Yep, if private communities want to make sure other clients aren't "leeching" their warez, then they need some sort of real authentication mechanism, not relying on a client-supplied user-agent string.
I should also mention that, almost universally, companies have to adhere to the laws of whatever state(s) they are doing business in, not just the state they are founded in.
There's a simple solution- don't get a job in NY and then telecommute. Problem solved. If NYS companies are hurting because they can't find enough willing telecommuters, then I suppose they'll start lobbying to change the law.
In the meantime, I reckon there are not many NYS politicians who are shedding tears over non-residents who get a job in NYS but try to avoid having to pay income taxes by living out of state, when a NYS resident could have that job instead and pay income taxes. Bruno and Silver needs dat cash!
I've never heard of that practice, but I don't dispute it exists. In this day and age, there's no excuse for someone getting a non-competitive interest rate.
Most corporations incorporate in Delaware and a few other states because their laws are crafted to heavily favor corporations in a variety of legal matters. Delaware has a whole special court that deals with corporate law, and is one of the oldest, most favorable, and precedent-setting such court in the country.
I responded to the parent article pointing out factual errors that makes that article's argument completely inaccurate.
To wit:
AFAIK, any income subject to any state tax will be deductible on other states' income taxes. Therefore, you don't just add up each state's income tax because the rates are not cumulative like that. Specifically, you'll never reach 100% tax, much less the 200-400% the parent suggested (that was the ludicrous part).
No state in the United States taxes 10-20% income. The highest state income tax rate is about 9.5%, and that's a marginal rate (i.e. only the portion of your income over a certain threshold is taxed at that rate). Therefore, the example the parent provided was wildly embelleshed.
Only a few states have rules like NYS's rules anyway, so the analogy is bad.
As you (almost) pointed out, there is another factor- that is when a band is touring they are charged pro-rata because there is never any question which state they are doing business in. They are not telecommuting (which also makes the parent's analogy bad).
However, there is still the potential for multiple states taxing the same income, because a state can tax income generated in that state, and the performer's state of residence can also tax the same income. If you're a NYS resident, in fact, this is exactly what happens to you (minus deductions for what you paid to another state- you don't pay extra tax, but you do end up paying the greater of the two states' income tax amount).
So, while the parent's argument may be poignant, it is hardly accurate, and it is certainly not as accurate as my reply was.
The unfair part is that even if only 25% of his work is done for the New York company, his total income tax will be at least what would result from 100% New York work.
That's not true. If he did work for a Tennesee company as well, NYS would not charge any income taxes on that unless he was a NYS resident.
The issue is that he did 100% of his work for his New York State job at a New York State company; he just did 75% of the work in Tennessee.
Touring musical acts do in fact have to pay taxes under the various state rules they perform in.
However, since no state charges 10-20% state income tax (see http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/ind_inc.html), most of them don't have such stringent rules, and those that do offer deductions based on taxes paid in other states, your characterization of 200-400% tax rate is ludicrous.
You do if you're doing business or are employed in New York; unless you've been sent to India as part of your job (then it is the convenience of the employer).
Plenty of NYS residents' federal tax dollars are sent places where NYS residents don't enjoy services; hell plenty of NYS residents' state tax dollars are sent to places where those residents don't enjoy services.
The fact is, if you're going to be employed in NYS, you live with the rules of NYS taxation. He can always choose not to be employed in NYS.
And the employer benefits from the taxes paid in TN so this can guy can function in his job, maybe they should contribute to TN.
The test is not who reaps benefits... that's too subjective. The test (as far as NYS is concerned) is at whose convenience is the telecommuting? In this case, it seems it is at the employee's convenience, since he could choose to work on-site. If it was at the employer's convenience, then he wouldn't have to pay NYS taxes.
The Federal Gov't has similar rules for trying to claim a home office deduction for doing work for an employer who has a site you could work at. In other words, you can't just decide to work from home and never show up at your office and claim your home office as a deduction.
I think whatever state the company your working for is in, despite your physical location, is the state who you should pay taxes to- for the time worked for that company only- and not have to pay it again in your home state.
Well couldn't every company just be founded in Las Vegas (no state income tax) and then all their employees wouldn't be subject to state income tax, no matter what state they are actually in.
I think the important factor is the guy was doing a job that (conceivably) exists in New York State. If his company had a branch in Tennesee then he'd have no problem. But he was basically filling an employment slot that exists in NYS, whether he was physically present or not. Under NYS rules, since this was for his benefit and not his employer's (they'd be perfectly happy with him sitting in NYS doing his job), he's got to pony up.
Now here's a bonus question, I'm an independant contractor from Iowa, but my main client is out of california. I'm technically an employee of myself, but am receiving 'employment'/work from CA. Am I exempt from CA taxes? My tax man thinks so.
You're not receiving employment, you are conducting business. My guess is that as long as you don't travel to CA to conduct your business, you're okay. Otherwise, you'd probably have adhere to whatever CA's rules are about doing part of your business in CA. At any rate, I don't think CA has the rule that NYS has anyway.
I don't know what states have 20% tax rates. The highest income tax rate in any state I can find is Vermont, at 9.5%, and that's the marginal tax rate, and not taking into consideration deductions and exemptions.
Even taking your numbers at face value, you're most likely wrong because most states let you deduct income taxes already paid in other states on the same income; and you can deduct state income tax paid from your federal taxes. Therefore, using your own numbers, you're looking at paying about 33% more in taxes.
He does work for a company in New York State right? I'm sure that company enjoys some benefits from those tax dollars. So yes- he does get a return on those services- his job.
He's free to find a job in his home state that doesn't depend on New York State tax dollars.
"Statutes like that in New York make it very burdensome for individuals who are in a technology-related or e-commerce field to do business," Clark said.
No... statutes like that make it burdensome for individuals who want to telecommute to a job in New York State. The solution is- telecommute for an employer in a state whose tax policies you are willing to put up with. Otherwise, quit whining.
The job is located in New York State, regardless of where the employee is located.
Or, work as a company (corp, llc, s-e, whatever) and get a tax professional to help you do business in such as way as to circumvent such rules.
Now, we need to understand that receiving money in exchange for music is an extra privilege. Normally, people listen to music on the radio and if they like a song they find the single on a file-sharing network. If you are a Linux or Mac user, you should consider downloading giFT instead of paying for non-functional CDs with DRM.
In most cases, shell scripting (such as with bash) is more high-level than Perl scripting, and therefore tend to be simpler than the equivalent Perl script (not counting esoteric unreadible perl scripts). The drawback is that the shell is not as robust- there are some things that you just need to do in Perl, and as the tasks get more complex, you end up having to jump through more hoops with bash than with a full-fledged language.
However, you should consider that when you lease, you're basically paying the lessor for depreciation and profit. When you amortize, you are deducting depreciation and profit. Assuming for the sake of argument that the depreciation amounts are the same, the only difference is that in one case, the profit is deducted each year and in another case the profit is paid upfront and deducted over 5 years (in both cases you are paying depreciation and deducting it in the same year).
And, typically, the accumulated profit that the lessor has collected will be greater with a lease (especially if you buy it out) than with an outright purchase.
I'd argue that the decision to lease or buy should be made on a lot-by-lot basis, based on the expected lifespan and replacement rate of the hardware (e.g. devel workstations might be replaced more often than servers), and the company's tax environment.
Slashdot Mirror
Yep, if private communities want to make sure other clients aren't "leeching" their warez, then they need some sort of real authentication mechanism, not relying on a client-supplied user-agent string.
I should also mention that, almost universally, companies have to adhere to the laws of whatever state(s) they are doing business in, not just the state they are founded in.
There's a simple solution- don't get a job in NY and then telecommute. Problem solved. If NYS companies are hurting because they can't find enough willing telecommuters, then I suppose they'll start lobbying to change the law.
In the meantime, I reckon there are not many NYS politicians who are shedding tears over non-residents who get a job in NYS but try to avoid having to pay income taxes by living out of state, when a NYS resident could have that job instead and pay income taxes. Bruno and Silver needs dat cash!
I've never heard of that practice, but I don't dispute it exists. In this day and age, there's no excuse for someone getting a non-competitive interest rate.
Most corporations incorporate in Delaware and a few other states because their laws are crafted to heavily favor corporations in a variety of legal matters. Delaware has a whole special court that deals with corporate law, and is one of the oldest, most favorable, and precedent-setting such court in the country.
To wit:
As you (almost) pointed out, there is another factor- that is when a band is touring they are charged pro-rata because there is never any question which state they are doing business in. They are not telecommuting (which also makes the parent's analogy bad).
However, there is still the potential for multiple states taxing the same income, because a state can tax income generated in that state, and the performer's state of residence can also tax the same income. If you're a NYS resident, in fact, this is exactly what happens to you (minus deductions for what you paid to another state- you don't pay extra tax, but you do end up paying the greater of the two states' income tax amount).
So, while the parent's argument may be poignant, it is hardly accurate, and it is certainly not as accurate as my reply was.
Since when did getting value back from your tax dollars enter into any equation anyway?
The issue is that he did 100% of his work for his New York State job at a New York State company; he just did 75% of the work in Tennessee.
Actually, companies pay taxes on their profits *after* paying employees salaries (as well as all other operating expenses).
Touring musical acts do in fact have to pay taxes under the various state rules they perform in.
However, since no state charges 10-20% state income tax (see http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/ind_inc.html), most of them don't have such stringent rules, and those that do offer deductions based on taxes paid in other states, your characterization of 200-400% tax rate is ludicrous.
You do if you're doing business or are employed in New York; unless you've been sent to India as part of your job (then it is the convenience of the employer).
Plenty of NYS residents' federal tax dollars are sent places where NYS residents don't enjoy services; hell plenty of NYS residents' state tax dollars are sent to places where those residents don't enjoy services.
The fact is, if you're going to be employed in NYS, you live with the rules of NYS taxation. He can always choose not to be employed in NYS.
The test is not who reaps benefits... that's too subjective. The test (as far as NYS is concerned) is at whose convenience is the telecommuting? In this case, it seems it is at the employee's convenience, since he could choose to work on-site. If it was at the employer's convenience, then he wouldn't have to pay NYS taxes.
The Federal Gov't has similar rules for trying to claim a home office deduction for doing work for an employer who has a site you could work at. In other words, you can't just decide to work from home and never show up at your office and claim your home office as a deduction.
Well couldn't every company just be founded in Las Vegas (no state income tax) and then all their employees wouldn't be subject to state income tax, no matter what state they are actually in.
I think the important factor is the guy was doing a job that (conceivably) exists in New York State. If his company had a branch in Tennesee then he'd have no problem. But he was basically filling an employment slot that exists in NYS, whether he was physically present or not. Under NYS rules, since this was for his benefit and not his employer's (they'd be perfectly happy with him sitting in NYS doing his job), he's got to pony up.
You're not receiving employment, you are conducting business. My guess is that as long as you don't travel to CA to conduct your business, you're okay. Otherwise, you'd probably have adhere to whatever CA's rules are about doing part of your business in CA. At any rate, I don't think CA has the rule that NYS has anyway.
I don't know what states have 20% tax rates. The highest income tax rate in any state I can find is Vermont, at 9.5%, and that's the marginal tax rate, and not taking into consideration deductions and exemptions.
Even taking your numbers at face value, you're most likely wrong because most states let you deduct income taxes already paid in other states on the same income; and you can deduct state income tax paid from your federal taxes. Therefore, using your own numbers, you're looking at paying about 33% more in taxes.
He does work for a company in New York State right? I'm sure that company enjoys some benefits from those tax dollars. So yes- he does get a return on those services- his job.
He's free to find a job in his home state that doesn't depend on New York State tax dollars.
The job is located in New York State, regardless of where the employee is located.
Or, work as a company (corp, llc, s-e, whatever) and get a tax professional to help you do business in such as way as to circumvent such rules.
Slashdot could do us all a favor by not posting any more articles based on John Dvorak's dribble.
Yeah I noticed it right after hitting Submit. I couldn't Escape fast enough! :(
To be even more nit-picking, it's Health Advocate (singular, not plural) and Healthcar Advocates (plural).
Well... it is a book review... aren't people supposed to offer their opinions in a book review?
Having tried to use the VMS shell once, if Monad is based on VMS, then Monad and Microsoft deserve each other. :)
In most cases, shell scripting (such as with bash) is more high-level than Perl scripting, and therefore tend to be simpler than the equivalent Perl script (not counting esoteric unreadible perl scripts). The drawback is that the shell is not as robust- there are some things that you just need to do in Perl, and as the tasks get more complex, you end up having to jump through more hoops with bash than with a full-fledged language.
since the days of Zork.
However, you should consider that when you lease, you're basically paying the lessor for depreciation and profit. When you amortize, you are deducting depreciation and profit. Assuming for the sake of argument that the depreciation amounts are the same, the only difference is that in one case, the profit is deducted each year and in another case the profit is paid upfront and deducted over 5 years (in both cases you are paying depreciation and deducting it in the same year).
And, typically, the accumulated profit that the lessor has collected will be greater with a lease (especially if you buy it out) than with an outright purchase.
I'd argue that the decision to lease or buy should be made on a lot-by-lot basis, based on the expected lifespan and replacement rate of the hardware (e.g. devel workstations might be replaced more often than servers), and the company's tax environment.