Massachusetts May Try To Tax the Cloud

Color me shocked... by geminidomino · 2013-03-25 00:11 · Score: 2, Insightful

It's Mass, FFS. They'd try to tax air if they thought they could get away with it.

Re:Color me shocked... by rudy_wayne · 2013-03-25 00:17 · Score: 3, Insightful

the state estimates the tax may bring in a quarter billion dollars in 2014
These estimates are always way off. And even *IF* it did bring in that much money, the money would simply be wasted on all sorts of uneccessary bullshit and the state will be no better off than they were before.
Re:Color me shocked... by Skapare · 2013-03-25 00:37 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sucking a quarter billion dollars from the economic recovery.

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Re:Color me shocked... by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-03-25 01:56 · Score: 2, Insightful

Sucking a quarter billion dollars from the economic recovery.
Don'cha know, all economic growth comes through government spending. If you believe that, I've got a $125K job for you collecting tolls on the Turnpike.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Color me shocked... by radarskiy · 2013-03-25 02:47 · Score: 1

New Hampshire will crow about having no cloud taxes, but never mention that they have no clouds and only siphon off of those in Massachusetts.
Re:Color me shocked... by Lithdren · 2013-03-25 02:51 · Score: 3, Insightful

Err...Yes, data centers use eletricity. And they pay for it, just like everyone else does. And that includes taxes on said energy. As for parking lots and air...well the land is taxed so there's your parking lot, and air...umm...well we do charge companies taxes for pollution and tax incentives to cut pollution, but nobody actually 'pays' for air.
Not very clear how Roads and Healthcare play into an internet/software tax, but these are also paid for, by things like gas taxes and however you choose to pay for healthcare currently.
Why is there always someone like YOU in every crowd who feels that everyone else should pay for things? If gas taxes are not covering the costs of road repair for example...we should be taxing more for it. You dont just invent stuff to tax to pay for other things, unless you're an idiot. Thease places give back in the same way as every other company gives back, through taxes and employment. As usual, the idiots in goverment (and idiots like you who vote for them from the looks of it) are just going to drive companies to other places, negating any tax benifits they would have gained, AND losing what they're already getting.
Herp derp.
Re:Color me shocked... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 03:12 · Score: 0

u trolling bro?
Re:Color me shocked... by HornWumpus · 2013-03-25 03:41 · Score: 1

Meanwhile at the corporate headquarters, in Delaware, Dr. No convenes the board.
First agenda item. 'Screw the massholes!'

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Color me shocked... by stenvar · 2013-03-25 03:43 · Score: 1

Bah, there's always one like you in every crowd.
There's a lot of us in every crowd, actually.

Where do you think the money comes from that pays for the services you use? Like roads and healthcare?
I pay significant user fees for roads where I live, and a special assessment for the roads leading up to my home. My employer and me pay for my health care (quite a bit actually), entirely separate from taxes. So, your point is... what?

And those data centers, well, they're using a lot of the local infrastructure, like the electrical grid and parking lots and air. Why shouldn't they be taxed?
They are already taxed, through real estate taxes, taxes on their employees, taxes on the electricity they use, real estate taxes their employees pay, real estate taxes the businesses their employees use pay, corporate taxes, and plenty more. And "they are using air"? How do they "use air"?
Re:Color me shocked... by emho24 · 2013-03-25 04:35 · Score: 1

There comes a point at which the difficulty and burden of complying with massively complex taxes and regulations becomes too great, and the small business says "It's just not worth the effort".

--
You must gather your party before venturing forth.
Re:Color me shocked... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 05:02 · Score: 0

Don't give the tards in Taxachussetts ideas...
Re: Color me shocked... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 05:17 · Score: 0

I don't understand why the government just doesn't take everything and then give it out to the people who really need it.
Like me.
Gimme that.
Re:Color me shocked... by PsiCTO · 2013-03-25 06:38 · Score: 1

Just to add to this a bit, we pay tax on gas (in Canada, a lot!) so that roads and similar "gas-related" infrastructure is built and maintained.
Just what does the State of Mass. do to built and maintain any aspect of the "cloud"?
Re:Color me shocked... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 08:04 · Score: 0

Sucking a quarter billion dollars from the economic recovery.
It has been 21 years since MA unemployment and foreclosure rates exceeded the historical national averages. We realize the rest of the country threw a recession a few years ago, but you forgot to invite Taxachusetts to the party. We missed it completely.
Re:Color me shocked... by Ksevio · 2013-03-25 08:17 · Score: 1

Sucking a quarter billion dollars from the economic recovery.
...and blowing it back into the Massachusetts economy through government spending!

Libertarians/Conservatives seems have a strange notion that when money goes to the government, it goes away forever, but apart from being the largest employer, governments spend in ways that can help the lesser off and often have restrictions on the money going a far.
Re:Color me shocked... by tehcyder · 2013-03-26 00:08 · Score: 1

Sucking a quarter billion dollars from the economic recovery.
Don'cha know, all economic growth comes through government spending. If you believe that, I've got a $125K job for you collecting tolls on the Turnpike.
Not all, but in a recession, borrowing some money to fund things like building toll roads or schools or laying fibre optic cable could well be a better idea than paying welfare benefits to a load of unemployed construction workers.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Color me shocked... by tehcyder · 2013-03-26 00:12 · Score: 1

If gas taxes are not covering the costs of road repair for example...we should be taxing more for it.
People like you always miss the point that infrastructure is not a series of discrete services that people can opt in and out of. If I walk to the supermarket instead of drive, the roads still need to be repaired so that trucks can deliver goods there.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Color me shocked... by tehcyder · 2013-03-26 00:16 · Score: 1

There comes a point at which the difficulty and burden of complying with massively complex taxes and regulations becomes too great, and the small business says "It's just not worth the effort".
Civilisation is not a free gift.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Color me shocked... by emho24 · 2013-03-26 02:29 · Score: 1

Of course it is not, and it's paid for by taxpayers, the same business men and women who are finding it harder to justify creating new businesses in a hostile environment.

You make it sound like these private sector men and women are freeloaders when in fact they are the primary funders of government.

--
You must gather your party before venturing forth.
Re:Color me shocked... by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-03-26 03:38 · Score: 1

It might be, but without the profit and price signals it's hard to know whether those are worthwhile investments or malinvestments (which are worse than non-investments). Meanwhile, there's little lending going on - 90% of the new money is created out of thin air, which decreases the value of everybody else's savings and drives up prices for all.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Color me shocked... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 05:16 · Score: 0

Definitely. This is just going to push businesses and jobs out of that state. Politicians are idiots. They remind me of I.T. project managers who have no technical background.
Re:Color me shocked... by uninformedLuddite · 2013-03-26 13:56 · Score: 1

and if you couldn't afford the air they would probably try to charge you for the plastic bag that non-payment dictates has to be put over your head.

--
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.

Mass - Internet Business by houbou · 2013-03-25 00:15 · Score: 2

R.I.P.

Other than revenue, what's the motivation? by Virtucon · 2013-03-25 00:16 · Score: 4, Interesting

I am a bit confused since "custom" software may be developed outside of the boundaries of Massachusetts and its utilization, while using a network in the state would already be covered. Network Connectivity is already has taxes associated with it. Businesses clearly pay taxes in the state as well as do consumers. Software companies who write software working in the state pay taxes as well.

This looks more like an starting effort to obtain a franchise or privilege tax for using the Internet not a sales tax of any kind.

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"

Re:Other than revenue, what's the motivation? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 00:37 · Score: 0

"Other than revenue, what's the motivation?"
Now *that* is a punchline to a great joke... now we need a setup...
Seriously, there's a joke here someplace... let's finish this joke!
Re:Other than revenue, what's the motivation? by tgd · 2013-03-25 01:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

I am a bit confused since "custom" software may be developed outside of the boundaries of Massachusetts and its utilization, while using a network in the state would already be covered. Network Connectivity is already has taxes associated with it. Businesses clearly pay taxes in the state as well as do consumers. Software companies who write software working in the state pay taxes as well.
This looks more like an starting effort to obtain a franchise or privilege tax for using the Internet not a sales tax of any kind.
I believe MA, like CA, only charges sales tax on software physically delivered into the state. Cloud hosted software, even if its "projected" via something like Citrix or remote desktop, doesn't. (So if you buy a $1m ERP system and install it in your business, you pay sales tax on it -- but if you buy $1m ERP system and its hosted out of state and you are using a published application or web browser to access it, you don't.)
And that can be a lot of revenue, especially given the number of very high tech pharma companies and the like. MA wants its sales tax on that $40m genetic sequence data mining system.
Re:Other than revenue, what's the motivation? by Virtucon · 2013-03-25 01:27 · Score: 1

but if you buy $1m ERP system and its hosted out of state and you are using a published application or web browser to access it, you don't.)
and you are using a published application? That's confusing. The referenced article indicates custom software here. Just because you use something within a state boundary doesn't necessarily mean a sales tax is applied if you use it out of state. I believe that's covered under interstate commerce law. But I do understand privilege or franchise tax for being able to do something within a state. Franchise taxes abound in this country including MA and CA. But if you buy something somewhere else and use it somewhere else, how can a local jurisdiction assert that they can tax you when you use it over something that's already taxed? Again, that points back to a franchise use tax to me because you already pay taxes on your infrastructure/use of the Internet, buildings, salaries you pay for folks in the state. As somebody else commented, they'd tax you for air if they could and this seems akin to just doing that. I think they should be more obvious and tax you on the bits you use on networks that you already pay for. That would make more sense than just using something. As an example if I make a phone call to somebody else out of state are they going to charge me for that even though I'm not a resident but I pay for the phone and service elsewhere? One could argue that Phone Companies (Wireless Carriers) are in the cloud business because the servers that switch my call are in the "network" and even though it's not "Internet" communications, Internet communications can be carried on my data services plan...
All in all, this makes me more assured that I won't do business in Massachusetts, ever nor would I ever be likely to live there.

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
Re:Other than revenue, what's the motivation? by lseltzer · 2013-03-25 01:41 · Score: 2

Why do they need a motivation other than revenue? In fact, revenue should always be the only motivation for taxes. When the government tries to do social engineering through the tax code they always botch things.
Re:Other than revenue, what's the motivation? by Grishnakh · 2013-03-25 02:51 · Score: 2

Just because you use something within a state boundary doesn't necessarily mean a sales tax is applied if you use it out of state.
I don't think that's relevant here; I think they're talking about Mass. companies buying and/or using software (including custom-developed stuff, including custom-developed websites), not out-of-state entities buying software made in Mass.
As an example if I make a phone call to somebody else out of state are they going to charge me for that even though I'm not a resident but I pay for the phone and service elsewhere?
I don't think this is relevant to this tax initiative, but I can see this happening, if the whole internet sales tax thing is anything to go by, because it's a close parallel. Just think about it: promoters of internet sales taxes claim that tax-free internet purchases are unfair competition to local B&M retailers. However, all these tax initiatives have the e-tailer calculating the tax in the buyer's location, rather than the seller's location, and remitting that tax money to that state/municipality, even if it's across the country someplace the retailer has never been. What sense does that make? Suppose there was no shipping possible, and people could only buy stuff in person. So if you're in Maine selling stuff, and someone in Oregon looks at your website, sees something they desperately want, and wants to buy it from you. They have to get in their car or a plane and travel all the way from Oregon to Maine to buy it from you in person. What sales tax is this buyer going to pay, coming from Oregon where there's no sales tax (IIRC)? Simple: they're going to pay Maine sales tax. Sales tax applies at the location of the sale, not the home address of the buyer. It's why so many people living across the border in Washington State drive across the border to Oregon to buy stuff, and drive it back home to WA: they don't have to pay sales tax since there's no tax in OR. So, why don't these internet sales tax initiatives do the same thing: force e-tailers to apply the tax that applies in their own locality? Obviously, this would be a giant boon to Oregon and other states with no sales tax, as sellers would be flocking to those locations, but too bad.
Re:Other than revenue, what's the motivation? by Grishnakh · 2013-03-25 02:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

This is a rather stupid comment: there's no way to avoid doing social engineering with taxes. Whatever you do with taxation, it's going to affect society somehow. Just making a choice between income and sales taxes affects society, and is in effect "social engineering". Sales taxes discourage purchasing. Or how about property taxes? Those discourage purchasing and owning property (and frequently drive people to move to locations with lower property taxes). Most places have all three; how you set their levels relative to each other amounts to "social engineering": should you have small sales taxes and huge property taxes? Or low property taxes and huge sales taxes? Should you tax staple foods or not? Taxing staple foods isn't exactly good for poor hungry people so if you do, you're going to get a lot of people complaining about that.
In short, there's no way to avoid "social engineering" with taxation. So even though it's frequently done badly, an attempt does need to be made to do it well and fairly.
Re:Other than revenue, what's the motivation? by HornWumpus · 2013-03-25 03:44 · Score: 1

Do you know how fast a Mass corporation becomes a Delaware/Nevada corporation?

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Other than revenue, what's the motivation? by Grishnakh · 2013-03-25 04:12 · Score: 1

I'm not a business law expert, but it seems to me that the registration of the company is somewhat irrelevant. If your company has an office in Mass. and purchases cloud services (for that office in Mass., not for offices in other states), it'll still be subject to the tax.
Re:Other than revenue, what's the motivation? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 06:36 · Score: 1

They're working on making a Federal level Internet sales-tax. What possesses you to think that they're going to stop at just that without us pushing back hard?
Re:Other than revenue, what's the motivation? by HornWumpus · 2013-03-25 07:00 · Score: 1

If your a non-mass company purchasing cloud services from your HQ, mass is going to have one hell of a time accounting for the share of the value of the software services used in their state.
On the other hand, if the HQ is in mass, the company will have one hell of a time convincing the massholes not to tax the whole invoice amount.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Other than revenue, what's the motivation? by Firethorn · 2013-03-25 08:00 · Score: 1

there's no way to avoid doing social engineering with taxes.
There's taxation as social engineering, then there's social engineering from taxation. I figure that Iseltzer was talking that taxation should not primarily be a form of social engineering, but of revenue generation.
The problem you get with areas like Massachusetts is that they go WAY overboard with the 'taxation as social engineering' idea, viewing the engineering as a primary motivation. Well, either that or they're for so much in spending that they have to excessively 'massage' tax rates and have special taxes so they don't kill businesses with a level tax across numerous industries. The more complicated the tax system, the less efficient it is - they spend more money enforcing it, and people spend more money complying.
If you tax more or less simply to gain the revenue needed to run government, with the engineering mostly being simply to reduce the negative social effects(IE keep income/sales/property taxes balanced; consider not taxing food; keep income taxes at least somewhat progressive; have a homestead exemption so that the first $40k or so of your primary home's value isn't taxed, etc...), you end up with a far simpler system than where social engineering is primary, you tend to have specific taxes on specific activities, and your tax code book ends up looking worse than the federal government's.

--
I don't read AC A human right
Re:Other than revenue, what's the motivation? by Grishnakh · 2013-03-25 08:03 · Score: 1

It shouldn't be that hard: you'd just count up the employees working in Mass, and divide by the total number of employees worldwide. For a corporate cloud email system, that should be a good approximation. Of course, enforcing this doesn't sound very easy or practical, especially if the cloud app isn't something used by all (or most) employees, but rather a small subset of them. However, corporate taxation and accounting usually isn't like individual taxation: due to the deep pockets, governments are more likely to send auditors after companies, and look deeply into their books.
Re:Other than revenue, what's the motivation? by HornWumpus · 2013-03-25 08:21 · Score: 1

That would be one of many possible ways to attribute the costs of such a system (by head count).
Want to bet the accountants can come up with a dozen others and tie up the auditors arguing about which is the correct cost accounting until it has cost the taxing authority more then then the tax just to calculate it.
The flip side of that is the Mass company that starts with a tax bill for the whole amount.

--
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Re:Other than revenue, what's the motivation? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 08:28 · Score: 0

Do you know how fast a Mass corporation becomes a Delaware/Nevada corporation?
The company would need to remove it's entire physical presence in MA to avoid the tax, and maintaining proximity to the highest concentration of CS grads in the nation is usually worth the price.
Re:Other than revenue, what's the motivation? by Grishnakh · 2013-03-25 09:15 · Score: 1

I think we're probably splitting hairs here, but I hear this "taxes shouldn't be used for social engineering!!!" mantra fairly frequently, and that's exactly what it is: a dogmatic mantra. Sure, I'll agree with you that a system like that which you describe (income taxes somewhat progressive, homestead exemption, not taxing food, sales/income/property taxes balanced, etc.) sounds great, but to many people, they're going to bitch about all those too. Just look at all the Flat Tax promoters: they're going to bitch that your "somewhat progressive" income taxes are "social engineering", though to you that sounds extremist. Or the Randists are going to scream that not taxing staple foods is "social engineering". Or that even having property taxes at all is "social engineering". I can even understand some of these arguments (probably the one about property tax more than anything), even if I don't fully agree with them. But I'm just really sick of the "social engineering" mantra. It's unavoidable: anything you do with regard to taxation is going to be considered "social engineering", especially when you talk to the crowd that thinks that all taxation is theft and that there shouldn't be any taxes at all (you may disregard this crowd, but it's a pretty large and growing crowd here in the US).
Re:Other than revenue, what's the motivation? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 11:54 · Score: 0

"I believe MA, like CA, only charges sales tax on software physically delivered into the state. Cloud hosted software, even if its "projected" via something like Citrix or remote desktop, doesn't."
That's basically false. Massachusetts charges me tax on my Adobe "cloud" subscription every month. The software is actually sitting on my hard drive, but nobody ever delivered any software boxes to me.
Re:Other than revenue, what's the motivation? by tehcyder · 2013-03-26 00:25 · Score: 1

The simplest tax system is to charge everybody 100% on everything, then distribute the proceeds according to need.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
Re:Other than revenue, what's the motivation? by redlemming · 2013-03-26 09:01 · Score: 1

This is a rather stupid comment: there's no way to avoid doing social engineering with taxes. Whatever you do with taxation, it's going to affect society somehow.
If a single tax, income based, using a simple and rarely changed formula is social engineering, then folding a piece of paper is aeronautical engineering, and pouring oneself a glass of water is materials science.
Re:Other than revenue, what's the motivation? by Grishnakh · 2013-03-26 12:02 · Score: 1

Except that there's no place in the world where there's a single tax. There's always multiple taxes: sales taxes, property taxes, car registration fees, tariffs, duties, VATs, etc. Even an income tax alone would be social engineering, because now you're promoting consumption by not having a sales tax, you're forcing people who work to subsidize government services for people who don't (retired or rich people whose houses are paid for, or people who get their income from outside the country), you're not protecting domestic industries by not having tariffs, etc.
Talking about a single income-based tax is like talking about communism. It sounds OK in theory at first glance, except that no place has ever tried it or ever will because it's unworkable and impractical.
Re:Other than revenue, what's the motivation? by redlemming · 2013-03-26 13:52 · Score: 1

You make some excellent points about the consequences of a single tax policy.
However, I'm not sure that a policy having consequences means that we're doing engineering. Any policy at all, even no policy, will have consequences.
The American Engineers' Council for Professional Development has defined "engineering" as
"The creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination" ...
The fact that a policy has consequences does not mean that we are in any sense doing science or applying scientific principles ...
It is not at all clear that a single tax policy is unworkable in the same sense as communism. One key reason for the failure of communism is that no human being or group of human beings can predict or manage a complex market with reliable accuracy over the long term (a point Thomas Sowell discusses at more length in his Basic Economics book).
A tax policy, on the other hand, only has to produce the money needed for essential government services, and perhaps a bit more to smooth out changes in income from year to year (much like a capacitor smooths an input signal), a much simpler task. It really doesn't matter how that money is collected, from the point of view of spending it.
Re:Other than revenue, what's the motivation? by Grishnakh · 2013-03-26 14:35 · Score: 1

You're splitting hairs over the definition of "engineering". Lots of people will claim that software engineering isn't actually engineering, even though tons of Slashdotters are in that profession.
A tax policy, on the other hand, only has to produce the money needed for essential government services
Deciding which services to provide is "social engineering" too. Having more or less services will require more or less tax money; collecting more or less taxes will have significant effects on society, even with a single tax. So that's "social engineering" too.
The bottom line is that anything the government does amounts to "social engineering", no matter how much you wish it not to be so. We're not going to have any progress until people admit this, and instead of fighting over whether government should change society (which it's going to do by virtue of its very existence), and instead argue about how government should affect society.
Re:Other than revenue, what's the motivation? by redlemming · 2013-03-28 13:58 · Score: 1

The key point that you've missed is that engineering is based upon science, which in turn in based upon observation, hypothesis, and experiment. Software engineering is, in fact, engineering, for the simple reason that the typical software engineer is doing many experiments in the course of building a software system. These experiments simply happen to be done on a computer. Not all that different from the simulations of the more traditional engineer, in this day and age.
Activities or government policies can only be called "social engineering" if they involve experiment. This isn't splitting hairs, it's a matter of understanding what engineering (and science) is fundamentally all about.
Re:Other than revenue, what's the motivation? by Grishnakh · 2013-03-29 02:55 · Score: 1

That's not a "key point", you're just splitting hairs. This isn't academia, and definitions of words are not fixed. People use the word "engineering" all the time for things which have no scientific rigor, it just means manipulating things for a desired end result. Have you never heard of "sanitation engineers" and "domestic engineers"? Just because you don't like the usage of the term doesn't mean it's incorrect. This isn't France where the language is defined and regulated by a body of academics.

ANSWER TO MISSING QUERY IS: YES !! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 00:17 · Score: 0

Next !!

Wrong Title by SomeoneGotMyNick · 2013-03-25 00:18 · Score: 1, Redundant

"Tax-achusetts May Try To Tax the Cloud"

There... fixed that for you!

Re:Wrong Title by LVSlushdat · 2013-03-25 03:52 · Score: 2

Here's a suggestion... Why don't they just skip the "pleasantries" and just tax EVERYbody 100% of EVERYthing.. You know that's where states like the People's Republics of Massachusetts, New York and California (and a few others) are heading towards.. All these new taxes that these "bastions of socialism" keep dreaming up and passing simply cause a mass exodus of businesses (and people) from these states.. Unless they want to quit hiding their true intentions and put up concertina wire and trip mines around their borders and create an "Iron Curtain" to prevent their citizens from escaping, like their ideal, the old Soviet Union did, these new taxes/regulations are gonna keep driving business away from these states. I was a lifetime Calfornian, but wife and I began to see the writing on the wall in the mid 90s and moved from California to Nevada. My only complaint is we, here in Nevada, now seem to be trying really hard to go down the road California is traveling and I for one, don't care a bit for it.. Guess its time to move to an actual red state, since Nevada now seems to be getting bluer and bluer....

--
THANK YOU, Edward Snowden!! Americans owe you a debt of gratitude (whether they know it or not..)

corporate tax welfare by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 00:20 · Score: 0

Rather than a new tax why not get rid of the corporate tax welfare

Re:corporate tax welfare by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 00:39 · Score: 0, Flamebait

Massachusetts is a leftist socialized paradise, that and corporate cronyism is like stink on shit, you are not getting rid of it.
Now pay up sucka and remember to vote Obama.
Re:corporate tax welfare by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 08:35 · Score: 0

The article states that other states already have this tax in place. Places including conservative states. Liberal and conservative states have both banned this as well. This is not a liberal or conservative issue. It's a Deval issue and coming from a liberal, how this clown got voted back in I don't know.
Re:corporate tax welfare by tehcyder · 2013-03-26 00:31 · Score: 1

Massachusetts is a leftist socialized paradise, that and corporate cronyism is like stink on shit, you are not getting rid of it.
Now pay up sucka and remember to vote Obama.
Have a little tap from the cluestick: socialism and any form of capitalism are mutually exclusive. This is true regardless of whether you are a left or right winger.

--
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it

Opposite effect by roman_mir · 2013-03-25 00:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

If approved, the state estimates the tax may bring in a quarter billion dollars in 2014

- right, because taxing something creates more of it rather than reduces its amount.

FTFA

Most of the tax would be levied against integrators, developers and other companies producing custom software. It's not clear exactly what services would be covered by the tax, but if hosting, bandwidth, storage, security and other services are taxed, presumably the tax would affect any service based away from the premises.

Here is what will happen: Massachusetts will lose some of the integrator business, which will be provided from somewhere else. It's not clear what exactly they are proposing to tax of-course, they have no idea what they are talking about, but they sure as hell want to tax something there and that means raising costs and reducing business activity, whatever they do, they should expect less business, not more. I would be surprised if they managed to collect any taxes from this, they may end up with less tax dollars overall if/once they implement this idea.

--
You can't handle the truth.

Re:Opposite effect by BLKMGK · 2013-03-25 00:35 · Score: 2

Taxing anything that can so easily be done from elsewhere seems like a pretty stupid idea. It will be like trying to squeeze mercury...

--
Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
Re:Opposite effect by Skapare · 2013-03-25 00:40 · Score: 1

New Hampshire?

--
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Re:Opposite effect by sfm · 2013-03-25 00:49 · Score: 1

So how long will it be until business starts leaving MA in significant numbers, similar to what is happening in CA?
Re:Opposite effect by roman_mir · 2013-03-25 00:57 · Score: 3, Interesting

If somebody wants to start a new business in USA, they should definitely do it somewhere in Texas but even better, Puerto Rico. If you start a company in Puerto Rico, they promise 30 years of no capital gains taxes, that's beside the business income tax of 4% and there is no federal US income tax.
So if you start a company and it becomes successful, you definitely want to be there, you can sell your business and pay no capital gains. Clearly they won't be following MA example with this nonsense either.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Opposite effect by alen · 2013-03-25 00:57 · Score: 1

so why is it that the high taxed blue states have more people and more economic activity than the freedom loving low tax rate red states?
Re:Opposite effect by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 00:59 · Score: 0

Exactly - CA pretty much destroyed businesses, especially technology work that can easily go elsewhere. I mean, look at what they did to Silicon Valley - there's nothing left and no reason for anyone to go there.
Oops, I forgot - CA's GDP is larger than all but 7 countries in the world, and accounts for 1/8 of the US GDP. Looks like location means more than taxes. More like CA and MA are just weeding out the weak sauce companies (like yours).
Re:Opposite effect by jbmartin6 · 2013-03-25 01:03 · Score: 1

Well causality is hard to establish for something like that. But I think it is accurate to say that more people means more economic activity, all else being equal. And they certainly weren't lightly populated states until someone came along and raised taxes on them.

--
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Re:Opposite effect by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 01:12 · Score: 0

This.
Live free or die.
Re:Opposite effect by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 01:31 · Score: 0

OTOH, New Jersey implemented an additional tax on long haul truckers. Revenues went down. Seems they 'forgot' that trucks have wheels and could just as easily drive up the Pennsylvania side. Eventually they dropped the tax.
Re:Opposite effect by ChrisMaple · 2013-03-25 01:47 · Score: 2, Interesting

New Hampshire is already heavily politically polluted by its propinquity to Massachusetts. Please do not encourage more shit heads to move here from Boston and Cambridge.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:Opposite effect by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 01:47 · Score: 0

Sorry slashdot socialist, your information is out of date.
http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2012/01/13/report-california-slips-to-worlds-9th-largest-economy/
Like all socialized paradises your glory is short lived and finite. See Cyprus.
Invest in gold and lead.
Re:Opposite effect by moeinvt · 2013-03-25 01:50 · Score: 1

More people = more economic activity in general. I don't think you can make such a sweeping generalization either. How is Maine doing vs. Texas or S. Carolina for instance?
As for Red/Blue are you just talking about the presidential election? There are many states where you have a mix of reps, senators, governors and state legislatures, so it's hard to paint a state a single color.
My question to that question is:
If the blue states think their political philosophy and public policy are so vastly superior, why are they so critical of the idea of states' rights? Shouldn't they want to shrink the federal government, limit redistribution of wealth to red states and use their tax dollars for their own states?
Re:Opposite effect by bill_mcgonigle · 2013-03-25 01:54 · Score: 2

New Hampshire is already heavily politically polluted by its propinquity to Massachusetts. Please do not encourage more shit heads to move here from Boston and Cambridge.
Statistically speaking, Masshole transplants tend to vote along with New Hampshire values. I realize there are very vocal (and hypocritical) exceptions.
And, yes, I'd about to read the article to see if it affects a colo'ed rack I tend to in MA. It's possible that it makes sense to move it out of MA.

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Opposite effect by LordLimecat · 2013-03-25 01:55 · Score: 1

Oh, they promise. Well, Im sold.
Re:Opposite effect by HCase · 2013-03-25 02:02 · Score: 1

"they should definitely do it somewhere in Texas "
Texas already directly taxes computing services.
Re:Opposite effect by roman_mir · 2013-03-25 02:04 · Score: 1

It's the law in Puerto Rico

The zero rate applies only to income and gains derived from investments made after residency has been established and will last until 2035. Income and gains before residency are subject to the island's 10 percent capital gains, but for investments sold after 10 years and before 2035, the rate drops to 5 percent. In America, the tax rate on long-term capital gains and dividends for the top 2 percent is just under 24 percent.

--
You can't handle the truth.
Re:Opposite effect by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 02:06 · Score: 0

The South shall Rise Again!!!
Or something.
Re:Opposite effect by ChrisMaple · 2013-03-25 02:31 · Score: 2

Most big cities become big by being natural trade hubs, such as ports (New York, San Francisco) or transportation pinch points (Chicago?). Once established, workers of all sorts are attracted; as they become crowded the middle class moves to suburbs. Left behind are the poor in slums, vulnerable to political envy messages, and the rich in protected enclaves, some of whom lust for power. Because cities are densely populated it's easy to sell the message that everybody depends on everybody else; and because water, sewer and streets in cities are easily taken over or created by the government its easy to believe that more and more things should be.
The geographical advantages and the advantage of making use of advanced infrastructure already in place are powerful attractors that can overcome a substantial amount of taxation and regulation. The burden can become too great, and we're seeing that now in Detroit where the combination of bad politics and the decline of American auto manufacturers is overcoming the advantages of being near Lake Michigan, Chicago, and sources of iron ore.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:Opposite effect by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 02:33 · Score: 0

If the blue states think their political philosophy and public policy are so vastly superior, why are they so critical of the idea of states' rights?
It is precisely because they think their political philosophy are public policy are so vastly superior that they are critical of states' rights
I mean, that's what the original Republicans did. They thought their philosophy of freeing the blacks was just so right, that they ain't gonna listen to no Southern state talking about their rights.

Shouldn't they want to shrink the federal government, limit redistribution of wealth to red states and use their tax dollars for their own states?
Nope. They feel they are so right, that they are willing to put their money where their mouth is, by giving money to the red states.
What *I* would ask is that if the red states feel that their philosophy is so right, why not secede from the union?
And shouldn't they, if they uphold their principles, reject any money from the blue states or the feds? "Don't you dare pity me. I don't need your sympathy"?
It might not be much, but if you give that money back to the feds, it might help with the deficit! Cut spending is the way to go, right? So start with yourselves.
Re:Opposite effect by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 02:40 · Score: 0

Wow, talk about weak sauce.
Re:Opposite effect by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 03:07 · Score: 0

Basically all of the top tier tech talent is in California, New York or Washington. The vast majority of that talent definitely isn't going to move to Texas or Puerto Rico anytime soon.
Re:Opposite effect by stenvar · 2013-03-25 03:48 · Score: 1

That's what Europe thought in the 20th century. The exodus continues to this day.
Re:Opposite effect by stenvar · 2013-03-25 03:52 · Score: 1

It's not that hard to understand, and it's a weaker version of what happened with the industrial revolution and subsequent rise of socialism in parts of Europe:
(1) States develop rapidly and the economy grows rapidly.
(2) Lots of people move there, forming big urban centers. Lots of unionized jobs and manufacturing move there.
(3) As a result of (2), many people start voting for left-wing candidates.
(4) As a result of (3), taxes get raised and governmental power increases.
The high taxes, high government spending, and intrusive government don't cause development. You can easily see that because there are lots of regions that have those policies but fail to develop.
Re:Opposite effect by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 04:08 · Score: 0

Yeah, close the border. Let the Massholes keep all their jobs for themselves instead.
Re:Opposite effect by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 04:13 · Score: 0

The burden can become too great, and we're seeing that now in Detroit where the combination of bad politics and the decline of American auto manufacturers is overcoming the advantages of being near Lake Michigan, Chicago, and sources of iron ore.
It's not a combination. It can all be blamed on Henry Ford.
What Henry Ford did was significant. Most people may think it was a good significance, but those people have simply been sold Ford's message, like you said. This includes the bad politics that followed. They made bad decisions because they bought the message from the auto industry
Re:Opposite effect by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 07:59 · Score: 0

Statistically speaking, Masshole transplants...
Pretty sure the Masshole is descriptive of drivers from MA who drive like they were tied to roofracks every summer as a child while their parents drove to the Cape for vacation. You know, the ones who will pass you in the shoulder in gridlock traffic only to give you the finger as they fly by, then get stuck in front of you trying to merge back in once they run into the cop car directly ahead of them in the shoulder. Or the ones who will charge up behind you IN THE MIDDLE LANE, flash high beams, swerve into the fast lane at the last minute and give you the finger as they fly by, only to come back into your lane after they've passed and slow back down to near the speed limit.
All I'm sayin' is three things. 1) I doubt you can make a generalization about Masshole voting patterns, 2) not all MA residents are Massholes, and 3) not all Massholes live in MA (re: Masshole transplants, it's gets so much worse if they move to California, though).
Re:Opposite effect by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 00:34 · Score: 0

That's what Europe thought in the 20th century. The exodus continues to this day.
Only retards and fucking fascists choose to move from Europe to the US or similar hellholes.

Re:Good luck trying to tax me; I'm using a hosts f by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 00:23 · Score: 0

Alexander Peter Kowalski is an obnoxious prick. Why do you mention him so much?

Re:Good luck trying to tax me; I'm using a hosts f by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 00:37 · Score: 0

It's probably apk posting the messages. Some kind of bizarre false flag operation.

Taxing Tech by Akratist · 2013-03-25 00:39 · Score: 0

It'll be interesting to see what happens if we eventually get "chipped" -- would that qualify as a medical device or a mobile device? Etc.

So... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 00:41 · Score: 1

It appears that Massachussets has a new policy of expelling SaaS and web service business from Mass to other states. Brilliant! Squeeze the tax base, it squishes away to somewhere else.

Damn.. by way2trivial · 2013-03-25 00:42 · Score: 0

Suggestion to US GOVERNMENT
make it simplemake it simple- Remove cash
make all transactions electronic
take 3% on every fiscal transaction, even allowances

Just get it over with already

--
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random

Re:Damn.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 00:57 · Score: 0

If all transactions are electronic, why would they only take 3%? Why not 13%? Why not 30%? After all, all transactions would be tracked, completely under their control, and utterly at their mercy.
In other words, cash is your best friend, whether you care to realize it or not. Even if you yourself bother to use it, or not.
Re:Damn.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 01:18 · Score: 0

Who needs cash?
Just trade goods and services directly.
Ideas:
I build a website, you clean my house.
I wash your car, you mow my lawn.
I tutor your kids, you provide food for a month.
etc.
There's even a few websites for it.
It can get a lot more complicated if there are more than two parties involved, but still doable.
Re:Damn.. by drinkypoo · 2013-03-25 01:22 · Score: 2

Will you be happy when you are utterly unable to purchase anything which the government does not approve of? Fascist.

--
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Re:Damn.. by NatasRevol · 2013-03-25 02:08 · Score: 1

Relative value - good website is worth one cleaning or twenty?
Relative distance - do I have to drive to upstate NY to clean your house?
Relative tolerance - what if I won't clean houses/mow/etc?

--
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Re:Damn.. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 02:25 · Score: 0

Bullshit, boy, bullshit (you work for MasterCharge, I'll bet. Well no, I won't; I see you're only 16). Cash is the only form of money that costs neither me nor the person I'm using it with any extra. I pay for a box of checks, when I use a credit card the I pay interest and the merchant pays a fee. If I use a debit card we're both likely to pay.
THE US GOVERNMENT DOESN'T TAX SALES, IDIOT.
The only fair tax is a graduated income tax. Property and sales taxes are regressive.
Re:Damn.. by maxwell+demon · 2013-03-25 09:42 · Score: 1

If all transactions are electronic, why would they only take 3%? Why not 13%? Why not 30%?
Because at some point it would get more profitable to keep your money out of the country. Indeed, for multinational companies, probably even 3% would be sufficient for that.
Note that thanks to the internet, it would not be a problem to transfer money from one account on the Cayman Islands to another one there.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.

Harmonising the tax standard ... by golodh · 2013-03-25 00:42 · Score: 3, Insightful

All civilised countries in the world have a tax known in various forms as 'value-added tax' (or VAT). The US has sales tax. See e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax The difference between sales tax and VAT is that VAT is levied through out the supply chain but paid only by the end customer as firms are obliged to charge VAT when they sell things, but get VAT tax credits when they purchase.

What Massachusetts is doing here is to bring its tax code more in line with de-facto international standard. Something that will happen anyway over time.

And no, there are no discernible deleterious effects of VAT, and it doesn't affect international competitiveness much (China,India, Mexico, Canada and the EU all levy VAT). So it may be delayed for awhile, but given the current state of federal finances probably not for more than a few years or so.

Re:Harmonising the tax standard ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 01:02 · Score: 0, Interesting

Except for a couple things. First, I've never met a European who was happy about VAT. And two, at least in the UK, VAT was supposed to be a replacement for income tax, yet they introduced the VAT and kept income tax. VAT tends to go to the federal level, and sales tax tends to go to the municipality. VAT also tends to be much larger than sales tax, hence why it's considered a replacement for income tax, and not sales tax.
I'm assuming you're European since you talk with the standard "we know everything and what we do is how everybody else should do things" mentality, so you really have absolutely no understanding of a state level anything, though like the typical European, you probably think you understand it better than the people who actually live it every day, because you've read about it in a book. And I also feel the need to note, you've only mentioned that a bunch of other people do it that way, you didn't address so much as once on if it was actually a good way of doing anything. Just that lots of other people do it. And from what I understand, the answer really is, no, it's not. It does create the quite laughable European rush for the duty free shop however and lots of going to other countries where they do their VAT differently to buy cheap alcohol and cigarettes.
Re:Harmonising the tax standard ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 01:19 · Score: 2

Having lived in both Germany and the US for long enough to get acquainted with VAT and Sales Tax, the best thing about VAT is that it forces a "what you see is what you pay" pricing policy. We should do that with sales tax (and every other fee/tax non-at-the-register discount).
VAT would suck in the US. They would keep sales tax and have both VAT and Income Tax too.
Re:Harmonising the tax standard ... by Attila+Dimedici · 2013-03-25 01:21 · Score: 4, Informative

An important point, the U.S. does not have sales tax, many of the states within the U.S. have sales tax. However, not all U.S. states have sales tax.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:Harmonising the tax standard ... by RevDisk · 2013-03-25 01:23 · Score: 2

Every time someone says "We should have a VAT here in the US", my response is "Kill it with fire. Then nuke the ashes to be sure."

VAT is additional paperwork, and bloody annoying at that. Sales tax is at least straight forward, and usually fairly easy to audit. I've heard people say "Well, we can replace income tax with a VAT system." Yea, nope. You'll end up with both. Maybe one or two places went to VAT without an income tax, but in the States, it'll be both.

I lived in Europe. There were many parts I liked. VAT is not one of them.
Re:Harmonising the tax standard ... by misexistentialist · 2013-03-25 01:34 · Score: 1

there are no discernible deleterious effects of VAT
All those countries with VAT suffering massive unemployment and on the verge of total collapse is of course just a coincidence. Correlation is not causation after all. Clearly what China, Mexico, and Europe need is an even higher VAT. Turn it up to 110%!
Re:Harmonising the tax standard ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 01:38 · Score: 0

Since every country in the world, including the countries of Europe, have historically trailed the US economically, it stands to reason these countries will conform to the US's methods of taxation and economics, not the other way around. Regardless, that one country does something isn't any indication that another will. Although, I do agree with your assessment that as the policies of politicians fail to stimulate the economy and tax revenue, these same politicians will seek to increase taxes to make up the difference. Of course, this will only serve to add yet further harm to any already ailing economy.
The VAT is bad for the following reasons:
1. It hides the true cost of taxation, leaving governments less accountable to the people and leaving the people with less information about how much their government is taxing them. This is one of the primary reasons leftist politicians love them so much.
2. It hides the true cost of the good or service being provided, leaving it difficult for both businesses and consumers to make informed purchasing choices in the market. This added inefficiency adds yet more cost to all goods and services subject to the VAT.
3. Applying a tax several times, rather than just once at the final retail sale, adds exponential additional costs and inefficiency to every step of production and, therefore, the final price of the product. This additional cost produces nothing of value and is simply an added burden consumers will be required to bear in addition to the actual VAT itself.
Re:Harmonising the tax standard ... by Cornwallis · 2013-03-25 01:53 · Score: 1

All civilised countries in the world have a tax known in various forms as 'value-added tax' (or VAT).

Putting the word "civilized" in front of a noun doesn't make it right nor does it negate the idea that the action isn't backed by the threat of force.
Re:Harmonising the tax standard ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 01:56 · Score: 0

VAT does effect international competitiveness, it helps it.
Imports end up paying VAT, exports end up not paying VAT. Also the way you describe the credits sounds a lot more like what we call sales tax (paid by the end) vs VAT (paid every step where value is added).
Re:Harmonising the tax standard ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 01:58 · Score: 0

All but 4 states have sales tax. this would be a relevant point if those states included CA, NY, VA or MA.
Re:Harmonising the tax standard ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 02:29 · Score: 0

"All civilised countries in the world have a tax known in various forms as 'value-added tax' (or VAT)."
First, Europe is not "the world standard" as much as Europeans think it is. Second, I don't think people should be taking financial advice from a bunch of broke people.
Re:Harmonising the tax standard ... by MaWeiTao · 2013-03-25 02:32 · Score: 1

You wouldn't be so keen on VAT if you were paying it yourself. Europeans don't just pay VAT, in many cases there are also sales taxes.
It doesn't end there, many nations also impose all kinds of tariffs on a wide variety of goods for a variety of reasons. Only an idiot wouldn't expect those costs to be passed onto the consumer. In fact, despite the deceit on the governments, they know full well consumers end up paying the tariffs. This is why, for example, EU started imposing anti-dumping tariffs on Chinese-made clothing. They wanted to protect European businesses and knew that this measure would raise the price of the Chinese stuff.
The thing I find amusing is when Europeans bitch about how expensive stuff is but forget that the fundamental cause is their own government.
Re:Harmonising the tax standard ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 02:57 · Score: 0

VAT is a sales tax, there's no way to tax based on value, value is subjective... so nice job trying to defend a euphemism
Re:Harmonising the tax standard ... by Corwn+of+Amber · 2013-03-25 02:59 · Score: 1

VAT doesn't affect international trade because it just doesn't apply there. That's a very, very profitable loophole : export over half your sales and the VAT office will pay you instead of the other way around. It's been abused in a lot of creative ways, and that's not going to stop, like, ever.
The effect on internal economy is to make a country poor. Can't have a rich country with poor people, and VAT diminishes buying power by its amount. Here in Belgium it's 21% on everything that's not food. Imagine having 21% of your income slashed down? And if your job is selling stuff, you get fucked twice : everything you sell (inside the country) is taxed on the end price, so you're fucked out of 21% of your list price, and then when you go buy stuff, you still get to pay everything at 1.21 times what it should cost.

--
Making laws based on opinions that stem up from false informations leads to witch hunts.
Re:Harmonising the tax standard ... by Specter · 2013-03-25 03:24 · Score: 1

You forgot:
4. VAT imposes a dead weight loss in terms of record keeping and reporting that's >> than a sales tax.
Re:Harmonising the tax standard ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 03:30 · Score: 0

"All BUREAUCRATIC countries in the world have a tax known in various forms as 'value-added tax' (or VAT). What it does is the same thing as sales tax, except that it imposes much more computation work on nearly everyone along the line." There. Fixed it for you!
Re:Harmonising the tax standard ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 03:32 · Score: 0

That's what was meant by number 3. Thanks for reiterating this important point, though.
Re:Harmonising the tax standard ... by Specter · 2013-03-25 03:43 · Score: 1

Yeah, I guess I didn't read #3 closely enough. I left with the gist that it inflates the the overall price to the end user but obviously missed the inefficiencies due to the dead weight loss. Mea Culpa.
Re:Harmonising the tax standard ... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2013-03-25 04:07 · Score: 1

Exactly -- they'd keep both. Oh, they'd reduce income tax to almost nothing, and that only on the rich, but they'd keep it.
The incom tax started as a tiny fraction on he rich. It will grow back again.
These are the same politicians who scream we are spending at the absolute minimum level to keep people dying, regardless of whatever that level is.
Proof?
1. Increase spending 33% in 2 years.
2. Suggest reducing that spending 1%.
3. Observe as they call you a baby-raping mass murderer.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:Harmonising the tax standard ... by stenvar · 2013-03-25 04:10 · Score: 1

What Massachusetts is doing here is to bring its tax code more in line with de-facto international standard.
Good for them. They can finally demonstrate by direct experiment that the "international standard" is broken, just like so many other things Europeans do.

And no, there are no discernible deleterious effects of VAT, and it doesn't affect international competitiveness much
VAT is, in fact, great for international competitiveness, on paper: it decreases consumption, decreases imports, improves trade surpluses, and increases savings. But you're wrong if you think those are good things.
Re:Harmonising the tax standard ... by stenvar · 2013-03-25 04:13 · Score: 1

VAT doesn't affect international trade because it just doesn't apply there.
It does affect international trade: it discourages consumption, turning your country into a country of worker bees producing for export who themselves are strongly discouraged from consuming. It makes for a more "positive" balance of trade and a poor population, kind of like ... Europe actually.
Re:Harmonising the tax standard ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 05:07 · Score: 0

If you're so deluded as to think that they're going to give up income taxes without a fight from us on the subject, I've some nice dry seaside property on the middle of the Florida coastline to sell you...
Re:Harmonising the tax standard ... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 06:29 · Score: 0

VAT is additional paperwork, and bloody annoying at that. Sales tax is at least straight forward, and usually fairly easy to audit. I've heard people say "Well, we can replace income tax with a VAT system." Yea, nope. You'll end up with both. Maybe one or two places went to VAT without an income tax, but in the States, it'll be both.
Sales Tax might be slightly less paperwork than VAT, but Sales Tax still involves a mountain of paperwork (as opposed to a small moon). While there are fewer sales to end users than sales of component parts, the overhead is still massively greater than the paperwork required for income tax (you just don't notice it because the paperwork is done in small increments over time, rather than a giant mess near the start of the year).
Re:Harmonising the tax standard ... by F.Ultra · 2013-03-25 10:01 · Score: 1

There should be no European country with VAT that also has a Sales Tax, please enlighten me about this mystery country of yours. Oh and btw, anti-dumping tariffs (aka customs duties) is something that you have in the US as well.

Offshore by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 00:42 · Score: 1

Because many cloud services are available in more than one state, or have physical facilities in more than one state, questions about which state has jurisdiction and what tax might apply become complicated very quickly, according to KPMG.

Yeah, and how are they going to handle things developed and hosted offshore?

This is just politician grandstanding that will be impossible enforce.

And 4.5% of what exactly - price of the development service? Please, I can have a solution developed for free but with a provision that a (non-taxed) maintenance contract is purchased.

Goofy taxes like this will be so easy to get around - especially for the multinationals.

if anything, Reggy the local retailer will be the ones paying this.

If it discourages businesses from using the cloud by netwarerip · 2013-03-25 00:43 · Score: 1

Then I am in favor of it. Keep the business and $$ inhouse.

Ugh, something to bang my head to on a Monday by storkus · 2013-03-25 00:52 · Score: 2

Unlike most of you, it would seem, I did RTFS, along with the links from it to more stories: it seems that Massachussetts is just one state/location that is doing this sort of thing, along with NY, TX, UT, and Chicago.

Bottom line: they tax software, software-as-a-service (SaaS, a new acronym to me), internet access, hosting, etc; this is just another item to add to the list, in their eyes. At first, I was going to say, "Another reason to use Free Software," but then the enormity of the truth crushed me back into depression: another thing I can't un-see (or un-learn, more like it).

Re:Ugh, something to bang my head to on a Monday by Prof.Phreak · 2013-03-25 01:08 · Score: 1

Hmm... so a tax on top of a tax on top of a tax...since I don't see them stopping to tax profits, this will be right on top of those (and if you don't make any profits---I guess you'll still be on the hook for this softwate as a service tax).

--
"If anything can go wrong, it will." - Murphy
Re:Ugh, something to bang my head to on a Monday by maxwell+demon · 2013-03-25 10:08 · Score: 1

Yo dawg, I heard you like taxes, so we put a tax on your tax so you can pay while you pay.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.

Totally stupid by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 01:00 · Score: 0

As a tax paying MA citizen, that's fucking stupid. The article (yes I read it) says so little as to say nothing. Time to vote out the governer and get someone new.

Increase Min Wage to $22 per hour. by Jackie_Chan_Fan · 2013-03-25 01:10 · Score: 0

Then you dont have to tax the shit out of everything

Re:Increase Min Wage to $22 per hour. by characterZer0 · 2013-03-25 01:22 · Score: 1

Taxes and services give the ruling class more power. An increased minimum wage would allow lower taxes and fewer services, thus reducing the ruling class' power.

--
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Re:Increase Min Wage to $22 per hour. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 01:52 · Score: 0

"An increased minimum wage would allow lower taxes and fewer services, thus reducing the ruling class' power."
Higher unemployment? How does that help anyone?
How the fuck is it you seem to link 'ruling class' power' and 'fewer services'? Do you get paid by the pound of stupid?
Re:Increase Min Wage to $22 per hour. by Attila+Dimedici · 2013-03-25 02:11 · Score: 1

Why stop at $22 an hour? Why not make it $100 an hour?

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:Increase Min Wage to $22 per hour. by characterZer0 · 2013-03-25 02:26 · Score: 1

The fewer services the government provides, the less people are dependent on it, the less power the government has.

--
Go green: turn off your refrigerator.
Re:Increase Min Wage to $22 per hour. by GauteL · 2013-03-25 02:43 · Score: 1

Higher unemployment? How does that help anyone?
Citation needed. Employment and minimum wage is not a straight-forward linear releationship and this is subject to a lot of discussion (I know this is Wikipedia, but you should at least find references to the arguments).
In isolation, an employer is of course correct in that being required to increase the wages would mean they couldn't afford to hire as many, but with a minimum wage being enforced across the market it is entirely possible that increasing it will lead to more people being able to afford the products and services they themselves provide, thus providing a feedback loop to encourage growth.
Re:Increase Min Wage to $22 per hour. by fyngyrz · 2013-03-25 02:49 · Score: 1

You are under the impression that providing low wages reduces costs. It's not that simple.
When people work part time or for low wages, they consistently use more services provided by the state, from food stamps to medical care. This is because they can't afford them otherwise. We (including you) pay for this via taxation. When the trend is to hire two part timers instead of one full timer, as does McDonalds and Wal-Mart, or to host an entire layer of low paid employees, this heavily loads the system and taxation increases accordingly (and in my observations, it never goes down again, either.)
But, since the money for these services goes through extra hands (layers of bureaucrats), more of it is skimmed off prior to the actual purchase of service; resulting in a loss of efficiency as compared to the worker being able to pay for it on their own.
There is no free lunch. When you disadvantage people, they're going to turn to other methods that work. You pay for those methods. We all do. Your low wages increase my taxes. I don't look upon that with any particular favor, I have to say.

--
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Re:Increase Min Wage to $22 per hour. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 02:56 · Score: 0

You know that your comment was nothing more than a personal attack with no semantic value, don't you?
Re:Increase Min Wage to $22 per hour. by ChrisMaple · 2013-03-25 03:02 · Score: 1

How many people do you know whose labor isn't worth $22 per hour? Most children, most illiterate adults, many lazy people. Should those people be paid more than they're worth? Will they be?
With a $22/hour minimum wage unemployment will skyrocket. The unemployed, some of whom previously produced something, now produce nothing and become a burden on society. With GDP down, everyone becomes poorer. The newly unemployed, looking for a way to fill their hours, turn to destructive mischief, left-wing politics, and despair.
Incidentally, from a historical standpoint unions have favored minimum wage as it enriches unions and increases their political power. Blacks suffer disproportionately under minimum wage laws, and minimum wage laws are responsible for the astonishingly high unemployment among black youth.
If you hate blacks and the poor, love unions and turmoil, high minimum wage is for you.

--
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Re:Increase Min Wage to $22 per hour. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 06:26 · Score: 0

$100,000 an hour.
Re:Increase Min Wage to $22 per hour. by tbird81 · 2013-03-25 08:26 · Score: 1

Why stop at $22 an hour? Why not make it $100 an hour?
That's a brilliant idea. And if people are wondering where that $100/hour will come from, we can just get the government to print more money!
Re:Increase Min Wage to $22 per hour. by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 08:55 · Score: 0

Ironically a higher minimum wage and lower tax structure would probably be what comes out of a libertarian worldview as costs would require more money to pay for services, since those services are currently subsidized and neccesary(medical, schools, infrastructure, toxic clean up(why the government has to clean up private sites I don't know). This would also erode union power as if everyone is paid better then there is no reason to join a union.
Re:Increase Min Wage to $22 per hour. by tompaulco · 2013-03-25 10:33 · Score: 1

You are correct to question that they would just simply run the business on fewer employees. Minimum wage jobs are mostly in the service business. In the service business, unlike in IT for example, you can't simple fire 1/3 of your staff and make the other 2/3 work twice as hard. In an hourly job, most people are able to do X amount of work. If you fire some of the people, then the remaining people can't magically do X * 1.5 the amount of work. The amount of output remains more or less the same. If this amount of output is not enough to meet the output necessary to make the business profitable, then the business will simply shut down. So it won't just be minimum wage earners affected by an increase in minimum wage. Whole businesses would simply stop doing business because it is no longer profitable to supply the service they supply. Until a new technology or cheaper supplies appears or the customer base agrees to pay more, the service will simply cease to exist.

--
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.

And it is not like they will spend it wisely by Squidlips · 2013-03-25 01:41 · Score: 2

Massachusetts will squander any additional tax revenues and be back the next year asking for more taxes. The state has an unlimited capacity spend (waste) tax dollars; the Big Dig construction project was supposed to cost 2 billion but came in at 14 billion and is so defective that it killed a driver a few years ago...

Re:And it is not like they will spend it wisely by Ksevio · 2013-03-25 01:54 · Score: 1

But it sure made driving to the airport a lot easier.

Because IT Companies is Massachusetts... by Nova+Express · 2013-03-25 01:55 · Score: 1

...just didn't have enough reasons to movie to Texas already...

--
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)

http://www.lawrenceperson.com/

Re:Because IT Companies is Massachusetts... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 02:03 · Score: 1

Movie to Texas? Like 'Friday Night Lights'?
Re:Because IT Companies is Massachusetts... by HCase · 2013-03-25 02:08 · Score: 2

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but Texas already has a direct tax on computing services.
Re:Because IT Companies is Massachusetts... by DigiShaman · 2013-03-25 03:29 · Score: 1

As a Texan (Houstonian), we do not want Yankees. Their like locusts that bring their failed urbanite liberal voting policies with them and blight out the local economy. Besides, they drive like assholes! And the honking is a new thing around here. Six years ago, the traffic was a lot more quite.

--
Life is not for the lazy.
Re:Because IT Companies is Massachusetts... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 03:50 · Score: 0

*They're *quiet
Re:Because IT Companies is Massachusetts... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 04:16 · Score: 0

Quite what... exactly?
Re:Because IT Companies is Massachusetts... by TheSync · 2013-03-25 05:33 · Score: 2

Their like locusts that bring their failed urbanite liberal voting policies with them and blight out the local economy.
Yeah, as if Austin isn't contributing to the Texas economy...since 2004, an estimated 168,500 new jobs have been added to Austin's regional economy, and regional payroll increased by $8.46 billion.
Re:Because IT Companies is Massachusetts... by dkleinsc · 2013-03-25 05:34 · Score: 1

Why would you move to Texas when you could just move to nearby New Hampshire? No sales tax, no income tax. Depending on where your employees live, they might not even have to move.

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
Re:Because IT Companies is Massachusetts... by jittles · 2013-03-25 06:44 · Score: 1

As a Texan (Houstonian), we do not want Yankees. Their like locusts that bring their failed urbanite liberal voting policies with them and blight out the local economy. Besides, they drive like assholes! And the honking is a new thing around here. Six years ago, the traffic was a lot more quite.
As a Western transplant to the South, I can say that people do not honk here enough! I've seen people stop (on a green light) to let someone make an unprotected (read w/o right of way) turn across a major road. You could sit at the front of the line for a green light for the entire cycle and no one would honk and wake you up from your day dreaming spell. There is a time and a place for courtesy, and there is nothing wrong with a polite honk to remind a person that there are things going on outside of their car.
Re:Because IT Companies is Massachusetts... by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 09:05 · Score: 0

I married a Texan, I don't think you speak for most Texans. Most Texans are caring, intelligent people dedicated to family and god. As a liberal atheist from Massachusetts, there are definitely differences between us, but just because we are more brash doesn't mean we are not more genuine. Politeness that comes with bared teeth, is not neccesarily better than genuine caring. Texas pays the most settlements for wrongful imprisonment and applies the death penalty to mentally disabled individuals. Texas is also what's referred to as a purple state, it's only through a massive amount of gerrymandering that the state has managed to stay red.
It's rather ironic you bringing up how polite you are while describing us as locusts, failed, assholes. I think you forget that many of us make our way south in service of our country, so if you could politely refrain from calling our liberal veterans assholes I'd appreciate it.

Why is the tax so low? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 02:34 · Score: 0

Why isn't there a standard 17-22% VAT applied here? Or is this on top of that?

Re:Why is the tax so low? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 03:04 · Score: 0

Because we havn't QUITE advanced to that stage of STUPIDITY yet. Don't worry, we'll get there. Then the whole western world can be in a permanent depression together.

Obligatory by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 02:40 · Score: 0

One does not simply tax into the Cloud.

Re:Good luck trying to tax me; I'm using a hosts f by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 02:43 · Score: 0

Why are the posts of this verminous FUCKER not detected by the site's code and disallowed in the first place? They are all verbatim copies of the same SHIT.

The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin... by RogueWarrior65 · 2013-03-25 03:08 · Score: 1

The more businesses will slip through your fingers. Seriously, somebody esplain this to me: Gasoline? It's gotten too expensive. Food? It's gotten too expensive. Healthcare? It's gotten too expensive. Housing? It's gotten too expensive. So why the f*ck isn't government too expensive?

Re:The People's Republic of Massachusetts by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 03:28 · Score: 0

Oh come on mods this is both +1 Funny and true.

Ah, yes. The state that brought us "The Big Dig" by Lucas123 · 2013-03-25 03:51 · Score: 3, Interesting

Massachusetts' expertise at finding new things to tax is only surpassed by its ability to spend like drunken sailors. Case in point, the Central Artery/Tunnel Project in Boston, also known as Big Dig. The project, begun in the 1990s and completed in 2004, was the most expensive highway project in the U.S. When construction began, the Big Dig's cost was estimated at $5.8 billion. Eventual cost overruns were so high that the chairman of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, James Kerasiotes, was fired in 2000.The total expenses eventually passed $15 billion. Interest brought this cost to $21.93 billion. So, almost a 400% cost overrun. Oh, and BTW, the tunnels have been falling apart lately. One person was already killed by falling ceiling panels, and remediation work has been flourishing.

Massachusetts, for a long time known as... by Fantasio · 2013-03-25 04:22 · Score: 3, Insightful

Taxachusetts.

Re:Good luck trying to tax me; I'm using a hosts f by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 04:38 · Score: 0

Welcome to the exciting world of apk.

Translation: by c-A-d · 2013-03-25 07:51 · Score: 1

Massachusettes has decided to run out any software companies or hosting companies from its state. It no longer wants those sorts of business inside its borders.

--
some karma... and kinda lukewarm about it.

Re:Good luck trying to tax me; I'm using a hosts f by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-25 08:07 · Score: 0

Most insightful post on the Internet

Re:If it discourages businesses from using the clo by maxwell+demon · 2013-03-25 10:01 · Score: 1

It will just encourage businesses to use a cloud located elsewhere.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.

Re:TAX THIS by maxwell+demon · 2013-03-25 10:16 · Score: 1

Thank you for the hint. Investigations against you because of tax evasion have been started.

Sincerely, your tax office. :-)

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.

Simplest tax, most complicated welfare by Firethorn · 2013-03-26 03:48 · Score: 1

That might be the simplest tax system, but it'd end up being the most complicated welfare system, and thus unmanageable. For one, how do you accurately assess 'needs'?

--
I don't read AC A human right

Re:Ah, yes. The state that brought us "The Big Dig by lsatenstein · 2013-03-26 07:54 · Score: 1

Massachusetts' expertise at finding new things to tax is only surpassed by its ability to spend like drunken sailors. Case in point, the Central Artery/Tunnel Project in Boston, also known as Big Dig. The project, begun in the 1990s and completed in 2004, was the most expensive highway project in the U.S.

When construction began, the Big Dig's cost was estimated at $5.8 billion. Eventual cost overruns were so high that the chairman of the Massachusetts Turnpike Authority, James Kerasiotes, was fired in 2000.The total expenses eventually passed $15 billion. Interest brought this cost to $21.93 billion. So, almost a 400% cost overrun. Oh, and BTW, the tunnels have been falling apart lately. One person was already killed by falling ceiling panels, and remediation work has been flourishing.

===
Where I live, if I call a plumber, I pay his bill, and federal and provincial taxes. Ditto for painter, electrician, I have to pay sales taxes.
So what is the difference if the programmer works to build a website. Do you pay his invoice without paying sales taxes?

Mass is discovering that they omitted this revenue stream. Thats all.

--
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada

Re:Ah, yes. The state that brought us "The Big Dig by ncc74656 · 2013-03-26 09:45 · Score: 1

Where I live, if I call a plumber, I pay his bill, and federal and provincial taxes. Ditto for painter, electrician, I have to pay sales taxes. So what is the difference if the programmer works to build a website. Do you pay his invoice without paying sales taxes?

Sales tax is payable on goods, not services. Building a website is a service. You don't pay sales tax when you procure the services of a doctor or lawyer; why would web coders be any different?

--
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.

Re:Ah, yes. The state that brought us "The Big Dig by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-26 12:57 · Score: 0

Where I live, if I call a plumber, I pay his bill, and federal and provincial taxes. Ditto for painter, electrician, I have to pay sales taxes.
So what is the difference if the programmer works to build a website. Do you pay his invoice without paying sales taxes?

Sales tax is payable on goods, not services. Building a website is a service. You don't pay sales tax when you procure the services of a doctor or lawyer; why would web coders be any different?

Services will be taxed. Services add value and are therefore taxable in most countries. Why should that stop states from getting due revenu.

Re:Ah, yes. The state that brought us "The Big Dig by lsatenstein · 2013-03-26 13:02 · Score: 1

Where I live, if I call a plumber, I pay his bill, and federal and provincial taxes. Ditto for painter, electrician, I have to pay sales taxes.
So what is the difference if the programmer works to build a website. Do you pay his invoice without paying sales taxes?

Sales tax is payable on goods, not services. Building a website is a service. You don't pay sales tax when you procure the services of a doctor or lawyer; why would web coders be any different?

Services will be taxed. Services add value and are therefore taxable in most countries. Why should that stop states from getting due revenu.

Doctors and dentists are in the medical field, and in almost every known area, there are no taxes for their services. There may be taxes on prescriptions, and most certainly, all non prescribed medications.

A programmer who builds a website is producing a product. One pays for the product via services, but it is nevertheless a product and should be taxed.

You will see the 50 states looking for tax dollars and having them go after services and internet sales.

--
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada

What's the big deal? by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-28 16:33 · Score: 0

None of this will seem like it costs so much once Sen. Wile E. Warren (Super Genius) raises the minimum wage to $22/hr. Who says Ivy League educations are overpriced? Do you think just any moron off the street could come up with an idea like that?

It really does reach a point where it is beyond parody. It doesn't even make me angry anymore because I realize we are past the point of no return. That takes the pressure off and you can spend your time pointing and laughing.

I am just waiting for two things to happen. One is for our brainwashed youth to spit out the bit and realize they have no reason to be on the hook for $200,000 per household in national debt by the time Obama leaves office just by virtue of the fact that they were born in the US. And the other is for states to realize that if they secede their portion of the debt goes away overnight, along with their citizen's being given back many of their liberties. It is a sort of IQ test to see if either of those two things happen before we go the route of Greece. My money is on us being forced to go Greek, so to speak.

snicker'n eh! by Anonymous Coward · 2013-03-28 16:56 · Score: 0

Still not as high as Canada.

Slashdot Mirror

Massachusetts May Try To Tax the Cloud

172 comments