells an old Dell PC to the company for $1500. A bank in Luxembourg transfers $1500 to the network administrator's PayPal account. The network administrator uses her PayPal debit card to buy groceries and get cash-back after a day's work at the network site. The old Dell stays in the closet. No one pays tax.
This kind of thing is pretty transparent to a good government tax investigator. But when it becomes so common of a way of employment compensation that there are 100,000 cases a year for each government tax investigator, then there won't be much that the tax man can do to control it. There will always be some poor schmuck that gets slammed hard to set an example, just like the 12-year-old who gets slammed with a $150,000 fine for downloading a teen-idol pop song, but it will just be bad luck and its publicity will only increase the resolve of middle-class people to come up with new ways to not pay taxes.
Eventually all these huge budget-busting but mostly symbolic government projects like the Space Station, the BigDig, and Endless_Permanent_Middle-East_War will just be abandoned in mid-process due to lack of funds from decreasing tax revenues and the unwillingness of wealthy outsiders to lend money for some politician's wet-dream fantasy.
You are ignorant. meaning uninformed. lacking in knowledge. needing facts to understand.
Nobody NOBODY NOBODY in New York city is gonna be arrested for dildos, sex devices, vibrators, Traci Lords tapes (from when she was under 18), or tapes or DVDs of human-animal sex.
They CAN'T GET 12 LOCALS TO SAY "GUILTY". End of story. Everyone knows it. so the police don't arrest. the procecutors won't procecute. The new yorkers WILL NOT CONVICT.
LOCAL STANDARDS define obscenity and around here that shit ain't obscene.
If my company sells a product to a company in New York, does my company, which has no operation in New York, have to pay income tax on the profits generated from the sale?
It seems to me that the decision could be interpreted this way. If all income is taxable, and corporations generate income, then shouldn't a corporation be requuired to pay taxes in the state from which the profits derived?
If the above weren't the case, and it were feasible, I would think incorporating oneself, and then contract teh corporation's resources to the company. Now you have one corporation paying another, and you make your money in the sate where you live.
The difference is that a convicted felon was denied his right to vote by due process of law, he was convicted of a federal crime. The founding fathers did not say that you could NOT be deprived of life or liberty under any circumstances, the only requirement is that you receive due process in the courts be you are deprived of these things.
This is a misconception. Even if you are just barely in the next highest tax bracket you will never lose 100% of the money that is in that highest bracket so it is impossible to end up with less than you would have had if you were still entirely in the lower bracket.
Given the tax table at www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i1040tt.pdf, if I am single, and my taxable income is $29,699, my tax from the table would be $4,156.
Say that my income, and thus my taxable income, rises $2, to $29,701. My tax from the table becomes $4,169.
Note that I would then be paying $13 more in taxes for a $2 taxable income change.
Sure, it's $11 less spending power, it isn't a lot, but given that it took me 30 seconds to find one example, and given the complexity of tax law, are you so sure there aren't others that are more significant?
Code or be coded.
... even if they only collect taxes on the average offshore worker's $10 per diem, NY is looking ahead to a time when ALL the jobs will be offshore -- and lots of them, as work expands to fill the capacity available.
Billions and billions of low-paid taxable earners.
They're just planning for their future. Such visionary notions are not usually seen in the typical civil servant organizations. My hat's off to 'em
Somebody oughta tell G.W. Bush what NY is doing here. This strikes me as the solution to our Social Security funding problem. Our demographics are killing the program, we just need more wage earners to support it -- this is the answer.
The headquarters of my corporation is in New York. Do I have to pay New York tax?
I/O Error G-17: Aborting Installation
if he has to pay the NY state tax then that means he doesn't have to pay the state tax where he lives
It is a duck.
The ruling only makes sense if you add 'AND ARE NOT A RESIDENT OF ANY OTHER STATE OR COUNTRY'. Plus a bit more to cover international agreements.
Such and ammendment would not bite other states agreements, and would only affect migratory freeloaders, whilst protecting the revenue base generally.
To pay taxes without representation is wrong, moreso when you link paymaster with where you are working, and there is no conexxion with the State, say NY. The test should be where do you vote.
Example: You are fighting in Iraq, and two soldiers pay different amounts of tax - crazy , wrong and unworkable. Lets hope the Iraqi govt levys a tax on the troops - well NY imposing the same logic is just as stupid.
Example : Divorce payments, and alimony - a bit inconsistant here! What if there was a commuting relationship?
What if I telecommute to NY, and the computer is in CA or Bangalore? hmmm issues.
Clearly, head offices will be shifting out of NY
is this con is tried. Seems employers only accept telecommuting when they are desperate - deadlines, penalties etc. All will sting NY - and cause a migration out.
Back to the duck test, IMHO the decision was wrong, and the scope too broad, so it will be appealed. If NY tries it, Bangalore govt and Iraqi govt will use the same argument.
IANAL but maybe legally, these head offices just need to set up an out of state recruiting company that pays the wages, and a teeny weeny management fee to NY to get around it, with employee logging in to server into 10 states round robbin style. Use MQ and 'POST' the work in would add to the issues.
Someone needs to do SOMETHING about these judges making laws out of thin air.
Clearly this ruling is contrary to the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. By this court's "logic" Everyone employed by any company has to pay taxes to EVERY municipality and state that the company has a presence in.
People love to talk of the greed of corporations for money, and that talk is somewhat justified. Too little and seldom, however, is the talk of the greed of GOVERNMENTS who think they have a God given right to a "cut" of all money that flows through the economy.
When is this court going to demand income taxes from all those offshore Indian programmers that I'm sure more than one NYC basef firm employs?
In the long run, if this were to stand, and I think it won't, because federal judges, being bigger pompous asses than even state judges, won't stand for federal authority to be usurped, this tax scheme would have a DEVASTATING effect on NYC and it's economy.
Corporatism != Free Market
I had no idea that a state could pull something like this. Being in the DC Metro area, you pay state income tax for the state you are a resident of and NO OTHER STATE. It doesn't matter how much time you spend and where you are physically working. Wow...imagine that, a tax law that makes sense....pay taxes for the municipality where you use resources. I can't see NY getting away with this....
There has been a nonresident commuter tax for NYC for decades. It's about half the regular resident income tax rate for NYC.
Well all I can say is that between double taxes and the gloating pride that downstaters have in their astronomical housing prices more and more people will refuse to move and work there. And now it seems that people won't want to work for companies that 'do business' there regardless of where they live.
BTW what does a "NY company" mean. I work for a large company incorporated in NYS. Does that mean if I work from home, my remote office away from my normal office in North Carolina that I have to pay taxes to NYS as well?
Even though relocated for 5 years, because of NOT meeting old states residency requirements when applied to new state, old state wants full tax. Residency requirements are no longer met (they would be if the taxes were paid) for old state.
New state residency is established as far as new state is concerned. If tax is paid to old state then new state reverts to part time residency and higher tax rate!
Should have had stopprd in deleware florida, or nevada along the way.
Telecommuting could be defined as anything. I write files here that are hosted in Iowa. I'm now on the hook for Iowa taxes, too? There's no end to this insanity. Where ever you are physically present is where you should pay taxes. It's their roads, bridges and schools you're using, not New York.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
I wonder if my friends at the IT Help Desk in Bangalore have to file NY State tax returns.
The courts/politicians have finally figured out how to raise taxes w/o fear of voter repurcussions(sp?). Those being taxed can't vote out the politicians (or put pressure on judges) because they can't vote in NYS.
Hmmmm, I live in a state west of NY. Maybe I can convince my state legislature to tax New Yorkers for breathing the oxygen produced by the vegetation in my state.
This seems similar to the proposals that DC makes every so often about taxing commuters from MD & VA - since DC is a District, they don't have the ability to tax the suburbs where much of the regional tax base is, and their finances suffer compared to most cities, which can get state money. Their proposals get shot down every time, and this seems even more egregious. I don't think it will stick.
The important piece of this to the states is not where you were when you worked, but where the company did business. If the company's business operations are in their state and you contributed to the business operations in that state, then that state is going to examine what was done and may lay a claim to your wages. However, if you can document that the company paying you has business operations in the state you are in and that you worked for those business operations, then you pay income tax to the state you are in.
First example: if you work for Company Y and Company Y sends you to Texas to install a computer system, Texas does not have the ability to claim any of your wages because the majority of the business operations for Company Y are in the state Company Y does business. Texas makes up for it by charging sales tax.
Second example: (personal) While living and working in Colorado, I made a point of working in the satellite office of a company that was located in Indiana, even though the project I was working on was run out of (and paid out of) the Indiana office. Because it was a real office owned by the same parent organization, because I made a point of having a desk and a phone in that office even though I was a W2 contractor, and because that office had similar business operations, Colorado claimed my wages, and Indiana could not.
One of the issues facing contractors - those of you who are truly self-employed and paid 1099 as I used to be - is that you need to make a concerted effort to have a physical office space and to do the majority of your work out of that office. You need to document the hours spent in that office, etc. Then (as most of you know), you avoid the taxation issue where two states contend for your wages.
One of the problems facing contractors is that many are being forced to work for companies by going to "approved vendors" as W2 employees. This is the same problem facing those who telecommute.
If you're paid W2, live in state A, but the business operations are in state B - well, this NY ruling sets a dangerous precendent (and NY is not alone in going after these situations) Even though you physically are located in another state, the company that is paying you as a W2 does not have or pay for a physical office space in your state and does not have any business operations in your state. As a result, the state can rule that you owe them income taxes as the deciding factor is not where you were but where the business paying you operated. The precedent is "we, the state (or city) have created an atmosphere for this business to exist and operate within our state's boundaries, therefore you owe us income tax on any wages earned while doing work for the business operations located within our limits." The issue being that the state you live in wants its cut too.
Note: areas that border - and someone bought up Cincinnati, which borders Ohio, Indiana and Kentucky - often have agreements which allow someone who lives in one state but works in another state to only pay taxes in the state in which they live. These agreements date to the times when people could only travel so far in one day in order to work.
Basically, US state tax law has not yet taken into account the ability people have to telecommute. Contact your legislator and get them working on it. Not that they care much, but maybe you can find someone to champion the issue.
Philadelphia tried something similar a few years back. Philly has its own income tax: 5% right off the top if you live or work in the city. So, non-residents had to pay tax as well without receiving any of the benefits. Well, if there could be said to be any benefits to living in Philadelphia... Anyway, Ed Rendell who was mayor for a while came up with a great idea, IMO, he said "we've got all of these sports teams, musicians, artists, etc coming into our town, collecting pay from us and leaving without paying taxes. Let's tax 'em!" I agree with his assessment: they're nothing more than commuters, why shouldn't they pay?
Alas, as I understand it, it never came to be...
Which is more painful? Going to work or gouging your eye out with a spoon? Find out!
http://www.workorspoon.com
The parent explains exactly how this will be handled - I telecommute for a multi-national, branch offices are established in every state for tax purposes.
"Chances are very good that the kind people in NY and other more densely populated and more presporous states are indeed paying for your police or fire dept not to mention your highways.
"
How you fix it is by stopping the federal giveaways, and allowing the states to keep their
tax dollars. Then the state can spend its money locally.
Service guarantees Citizenship! Questions Guarantee GITMO.... Amerika Uber Alles!
Dude, did you ever get a refund for LJ suspending your account?
"Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
So all those "telecommuters" working in Bangalore will have to pay NY state tax as well?
So don't tax them if they can't vote. That was the point of the American revolution.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Everyone loves to spout "no taxation without representation!" but they conveniently forget that the colonists who said that had no other choice. They couldn't just go work in another colony and avoid the taxes.
The people commuting to another state to work can just go back and work in their own state, thus avoiding the taxes being levvied on them.
I think if you work in another state you could just thumb your nose at the New York Tax Nazis and tell them to take a hike. They have no jurisdiction outside New York. Of course you'll have to stay out of New York until the statute of limitations is up to avoid any penalties.
I work in St Louis City. There is a 1% employment tax on all income you earn in the city. If I worked 50% of the time in our office outside the city and 50% in the city, I'd pay 1% of 50% of my income to the city.
People always bitch and moan about the evils of taxes, but those taxes pay for minor conveniences like roads, street lights, stop signs, police, firefighters, etc etc. If you work in the city, you are getting a benefit from those and many other services, it's only reasonable that you help pay for them.
this is getting old and so are you
blog
My (large) company is headquartered in St. Louis, but is incorporated as a NY company and maintains a regional division in NYC. Would NY then be able to require all employees of my company to pay NY income tax, even if they work, live, and get their check in a non-NY state? If this is upheld, look to see a lot of companies re-incorporate in a non-NY state real soon now.
I guess New York figures that, since the federal government taxes hundred of millions of people that are technically out of its jurisdiction, it wouldn't hurt for them to do it too.
(FYI, federal jurisdiction covers DC, Puerto Rico, Guam, the US Virgin Islands, military bases, courthouses, etc. If you live in a State, the feds are not allowed to operate there. They do it anyway. Nice, huh?)
I live in New Hampshire, which has no local state income tax, but MUCH higher property tax, tolls and auto registration fees / taxes.
Being within commuting distance to MA (Boston is 60 miles), many folks live in NH and work in MA. Some of us even live in NH and telecommute 100% to MA.
MA get's you all possible ways... If you live in MA and work in NH, you pay MA state income tax. If you live in NH and work in MA, you pay MA state income tax. If you live in NH and your physical place of work is in NH and you telecommute for a company in MA, they try to get you to pay MA state income tax.
2 years ago, I was living in NH and working 1 day per week in MA and telecommuting the rest of the week. The law used to state that you'd pay a percentage based on the amount of actual number of days spent working in MA, but they've changed that. I got forced to pay MA state income tax for the entire year anyway.
This last year, I work for a company based out of NY, which also happens to be where my home office is (I've been there 6 months and only seen my office twice). I telecommute but it's in my job description that I must work 1 day a week at the company's MA facility. So for 2004, I had to pay NY state income tax and MA state income tax (for 1 day per week) and I don't live in either state...
This is insane!
I have read quite a few comments regarding public services that are usually paid for with taxes. No one seems to mention any of the corrupt, wasteful, fraudulent, or merely pointless spending that tends to eclipse that which actually returns value to the public.
You may not be using New York's roads, schools, and hospitals when you telecommute, but I think we can all agree that the need to taser and pepper-spray ordinary people and kick back contracts to the mayor's buddies transcends state borders.
They do indeed have to give full faith and credit to the *judgment*. However, states have some leeway on matters that violate their own public policy (for example, enforcement of gambling debts).
An Nevada has taken it much further. California decided that it could tax retirement income of former Calilifornia residents. Nevada responded by adding to its list of exemptions "all property situate within the state of Nevada if the judgment is for state income tax on retirement income," or something similar.
hawk
NY has been getting alot of money, especially after 911. NY City in particular has had some on again off again problems dealings with it's finances.
California has a dysfunction congressional delegation, so we ship more money out than comes back. We also get to deal with illegal aliens to the tune of 5 to 9 billion a year the Feds won't help us out with, and neither will the Democrats or the Republicans.
No, I didn't forget about Chicago. I believe that Chicago center is far enough away from the Wisconson and Indiana borders to regard the metro areas in the state border crossings to not really be part of the 'Chicago' experience. The metro areas merge because Chicagoland is so large, but it's not really Chicago or the a city that has a state border right through the city.
It could be just me, but it seems that Chicago is one of the least attractive cities in North America. The city center has some amazing buildings, but the rest of the city can be really, well, ugly. It's those long cold winters. The people are nice, which makes up for it.
Why does everyone on Slashdot assume that I'm a guy? Maybe just being here makes me an 'honorary' guy, or a guy in spirit and soul. Christ, you shouldn't even assume that I'm still alive.
What I get from this article is that the court said 100% of the income derived from the New York State source is taxable by NYS, not that any income earned elsewhere out of NYS is taxable by NYS. In other words, Huckaby earned $4,387 from the New York State source, and all of that amount (not just a percentage) is subject to NYS income tax. If Huckaby earned an additional $50,000 from work done for employers not located in NYS, none of that $50,000 can be taxed by NYS. Most of the postings in this thread seem to suugest that Huckaby's tax burden is based on his entire income earned from all sources in and out of NYS, but that is not what the court said, at least according to what the article reports. That is how it should be. Now, if NYS is trying to tax income Huckaby earned in Tennessee, that would be just cause for a tax revolt against NYS.
Uhhh, most of the ethanol subsidies that exist now are state ones, not federal. Though there are some renewable fuel tax credits. And the only roads the US government pays for are interstates and US highways, which are supposed to facilitate travel and transport across multiple states. Thus federal highway spending in other states redowns heavily to the benefit of people in other states, as opposed to local roads. You aren't paying for any of the local, county, or state highways with federal tax dollars. So farmer Joe's gravel road isn't being paid for with federal highway funds.
----- Question authority, but not ours. Hate the man, but we're not him.
Up until this ruling, if you work in NY & live in NY, you pay NY tax, and get a credit for NY tax paid on your NJ return. Typically, since NY tax is higher, you don't pay NJ at all. However, the NY non-resident return has a section to fill out to pro-rate taxes based on the days actually worked in NY. So people who work some days in NY and some in NJ for a NY employer can save a little by accounting for this. Now with this new ruling (if it stands) it seems that it doesn't matter where one physically works - just that you're paid for a NY job. Unanswered is what happens when the company involved has presence in states other than NY. I would assume that if the company has an office in NJ the NY ruling could not possibly apply - who are they to say that it's NY income at that point? Just another reason the ruling makes no sense.
In the US, states have agreements to pro-rate the taxes based on how much of your time or money you're earning in one place or the other, and that applies whether you're doing physical commuting or whether you move in the middle of the year or whatever. The effect to the taxpayer is that you end up paying the higher state income tax rate (which is annoying if the state where you work gets more money from income taxes and the state where you live gets more money from property taxes or whatever.) One big problem here is that New York almost always has the higher income taxes. So if you're working in New York and living in New Jersey, you're paying more tax than if you were living and working in New Jersey. Another big problem is that the court decision sounds irresponsibly vague.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Is it fair to compare property taxes to a school bully making a student pay for protection against another bully?
Cause a lot of people argue in favour that property taxes pay for military defense in order to protect what we own.
(Just focus on the military defense issue.)