Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Massachusetts Software Tax

fastcolabs.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 201 posts

Re: The Massachusetts Software Tax

#161

Post by Spooky23 »

patio11 wrote: post #34

And it’s not just Massachusetts developers that have to deal with this. It’s anyone who has clients who have “software” that is being “used” in Massachusetts. Talk to your lawyer if you doubt me on this one, but Quill vs. North Dakota means that it is the well-settled law [+] of the United States that you cannot be liable for sales or use taxes enacted by a state which you don't have a "nexus" in. What exactly consti…

Poorly enforced tax regimes are the worst. You have no idea when the tax man will come by and put you out of business.

Here's an unrelated example in a notoriously insane tax state (New York). When is a pretzel a baked good, and when is it prepared food? The tax people often can't figure it out either.

http://www.bizjournals.com/albany/print-edition/2013/07/05/a...

Re: The Massachusetts Software Tax

#162

Post by rayiner »

mistercow wrote: post #114
rayiner wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not social Darwinism, which is a wholly distinct set of beliefs. Its actual Darwinism, or the recognition of the fact that in the state of nature killing is morally neutral and arguably virtuous (e.g. being an apex predator).

In nature there is no "morally neutral" or "virtuous". Morality is a social construct. Advantageous? Yes. Virtuous? Nature stares at you, blinking.

I agree with morality being a social construct. But to the extent that we project onto nature as humans, we find virtuous the efficient killers. We respect eagles and lions. And arguably engaging in the most advantageous behavior is virtuous in a way, in the broadest sense of the term.

Re: The Massachusetts Software Tax

#163

Post by rayiner »

dalke wrote: post #133
rayiner wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not social Darwinism, which is a wholly distinct set of beliefs. Its actual Darwinism, or the recognition of the fact that in the state of nature killing is morally neutral and arguably virtuous (e.g. being an apex predator).

Social Darwinism is a misreading of Darwinism to draw the conclusion you just stated, as applied to interactions within the human species. For example, "murder" is nearly always defined within the context of human-human interactions, but "apex predator" is usually thought of on the species level, as in "humans are apex predators" not "David Hasselhoff is an apex predator." It's disingenuous for you to change contexts…

No, social Darwinism is the misapplication of Darwinism to societies. But in not talking about interactions in the state of nature. And you're right, killing isn't always the most efficient way to go, buy when it is we don't call it murder, we call it advantageous behavior. And as humans, we project respect onto apex predators, who have adopted an evolutionary route of expensive killing, not honeybees.

Re: The Massachusetts Software Tax

#164

Post by cinquemb »

anigbrowl wrote: post #155
cinquemb wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fair enough. My interests in trying to work with data like this came from my difficulty in finding data I could mine "easily" on municipal/city bonds as apposed to equity funds portfolio companies. Part of me thinks that if some people were given a set of tools or a place they could go where they could make an more informed decision (with clicks of buttons and simple displays) about their 401k's, Roth IRAs, 403 B's o…

I think that's absolutely worth doing, and I think the lack of agreemtn on (or demand for) universal standards on this is major political failure. But commercially, there's probably more of an audience in the B2B sector selling this kind of data to institutional investors and so on than offering it up to the general public - although perhaps the premium customers could pay for up-tothe-minute analysis for market timi…

It is political failure yet at the same time we have all these Open Gov initiatives, right? It's kind of a sick joke.

That makes a lot of sense from a demand perspective for b2b, but that is kind of part of the problem I see when it comes to the direction money is flowing in now. And which apparently hides the misallocation of capital/resources from the public pretty well.

Also more importantly, I don't think I can provide much value to the institutional folks, but I've been doing something similar for family and friends recently for free out of curiosity, and I figured maybe with a little work, I could convert pdfs of muni/bond data to text/html, extract things of value (using a key phrase dictionary for financial terms) and combine them with sources found in a more automated fashion online to make something that could help.

Re: The Massachusetts Software Tax

#165

Post by neltnerb »

thecodeore wrote: post #94
neltnerb wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreed. I run a small business (thankfully not doing software) in Massachusetts. I don't mind collecting sales tax, but when they make it an overhead nightmare it's impossible to figure out. I'm just one person; when your revenues are in the $10k range, hiring someone to figure it out is impossible. If they just charged a fixed rate for everything it would at least not so heavily favor big business over small compani…

I have never heard anyone describe "Autodesk" as "cheap software" However the "Sell software cheap and then charge for service" is the OPEN SOURCE MODEL, where the software is given FREELY, and if you need professional help you have to pay, that is certainly not the model Autodesk uses.

Cheap compared to the service contract. If you sign up for things like paid training they'll basically give you the licenses for free. This is from experience, at least for new companies where they want to get lock-in.

I don't see how it being the open source model is relevant. I'm not judging the validity of the practice, this is literally what the representatives claimed the logic was.

Re: The Massachusetts Software Tax

#166

Post by sophacles »

Houshalter wrote: post #104
rwl wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, you're trolling here, and if I could downvote you for it, I would; but since I can't, let me try to raise the level of discussion: > I would prefer to pay for services I use I invite you, sometime, to think about which services you really use, and try to figure out how much it would cost to purchase each of them if you were doing so on your own. Don't forget: police protection, fire protection, military protectio…

>I invite you, sometime, to think about which services you really use, and try to figure out how much it would cost to purchase each of them if you were doing so on your own. Don't forget: police protection, fire protection, military protection, paved roads, functioning traffic signals and signs, groomed parks, trash collection (some places), up to sixteen years of education, enforcement of workplace safety standards…

I don't consent to you blocking expenditures on things I need to do my life. So now were fucked. I guess sometimes you just cant get it all your way. Perhaps you should keep up the childish whining about "I don't wanna"... I'm sure that is rational and will fix all sorts of things.

Re: The Massachusetts Software Tax

#167

Post by bhickey »

psi_rockin wrote: post #45

Although it's certainly obnoxious and poorly thought out, in the long run we development shops will get all the edge cases figured out, though dealing with the legislature is going to be like pulling teeth. Although it would increase startup costs and decrease ROI for us, let's not forget who actually pays this tax: our clients, the buyers of these services. If you are a Massachusetts company and you buy technical se…

If you're looking to minimize your taxes, Rhode Island is a poor choice. Property tax in Providence is $33.75 per $1000 ($19.25 for owner-occupied property) levied on 100% of the assessed value. On top of this, the state has a huge unfunded pension liability and municipal benefits liability (~$2.3bn). State employees and teachers benefits add up to another $7bn.

When the other shoe drops, the money is going to come from somewhere or the state will go bankrupt.

Re: The Massachusetts Software Tax

#168

Post by sophacles »

pmorici wrote: post #153
rwl wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, you're trolling here, and if I could downvote you for it, I would; but since I can't, let me try to raise the level of discussion: > I would prefer to pay for services I use I invite you, sometime, to think about which services you really use, and try to figure out how much it would cost to purchase each of them if you were doing so on your own. Don't forget: police protection, fire protection, military protectio…

"police protection" I've had the misfortune of having to deal with the police of two different police departments this year. In the first instance my car was stolen, in the second someone ran into my car that was parked on the side of the road. In both instances the Police were totally incompetent and arguably caused me more financial damage than the criminal and the out of control driver. Here is how; Once the Polic…

So you'd rather pay some company the hourly to locate you car because they throw a tow in for "free"?

Re: The Massachusetts Software Tax

#169

Post by yourapostasy »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #84
yourapostasy wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you are a SquareUp.com and you send hardware to your customers that enables the out-of-state hosted service? Even if the hardware was free to the customer, as I read the new law in the context of real property that establishes nexus, simply having hardware in the state establishes nexus.

'real' means land* And improvements to land, like buildings. I'm curious if you thought it was an extraneous word, or what you thought the alternative to 'real' property would be. *except in Louisiana, where they use French terminology for everything and you have immovable/movable property rather than real/personal

Ah, I should have used tangible property, as that is also used in nexus determination, and more relevant to the tech space.

Re: The Massachusetts Software Tax

#170

Post by yourapostasy »

dragonwriter wrote: post #60
yourapostasy wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you are a SquareUp.com and you send hardware to your customers that enables the out-of-state hosted service? Even if the hardware was free to the customer, as I read the new law in the context of real property that establishes nexus, simply having hardware in the state establishes nexus.

Square readers are tangible personal property, not real property; and they are tangible personal property o the customer once they are sent out, not of SquareUp. So, they have zero relevance to a rule that would make real property owned by SquareUp a nexus in the state, as they are neither real property nor owned by SquareUp.

Good point, that was a poor example I chose. This tax will hit service-delivered-as-an-appliance plays out there, if I am reading it right. Unless they give away the appliance server.
Post reply on HN