930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: vansmack on December 18, 2008, 06:38:55 pm
-
Also in the the NY Governor's propsal was a tax on iTunes downloads. (http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/editorials/hc-itunes.art.artdec18,0,7449691.story)
I'mnot sure how Apple has escaped this, to be honest. Once the Apple Store took root in certain jurisdictions, I'm amazed other states haven't jumped on this.
-
it's a purchase like any other, i share your surprise that other states haven't gotten on this boat earlier.
unfortunately i foresee a quiet but short death for this thread. no bigotry, no racism, no homophobia, and no opportunity to spew anti-obama catch-phrases. this may be the only reply you get.
-
I hear you - just a thread about taxing music downloads on a music message board. Nothing exciting.
-
you know, obama will surely support this because money is good money versus no money, and he had a racist pastor and deals with blacks (and whites) who spew hate at him because he might not even be black, and the bastard even has an ipod. there, all your bases covered.
-
the bastard even has an ipod.
What, you don't remember Zunegate? (http://www.citypaper.net/blogs/clog/2008/12/03/zunegate/)
*Before you all start bitching at me, I know it wasn't his and that he borrowed it from somebody. He does in fact have an iPod.
-
insert statement against taxes and government spending. . . .
i might add that i don't understand what the relevance of having an apple store in the state does for taxing music downloads. itunes is a separate store-front than the apple store. . .anyway, i thought i was already being taxed by the state on these purchases (and that was before moving to california, which i get, since apple is incorporated here).
-
If Best Buy doesn't sell the product in the store, do you still pay taxes when you buy it online?
Do you pay tax on software when you download it instead of buying the retail package?
Why is a digital music file any different?
And yes, let's not discuss the issue of taxes as a philosophy, let's stick to the issue of taxing digital downloads.
-
If Best Buy doesn't sell the product in the store, do you still pay taxes when you buy it online?
Do you pay tax on software when you download it instead of buying the retail package?
Why is a digital music file any different?
And yes, let's not discuss the issue of taxes as a philosophy, let's stick to the issue of taxing digital downloads.
i get the best buy example, but that would apply only if i'm buying apple hardware or software from the apple store. . .music downloads from itunes, to me, is a different type of purchase all together. there is no "brick and mortar" storefront for itunes, and it seems to me to satisfy being excluded from state taxation. the digital file is different precisely because of the vagaries in federal/state jurisdiction. . .i was going to use the example of electricity regulation, but it's just too confusing.
secondly, does this tax only apply to itunes, or would it apply across all platforms, including, for example, emusic?
-
only itunes was mentioned initially, but i think it probably will apply to all platforms. then again theyre taxing everything else - so im sure its not only itunes.
-
i get the best buy example, but that would apply only if i'm buying apple hardware or software from the apple store. . .music downloads from itunes, to me, is a different type of purchase all together. there is no "brick and mortar" storefront for itunes, and it seems to me to satisfy being excluded from state taxation. the digital file is different precisely because of the vagaries in federal/state jurisdiction. . .i was going to use the example of electricity regulation, but it's just too confusing.
secondly, does this tax only apply to itunes, or would it apply across all platforms, including, for example, emusic?
The recipient of iTunes profits is Apple Inc. so they cannot hide behind the sham of a "different storefront" otherwise Best Buy would not sell it's items via BestBuy.com, instead opting for a different name/sham online store.
It's the same reason that Amazon resellers who sell via Amazon now pay tax in jurisdictions where they operate a business or have significant interests (notice I specifically didn't say "Store Front").
The difference between the file type vs physical media is exactly what digital file sellers have been arguing, however that doesn't work for software purcahsed via download - you are taxed based on the purchase of software, not the delivery method. I have always found it odd that digital music files have been "exempted" so to speak. Obviously, because of the "vagaries" you described, New York is simply making the tax law more clear to include something that I am simply saying should have been taxed all along, because the vagaries only exist in the minds of people who are afraid/unaware of the technology - it's really no different than a wave file on a CD except there's nothing to touch and people freak out.
And no - it's not just iTunes (although I have a tough time seeing how they could apply the NY sales tax to Amazon, with Amazon Inc. having no ties to NY), and as a matter of fact it's not just music files:
"The new tax would apply to ?digital products? ? including ?MP3 music files, ring tones, movies, digital books, digital photographs, downloaded and online games, and other entertainment services? ? that are delivered ?via wire, cable, fiber-optic, laser, microwave, radio wave, satellite, or similar or successor media, or any combination thereof.?
The new sales tax would not apply to custom computer software, telecommunications services, digital storage, cable or satellite television programming, or satellite radio programming. But that tax would apply to ?pay-per-view or on-demand movies sold by a cable or satellite television provider for a separately stated charge.?
Linkage (http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/the-amazon-tax-and-the-itunes-tax-compared/)
And for the record, I don't think pay-per-view and on-demand should be included because they are not being purchased to keep, simply to watch in a defined period of time, and that's providing a service (more like renting), not a purchase. I don't believe businesses providing those services are normally taxed in NY.
-
all i'm really wondering is how does the state purport to have tax jurisdiction over the means, when it's arguable that a lot of it is interstate commerce. . .that's all. the court hasn't addressed this specific point over federal/state jurisdiction for online tax collection. . .instead, it's been leaving it up to a) the retailer, which is how we get to the in-state presence tax collection, or b) taxing it, but leaving it up to the consumer to be honest about it on their tax returns. . .i don't see how itunes isn't operating in interstate commerce. . .and that's a difficult question to answer, and the gist of what i'm wondering.
what this tax measure is really doing is trying to enforce a collection- how many people put a number on that line of their state tax returns, provided there's a line, about their purchases online? or for those that live in d.c., how many people give d.c. a value for purchases outside of d.c., so d.c. can recover those lost taxes.. . .
-
i could understand the stupid 'ipod tax' as its now being deemed. but what about taxing on cable (arent we already taxed by TWC enough as it is - i guess this is a 'new' tax), sporting events and even going to the movies. i believe netflix already has tax added onto their service, but does this ever end.
the mta is just another nightmare mixed in with all this - with needing to raise fares a ridiculous amount. if you live in manhattan you pay as much to go one stop as you pay to go 30 stops. right about now im thinking WMATA/BART, etc got that right.
maybe nyc needs to copy california with whatever happens there. it seems cali is in as much a dire situation as ny is.
-
all i'm really wondering is how does the state purport to have tax jurisdiction over the means, when it's arguable that a lot of it is interstate commerce. . .that's all.
Clearly you have never read Quill v North Dakota. Simply operating in interstate commerce is not enough to be exempt from Taxes. Congress set the rules that said if a state could show a nexus between the Corp and the State in can force them to collect taxes on behalf of the state. Even your boy Scalia agrees with this (that Congress has the power to alter the Commerce Clause) and a physical presence in the state more than meets the nexus requirement. Thus, having an Apple Store in the state is WAY MORE than enough to meet the physical presence test. Apple didn't argue this for one second when New Jersey (or the other 20 states that include music downloads in their tax code) passed their itunes Tax.
I've never met somebody who was so opppsed to taxes but so in favor of paying lawyers obscene amounts of money simply to decide if "mail-order," "phone-order" and "internet order" (or e-commerce as you have described it) are so different as to warrant a court to decide that e-commerce should be treated the same as mail-order and phone-order.
Your argument that e-commerce is somehow different from mail-order is simply asking the courts to expand their decision to include transactions over the internet (or Congress could act, I suppose), but why bother? Is it really that much different that phoning in an order?
-
but what about taxing on cable (arent we already taxed by TWC enough as it is - i guess this is a 'new' tax), sporting events and even going to the movies.
This, however, is a much more insightful gripe. I agree that NY is over extending themsleves with the on-demand and pay-perview tax unless they already have a rental service tax (which you seem to think they might). The argument for/against service taxes not withstanding, if NY does not have a service tax on rental companies, then they should not tax digital rentals.
Sporting events taxes in NY are fine with me as well, because it's Yankees, Mets, Rangers, and Knicks fans bearing the brunt of that and I don't like any of those teams. Buffalo should be exempt though.
maybe nyc needs to copy california with whatever happens there. it seems cali is in as much a dire situation as ny is.
Be careful what you wish for....
-
but what about taxing on cable (arent we already taxed by TWC enough as it is - i guess this is a 'new' tax), sporting events and even going to the movies.
This, however, is a much more insightful gripe. I agree that NY is over extending themsleves with the on-demand and pay-perview tax unless they already have a rental service tax (which you seem to think they might). The argument for/against service taxes not withstanding, if NY does not have a service tax on rental companies, then they should not tax digital rentals.
Sporting events taxes in NY are fine with me as well, because it's Yankees, Mets, Rangers, and Knicks fans bearing the brunt of that and I don't like any of those teams. Buffalo should be exempt though.
maybe nyc needs to copy california with whatever happens there. it seems cali is in as much a dire situation as ny is.
Be careful what you wish for....
i was meaning to imply, last i checked californians yet havent started taxing regular soda and also having to put calorie counts everywhere. and i somewhat believe schwarzenegger must be able to come up with a better plan than paterson.
i must say tho - there are definitely a lot of fat people that live in manhattan. you would think that with all the walking we do (and most people do in fact do that), theres still a good population that is obese. not that im saying Paterson needs to control what we eat. I fully believe that chocolate cupcake I just ate, was fully worth all the calories i gained. i will also be walking home soon so..... :)
smackie - out of curiosity im going to look at my cable bill to see the breakdowns of how we're taxed: i have no clue what hbo and pod is?? maybe an ondemand charge?
12/22-01/21 HBO And Pod
$14.95
-View Taxes and Fees
12/12 Franchise Fee $5.21
12/12 FCC Regulatory Fee - Cable $.07
12/12 Federal Universal Service Fund $.82
12/12 State And Local Sales Tax $2.63
12/12 State And Local Telecom Excise Tax $1.76
12/12 State Gross Receipts Tax $.12
12/12 E-911 $1.00
12/12 Mctd (186e And 184) $.29
12/12 Regulatory Recovery Fee-federal $.10
as far as netflix - heres my monthly charge: $16.99 $1.42 $18.41 tax is the middle item.
and netflix is definitely taxed. i thought that was everywhere, but maybe not? although i dont understand if i already pay for HBO why would I pay an extra tax to watch HBO on demand? or is that not the same?
btw - what im most pissed about - a movie theater tax. now thats ridiculous. esp with movies $14 as it is. at that price im much more picky about what i see - you add taxes to it - and theyre talking 18% fuck no!
-
and you and i will keep downloading stuff for free and avoid paying taxes altogether, so why not tax all the other people.
e-commerce should be treated differently, but that's just my ill-informed opinion....
-
and you and i will keep downloading stuff for free and avoid paying taxes altogether, so why not tax all the other people.
e-commerce should be treated differently, but that's just my ill-informed opinion....
Yes, because taxes have caused a run on thefts of CDs at Bricks and Mortars stores too. Oh, and yes, that extra 4 cents NY charges is much more important than the 99 cents Apple charges and is BOUND to increase digital thefts probably ten fold. That comment is the most ill-informed thing you've said yet.
-
i was meaning to imply, last i checked californians yet havent started taxing regular soda and also having to put calorie counts everywhere. and i somewhat believe schwarzenegger must be able to come up with a better plan than paterson.
We have not yet, as a state, taxed a soda more than we would tax any other food or non-alcoholic drink, although it has been brought up here in SF (hence Venerable's frustration in the other thread).
smackie - out of curiosity im going to look at my cable bill to see the breakdowns of how we're taxed: i have no clue what hbo and pod is?? maybe an ondemand charge?
12/22-01/21 HBO And Pod
$14.95
-View Taxes and Fees
12/12 Franchise Fee $5.21
12/12 FCC Regulatory Fee - Cable $.07
12/12 Federal Universal Service Fund $.82
12/12 State And Local Sales Tax $2.63
12/12 State And Local Telecom Excise Tax $1.76
12/12 State Gross Receipts Tax $.12
12/12 E-911 $1.00
12/12 Mctd (186e And 184) $.29
12/12 Regulatory Recovery Fee-federal $.10
Jesus Christ! Well, I don't know what the "POD" stands for but on demand access is a pretty good guess. It doesn't look like a tax though - it looks like it's part of your regular HBO fee. A lot of the taxes on your bill are telecom taxes though - do you have a triple play package from Comcast?
Franchise Fees are specific to cable and every city has a different rate (though no more than 5%). The idea behind it was to charge the customer a percentage of gross reciepts and give that money to the city who presumably paid for some of the infrastructure costs. The arguments around this are huge.
The FCC regulatory and recovery Fees basically pay the bills at the FCC to keep an eye on the industry. It's a nationwide charge and satellite has one as well.
The Universal Service Fee is densely populated areas paying more so that rural areas can have phone access, otherwise, the argument goes, the phone company wouldn't pay the money to lay phones lines all across America, especially when it would serve one/two customers. They hide it under the guise of helping schools and hospitals, but I wouldn't believe them. It is also a nationwide charge.
The State and Local Excise tax varies per state, but it's a fancy name for a sales tax on your use of the phone. For example, the US government had a telephone excise tax for years that was used to pay for the Spanish-American War. Of course, nearly 100 years after the war it was repealed. I'm guessing NY had a bright idea, taxed the phone to pay for it, and never repealed it.
The MCTD tax are special taxes for residents in the NY Metro Commuter and Transportation District. I don't know what they're used to pay for, but they are also taxes on your phone used to pay for something in that district. You pay it simply because you live there. If you wanted to know what it pays for, look up sections 184 and 186 of your local tax code.
And E-911 pays for your emergency service.
The best part of all of this is that you are likely double taxed on all your telecom stuff because you have a wireless phone too. You will find similar taxes over there.
I'm sure this is more than you were asking, but I do like tax policy.
For comparison, my DirecTV tax is a meager $.42 - that's right - 42 cents. That's it.
And my Showtime says:
SHOWTIME 12 Mos Free: Anniversary Gift 0.00
Just another reason why friends don't let friends use cable...
We don't have a landline either. We signed up for the cheapest plan to simply have a landline in case of emergency. It was billed as a no frills $12 a month plan. When the bill was nearly $30 because of taxes and fees, we cancelled it and only use wireless now.
as far as netflix - heres my monthly charge: $16.99 $1.42 $18.41 tax is the middle item.
and netflix is definitely taxed. i thought that was everywhere, but maybe not? although i dont understand if i already pay for HBO why would I pay an extra tax to watch HBO on demand? or is that not the same?
We are taxed on movie rentals in CA as well (I pay approximately $1.44 as well on my $17 per month charge). It's a service based tax, so you're taxed on the service. If there's no charge for the service, then you can't tax for it, right? So OnDemand is going to be tough to implement. You will likely see a pro-rated version of OnDemand from your $15 bill. That's one of the nice things about the all-you-can-eat rental service like Netflix - you're taxed on the charge, not the number of transactions. In the old days, you'd be dinged for every movie you rented. Of course, if you didn't rent any, you didn't pay any taxes either so it's give and take.
btw - what im most pissed about - a movie theater tax. now thats ridiculous. esp with movies $14 as it is. at that price im much more picky about what i see - you add taxes to it - and theyre talking 18% fuck no!
There was a similar argument made in CA - we tax movie rentals, why not tax movie tickets? Good luck with the Hollywood lobby though - the CA government didn't stand a chance with that one.
-
yeah thats a time warner cable triple plan. im actually going to change it as its just absurd in costs. and i dont even need the landline. i didnt have a cell phone i was using regularly before i moved to nyc. but its absurd. and TWC was the only choice i had. i tried for verizon's service, but nope - couldnt get it in my apt complex.
thats one hell of a breakdown tho. its hard to believe that NYC film people would let that tax go through. As Im sure as of now NYC and maybe LA has the most expensive movies of anywhere. The movies are already getting less crowded, cant imagine thats a good thing.
-
all this tax talk sure is exciting!! :-*
-
i was meaning to imply, last i checked californians yet havent started taxing regular soda and also having to put calorie counts everywhere. and i somewhat believe schwarzenegger must be able to come up with a better plan than paterson.
We have not yet, as a state, taxed a soda more than we would tax any other food or non-alcoholic drink, although it has been brought up here in SF (hence Venerable's frustration in the other thread).
The best part of all of this is that you are likely double taxed on all your telecom stuff because you have a wireless phone too. You will find similar taxes over there.
since we're on the topic of breaking down how we're taxed, any idea why my cell phone is taxed at d.c. rates instead of california rates? i'd have thought that moving to california and having a california number would shift me into california tax territory, but, i'm paying taxes to d.c. for my cell phone. . .my wife's sister is charged illinois taxes but has a california number. i suppose i should figure out if i'm coming out ahead or not. also, i can't imagine that there's that many stranded costs. . .
yeah, food taxes based on supposed health claims, that are increasingly dubious, are something i don't care for.
-
Clearly you have never read Quill v North Dakota. Simply operating in interstate commerce is not enough to be exempt from Taxes. Congress set the rules that said if a state could show a nexus between the Corp and the State in can force them to collect taxes on behalf of the state. Even your boy Scalia agrees with this (that Congress has the power to alter the Commerce Clause)
And thus, Congress appears prepared to act:
Tax-Free Internet Shopping May be at an End (http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10220649-38.html?tag=nl.e703)