Slashdot Mirror


New York Wants To Tax Internet Downloads

An anonymous reader writes "NY is considering taxing 'video and music' downloads to offset a burgeoning budget deficit." How long before we all have meters on our routers? This version is just a 4% tax on movies and songs downloaded from services like iTunes, but I'm sure if they could figure out a bit tax, they would.

91 of 485 comments (clear)

  1. Old news is old by superbus1929 · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is nothing new; they've been talking about this for months, maybe over a year. It's caused issues with Amazon in the past, if I remember right.

    --
    Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".
    1. Re:Old news is old by ShawnCplus · · Score: 5, Informative

      Most online retailers hate New York because we have horrible taxes, I believe NewEgg stopped requiring users to pay the tax in NY which caused them some issues. This will only exacerbate the intertube hatred of NY

      --
      Excuse me while I gather the virgin sacrifice and assemble the pentagram required to solve your problem
    2. Re:Old news is old by Smidge207 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      *sigh* I agree...BUT: Why should there be a tax on Internet traffic for any reason? I mean a true, cogent reason? New York has contributed nothing so why should it profit from that which it has contributed nothing to? Secondly it offers no protectionism. This is taxation without representation. Thirdly how much tax dollars is wasted in New York and given to the rich? Fourth what is the purpose of a Federal Tax deduction if it's going to be added to state and local taxes? Fifth if New York is going to raise taxes then it shouldn't get any bailout money because it contradicts what the Federal Government is doing?

      There needs to be correspondence between what the Fed does and State and Local Governments are doing in order for the stimulus to work. We can't pull two different directions. Taxing downloads is an invasion of privacy anyway. It's not about pr0n it's about taxation without representation. The reality is tax money as well as tax deductions are given to corporations for the purposes of conventions centers and etc... which does nothing for the areas except deplete taxes for the purpose of benefiting rich corporations. They claim to make jobs, however the jobs do not pay a living wage and further taxes the economy through social programs.

      Enough is enough!

      =Smidge=

      --
      Is it just my observation, or is eldavojohn an idiot?
    3. Re:Old news is old by larry+bagina · · Score: 4, Informative

      They've been talking about it for a while, but it's different than the amazon tax. Amazon (and other mail order/internet stores) don't collect sales tax if they don't have a physical presence in the state. New York wanted to reclassify affiliate programs so that Amazon (and anyone else with an affiliate in New York) would need to collect NY state sales tax.

      --
      Do you even lift?

      These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

    4. Re:Old news is old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      New York has contributed nothing so why should it profit from that which it has contributed nothing to?

      Nonsense. New York has given us Credit Default Swaps.

    5. Re:Old news is old by causality · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Most online retailers hate New York because we have horrible taxes, I believe NewEgg stopped requiring users to pay the tax in NY which caused them some issues. This will only exacerbate the intertube hatred of NY

      You wouldn't think that a state could tax interstate trade, but if NewEgg (which appears to operate out of California) really did experience "issues" then I have a solution to that. Nothing would get the attention of the state of New York quite like every out-of-state online retailer refusing to sell to any NY resident or to ship items to a NY address. When customers complain, refer them to the problems NewEgg experienced and encourage them to take it up with the NY state legislature. The point is to make this an utter failure. That's definitely in our interests because if NY does this successfully, you can count on other states following suit.

      If this happened, I doubt it would have to happen more than once to put an end to this sort of BS. Just imagine the precedent it would set.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    6. Re:Old news is old by quanticle · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, the precedent would last until some retailer sued the state in federal court on the exact grounds you've brought up - regulation of interstate commerce is a matter explicitly reserved by the federal government.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    7. Re:Old news is old by FireStormZ · · Score: 5, Informative

      "You wouldn't think that a state could tax interstate trade"

      A little known fact is that the 'sales tax' is more a 'use tax'. If someone in NY drives to PA to by cloths and save the tax money they are legally required to pay NY taxes on it (few actually do this). This is why NY (outside of the City) is dying, its not just Buffalo but everywhere except Albany (seat of state government) is hurting. Taxes in NY are just way to high for business to start setting up shop and competing with neighboring states.

      --
      "Ahh! Arrogance and stupidity in the same package, how efficient of you!" --Londo Molari
    8. Re:Old news is old by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      This is taxation without representation.

      I beg to differ: This is taxation by our representation, at least for those in New York. Please refrain from hyperbole.

      Now, whether or not the entire NY State Congress should be first against the wall when the revolution comes is another matter entirely *grin*.

    9. Re:Old news is old by CannonballHead · · Score: 2, Informative

      California has the same thing, I just found out. We are required to cite "out of state" purchases that we didn't pay sales taxes on and pay sales tax on it. It is very, very stupid.

    10. Re:Old news is old by cmdr_tofu · · Score: 2, Insightful

      and Connecticut too. I list untaxed internet purchases when I do my tax returns. Sales tax keeps our states running!

    11. Re:Old news is old by ADRA · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe I'm just lame with your annoying legal policies, but I fail to see how materially, a tax shouldn't be applied on internet purchases vs. store-fronts. In fact, by not supporting online taxation, your punishing local retailers that are legally obligated to charge you.

      If this keeps up, you'll simply speed up the death of all brick and mortar stores and further kill your dwindling retail markets. It may not be SOOO bad for the consumer (besides the ability to walk into a store and purchase something), but It'll mean a hell of a lot less jobs for those retail peeps.

      --
      Bye!
    12. Re:Old news is old by qbzzt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe I'm just lame with your annoying legal policies, but I fail to see how materially, a tax shouldn't be applied on internet purchases vs. store-fronts. In fact, by not supporting online taxation, your punishing local retailers that are legally obligated to charge you.

      Local retailers receive a bunch of services from the local and state governments: police protection, roads, etc. Internet retailers do not.

      Besides, it's reasonable for a local retailer to support one taxing jurisdiction. It isn't reasonable for an internet retailer to support thousands of us.

      --
      -- Support a free market in the field of government
    13. Re:Old news is old by andymadigan · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Mechanization of manufacturing meant a lot of lost jobs. The progress of technology will always mean some jobs are lost. Our overall efficiency increases, however.

      --
      The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
    14. Re:Old news is old by Hordeking · · Score: 4, Insightful

      and Connecticut too. I list untaxed internet purchases when I do my tax returns. Sales tax keeps our states running!

      Then give me a complete refund on my income taxes.

      --
      Disclaimer: The opinions and actions of the US Gov't are in no way representative of those held by this author or its ci
    15. Re:Old news is old by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>>if NewEgg (which appears to operate out of California) really did experience "issues" then I have a solution to that. Nothing would get the attention of the state of New York quite like every out-of-state online retailer refusing to sell to any NY resident
      >>>

      I have a better solution. As a PA ebay seller I'm supposed to file sales tax forms with New York State. I continue selling to NY residents, but to the NY Legislature I say, "Fuck off. No taxation without representation in your legislature."

      I also welcome New York to come arrest me. I have my doubts Pennsylvania militia will just sit idly while New York sends an invasion force 200 miles into PA territory. Sovereign states don't like foreign invaders.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    16. Re:Old news is old by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >>>Maybe I'm just lame with your annoying legal policies, but I fail to see how materially, a tax shouldn't be applied on internet purchases vs. store-fronts.
      >>>

      Based upon your answer I'm going to assume you are non-American. For the New York Legislature to force a California or other state business to file taxes with New York, is equivalent to the British parliament collecting taxes from a German business. Just as a German citizen is not subject to foreign British taxation, neither is a Californian citizen subject to foreign New York taxation.

      Clear?

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    17. Re:Old news is old by Dreadneck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      New York has contributed nothing so why should it profit from that which it has contributed nothing to?

      This amounts to nothing more than a sales tax on internet commerce. Don't act so surprised. You didn't honestly think government was going to sit idly by, forever passing up yet another opportunity to milk taxpayers for all they're worth, did you?

      On a different note, I found the following excerpt from TFA quite hilarious.

      But not everyone is on board with the idea of profiting off porn. The chairman of New York's Conservative Party says that taxing it legitimizes it.

      The National Republican Congressional Committee had no problem taking money from the porn industry at a 2005 fundraiser attended by President Bush.

      Christian evangelical leaders called for an explanation. The only one they got, at least in public, was from a spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee, who said: "We'll take that money and use it to elect more Republicans."

      I love the smell of hypocrisy in the morning. It smells like... politics.

      --
      Power does not corrupt - power attracts the corrupt.
    18. Re:Old news is old by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 2, Informative

      Court cases have held that as long as the use tax doesn't cause the total tax on an item (sales + use) to exceed your home state's sales tax, it's legal. (How they came to that conclusion, I don't understand, but they did.) Of course, as far as I'm aware states with use tax don't offer provisions for refunds if you pay more than your home state's sales tax elsewhere. (I certainly didn't see any when filing my state taxes for Michigan this year.)

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    19. Re:Old news is old by dwiget001 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not only that but, 23 years ago (may still be the case) some (or maybe all) California counties/cities had a similar thing for sales tax differences in other California counties/cities.

      1) You live in county X.
      2) You buy a car in county Y.
      3) After a while, you get a bill from county X for the difference between the sales tax in your county and the lower sales tax in county Y where you bought the car.

      Yes, this happened to me.

      I sent them the bill back stating "There is no way I am paying this bill. Have a nice day!" I never heard from them again.

      Of course, some uppity county official could have dragged me into court, but it never happened, no lien was ever filed, etc.

      It wasn't a lot of money. And, I didn't even go to this other county to buy the car because of the sales tax difference. I bought it in county Y because they had a ton more dealerships there with a much larger selection compared to the county I lived in. Yeah, the prices were better also.

    20. Re:Old news is old by phorm · · Score: 5, Informative

      Um? My guess would be:

      a) Via the internet, which you pay for

      b) Via postal mail, which you pay for

      c) By plane, train, or automotive, for which the fuel surtax and others are paid for by the transporter and then considered as part of the bill paid for in (b)

    21. Re:Old news is old by NIckGorton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      For several reasons:

      1. Money spent on cyber-crap takes away from irl-crap purchased in NY state. Who would pay $107 for your books at a brick and mortar bookstore when you can get them for $100 for them (with free shipping) on amazon.com?
      2. Poor people don't have the wherewithal to purchase things on the internet. So taxing goods purchased irl while not taxing cyperspace transactions becomes a very regressive tax.

    22. Re:Old news is old by Shakrai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Now, whether or not the entire NY State Congress should be first against the wall when the revolution comes is another matter entirely *grin*.

      If you want to put the New York State Legislature up against the wall after the revolution you'd have a lot of New Yorkers volunteering to serve on the firing squad. Can we start with Sheldon Silver?

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    23. Re:Old news is old by BoberFett · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's worse than that. Once states get their piece, counties and cities will want to get in on it as well.

      I work for a company which does direct sales all over the US, and we collect taxes on all of it to any jurisdiction. Between tracking and remitting taxes to every potential entity we spend A LOT of money just keeping up with taxes at numerous levels. And that's when we're not being audited. Add a tax audit and the work involved becomes insane.

      Compliance costs would completely drive small web shops out of business. As with most things government does "for the good of the people" the unintended consequences of online taxes would help out massive corporations everywhere who could easily eat the costs involved while punishing the small business.

  2. The upside by Warll · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The upside of them metering one's bandwidth use would be that many people would start taking action over their windows zombie box.

    1. Re:The upside by quanticle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      More likely, we'd see more computers going to the landfills, as users realize that its almost as cheap to purchase a new computer as to have the one you own serviced.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    2. Re:The upside by causality · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Since 99% of home users don't understand what is going on, all it would mean is more computers would be going to the shop for simple cleanings.

      You say that like it is the users fault, however, poor documentation and complex UI design (although completely off topic) is equally, if not more at fault ..... Does a pilot ridicule you when you fly on his plane but don't understand the aerodynamics?

      It is their fault.

      Users can always decide that compromised security is absolutely unacceptable. Deciding that means they'll do whatever they have to do to prevent it. With that mindset, poor documentation and UI problems are merely inconvenient obstacles to be overcome and are not showstoppers. There is more than one well-maintained, reasonably secure computer on the Internet and only one is needed to prove that this can be done. It's just a matter of whether the user is going to passively wait around for somebody else to do this for them, or whether perhaps there are things that are more important than that and worthy of some effort. The information needed to stop the vast, vast majority of automated malware attacks is quite easily obtained via Google and much of it is quite well-documented. Maintaining a computer is far, far easier than programming one and well within the reach of any literate adult. This is a matter of decision-making and priorities, not capability.

      Or, to answer the question as you posed it: perhaps a pilot would not ridicule me because I don't know how to compute aerodynamics equations, especially if I am merely a passenger. I would certainly expect to catch flak from a pilot, however, if I tried to fly (not merely "fly on") his plane with no basic understanding of how to do so. Anyone who buys a computer and puts it on the public Internet is flying their own plane, by your analogy, and is not merely a passenger. It's just that when a pilot makes a serious mistake it's a matter of life and limb so we don't try to deny the need to know what you're doing and we don't try to make excuses for incompetence. If someone with absolutely no aviation knowledge tries to fly a plane and crashes it, no one suggests that he's a victim of poor documentation or that the real problem is that airplanes are too hard for the average person to fly. When computers are compromised, it practically never endangers life and limb so there arises the idea that this changes the dynamics of the situation or removes the need for personal responsibility and the excuses soon follow.

      What you are saying boils down to a victim mentality. I'm not arguing against you so much as I am rejecting the victim mentality that you propound. To that I'll add that you appear to be hypersensitive to this issue. In a way you have to be, because the victim mentality is a message of hopelessness that does not stand up to examination. I say that because the GP did not assign blame at all. He said "Since 99% of home users don't understand what is going on ..." but he did not attempt to explain why this is the case. Maybe he thinks that's the users' fault, or maybe he agrees with you that they are merely victims of things like poor UI and poor documentation with no hope of taking some initiative and improving their situation. He did not specify. That means that how he would explain it is open to speculation and therefore you chose to interpret that the way that you did. He may later explain his reasoning and maybe it'll turn out that your assumption was right and maybe it won't; either way, at the time of your reply you had no way of knowing.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    3. Re:The upside by Renraku · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The downside would be that you actually pay for those 5MB webpages that would be 300k without the annoying advertisements everywhere.

      --
      Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
    4. Re:The upside by Warll · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'd love for that to become an issue.

  3. The Tax Man Cometh by mc1138 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    New York taxes everything, a lot of it has to do with the maintenance of New York City. They get subsidies from all sorts of things, taxes, bus fares, chances are if you buy something in New York, some of that money goes to New York City. In fact, even living in New York City is taxed.

    1. Re:The Tax Man Cometh by YouWantFriesWithThat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      that's insane. renters already pay property taxes every month. do they think that because the property tax bill is addressed to the landlord that they won't pass it on the the renters?

  4. Great for increasing piracy by kseise · · Score: 5, Insightful

    No tax on torrents? Cool! Bye Bye iTunes.

    1. Re:Great for increasing piracy by causality · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No tax on torrents? Cool! Bye Bye iTunes.

      That might make torrents a lot more dangerous for NY residents. Now, instead of being the civil tort of copyright infringement, it could be criminal tax evasion. I'm definitely not a lawyer so this is just my unqualified opinion, but this is exactly the sort of thing I've come to expect from government.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    2. Re:Great for increasing piracy by sabs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You do realize we already pay a tax for bandwidth.
      Look at your internet bill.

    3. Re:Great for increasing piracy by Aladrin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      If that were true they'd get all thieves on tax evasion, and as far as I know, they've never ever charged one with tax evasion for not paying the tax on a product they stole.

      --
      "If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you; But if you really make them think, they'll hate you." - DM
  5. No problem for me by Yvanhoe · · Score: 5, Funny

    I would happily forward 4% of the bits that comes into my router to the NY city hall if that can help them balance their budget.

    --
    The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
  6. I want to see a provision in the stimulus package by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    . . . that forces states to pay back the money they receive from the Federal government, and puts a harsh salary and compensation cap on politicians in those states who elect to take Federal bailout funds. The likes of California and New York clearly have no concept of what it means to "spend less," and current taxpayers are fleeing by the tens of thousands, causing them to create asinine taxes like the one in TFA and causing even more people and companies to head to more tax-friendly states. A government should be forced to plan its finances like a responsible household, taking into consideration risk, debt and spending just like the rest of us have to in reality land. After all, it's our money they're spending. Why is this so hard to comprehend?

  7. Grrrr by LatencyKills · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm sick of the attitude "we've got stuff to pay for and we need to figure out how to raise revenue to do it" regardless of how they choose to raise it. Here's a novel approach to government: we've got X dollars, how can we spend it to maximize the quality of life of our citizens? I don't get to randomly pull in more money from secondary sources if I decide I want a bigger TV this year, so why should the government?

    --
    Jealously hoarding mod points since 2007.
    1. Re:Grrrr by Ironchew · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Time to go after the pork. Scaling the military-industrial complex down to a defensive level instead of an imperial level suddenly frees up nearly half our federal revenue. Imagine all the social programs that would benefit.

    2. Re:Grrrr by schnikies79 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Social programs are pork as well.

      --
      Gone!
    3. Re:Grrrr by twiddlingbits · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Troll..the defense budget is nowhere near half the Federal spending. The 2008 figures were around 18-20% of Federal spending and about 4.4% of Gross Domestic Product. If you want to find savings look at Mandated Entitlement programs such as Social Security, Medicare/Medicaid and those "pork" projects each Senator sticks in the various spening bills. The funding levels for Defense are projected to DROP in the next few years while entitlement spending zooms to the moon. Add in entitlements contained in the "bailout" and we are going to have significant issues funding just the BASIC military (payroll, facilities, maintenance) we need much less R&D and procurements needed to stay current with technology. Just because the USA doesnt'/won't/can't spend enough of our budget to keep up does not mean our enemies will ease up their spending. Or maybe you want the US to be lesser?????

    4. Re:Grrrr by causality · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm sick of the attitude "we've got stuff to pay for and we need to figure out how to raise revenue to do it" regardless of how they choose to raise it. Here's a novel approach to government: we've got X dollars, how can we spend it to maximize the quality of life of our citizens? I don't get to randomly pull in more money from secondary sources if I decide I want a bigger TV this year, so why should the government?

      That's easy. There's this common misconception that politicians don't understand things like balanced budgets. They do. They're power-hungry liars but otherwise they are not stupid. They know how to play this game and they know that the average person is far too trusting and naive.

      The reason why they don't carefully spend our money and otherwise respect and honor the citizens is because there is no political power to be had by doing that. That is the nature of political power. I wish we'd be more open and honest about that instead of beating the drum of patriotism and claiming that the expansion of government is "for the children" or "for our safety". A minimal government that is fiscally responsible and leaves the citizens alone as much as possible just doesn't satisfy the sort of fevered egos who are attracted to positions of political power.

      As a side note, to get a better idea of the sort of manipulation that goes on, just research "problem, reaction, solution" which is also known as Hegel's "thesis, antithesis, synthesis". If you can notice that pattern just one time you'll start seeing it everywhere. See that and patterns like it and perhaps then you, too can experience the joy of predicting the outcome of political "debates" in the media (it's easy -- whichever prefabricated solution does the most to expand government is the one that will probably "win") for people who neither believe you nor question the high success rate of your predictions. There's just not a lot of understanding of the idea that our politicians have been going down the same path for quite some time and that they intend to travel further down that same path.

      --
      It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
    5. Re:Grrrr by CannonballHead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Um. Defense is one of those few things in the US Constitution that is MANDATED of the federal government. Unemployment checks are not.

      IMO, the way it should go is this: We have $X dollars. We are required to do $Y and $Z, so let's do those first. After that, with our leftover money, let's do the social programs not required of us.

      Right now, the government and most Americans seem to think the other way around. Social programs are more important than the Constitutional mandated actions of the federal government. Until, of course, defense becomes a priority due to some event; then, suddenly, everyone is willing to spend money on it.

      Am I saying to WASTE money on the mandated obligations of the federal government? No. But we should definitely get the priorities straight before we spend... not spend (somewhere, somehow) and hope it works. Which is apparently the current administration and Congress majority's ideas.

    6. Re:Grrrr by Neoprofin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Who determines who the "truly needy" are? That's always been the root of the argument. There are very few people who honestly support a complete tooth and claw society where any who fall behind for any reason are left to die, just as there are very few people who support a state that hands everything to anyone regardless of their social context.

      In the middle are all the shades of gray, and each and everyone one of those shades has social programs they'd cut as unnecessary, so it's a little pretentious to argue that there aren't some pork barreled social programs out there.

    7. Re:Grrrr by Clandestine_Blaze · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Says somebody who obviously never needed social programs. It's everybody's responsibility to uphold a civil society by helping the truly needy, because they would expect the same if they needed it.

      I'm only speaking for myself. I would love to see my tax dollars go out and help people out, but only if it meant that those that are being helped would eventually become productive members of society. It does them no good if they only collected a cheque but were never in a position to help themselves. I've always felt that the point of having any social program was to send people assistance so that they could help themselves get back on their feet. Once they get back on their feet, they are then able to contribute so that other people can be helped. Obviously, such a system has the potential to be highly abused.

      I have never conducted or read about any scientific studies to show how many people actually just sit at home and collect welfare cheques while never working, so I cannot really say whether that point of view is a myth or not.

      That's my take. Some people would not want to see a single dime go out in such a manner, and that's their right, as it's their hard-earned money. I'm interested in helping the needy, but even more interested in helping them actually get into a position to help themselves.

      I'm not calling all welfare recipients lazy, but was more going along the lines of the old Chinese proverb of "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach him how to fish and he will eat for a lifetime." Anyway, there are non-welfare based social programs as well, and I honestly believe that the biggest problems are the excess pork that politicians promise to special interest groups. I can stomach a homeless guy getting my money, but not a multi-million dollar special interest group, unless they are actually producing jobs and giving back.

      Of course, I'm not a big fan of excessive taxing to begin with. I would like to see the money that people earn to stay in their pockets as much as possible.

  8. porn tax by innocent_white_lamb · · Score: 5, Interesting

    TFA says that this will include a tax on porn, but not all of the lawmakers are on-board with the idea of taxing porn. Apparently taxing "legitimate" movies and music is fine, but a porn tax is bad.

    Things that make you go hmmmm....

    --
    If you're a zombie and you know it, bite your friend!
  9. Porn Taxation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
    From the article:

    fee on all music and video downloads â" including pornography. ... But not everyone is on board with the idea of profiting off porn. The chairman of New York's Conservative Party says that taxing it legitimizes it.

    Evidently, giving porn a tax exemption wouldn't legitimize it at all.

  10. NYS wants to encourage piracy by Vandil+X · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So what they're really saying is to hit the torrent store for our online "purchases" rather then stay legit and send more tax revenue to a bunch of $100K/yr earning public servants who got NYS into this budget problem in the first place.

    I'm sure this was proposed over a $1000/plate fund-raiser dinner.

    --
    Up, Up, Down, Down, Left, Right, Left, Right, B, A, START
  11. Interesting. by khasim · · Score: 3, Interesting

    If more boxes are going to the shop to be cleaned, that means those shops would be hiring more cleaning techs. At least in theory.

    Not to mention the sales tax on the cleaning service.

    So, all in all, this just MIGHT help their local economy.

    1. Re:Interesting. by cgenman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So, all in all, this just MIGHT help their local economy.

      Helping local economies is about finding efficiencies and creating value where there wasn't previously. If cleaning people's computers ultimately saved them more time than the cost offset, then cleaning people's machines would help the local economy. My suspicion is that it would ultimately just be a drain... a tax on the uneducated that pays out to Best Buy.

  12. No shit, sherlock. by NNKK · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This 4% rate is exactly identical to the state sales tax rate for everything else in New York. Hell, they're being ridiculously nice -- it's half what you'd actually pay in most cities (which add their own rate, usually in the vicinity of 3-5%, on top of the state rate).

    The fact that downloads don't get taxed in some states is a bizarre anomaly, and has no logical basis. CDs and DVDs are not exempt from sales tax, exempting their online counterparts is wildly inconsistent. Argue all you want about the merits of taxes in general or sales taxes in particular, but there's nothing remarkable here. Just a state closing a silly loophole.

    1. Re:No shit, sherlock. by KyleTheDarkOne · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The main reason for taxes on good is the use of the infrastructure, the roads and the like for the movement of goods, as well as to get money, but downloads don't actually provide any wear on the infrastructure.

    2. Re:No shit, sherlock. by Locke2005 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Half?!? Last time I bought a book in Manhattan, there was an 18% sales tax on it! Face it -- NYC is in a downward spiral. The internet makes it easy to do business anywhere, so all those that reap a net benefit from the socialist policies remain, while all those that are subsidizing these policies are getting the hell out as fast as they can relocate. And yes, California has the same problem, which is why I moved to Oregon back in 1995. Oregon has it's own problems, but the state is run an order of magnitude better than California.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
  13. Out of Control Spending by BoRegardless · · Score: 2, Insightful

    State, Local & Federal governments have been as irresponsible as the financial sector they set the rules for and then didn't oversee, probably because of donations and revolving door employment between government and the companies in that sector.

    They have never admitted that taxes can be too large and stifle investment and productivity.

    Reagan showed that it was possible to stimulate activity by lowering taxes, but now all we are hearing is raising taxes. Nowhere have I yet heard anything about reducing government spending programs.

    The mega-push for Socialism has reached steam-roller stage.

  14. Taxation is not a solution for budget shortfalls by sircastor · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I understand the need for Taxes. I'm willing to pay taxes. There is a benefit of the state providing some services.

    Your problem is that you've run out of money. Yes, you can ask the citizenry to give you more money, but then what happens when you erroneously spend that money?

    Budget shortfalls are a symptom of poor budget expenditure. Yes, New York state likely is receiving less funding than it was previously, but that also means that services are not being used to the extent that they were previously. Make the adjustments, rather than piling your spending problems on someone else.

  15. Re:How the states can get their sales taxes by wkk2 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It would be nice if there was a single federal e-form with a box per state. What we will likely get is a complex mess that requires subscribing to a service for thousands a month. What a better way to kill small businesses.

  16. Why is this so hard to comprehend? by m0s3m8n · · Score: 2, Informative

    Because it is the frickin' Government, a government that is elected by people who now pay less and less tax. If you election strategy is to offer +50% of the electorate more services at less taxes, then you have to soak everyone else and then claim they will take it all away when election time comes.

    --
    Conservative, mod down for violating /. political norms.
  17. Federal Law by SheldonLinker · · Score: 2, Insightful

    NY and you are ignoring three very basic points:

    1) The US Constitution prohibits states from taxing anything crossing state lines.
    2) A server can be located anywhere.
    3) People will minimize their tax paid.

    If NY puts this law into effect, then the affected servers will be moved out of state, and no tax will be due or collected.

    As a side-note, we produce and sell packaged software. We're in California. We get sales-tax returns mailed to us from Louisiana. We throw them out, unopened.

  18. Hate to Say it. by ticklemeozmo · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I hate to be that curmudgeon old fart, but once they get something, they don't give it back.  And once they start taxing something, it's easier for you to accept new taxes.

    But just read and grasp what the whole concept of this is here.  NY wants to TAX you for NOT shopping in their state.  You want to save money by buying online, they want to TAX you for saving money.

    I'm not going to get into any Republican vs Democrat ideals here; I just want everyone in NY to understand what is fundamentally happening.  You exercised your right as a consumer to not shop somewhere, and you are being charged for it.

    --
    When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
  19. It's about taxes. Logic is actively opposed. by khasim · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Think about it for a moment. We have enough processing power that we can tie taxes to specific projects at the fraction of a cent level.

    Why not let the voters vote for projects AND the taxes to fund them? If they want another school, then they get a property tax increase of $3.15 on all property in area X.

    If they want to fill in the pot holes on 1st Avenue then they increase the sales tax by 0.013%. And when the project is finished, the tax is repealed.

    Let the people see EXACTLY what they're spending the money on.

    If someone runs for office claiming to want to "cut taxes" then let them specify EXACTLY what projects will be cut and the people can see how much they'll be saving.

    1. Re:It's about taxes. Logic is actively opposed. by kent_eh · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the tax is repealed.

      Uh huh.
      Just like every other "temporary" tax has been repealed.

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    2. Re:It's about taxes. Logic is actively opposed. by FTWinston · · Score: 2

      If this were to happen, civilisation would crumble. All the money would go to cat & dog homes, and putting problems out of sight & out of mind. No one would every choose to pay for anything that involved digging up roads, for instance, no matter how much money it would save in the long run.

    3. Re:It's about taxes. Logic is actively opposed. by QuantumRiff · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They repealed the luxury tax on telephones a few years ago. It was enacted to pay for the Spanish-American war. So they do repeal them, but sometimes it takes 107 years. http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/06/5056.ars

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
  20. Re:How the states can get their sales taxes by ColdWetDog · · Score: 5, Funny

    It would be nice if there was a single federal e-form with a box per state.

    Don't worry, with having to pay for the bail out and sundry little extra added expenses, you will soon see a simplified 1040 form:

    1. How much money did you make?
    2. Give it to us.

    No need for complex calculations.

    --
    Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
  21. I believe that provision is in the bill by Shivetya · · Score: 4, Insightful

    right next to the part where Congress holds themselves to account.

    Honestly, everything you attributed to NY and California is attributable to the Federal Government. Worse, they Feds have no restraint whereas states do. The Feds aren't even bothering to try and balance the budget.

    Face it, through years of manipulation Congressmen have managed to lay the blame for all things at the feet of people who have money while themselves spending money they don't have.

    Congressmen vilify the businessman who sends his kids to private school, flies private jets, and vacations overseas, all the while doing the same thing on our dime. Congress chides the business for laying off people, losing money, or asking for money, all the while doing the same thing.

    Look, the majority has spoken, they want all they can get from those who make money while there is still some to get.
     

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:I believe that provision is in the bill by nomadic · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Face it, through years of manipulation Congressmen have managed to lay the blame for all things at the feet of people who have money while themselves spending money they don't have.

      Congressmen vilify the businessman who sends his kids to private school, flies private jets, and vacations overseas, all the while doing the same thing on our dime.

      Uhh....huh? I have never understood the divorce from reality on slashdot when it comes to politics. We have had EIGHT YEARS of congressmen in control who think being wealthy is a sign of supreme virtue. Anyone who points out that extreme disparity in wealth might not be a good thing is instantly vilified as a communist. Your point of view has been the majority one for years, and it has run this country into the ground. How dare you suddenly pretend to be a persecuted minority.

    2. Re:I believe that provision is in the bill by dietdew7 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your post is ironic.

    3. Re:I believe that provision is in the bill by BlueStrat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I suppose you're somehow showing the the poor old rich guys are getting beaten over the head with high taxation and the such, but you fail to explain or elaborate on how this hurts society as a whole?

      It (raising taxes to punitive levels on the wealthy & corporations) hurts society on myriad levels.

      The corporations don't pay taxes. Their customers do. Tax, like any business expense, is rolled into the price charged for products and services. This hurts the people who depend on the corporations' products and services.

      If taxes & regulations rise to where the corporation must raise prices to the point where they become uncompetitive in the world economy, they simply leave the country in question for less-costly locations, taking all their jobs and tax revenue with them. This is why so many US corporations are either outright leaving, or moving operations out of the country and outsourcing jobs.

      Individual rich people have even less reason to stay in a country where they must pay high tax rates. They simply move their money and then themselves away.

      Eventually there is not enough of a tax base left able to pay taxes, the country finds itself with nobody willing to buy treasury notes to finance more debt, and the countries' economy collapses and the government soon follows. The US is currently in the run-up stage for the economic collapse portion as politicians continue to spend more money to buy votes to get re-elected, more and more rich people and US corporations flee to remain competitive and protect what they've worked hard for, and the available tax base shrinks.

      Politicians, rather than attempting to correct the problems, borrow huge sums against future generations' livelihood in an attempt to prop up the house of cards long enough for them to extract their share of wealth, after which they simply don't care. Meanwhile they keep the population distracted with political sideshows, meaningless wedge issues, drugs, and bread & circuses. When it all comes crashing down, they'll be residing in mansions in a warmer clime, sipping drinks and enjoying the wealth they stole.

      Unless people wake up, stop listening to the politicians' empty promises, storm the capitols with force of numbers, and take back their country. Being that most are too lazy, disconnected, cowardly, and distracted I have little faith this will happen.

      Strat

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
  22. Re:I want to see a provision in the stimulus packa by WrongMonkey · · Score: 3, Informative

    New York and California pay more taxes to the fed than they receive back. You should be complaining about New Mexico, Mississippi or Alaska. http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxdata/show/266.html

  23. Not a tax. by jonaskoelker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You do realize we already pay a tax for bandwidth. Look at your internet bill.

    Really? Because I thought it all just went to the ISP, which used it to upgrade their infrastructure^W^W^W hand out golden parachutes.

  24. Hey look Cisco! by mujadaddy · · Score: 2, Funny

    You have your very own troll! Mean little cuss, too...

    --
    Populus vult decipi, ergo decipiatur...
    "Force shits upon Reason's back." - Poor Richard's Almanac
  25. Hey, Atlas... by kylben · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Nothing would get the attention of the state of New York quite like every out-of-state online retailer refusing to sell to any NY resident or to ship items to a NY address.

    *shrug*

    --
    Insightful and funny are really the same thing, except one has a punch line.
  26. Re:I want to see a provision in the stimulus packa by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 5, Insightful

    That's funny . . . California lost 144,000 people between July 1, 2007 and July 1, 2008, and New York lost 126,000 during the same period. Both states' populations are shrinking, not growing. According to you, state spending should be falling, but both states are tens of billions in the hole and scrambling to come up with new taxes to make up for the revenue they're losing from the people who left and continue to leave for more tax-friendly states. You can spin it all you want, but people and companies are getting the hell out of CA and the Northeast, and the primary reasons are high taxes and high cost of living. Increasing spending (which requires higher taxes on the poor souls who choose to stay when you have a negative population growth) will only make people leave faster.

  27. Obvious Answer by jchawk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    And I'll probably get marked troll for this...

    But spend less money. Stop trying to tax us to death.

  28. Just how are they planning to collect this?! by bcwright · · Score: 3, Informative

    Since this is a "4% tax" it sounds like they must be planning to levy it as a sales tax to be collected by any vendors who have to collect New York sales tax for transactions within the state; otherwise it doesn't make any sense to talk about "4%". One alternative would perhaps be that it could be a bandwidth tax to be collected by all of the New York ISP's - which would be more collectible: in most cases, your ISP certainly knows where you live even if (as in the case of wireless) it's only where you receive your bill.

    But if it's going to be a standard sales tax, that raises all sorts of other problems. Most obviously, it provides a significant disincentive for companies selling downloads to locate in New York; it would be hard for them to collect tax from some company based in Canada, for example. But it also raises the question of how a company knows who they're dealing with; with many payment options, the customer's location need not be given, and since this is an Internet download if the company does ask for an address it would be easy enough for the customer to enter an out-of-state address to avoid paying the tax, and the company would never be the wiser. If the state requires them to use IP addresses to determine the customer's tax liability, it can often be difficult to determine the exact state for an IP address in a border area or in many other situations, and doesn't even address the problem of proxy servers that might be used deliberately or otherwise to avoid paying the tax.

    Since the TFA is rather short on specifics, it's hard to tell how unworkable this might be, though whenever the Legislature - any Legislature - is in session, hare-brained schemes abound. It does sound like they're trying to see just how many people they can annoy with this kind of law.

  29. Re:I want to see a provision in the stimulus packa by FireIron · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Did you even read the article you linked? They buried it, but these are total losses not net losses; both CA and NY populations continue to grow overall due to births and immigrations greatly outnumbering tax fliers.

  30. As a New Yorker by wideBlueSkies · · Score: 2, Informative

    This guy is going to have his 1 partial term in office and then he's going to fade into the background when we elect ourselves a more qualified governor in a couple of years.

    The amazon tax, is illegal. I don't think it's going to last, at least I thought so.... but I've been searching for lobbying groups to join to fight the implementation of it..but can't find anyone willing to stand up and do something about it. Bunch of sheep.

    I don't know what 'taxing downloads' really means...more sales-tax? Or is the Mother-Fracker looking to tax bits/bandwidth used? The latter is kind of funny actually--he'd get a windfall in torrent derived revenue. :P

    But yeah, this guy isn't going to last in office..I can only hope that the 'process' drags on long enough so that he's out before it comes up for the proper votes.

    --
    Huh?
  31. Re:I want to see a provision in the stimulus packa by FireIron · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Wow, that's racist. I didn't say "illegal" immigration, the vast majority of immigrants are legal workers with visas.

    Per census bureau data:
    Population Growth 2000-2008
    CA 8.5%
    NY 2.7%

  32. What about on-demand stuff? by Binkleyz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The really neat question will be, IMO, things like the on-demand/live streaming service from places like Netflix and Comcast. I believe that they have physical infrastructure in NY, so that would mean they are impacted.

    The movies and TV shows that they stream DO have a value, even if that value is calculated as a fraction of the monthly subscription one pays. How much of that monthly subscription should be the basis for the tax that NY wants to collect?

    TFA is silent on this point, but I'm curious how they'd be able to implement something like that via legislation..

  33. Re:I want to see a provision in the stimulus packa by PeeAitchPee · · Score: 4, Informative

    California has almost 3 million illegals. That's almost 8% of the state's population who are not paying taxes, and it's part of the reason the state is $41 billion in the hole (the cost of illigal immigrants to California is $10.5 billion annually, according to the Federation for American Immigration Reform). People who think it's "racist" to state that illegal immigrants generally don't pay taxes are full of shit and clearly don't have a clue as to what real racism is.

  34. Re:I want to see a provision in the stimulus packa by DustyShadow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What part of "illegal immigrant" implies a certain race? I think you are the racist one for suggesting that only certain races come here illegally. They come from all countries/backgrounds/races btw.

  35. Re:I want to see a provision in the stimulus packa by DustyShadow · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Census is only done every 10 years and I highly doubt it could accurately count illegal immigrants.

  36. Re:I want to see a provision in the stimulus packa by Trojan35 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The likes of California and New York clearly have no concept of what it means to "spend less,"

    Yes, the above tax is stupid, but your comment is pretty silly too. I've loved living in California, where a salary that pays cost of living automatically puts me in a Jumbo mortgage and a high federal income tax bracket. I didn't hear anyone complaining about CA and NY when the economy was booming and people were using my tax dollars to pay for Nebraska farmers to NOT farm their land. Wait, they still are. How about we stop that?

  37. Corrupt Politician mistress tax by binaryseraph · · Score: 4, Funny

    Hey I'm fine with it if that means we can have a "Mistress" tax that applies to Mayors and Governors of NY. I'm thinking like 15% tax on the hush money they are given?

  38. Why Democrats always lose by kshkval · · Score: 2, Informative

    Purchases at the store counter are taxed, but this measly, nagging little in-your-face tax is going to make Governor Paterson and the NY state Democratic Party look really bad. I pay taxes once a year for most big things. Now I'll be reminded every time I spend 99 cents that New York state - and by inference, the New York state Democratic Party - has a direct connection to my wallet. Not just for the big things, but even for the niggling things. If I had to pay a Republican to come up with a more effective reinforcement of the "tax and spend" stereotype that the Democrats have tried to distance themselves from for years, i don't think I could have done better than this moronic idea. A very poorly conceived proposal from a tactical political standpoint, it highlights that fact that the Democrats may win the battle but in the end they lose the war (and I'm a NYS Democrat).

  39. SPAMer tax by gk4 · · Score: 2

    Instead, I think there should be a SPAMer tax, then the government will have a surplus of funds.

    --
    George (gk4)
  40. New York doesn't tax everything... by VinylRecords · · Score: 3, Informative

    The New York Yankees are getting $1.312 billion from tax-free bonds for financing their new stadium this year. The New York Mets are getting a mere $636 million from tax-free bonds to finance their new stadium this year as well. That's only $2 billion in tax-free bonds for professional baseball teams that New York City has given out this year.

    Overall, this is costing New York taxpayers alone, $1.2 billion, which includes lost revenue and infrastructure improvements (such as improving public transportation).

    Everyone is complaining that New York State taxes everything (an 18% soda tax was proposed by our governor recently) but we know that the government loves giving major giant corporations like the Yankees and Mets tons of tax-free money.
    - - - -
    Anyways, regarding online pornography, the industry brought in $2.84 billion in 2006. The cable, pay-per-view and phone sex industries brought in $2.19 billion that year. The governor merely looked at data of what business made good money (this also applies to all digital music and movie downloads) and said "how can we take some of their money for ourselves?" to his advisers. He did the same thing for online retailers like Amazon and NewEgg and said "New York State wants their money".

    And the reason that some of the government heads are objecting to taxing porno...

    "By taxing it you're legitimizing it," said Michael Long, chairman of New York's Conservative Party. "You're sending a message to the children, you're sending a message to the teenagers, if you're taxing it -- how can it be wrong? I don't know how you can sink much deeper."

    So by that logic, you shouldn't tax fatty foods, soda, beer, or cigarettes as those things are actually physically harmful but because they've been taxed, teenagers think they are legitimate and not harmful. I know when I was young, the moment I heard that they taxed cigarettes and they were legitimate (whatever the hell that means) I said "I have got to smoke me some".

    And yes, pornography is extremely harmful to all of our teenagers, my eye exams have gotten worse and worse since I first discovered adults films and other activities.

    Half of this post is serious, half is in sarcasm. Either way I haven't liked hearing the words 'New York' and 'tax' within fifteen sentences of each other for a long time. Go Mets (and tax free this season!).

  41. Frankly.... by NormAtHome · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm just G** D***** taxed more than enough already, taxed, fee'ed, surcharged and I'm fed up. The government has to learn to downsize, layoff, force paycuts to the highest paid workers, furloughs whatever it takes but I'm tired of the "government" constantly reaching into my pocket whenever they say "Oh revenue is down"!

  42. Re:I want to see a provision in the stimulus packa by cortesoft · · Score: 4, Informative

    It isn't exactly true that illegal immigrants don't pay taxes. For example, many illegal immigrants use a fake social security number so they can get a job. Just like any other worker, part of their income is withheld and sent to the government (especially FICA and payroll taxes). In fact, since they are using fake social security numbers, they can't file for any refund and often times end up paying more than they would have if they had been legal citizens (since many lower income workers end up receiving money back at tax time). While some illegal immigrants work under-the-table jobs and don't pay any income taxes, they still pay sales taxes and other non-income taxes. In addition, many illegal immigrants avoid taking advantage of social services out of fear of being deported, making them less likely to be a drain on these taxpayer-supported institutions.

    While illegal immigration is a complex and vexing issue, do not make it out that illegals do not pay taxes. Here is a look at the issue: http://www.taxfoundation.org/blog/show/1424.html

  43. Re:I want to see a provision in the stimulus packa by Trailer+Trash · · Score: 4, Insightful

    California has almost 3 million illegals. That's almost 8% of the state's population who are not paying taxes,

    You know, I hear this all the time here in TN, where we have a 9.25% sales tax and no state income tax. Maybe you can answer the question that your intellectual kinsmen here never can seem to answer.

    Where is it that these illegals are buying groceries? And gasoline? Where do they live that there isn't a property tax? I'm serious when I ask this. I have to pay taxes on most stuff that I buy, but then I find out that illegals don't. Are they simply shopping at the same places as me, and producing an "illegal alien" identification card that lets them skip paying the taxes? Does the gas pump knock off the 18 cent federal tax and 21 cent state tax on gasoline if a car pulls up with an unlicensed driver? I've looked closely many times when Mexicans were getting gas and the pump shows the same $/gallon as my pump, but maybe that's to fool me and when they go to pay the cashier knocks the tax off?

    Let me know, if you can. The mouthbreathing racists around here seem to turn into stroke victims when I ask them such questions.

  44. Re:I want to see a provision in the stimulus packa by Rycross · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't know who you're debating with, but most of the people I talk with who are against "illegal immigrants" actually want loosened immigration restrictions so that a lot of these people who are here illegally can enter legally. I've heard calls for migrant visas and working holiday visas. Some of the most conservative guys I know also want a program to give green cards to foreign students studying science and engineering in the states.

    I'm sorry that you live around a bunch of racist fucks, but a lot of people, including myself, want more immigration and less illegal immigration. Hell, at the very least, I'd like to avoid having to wait 200+ days just to bring my fiance in to get married.