New York Court Says Telecommuters Must Pay NY Tax 810
hal9000(jr) writes "The Boston Globe is running this
story on an out-of-state programmer working for a New York company who had to pay state taxes. '"New York has the right to tax 100% of a nonresident employee's income derived from New York sources," according to
the 4-3 decision by Court of Appeals. The court relied on a fairness rule called the "convenience of the employer" under law that says a worker's income is taxable if he chooses to live outside the state, as opposed to if he or
she was transferred there.' The dissenting opinion: 'Judge Robert Smith argued that the basis of the majority's decision that all income is taxable is "that the commissioner says it is ... The majority cites no authority at all, and offers no persuasive reason, in support of this new interpretation."'"
So does this mean .. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So does this mean .. (Score:3, Insightful)
I see a case coming before the US Supreme Court. I didn't think the states were supposed to regulate interstate comerce, but IANAL.
Seriously, lets say I am a consultant and have a customer in Greece and I telecommute. The Greek government wants me to pay Greek income tax. The US wants me to pay US income tax. BTW, this is how I read the Greek tax regulations, but again IANAL.
Lets say I am a web hosting provider, does the same thi
Portland Metro sales tax (Score:5, Interesting)
Most people try to take advantage of this situation by residing in Washington and working in Washington State (if possible). Then they shop for durables in Oregon. Oregon's state income tax is quite high, much more so than WA. If you live in WA and work in OR, OR state makes you pay their income tax.
In a dual tax situation like this, the various governments watch everyone's financial situation closely to maximize their revenue. Everyone pays different amounts of tax. People who live in the no-sales-tax state are not required to pay sales tax on purchases of big-ticket items like cars that are bought in the sales tax state. One state has $15/yr car registration and the other has registration fees about ten times higher. There are also arrangements for college students not having to pay out-of-state tution to attend schools in the metro area that are technically out-of-state.
There aren't many metro areas that have state borders in the center of them. Kansas City, New York City, St. Louis, DC, Philly, Omaha, Cincinati. There are only two major metro areas with international borders cutting through them: El Paso and Detroit. Miami is one of the most important cities of Latin America even though it isn't actually in Latin America. It's a special case; everybody's neutral ground.
This tax situation is just going to get worse as the ultra-rich continue to pay a smaller percentage of their income to taxes through off-shore tax shelters and bribing state legislators to put specific loopholes for near individual situations into general laws. This is where someone introduces a law that no one would vote against (like making it illegal to expose your penis within 50 feet of an elementary school), and then puts a clause in the bill that would apply specifically to an individual large campaign contributor. The result of all this is that the tax burden gets shifted more each year from the rich to the middle-class.
The smarter elements of the middle class will use the internet to increasingly take advantage of offshore tax shelters on a much smaller scale. A company needs a network analyst. In the past they would hire someone to do this as an employee. In the future someone agrees to set up and maintain a network for $1500. The person sells an old Dell PC to the company for $1500. A bank in Luxembourg transfers $1500 to the network administrator's PayPal account. The network administrator uses her PayPal debit card to buy groceries and get cash-back after a day's work at the network site. The old Dell stays in the closet. No one pays tax.
This kind of thing is pretty transparent to a good government tax investigator. But when it becomes so common of a way of employment compensation that there are 100,000 cases a year for each government tax investigator, then there won't be much that the tax man can do to control it. There will always be some poor schmuck that gets slammed hard to set an example, just like the 12-year-old who gets slammed with a $150,000 fine for downloading a teen-idol pop song, but it will just be bad luck and its publicity will only increase the resolve of middle-class people to come up with new ways to not pay taxes.
Eventually all these huge budget-busting but mostly symbolic government projects like the Space Station, the BigDig, and Endless_Permanent_Middle-East_War will just be abandoned in mid-process due to lack of funds from decreasing tax revenues and the unwillingness of wealthy outsiders to lend money for some politician's wet-dream fantasy.
Re:So does this mean .. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So does this mean .. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:So does this mean .. (Score:3, Insightful)
That would be tax reciprocity... I know some states only have agreements with bordering states and I'm not sure how those agreements work with differing rates in all. The issue here would be that TN has no income tax on regular employment income so what would you be deducting that tax from?
-Mike
Re:So does this mean .. (Score:4, Informative)
Not so fast, buckaroo (Score:4, Informative)
I live in New Hampshire and worked for a Massachusetts company for a few years. Massachusetts siphoned off its full income tax during those years with absolutely no recourse to me because New Hampshire has no income tax. Now that doesn't for a moment mean that I don't pay tax in New Hampshire. We make up for that tax free status by having outrageous real estate taxes instead.
But do you suppose Massachusetts cares how much I pay in real estate taxes? Boohoo.
The real killer last tax year (2004) was that at least half of my income came from Florida. And because my deductions on the Massachusetts form are factored by the percentage of income from Massachusetts, they wanted even more of my money than usual. The more I earn outside of Massachusetts, the more I pay to Massachusetts in taxes. Go figure!
Re:Taxes have gotten out of hand. (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is that common double tax situations have become entrenched in federal and state budgets. They either have to leave the double taxes as they are, on stock dividends for example, or else cut spending. Which one do you think appeals more to politicians?
All services, goods, and fees which are mandated by any government entity are counted as taxes
In a sense they already are. The government is charging money, or taxing if you will, to cover the cost of basic public services as you use them. These services generally include civil court, motor vehicle licensing, and in some states toll highways. They are just counted separately from income taxes, meaning that you pay them with after income tax money, and imposed as the circumstances dictate.
total taxes paid, including all income taxes, fees, sales taxes, etc., cannot exceed a certain percentage of your income. Anything in excess of, say 40% (though I think 20% would be more reasonable) of gross income gets refunded.
It would not be possible to implement this without maintaining massive centralized databases containing all transactions engaged in by all citizens during the course of a typical year. This would be a massive increase in government power and a serious threat to any semblance of privacy that we still have left. The IRS is bad enough and you want to increase the scope of their auditors?
a flat tax rate instead of the ridiculous graduated tax rates. (Where I can actually make more money and end up with less because my tax percentage jumps.)
This is a misconception. Even if you are just barely in the next highest tax bracket you will never lose 100% of the money that is in that highest bracket so it is impossible to end up with less than you would have had if you were still entirely in the lower bracket. At least this is how it is in the United States, however at one time in the United Kingdom this WAS true and the highest bracket was actually paying 105% of income in that bracket, but even the most hardened socialist cannot claim that was fair so they fixed it back to 90%. With regard to graduated rates a more elegant smooth curve, possibly involving the natural logarithm, would have been more elegant than the crude bracket system, but then again most citizens, including politicians, never took calculus and so if they cannot understand the system then it must be unfair...sheesh
taxes are subject to jurisdictional delineations; if you are not using the services provided by a jurisdiction, you cannot be taxed by that jurisdiction (including the Federal government if you live outside the U.S.
Taxes are paid were the income is earned irrespective of whether you live there or not and this is how it should be. That is why New York is not wrong to tax this man for income that is earned inside the state of New York. However, it would be wrong for that income to be taxed by his home state too. Generally though this isn't a problem because income taxes go into the general fund rather than into more specific funds meant to maintain roads, buildings, and other infrastructure. Those funds are usually covered by other taxes such as gas taxes, property taxes, and the like.
The inheritance tax should be abolished altogether. It is simply unconscionable.
Inheritance is income just like any other source of income. It should be taxed as income. Taxes above and beyond income, just because it is inheritance, for example are unfair and should not be levied.
Do you get to vote? (Score:5, Insightful)
No taxation without representation and all that jazz...
all the best,
drew
Re:Do you get to vote? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So does this mean .. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:So does this mean .. (Score:3, Interesting)
Flawed logic (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Flawed logic (Score:2, Interesting)
Yes. Yes it does. Dealing with the idiotic conflicts between states and federalism is the absolute worst thing. The feds refuse to step in issues where they should and refuse (over-zealous state taxing authorities) and refuse to yield their power to the states where they should (recently the whole Schiavo thing, but other things too). -Mike
Re:Flawed logic (Score:5, Insightful)
Excuse me, you've misspelled 'VOTE'.
Re:Flawed logic (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Flawed logic (Score:3, Funny)
So sorry. Did it happen after the lobotomy, or were you raised that way?
Re:Flawed logic (Score:5, Insightful)
"If you don't like living in the United STATES then LEAVE."
In the words of a comedian whose name currently escapes me: "I WOULD, but I don't want to be VICTIMIZED by our FOREIGN POLICY."
Re:Flawed logic (Score:3, Insightful)
--Thomas Jefferson
--Carlos V.
Flawed linguistics (Score:3, Informative)
> We don't need you prostate subjects, you just screw the whole thing up
> for everyone with your worshipping of the government [...]
The goverment seems to fail to ensure equal access to education but, luckily, slashdot can rectify that.
The subject of today's lesson is the difference between prostate [tabtote.com] and prostrate [knom.org].
Hrm, I wonder. (Score:2)
That would royally suck and would certainly scare me off of doing any interstate telecommuting gigs. Yikes.
This is kind of like Washington going after people that go across to Oregon to shop. (Or people that live in one state and cross the river to work in the other) - can't have teh cake and eat it
Re:Hrm, I wonder. (Score:2, Informative)
NH, TN tax dividends and interest only.
RI is a % of Fed liability.
All others are a % on earnings (NY 4% - 7.7%):
http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/rate/ind_inc.html
Screw New York (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Screw New York (Score:5, Funny)
I'd also want use of their services (Score:5, Insightful)
New York helps pay for none of that, regardless of if I work for a company based there or not. Thus, I don't see any possible reason why they need the money. Arizona needs it because living here I use those services. I don't live in NY, they don't need it.
So ya, if they give me the right to vote in state elections, and start sending money back to my state to pay for things, I'll call this fair. Until then, I'm saying it's an issue for federal court.
Re:I'd also want use of their services (Score:3, Informative)
- Jeff Bezos, BookExpo America, 2000.
While the call for allowing this victim of government greed to vote in New York seems fair and reason
Re:I'd also want use of their services (Score:4, Insightful)
That's the problem is New York wants to double dip. They want to tax you for income you've already been taxed on. Worse, they want to claim ALL of it, even if you only did a little work for New York. So you telecommute for a NY company for 1 week per year, NY claims they can tax 100% of the income you made that year, even though not 100% of it was made from a NY company.
But really the problem is one of service and representation. We don't pay taxes just for, we pay them for services. Thus, we only pay taxes to those that serve us. We all pay federal taxes, but we don't pay tax in random other countries. We only pay taxes for the state, county, and city we live in. I don't pay for police in another city, I pay for police in my city. However all Arizona residents pay for DPS (state police) and all people in the US pay for the FBI (federal police).
So New York wants the tax money for nothing. I get nothing from NY police, roads, school, parks, etc. I don't live there. They aren't proposing to send the money back to Arizona, so basically they just take it and keep it and give you nothing for it. Also, you have no say in it. I vote for the Arizona government. If they misappropriate our money, we can vote them out. No such luck in NY, even if they tax you, you don't have a vote unless you are a resident.
You can see how this is problematic. I mean what if Arizona decided you know, fuck taxing our voters, they don't like that. We'll tax anyone that deals with Arizona instead. If you drive through, visit, do bussiness with, or anythign else with Arizona, we will tax your income. Nope, don't get anything for it, don't get a vote on it, we are just gonna take it because you affiliated you with our state in some distant way.
Well that little fantasy might be nice for Arizona residents, who'd get nice shit at the expensie of others, but I imagine most people would liken it to robbery.
Well what NY is proposing is almost as bad. You do any work for a NY company, regardless of where you live, they think they can tax all your income. It's just polticians being their normal retarded selves. They don't like to tax thier voters, since tax is always unpopular, so they figure they'll just try and grab taxes from other states' citizens, since they can't vote them out. This is, however, why we have a federal court system. It'll all get straightened out.
Re:I'd also want use of their services (Score:3, Interesting)
I would pick a nit with this. Some states like CA and NY pay out more in federal taxes then they get back. Other states like MT and WY get more in federal money then they pay out. They are truly the "welfare states".
I know we are talking about state taxes here and I definately agree with you but if you added all the money Arizona took from it's own taxpayers it may not be sufficient to maintain a vast, mostly empty, rural state like AZ.
Re:Screw New York (Score:5, Insightful)
Isn't NY one of those states that pay more in to the federal government in federal income taxes and other stuff than they get back from the federal government in all the different forms of federal funding?
Taxed 100% of income? (Score:5, Funny)
So does that mean that he doesn't get to keep any of his money? ;)
Seems like a very badly ambiguous way of putting it.
Bad idea (Score:5, Interesting)
I also think this is going to get appealed to the Federal courts. I live in Texas and work for a company that has an office here, but is headquartered in Massachussettes. I can't imagine paying MA income taxes, but it sounds like this court ruling says that I should (assuming the MA courts rule the same way).
Re:Bad idea (Score:5, Interesting)
More likely, it'll convince them to stop offering employees the option to telecommute. I've noticed that telecommuting is fizzling out as control-freak managers feel powerless when they don't have their employees ten feet away from them in a dimly lit cubicle punching code and commuting for three hours a day.
Of course, upper-levels still seem to do a lot of telecommuting - but not so much for everyone else.
USA tax is a mess (Score:2, Insightful)
why not make it easy and have the same tax rates wether you are in NYC or Alabama, look at all the companies/traitors incorporated in Delaware to avoid paying any tax yet they reap all the benefits of the communities they operate in to the tune of billions (and they have the cheek to call themselves American)
a unified tax would even things out
Re:USA tax is a mess (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the advantages of differing tax rates is I can use that as a basis for moving. This is one of the first arguments for libertarian's states should decide arguments.
Re:Bad idea (Score:2, Insightful)
I say: thats not what this is about.. he is VPNing and virtually working on assets that reside in NY.
i also say: this is bogus, unless the computer he uses to VPN and do the actual 'work' is in NY too, and his fantastic4 like rubber arms stretch across to hit the keys... he is using the resources of his own state..
Re:Bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
I also think this is going to get appealed to the Federal courts.
I should hope so, this bit got me from the article:
"New York provides the job, New York provides the professional opportunity, and New York should be able to tax that income, even if the employee for his own convenience was working outside of New York state," said Marc Violette, spokesman for state Assistant Solicitor General Julie Mereson, who won the case.
Actually the company provided the job and opportunity and New York had nothing to do with it. As I see it, the employee isn't using NY roads, schools, police or fire services, hospitals, or really any NY public service (which is the reason a state collects taxes, no?), so why should an employee like that have to pay NY state taxes?
Nope, I don't buy into that line at all. If it stands mabye he can send his kids tuition bill to NY marked "payment due"...
Re:Not quite (Score:5, Insightful)
False. The state of New York does not own the phone lines, cables, or IT infrastructure that makes this possible. In fact, the state of New York already taxes the entities who do own these things.
You also get an benefit from telecommuting (less commuting time to office, lower property taxes, etc..).
Irrelevant and misleading. The state of New York gets a greater benefit of you not causing wear and tear on the infrastructure actually owned by the state (roads, bridges, schools, libraries, etc) while you generate revenue for a corporation based in and taxed by the state of New York, revenue which adds to the state tax coffers.
Finally, if its so wrong, why not just work in your home state (answer: you'll get a salary you'd probably never be able to get in your home state).
The point is that the person in question is working in his own state. For example, I have a friend who works for a company based in the state of New York with employees many different states. Many of those states believe (correctly, I believe) that they have the right to be compensated by means of their tax systems for the services provided to the employees of this company. It is very unlikely that many of the other states in question would be impressed by the argument that those employees are not actually working in the states in which they actually do work.
Ultimately, the questions raised by the avaricious exploitation by the state of New York of out-of-state employees of a company based in New York are a matter of interstate commerce, and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the federal government.
For fairness and consistency.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:For fairness and consistency.. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:For fairness and consistency.. (Score:3, Insightful)
How about we abolish income tax.
Absolutely.
Replace it with a sales tax.
No thanks. Why should we pay a tax every single time an item changes hands? If I buy a car, and sell it 5 months later, why should the government get a sales tax twice? Sales tax, like income tax, is too artificial. By artificial I mean it is hindering a free market in a way which causes no benefit to society.
What could be simpler?
Property tax. Just pay taxes on your property (mostly real property but maybe extended to ot
Re:For fairness and consistency.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)
Or is the rule just "if we want your money, we can take it"?
Re:Interesting (Score:2, Interesting)
Come and get me! (Score:3, Interesting)
The NY police don't have much juristiction in other states...
Imagine That... (Score:5, Funny)
judicial activism? (Score:2, Insightful)
is judicial activism really that surprising anymore?
Re:judicial activism? (Score:3, Informative)
Generally, "activist judges" are those who seem to find new rights where they previously had not existed or been spelled out in law (ie the 'right' to gay marriage in Massachusettes, the 'right' to an abortion in the Constitution, etc.).
In this case,
Re:judicial activism? (Score:3, Informative)
The term "judicial activism" has been around for a long, long time. I would say that it first appeared around the time of Earl Warren's Supreme Court in the 1950s-1960s, since that's the earliest I can remember the term being used, but I know that I would be making the same mistake as you did
Re:judicial activism? (Score:3, Insightful)
Were you born yesterday? The term "activist judge" has been around long before the Bush administration.
The judges are supposed to interpret the constitution. Period. They are not tasked with "protecting the minority from the majority" or any other purpose you dreamed up. I'd suggest reading the constitution some day. The task of protecting the minority from the tyrrany of the majority goes to the constitution and the rules set in place for amending it.
The term ac
Re:judicial activism? (Score:3, Insightful)
True. But the reason many of us view use of the phrase "judicial activism" as arrogant and asinine is that it is commonly used as an epithet against judicial decisions that one doesn't like... regardless of whether they are right or constitutional.
While it is true that the judiciary is not entrusted with "amending" the Constitution, it is entrusted with "filling in the blanks" where there is int
Re:judicial activism? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:judicial activism? (Score:3, Interesting)
MPD (Score:3, Insightful)
An activist judge is one that, rather than ruling based on local, state, or federal laws, or on the constitution, bases his or her ruling on something else. Usually, this amounts to "because I want it to be so" or "we think it makes us look good." Gay marriage is just one of these cases. So is the taxation case that started this topic. It is not based o
Re:judicial activism? (Score:3, Interesting)
but somehow they want activist judges, by your definition, to rule in favor of terri.
Re:judicial activism? (Score:3, Interesting)
Listen, too many people on Slashdot already pretend like they know Conservatives, there's no need to add to the ignorance. Remember, Congress != Conservatives. Just read the recent Wall Street Journal editorial trashing Tom Delay.
Lets wait for the appeal (Score:3, Interesting)
Interesting issue though. It may be fair for NY to tax in some telecommuting cases. But I don't see why CA should be able to tax me on my income because I telecommute from Massachusetts. I have never worked in CA.
25% seems to low a fraction to claim the right to tax. NY is not providing any services to the employee and that is the basis on which taxation should be decided. If they want to recover the costs of providing services to the company they should tax the company.
Services (Score:2)
Is there some sort of compromise? Imagine what would happen if all businesses were in one state, and all persons lived in another state, and all telecommuted. Both states would need taxes.
Double taxation? (Score:5, Interesting)
This sounds as if you could end up paying full income tax in the state your company is in, plus full taxes in your own state - because your local state will consider you a full-time resident (since you do live there full time).
Not only that, but . . . how is New York offering him any representation for the taxes he pays there? He isn't a resident. He doesn't use their services. He doesn't commute. He doesn't have anything to do with anything there - other than it is where his employer is based.
For that matter, shouldn't companies overseas who contract with American companies to provide, say - tech support - have to pay American federal income taxes? I don't see how that would be any different from this scenerio whatsoever...
I'd sure hate to be stuck paying 56% in state income taxes, before even coming to my federal and county income taxes!
What does this mean for outsourcing? (Score:5, Insightful)
As if Government were the Servant of The People... (Score:2)
There was some old saw... "No taxation without representation..." or something like that.
And no, our gerrymandered Tweedledee/dums don't really count.
Fine... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Fine... (Score:3, Informative)
time spent in state is a % of what you pay to that state. not more, not less.
H&R (Score:3, Informative)
I think it'd be a pretty good idea if you went to H&R Block this year. Probably bring along that tax return you nuked last year too.
about those taxes... (Score:5, Interesting)
How about outsourced work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do these have to pay the same taxes aswell?
STATE COURT made this decision. (Score:2)
If this stands, companies will simply employ tele-commuters from TX or some other state with no state income tax.
Which Is Why... (Score:2)
Telecommute from India? :) (Score:2)
doesnt this fall under... (Score:4, Insightful)
this from the state that raised cigarette taxes then went after people getting them out of state. if the music industry needs to look at its business model, governments need to look at their taxation model - both a looking for all the cash they can get.
Extremely Bad Idea... (Score:2)
-Hope
I, for one, welcome our NY tax refugees! (Score:5, Funny)
So, if you're a New York company that hires programmers, consider relocating (either in toto or a subsidiary) to Texas, where your dollar goes further, and you get to keep more of it.
We have BBQ, TexMex, and sane gun laws (i.e., the law-abiding can own one). What we lack: 3 months of snow, subways, and george Steinbrenner.
Up to you.
Re:I, for one, welcome our NY tax refugees! (Score:5, Informative)
Things in texas are rather screwed up at the moment.
Re:I, for one, welcome our NY tax refugees! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I, for one, welcome our NY tax refugees! (Score:3, Funny)
Much worse than that - the state (particularly around Austin) - is infested with Californians.
Re:I, for one, welcome our NY tax refugees! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I, for one, welcome our NY tax refugees! (Score:5, Informative)
Texas (Texas Penal Code, Title 9)
43.21. DEFINITIONS
43.23. OBSCENITY
New York (New York Consolidated Laws, Title MA235)
235.00. Obscenity; definitions of terms.
235.05 Obscenity in the third degree.
235.10 Obscenity; presumptions.
Re:I, for one, welcome our NY tax refugees! (Score:3, Funny)
So 5 are ok? And at what point is it a felony? And are there business exceptions?
He's no ordinary civil servant... (Score:2)
Leaping state lines in a single bound!
He's TAXMAN!
Certifiably insane decision (Score:2)
New York Taxes suck. (Score:4, Interesting)
I was getting 150K yr, but found 68% of my income went to taxes!
The City tax was higher then my federal!
My take home after everything was $3500 a month. I couldn't make ends meet and all in all lost over $30K in the move there and move back + the operating at a loss the whole time I was there.
With this new tax rull people who commute from New Jersey would end up paying taxes to two states!
I am so glad to be in California...
Sorry Dude, hard to believe you... (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe if you had a bunch of crazy deductions or something I suppose it is possible.
As far as 68% of your income going to income taxes, I c
Authority? (Score:4, Interesting)
In a strong dissent, Judge Robert Smith argued that the basis of the majority's decision that all income is taxable is "that the commissioner says it is
I live in California and just took a contract position with a company in New York. This ruling does not say anything about contractors vs. employees, but knowing New York's tax system, I would guess they want it to apply to me, too. I of course do not intend on paying NYS a single cent, since as far as I can tell they have no authority over me whatsoever, but IANAL.
Any tax lawyers care to comment on this?
I've dealt with these issues before (Score:2)
Obvious solution (Score:2)
But shoot, doing a little homework here and there, a smart person could create those benefits for himself and probably do better.
Key Phrase... (Score:3, Interesting)
Each employer distributes their own W2. This ruling states that 100% of the income earned from a New York based employer is subject to tax. A person who telecommuntes to New York 50% of their time and San Francisco the other 50% of their time can only be taxed by New York on the income generated from the New York Employer.
he's using NO services of NY State but is taxed? (Score:5, Insightful)
This is just plain wrong. IMO.
LoB
State Court? (Score:3, Insightful)
hmmm (Score:5, Informative)
In other words, this seems common practice and I really don't see that this hinders telecommuting unless the state of residence also attempts to tax those same wages.
Here's an interesting bill called the Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act [telcoa.org]. From it:
Absolutely ridiculous. (Score:3, Insightful)
Being taxed on his entire salary seems ridiculous to me.
Telecommuter tells NY (Score:3, Funny)
Really time for a revolution... (Score:5, Insightful)
Taxation Without Representation
It's really that simple. I am not sure why the courts cannot understand it. Any third grader in a history lesson can understand that.
Other than having a job in Anytown, USA:
I would think that any of the founding fathers would not stand any of this ridiculousness. It was a foundation of a revolution.
Of course, I may be a little facetious, but taxation is just out of control.
Whew! I feel a little better.
There is plenty of taxation without representation (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, maybe they don't pay taxes. As a demographic, many convited felons are probably not high-earners. The gov'ts own stats say almost 1/2 of all "taxpayers" don't pay anything, and 80% of all income tax is paid by 20% of us. (I am sure even minimum wage drones get tagged for social security and medicare, just not any significant income tax).
So, the flip side is this; why not "no representation without ta
IBM (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a huge deal.... (Score:3, Interesting)
They do not get to vote in NY, but they pay taxes because that's where they make the money. Everyone is OK with that.
If someone lived in NJ and only came into the office 1 day a weekm they still have to pay same NY taxes, because the fact that their employer kindly let them work from home doesn't change the fact that they work in NY. They don't pay 1/5th of NY's tax.
Instead of coming in once a week, this guy doesn't come in at all. But it's not so different than the guy who only comes in once a week. The employer lets him work from home, but he's an employer of a NY office. He works in NY.
Some mentioned the reasons why this must be the case. NYC makes ample investment to attract employers, and it's meant to make that money back in income taxes. The company this guy works for benefits from these advantages. If he's really offended at having to pay the tax in a state where he works (even if he doesn't show up) then he should find a job in-state so that he'll only have to pay one tax.
The fact that he doesn't use NY's resources is a non-issue. The fact that you don't use some service doesn't entitle you to a refund, and he's no different.
This is how they think.... (Score:3, Insightful)
This is an amazingly important quote, because it shows the psychology of these people.... New York doesn't provide the job, the company does!. New York provides the schools, roads, and other things which tele-commuters do not use. This is such an amazingly incorrect and self-serving decision... I hope it goes to appeal.
Another rogue court... (Score:5, Insightful)
Clearly this ruling is contrary to the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution. By this court's "logic" Everyone employed by any company has to pay taxes to EVERY municipality and state that the company has a presence in.
People love to talk of the greed of corporations for money, and that talk is somewhat justified. Too little and seldom, however, is the talk of the greed of GOVERNMENTS who think they have a God given right to a "cut" of all money that flows through the economy.
When is this court going to demand income taxes from all those offshore Indian programmers that I'm sure more than one NYC basef firm employs?
In the long run, if this were to stand, and I think it won't, because federal judges, being bigger pompous asses than even state judges, won't stand for federal authority to be usurped, this tax scheme would have a DEVASTATING effect on NYC and it's economy.
Re:So? (Score:2)
Not anymore as the courts' decision essentially says that Washington must be the one collecting the taxes....taxes of 0%.
It's not the employee's fault that he works for a company in Washington but lives else where. Besides, in this sort of case, I don't think it would be tax evasion; the employee didn't try to use deceptive illegal methods to build tax-shelters (like making dummy corporations, etc.).
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
PS: I am a NY resident myself.
Re:Why? (Score:3, Funny)
He doesn't use NY roads, his kids don't use NY schools, he deosn't get to vote for NY legislators, senators or anything, he doesn't use NY public transport.
That sounds a lot like what Hillary Clinton wasn't doing in 1999.