tcopePremium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:1 | Other Point of View I don't agree or disagree with what NY did in this case. I can see both points of view.
I'll mentioned NY's point: the employee worked for and was paid by a company operating in NY. He _choose_ to work in TN. If his work _required_ him to be in TN, he would be exempt from NY taxes. If everyone were allowed to avoid state taxes simply by choosing to live outside the state then the states would loose billions in tax revenue. NY is _supporting_ the company that is paying the programmer. They should be entitled to tax the money the company pays to the programmer. |
|
| Yea, but how much is NY actually losing due to this one guy or the few telecommuters that are out there? I'm sure they are not losing billions because of this alone. So if they're not, why the hell are they taxing him if not for greed? Yea, and NY has billions in tax revenue right now and do they ever say we have enough revenue? NO! Nobody ever does, so that argument just doesn't wash. |
|
 JTRockvilleData HoPremium,MVM
join:2002-01-28
Rockville, MD | reply to tcope
Your logic applies to traditional commuters as well. Why narrowly target telecommuters for the double tax? |
|
|
|
tcopePremium
join:2003-05-07
Sandy, UT
kudos:1 | reply to Jamuka
said by Jamuka:Yea, but how much is NY actually losing due to this one guy or the few telecommuters that are out there? I'm sure they are not losing billions because of this alone. So if they're not, why the hell are they taxing him if not for greed? Yea, and NY has billions in tax revenue right now and do they ever say we have enough revenue? NO! Nobody ever does, so that argument just doesn't wash. So it's okay to let one person go... how about 2? 5? 100? 1000? Where is the line drawn? Telecommuting is growing _greatly_ every day. The state should enforce it's laws at all times... not just once the problem gets out of hand. |
|
