Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Mississippi Bill Would Tax Software Sales

Posted by kdawson on from the join-the-crowd dept.

Byzantine writes "The Mississippi Legislature has passed MS House Bill 1461 which would amend the state's tax laws specifically to charge sales tax on 'electrically transferred digital products,' including products bought via mail-order. The bill is currently on the governor's desk awaiting signature." Softpedia claims that 20 states have enacted download taxes of one sort or another — most of them for iTunes music — and that New York is considering taxing downloads of all kinds.

7 of 293 comments (clear)

  1. Tax Evasion? by veganboyjosh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I wonder how this will play out with regards to illegal downloads? If one gets caught/charged/accused of transferring "digital goods" to which they don't own the copyright to, are they then responsible for the taxes those goods would have generated had they been legit?
    Reminds me of Al Capone's downfall...

    1. Re:Tax Evasion? by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      tax fraud, that's how they will nail downloaders.

      Ingenious.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  2. Re:Already taxed in EU by Chabo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because there's no "value added" by introducing a Value Added Tax.

    Why should a business transaction be taxed simply because it happened? Taxes are meant to give the government the bare minimum of income necessary to conduct government business, not to punish people for spending money they received in exchange for their labor.

    --
    Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
  3. Re:Inevitable.... by Buelldozer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Sorry, I know this is off topic but I can't let it pass without comment.

    So you REALLY think that it was Prop 13 that sank California?

    Why is it always the income side of Government that is deficient? How about examining the expense structure of the state and how it changed.

    Somehow more tax money NEVER solves the revenue problem faced by Government. NEVER. NOT ONE TIME.

  4. Re:Tax digital downloads and amil order products? by rtrifts · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Last I checked, we've spent $15,000,000,000.00 on a war in Afghanistan and lost a couple hundred Canadian soldier's **lives** there fighting a war because of some nutbars who attacked AMERICA. They attacked you - not us. Mainly because of shit you do and have done - and NOT because of some shit we do and have done.

    We fairly clear on that part?

    Still, given the audacity of the motherfuckers in attacking our closest allies and best friends, spending all that blood and treasure to assist America in kicking their asses was the least we could do for our best friends. And unlike most of the the Western Europeans, we actually put our guys in harm's way in Afghanistan. Our troops are there to fight. Not to be stationed in a base with orders not to fight and just fly a flag and call it "helping".

    We fairly clear on that part too?

    Still, that's the least Canada could do, given 9/11.

    The least you could do, otoh, might be to maybe acknowledge that and say thank you (and sorry for making the war unwinnable and your sacrifice meaningless with that second front in Iraq thing. Real sorry about that guys.)

    Just sayin'.

    --
    .Robert
  5. Re:Inevitable.... by shaper · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If there's no incentive for people to make productive use of capital, the economy stagnates.

    The incentive for people to make productive use of capital is the reward / gain they get from doing so. I'm no rabid objectivist or "big-L" libertarian, but that's just fundamental economics.

    it's not fair to society to let him keep it for no/low cost when it might be put to better, more productive use for society by someone else.

    Spoken like a true communist. Other than life itself, there is no more fundamental right than the right to property. From your comments I get the impression that you are not a property owner or you would not be so cavalier in taxing it away.

    Reallocating property from one person to another based on "productive use of capital" for the benefit of society over the rights of the individual is always going to be a negative incentive to productivity. Why acquire property if it can just be taken away (or taxed away) at the whim of some powerful individual or group? Some property taxes are probably inevitable to pay for necessary social services (fire, police, etc.) but those taxes should never be used to penalize for some imagined lack of relative "productivity".

    Unfortunately, there are others who agree with your line of reasoning, most notably some US Supreme Court justices. See Kelo v. City of New London for a real world example of the results.

  6. Re:Inevitable.... by cayenne8 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    "It might not be fair to the teacher to have to pay high taxes on the land, but it's not fair to society to let him keep it for no/low cost when it might be put to better, more productive use for society by someone else. If he can't afford it, let him sell it to someone who can. If there's no incentive for people to make productive use of capital, the economy stagnates."

    So..you're saying you are against the idea that people own things like land/property. That they ONLY 'rent' it from the government (tax==rent)

    Boy, now that is a big change from how things in this country started....

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........