Slashdot Mirror


State Technology Taxes Face Stiff Resistance

SonicSpike writes "As the nation moves from a tangible goods-based economy to a service-based economy, a few states are trying to keep revenues robust by taxing technological services such as software upgrades and cloud computing. But a backlash from the high-tech industry has quashed most efforts. As a result, the U.S. has a patchwork quilt of state taxes on technological services. Some states that have tried to impose such taxes have failed spectacularly, and most have not tried at all. According to the Tax Foundation, a nonpartisan think tank that studies taxes, only 10 states (Connecticut, New Mexico, Hawaii, South Dakota, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, Tennessee, Texas and West Virginia) and the District of Columbia tax all writing or updating of software. Only New Mexico, Hawaii and South Dakota levy their general sales taxes on all software services. States with sales taxes do, however, levy those taxes on software that is sold on CDs or other hard storage materials. About half the states also tax 'canned' (non-altered) software that can be downloaded, according to the Tax Foundation. Elia Peterson, an analyst with the foundation, said in a recent paper that states are reluctant to tax computer services in large part because it 'is an especially mobile industry and could easily move to a lower tax state.'"

36 of 167 comments (clear)

  1. "nonpartisan think tank" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There ain't no such animal, Jim.

  2. Nonpartisan? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Tax Foundation is nonpartisan in the sense they are against taxes and regulation and are run by representatives from Koch Industries, Exxon, former Bush-Cheney campaign advisers and Republican politicians. That kind of nonpartisan "think tank".

    1. Re:Nonpartisan? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 3, Informative

      Did you get the info from your MSM pimp?

      From Wikipedia:

      Former directors: Wayne Gable (Koch Industries), Joseph Luby (Exxon), Pam Olson (Bush-Cheney campaign), current director Bill Archer (former Texas Republican congressman)

      "criticized by other think tanks, such as the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities (CBPP)[31] and Citizens for Tax Justice (CTJ),[32] citing repeated "methodological errors" and "reliance on early projections without hard data."

      "Krugman has also accused the Tax Foundation of "deliberate fraud" in connection with a report it issued concerning the American Jobs Act.[47]"

    2. Re:Nonpartisan? by Sponge+Bath · · Score: 2

      I'm sure you edited the page yourself...

      I don't see why these facts upset you so much. If you believe in the no tax, no regulation agenda pushed by these Republicans, including support for Paul Ryan's budget, then you should proudly shout them from the rooftops. Just don't expect people to believe their self proclaimed line of "nonpartisan think tank".

    3. Re: Nonpartisan? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Paul Ryan has never advocated for either no taxes or no regulation. His budget cut spending growth to balance the budget against expected future revenue over a 10 year timeline. It was about as aggressive as Bill Clinton's budget cuts in the 1990s.

      Perhaps you should spend more time reading the facts and less time reading DailyKos. The left just doesn't listen to reason.

    4. Re:Nonpartisan? by khallow · · Score: 2

      Beats having it take an automatic cut of your paycheck, doesn't it?

  3. In Canada by msobkow · · Score: 3, Informative

    In Canada, all goods and services are subject to the GST (Goods and Services Tax.) In many provinces, they're subject to HST (Harmonized Service Tax), which basically takes the rules of GST and adds on a provincial percentage.

    It hasn't caused our software industry to implode because the taxes are applied across the board throughout the country.

    Unlike the US, you can't just lobby your way to a tax exemption here. The goobermint is gonna get their share come hell or high water.

    --
    I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
    1. Re:In Canada by Mr+D+from+63 · · Score: 2

      In the US, we just buy our products & services via venues like Amazon and simply forget about those troublesome taxes.

    2. Re:In Canada by gl4ss · · Score: 2

      that's how it is in most of the world, unless you're dodging taxes.

      I mean, surely haircuts are taxed in USA? and plumbers? manicures, makeup sessions and cosmetic surgery surely is taxed under services taxes.. soooo what the fuck is so hard about enforcing the tax laws?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    3. Re:In Canada by somersault · · Score: 2

      Simgapore

      Is that your latest creation in Sim City?

      --
      which is totally what she said
    4. Re:In Canada by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      Your state based tax system is pretty brain damaged

      It would be a great improvement if it was just state-based. There's nearly 10,000 sales tax jurisdictions in the US, and each jurisdiction can have multiple categories for taxable goods based on product or service type. Taxes can be flat rate or progressive. It's a nightmare.

    5. Re:In Canada by geekoid · · Score: 2

      "The country or state doesn't have jurisdiction to tax the transaction."
      Actually they don't tax the company, the tax is paid by the individual, so the individual is required to pay.
      Of course, people are cheap whiny short sighted bastards, so they don't pay their share if they can save some pennies.

      And there is not reason a country can't create a treaty with other countries in that the country of origin collects taxes and then send it to the country.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re:In Canada by Entropius · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I live in Washington DC and went to go buy some soup at a Vietnamese takeout place the other day.

      The sales tax is 6% here, but it's 10% on food. (It's an "entertainment tax"). Fine, I knew about that. But the check didn't add up.

      There's a nickel tax on plastic bags: the city claims that it's to protect the Anacostia River from being polluted with bags. (Nobody has ever considered trying to get the folks who live by the river in Southeast from throwing their damned bags into the streets.) But I knew about that too, and the check still didn't add up.

      Turns out there is also a quarter tax on to-go containers of any kind, including the little thing my soup came in.

      Meanwhile, the last time Massachusetts Ave. was paved, it was paved by Barney Rubble. So these soup taxes sure aren't going to anything useful.

      Urban tax codes are ridiculous.

    7. Re:In Canada by quacking+duck · · Score: 2

      In Australia and New Zealand we also have a GST system just like Canada. And Simgapore.

      It's what a sensible country does. Your state based tax system is pretty brain damaged and only going to cause more and more problems as time goes on..... goodluck with that.

      State taxes (or provincial ones in Canada) are bad enough but manageable due to limited numbers, and you usually know if you're in one state/province or another.

      But the US goes even further and has county/district sales and use taxes, adding thousands of slightly different tax rates across the country. Check out California's... and that's just for locations starting with "A"! Texas has an an equally ridiculous long list of slightly different rates.

      This means that the shop down the street, but in a different county, may charge you slightly more or less for a product that has the same sticker price (which are almost always pre-tax numbers in the US... Canada does too but at least we don't do local sales taxes). I suppose locals know exactly where the county lines are, but what a mess to keep track of.

      I get the historical reasons why this is--it's similar to why there's no federal or even in-state standards for election systems. Each county is theoretically independently managed and sets their own rates. This works for property taxes and infrequent purchases, but not online goods and services.

      It's no wonder US online retailers and services have resisted sales tax for so long, it's a logistical nightmare to set up the database of thousands of tax rates across the country and keep them up to date.

    8. Re:In Canada by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Nobody understands how it works. Most places with an income tax have a formula similar to state income taxes. "take metric A, send us XX% of it" The US has multiple classes of income, piles of deductions and exceptions, almost as many rebates, progressive tiers with regressive caps, and many other contradictory schemes.

    9. Re:In Canada by bjwest · · Score: 2

      I purchase from venues like Amazon because I live in a town of ~10,000 with a Wal*Mart Supercenter, Walgreens and two grocery stores, not to avoid taxes. There is nothing else within 30 miles of me.

      --

      --- Keep the choice with the user..
  4. Make your mind up by PhilHibbs · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are you a country, or are you a federation of states? If you are a country, then get your taxes sorted out. Your states seem to be willing to deprive another state of $100 in order to get $10 themselves, that way has just led to a crisis in state finances.

    1. Re:Make your mind up by PhilHibbs · · Score: 2

      And yes, we have something of the same problem over here in Europe, we've removed the trade borders without harmonizing taxes. So a company operating out of Ireland into the UK pays no corporation tax in either. We need to sort that out too.

    2. Re:Make your mind up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It was originally a federation of states (or a United States), however, our current majority political party is working to eliminate that distinction and centralize power in a single federal government (when you hear about that other party trying to "defund" this and "defund" that, they're really trying to get the heck out of business that should be handled at the state and local level - it's not like they think nobody should get healthcare or kids shouldn't go to school).

      One of the few powers explicitly granted the federal government was to moderate the interaction between the states but that power has been twisted to give control of just about everything to federal congress.

      I'll get modded -1 for this because it's Slashdot, but it's still true.

    3. Re:Make your mind up by jythie · · Score: 2

      Well, that is pretty well established history. The expansion of the use of the Commerce Clause is pretty well documented. What is less clear and often debated is if this was a good or bad thing on the whole. There are advantages and disadvantages in having a strong or weak federal system, and most of them are related to a specific culture and economic situation.

    4. Re:Make your mind up by bondsbw · · Score: 2

      It's not about strong vs. weak federal system. It's about checks and balances. In this case, the states and the federal government were meant to balance each other and provide a system of checks against each other.

      It's about making it so that one small group of people (politicians) don't have total control over the nation, its economy, its military, etc. Imagine what a madman could do with that kind of power today.

      Well, that was the intent, but now I fear we have given the group in D.C. irrevocable control over those things, and we're just waiting for a madman to step into office.

      --
      All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
  5. Flawed premise by barlevg · · Score: 4, Funny

    As the nation moves from a tangible goods-based economy to a service-based economy

    Because in the future, we will all move out of our houses to live in the cloud, we'll forego food in favor of HTTP cookies and email spam, and we will transport ourselves to our destinations not with cars but with through internet traffic.

    Now, I know what you're thinking--we'll still need to buy computers to make this magic happen. But, you see, in the future, all of our computers will be virtual machines.

  6. Sales tax by Charliemopps · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There should be only a single tax. Sales tax. It should apply to all sales equally. There should be no loopholes and it shout not be "progressive" (i.e. higher rate for the rich) There should be no deductions or tax deadlines. It would be very simple and fair. Lastly it would encourage savings rather than consumption which is something we need desperately right now. Our current "progressive" system results in the rich paying less than the poor in many cases because they are better equipped to use the system in their favor. In a sales tax only system they would naturally pay more in taxes because they have more discretionary income.

    There is absolutely no reason we need separate little "mini" taxes on every product, sales event, and service there is. The sole purpose of all of our tax mess is to obfuscate the real percentage we're all paying in taxes.

    1. Re:Sales tax by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You can have your flat tax when you have a guaranteed minimum income for every man, woman, and child in the country. Until then, all you're doing is massively, massively increasing the burden on the poor. There are basic requirements to live, levying a 25% sales tax (more realistic would be 40% or more to maintain current funding levels) on poor people who already don't meet those requirements is just incredibly stupid.

    2. Re:Sales tax by aralin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sales Tax is actually a reverse progressive tax. Depending on the percentage of your income spent each month, you are taxed more or less. The most at 100% income spent, which is poor and lower middle class. Then middle class gets to about 95% spending, upper middle class 85% spending and then you get the rich, which spend generally at 10% or less. So their tax burden is 10 times lower than the poor and middle class. There is nothing fair about a sales tax.

      --
      If programs would be read like poetry, most programmers would be Vogons.
    3. Re:Sales tax by ultranova · · Score: 2

      It would be very simple and fair. Lastly it would encourage savings rather than consumption which is something we need desperately right now.

      Because a recession is not bad enough already, let's discourage economic activity and turn it into Greater Depression!

      Then again, much of the country can't save up because they're already living paycheck to paycheck, so I guess they'd end up paying more taxes and going into deeper debt. But I guess kicking people who are already down is some people's idea of "fair". What I don't get is why they think this won't lead to an outright rebellion.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    4. Re:Sales tax by Entropius · · Score: 3

      What would you say to a flat sales tax (or VAT or goods+services tax or similar) combined with a national income?

      25% tax (or whatever) on everything, everyone gets a check for $thousands per year, which they can spend on ice cream, rent, food, or whatever else they please, replacing all other handout/welfare programs. It's been proposed by quite a few people.

    5. Re:Sales tax by geekoid · · Score: 2

      Fair means each group pays the same percentage of the overall taxes. Not 1 person pays more then another person.

      As a group, yes the poor pay more. 12% of taxes come the the bottom 20%
      7.9% come from the top 1%

      The top 1% pays the least percentage of tax revenue then any other group.
      http://www.cbpp.org/cms/?fa=view&id=3505

      10% of 8000 has a hell of a lot bigger impact on a person. / family then 39% of 400,001

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    6. Re: Sales tax by Entropius · · Score: 2

      There's that idea, though, that if you tax something you get less of it.

      It's more correct to say that money only creates value when it changes hands; the point of a medium of exchange is to enable barter-by-proxy where everyone comes out better in the end. Since exchange of money for goods and services is the key activity that creates value in an economy, taxing it puts a damper on economic activity. (Suppose someone has a business idea that runs at a margin of 5%: I can make a widget for $10 that people would be glad to buy for $10.50. This would be a very profitable enterprise, making lots of people happy, without sales tax. It can't exist with sales tax.)

      For that reason I think property taxes (on real property, not things like pencils and computers) are less dampening to the economy. If you tax private property ownership you get less of it, which would indeed drive up things like housing prices, but which would also encourage more unowned and public property. It would discourage the model where ten thousand people own a half-acre yard and encourage the model where they own a quarter-acre yard and there's a 2500 acre park by the neighborhood.

    7. Re: Sales tax by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      The most economically efficient tax is taxing wealth. That's hard, so we tax income instead. The least economically efficient is taxing consumption. When I say "economically efficient" I mean greatest burden on those with the most means and greatest benefit from government services. Hoarding wealth doesn't benefit the economy, moving it does, which is why taxing moving wealth is economically inefficient. Taxing stationary wealth will incent moving it, improving the economy.

    8. Re:Sales tax by NoImNotNineVolt · · Score: 2

      I would say that the wealthy don't need another tax break. Only a tiny proportion of their money would ever go towards tax, since only a tiny proportion of their money ever gets spent on taxable goods or services.

      They're already rich enough. I don't think it's in society's best interest to further increase the current disparity in wealth distribution. If you feel that greater disparity in wealth distribution is better for society, feel free to explain the basis for that belief.

      --
      Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
  7. Tech and State Taxes by jythie · · Score: 2

    Given how easy it is for tech companies to uproot and move their entire operation elsewhere, we might be looking at a slow end to the effectiveness of state level taxes. Over the last few decades we have been seeing a 'race to the bottom' in some industries, with regions dropping corporate taxes to near nothing or even investing public money in encouraging companies to move there, while shifting the burden of paying for it onto the middle/low end workers. If a state tries to stand up and tax an industry, companies move to another state. The net result is a steady decrease in state's ability to fund themselves and an increasing reliance on federal money (since companies have a harder time escaping those taxes easily).

    Long term we might simply be looking at a situation where it is pointless to even try to tax some industries at a local level.

  8. Re:A business expense? by blackraven14250 · · Score: 2

    You're missing his point. At the point of sale, states have no rights to collect taxes if it's on an out of state sale. Then, once the product is given/delivered to the end user, their home state doesn't have that information to collect the tax normally, since the seller is from another state. The end user is supposed to declare this spending and pay taxes on it, but nobody does, and it's really rough trying to figure it out from the state's point of view. They don't have access to the financials from companies located physically outside of the state, so they're SOL in figuring out that I bought a copy of some software from Amazon.

    How does this relate to the GP's point? When a company declares that they bought a copy of Win7 as a deduction, then they also have to pay sales taxes on it, since the state government now has a record of the sale, so they can collect their sales/usage tax. It's the same reason why you don't get away with buying a car somewhere like New Hampshire to avoid paying sales taxes on it - you have to provide the proof of your purchase to your state government in order to register it. There's some technicalities around that, but for the most part, the loopholes aren't easy.

  9. Adam Smith vs. Service Economy by EngineeringStudent · · Score: 3, Informative

    Read "Wealth of Nations" by Adam Smith and take microeconomics 101.

    Service economy is a transitionary state where you have no creation of value, and the money hasn't yet been drained, and poverty. People pass around the same dollar bills, but only a tiny minority actually create value. Given the natural system perturbations that must come - that is an unsustainable model. It is the glass vase on the top of the wobbly table. It must crash.

  10. Re:Taxing anything by Entropius · · Score: 2

    The problem is that if you want public services you have to tax something.

  11. No more software "licenses"? by DoctorBonzo · · Score: 2

    So, in the states that have sales tax on sales of software on CDs or other tangible media, does this mean we can forego the "license" fiction and consider the purchase to be an actual sale?