Slashdot Mirror
Mississippi Bill Would Tax Software Sales
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.
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...
I live in Canada. Here, all of these products are taxed like any other good or service - and there is no mail order freebie to distory the level playing field of the retail economy by not having to pay them via mial order. Up here? It's not new. It's not shocking. Believe it or not, the sun still comes up every morning - the world turns. Then it gets dark and we go to sleep. Every day. Life goes on.
Thing is, the federal debt in the USA has been spiralling so fast since 2000 that all of these "reports" and pointing to same as the portents of the Four Horsemen are going to go the way of the dodo in a dozen years or so - or less.
You simply will not have a *choice* but to increase taxes in the USA to at least Canadian and possibly Western European levels if you don't deal with it soon enough. (My bet - you won't deal with it soon enough. Americans are nutty when it comes to taxes.) You'll put it off and put it off and then put it off somemore until there is no wiggle room left at all. And then you will point fingers at your politicians - instead of you the voters - which is *precisely* where the blame will lie.
That's the price you will ultimately have to pay for spending money for decades that you simply do not have. That prediction is not a *maybe*. It is a *certainty*. The cheque is coming to your table. Deal with it (and kindly quit your whining about it too, please. It's not a big deal.)
.Robert
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
You can tax my porn when you pry it from my wet sticky fingers ;)
and that New York is considering taxing downloads of all kinds.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I recently came to California from New Hampshire, which introduced a property tax several years ago. I wasn't around for Prop. 13, but after doing a bit of reading, I'm glad it passed. If someone owns land, and has little income, why should they be punished for that?
I know a man who works as a teacher in New Hampshire who owns over 100 acres of land. The land's been in his family for at least two generations. The property tax was passed, and he nearly went bankrupt paying the taxes on the land because the land value assessments were artificially inflated by the housing market bubble.
I don't like heavy taxation in any form, but property taxes are disproportionately unfair to anyone who owns land and doesn't have a high income.
Convert FLACs to a portable format with FlacSquisher
Maybe someone should tell them it's not FIFO~
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Mississippi stays at the bottom of the heap
Don't worry, they'll be joined shortly by many other states hungry for revenue. The problem with this bill (well, one of many problems, actually) is that it will damage the nascent e-book and e-music industry just as they're struggling to get established, even as paper and CD publishers flounder. Also, it will largely tax the teens and 20-30-somethings who actually purchase these kinds of products. A rather regressive tax.
It should be easy enough to get around this law. If you read the bill, it spells out the precise types of electronic "products" that are taxable. So the vendors can simply convert these products to non-ebooks and non-music and non-videos, and provide a little converter that allows the buyer to change them back into ebooks and music and videos at his/her discretion. We don't sell music, we sell blobs of binary data. If you find a way to transform it miraculously into your favorite music, more power to you!
it's = "it is"; its = possessive. E.g., it's flapping its wings.
Who the hell is "Mississippi Bill" and why does he care about software sales? He should probably devote more of his time to planning his upcoming battles with Minnesota Fats and the Cincinnati Kid.
Yes and No... it depends on the Province, the size of the company, and wether you are selling in-province or out-of-province, in some it's 0, in others its anywhere from about 5% to as high as 18%.
Selling outside of country is generally tax free, with exceptions like the EU, where there's some weird translated tax, where 'our' tax of the item gets sent to the EU.
But naturally, because like all governments it's a clusterfuck of weird loopholes, there are ways around almost all the taxes. But I am by no means an expert on it, so if you really want to know, you'll have to look elsewhere.
I don't think they actually have computers there. I've never met anyone claiming to be from Mississippi on the Internet.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
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.
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
Can liberty have something to do with *getting* a hummer? Please?
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.
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?
Well.... The thing about prop 13... It set up a conflict of interest between the cities and counties and their populace. After prop 13, the cities and counties were opposed to new housing development. Housing demands services that is not covered by the revenue generated. As time goes by, the cities and counties develop complex ways of hiding this problem by implementing all manner of permit fees and revenue enhancements. For example in 2000, in one small east SF Bay area city, in order to build a house, it cost in excess of $70,000 for the required building permits. That means that every single house that has a valid occupancy permit, no matter what condition, has a built in base price of $70,000.
Artificial scarceness drives up prices. When a house changes hands, it can be reassessed under prop 13. So churn is good for cities.
Finally... The banks get to collect 5 - 6 - 7% interest on all this property tax avoidance chicanery. Lather rinse repeat for 30+ years...
We're reading about the results in the paper every day. The house of cards finally folded. Now some of the gross abuses of the state expense structure are coming into view. My favorite... The police and correctional officers union. You do your 20 years, and get to retire with full benefits. So you can retire at roughly 40 years old, and have full pay and benefits for life while you go double dip as a security consultant, etc... Same deal with the firefighter unions.
The problem is... It's easy enough to say "yea, that's wrong. They shouldn't sign those contracts." or "they should repeal prop 13", but they're entrenched. If you benefit from them, you support them. My parents love prop 13. And why shouldn't they? They're paying property taxes last reassessed in 1978. Their son bought a cardboard box of a house, payed 11% income tax, 5% of his income in property tax, 9.25% sales tax, 1% vehicle property tax, and countless fees... and double that again in inflated prices so others could do the same... and got fed up sold his house and transferred his job out of state. They still don't understand why.
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.........