Powered by
Movable Type 3.2
Design by
Danny Carlton

Made with NoteTab

November 02, 2005

New York sticks it to telecommuters

From Newsday...

The Supreme Court refused Monday to disturb New York's system of taxing the income of telecommuters who live elsewhere but are employed by companies in the Empire state. 

Justices passed up a chance to hear the appeal of a Tennessee computer programmer who claimed that New York's tax law is unconstitutional. 

Thomas Huckaby had been ordered to pay New York income tax for his full salary, not just the time he spent at the New York offices of the union for which he worked. He lived 900 miles away in Nashville....

Sen. Christopher Dodd, D-Conn., said he was disappointed with the high court's decision. Dodd is the author of the Telecommuter Tax Fairness Act, which would prevent states from collecting taxes from employees for work performed out-of-state. 

"Millions of Americans work from home or satellite offices at least part of the time, including many Connecticut residents," Dodd said. 

"Telecommuting is good for them and their families," he said. "It reduces traffic congestion, reduces pollution, and helps businesses strengthen their bottom line. The current rules punish telecommuters rather than reward them and that needs to change." 

So he gets taxed twice? The idiots in the NY state government pushing this seem to be oblivious to the fact that this will discourage qualified people from working for New York companies that want telecommuters. There are quite a few extremely qualified professionals who prefer to work this way. I know of several myself.

What happens when businesses decide to move out of New York, so they can better appeal to the pool of qualified telecommuters. Or increase their payroll expense to offset the moronic double taxation, therefore taking money out of what they would have put into the economy? It would be illegal for the telecommuters to vote in two states, but they are expected to pay income taxes to two states? What was it the Founding Fathers objected to most about the rule of England? Wasn't it Taxation without Representation?

If only Dodd's bill could be retroactive.

Posted by Danny Carlton at November 2, 2005 05:24 AM

Trackback Pings

TrackBack URL for this entry:


Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)

Security verification

Type the characters you see in the image above.