That’s our high tech industry. The new tax was just too complicated for software developers to figure out, so it will have to be repealed. No one can write an ap for it, no one can develop software. How to pay the tax is just beyond their comprehension, so the legislature will just have to make it go away.
I’m sorry I missed the hearing. I heard that software engineers and their lobbyists dressed up like Mr. Gumby from Monty Python and chanted in unison “Ooh my brain hurts” until the legislators agreed to repeal the tax.
Then the software developers were taken by the hand and led away by human service workers making $12/hour, and helped across the street to their Lexus’s.
Well, good luck competing with Silicon Valley. Of course, Massachusetts techies can still claim to be smarter than Massachusetts politicians, but that’s not saying much.
You think that software firms are run by software engineers and that software engineers do their accounting.
Okay, then.
Many companies had run to their accountants who were equally confused and the informational releases from the DOR basically said ‘we don’t understand it yet either.” So it looks like you would have to add those groups into “too stupid.” Don’t forget the legislature as well, because when many members were approached to discuss this vote,, they seemed confused as well. Most people in MA couldn’t explain “the cloud” if their life depended on it. Add them to the too stupid list.
DESE regularly sends out regulations whose meaning they don’t know. Then they violate their own deadlines to explain them. Finally, they write an explanation and back date it to claim they met the deadline. But that’s okay, because it only effects children, who are far less important than millionaires.
is the IRS scandal. Regulations were unclear about who to target and how to target them. When words can be interpreted differently, problems occur.
Who wants to pay taxes or not pay taxes and be unsure about what should be paid?
Don’t repeal the tax. Would you tear down a highway because people found a street sign was confusing?
but your analogy is a bit imperfect.
Maybe I should point out that poor signage can lead to accidents and accidents can be lethal? I used to go through a major intersection every morning where motorists seem not to have figured out the traffic pattern meant by the highway engineers. Very dangerous.
If you are possibly talking about the former Drum Hill Rotary above Rte 3, that was not designed by highway engineers. Chelmsford selectmen claimed credit for the design, apparently unaware of its unique quality that absolutely prevents entering any intersection in the lane you need to be in on the other side. No one has figured out their intent, and no one ever will.
Failed metaphor. Yes, I would tear down a street sign that was sufficiently confusing. Do you think they actually paint over confusing signs in place? Have you ever seen anyone painting a road sign? No. They take them down and put up new signs.
This tax came out of nowhere and does not seem to have any connection to any rational economic development policy. The MA legislators did not bother to vet this tax with the industry and didn’t bother to draft the bill clearly. It was stupid and lazy. Why does it deserve to stand?
to create a tax and not know how to enforce it or not be ready to defend my creation, yeah, I’d probably vote to repeal it.
It was a complete clusterf*ck. A good idea? I’ll say probably. Did the Beacon Hill leadership completely screw it up? Yeah, definitely. They could only lose by fighting this battle.
. . .but here it goes.
1. If there is something confusing about this tax, clarify it.
2. The argument from the software industry that this tax is so confusing that we have to repeal it and tax someone else is self serving, to say the least.
3. The fact that this argument is coming from an industry that has nothing to sell but its ability to take complex problems and make them manageable with software should make us all laugh.
4. The fact that the legislature takes this self serving, laughable idea seriously should make us all suspicious.
I have yet to hear any explanation as to why this was thought to be a good idea. It should be up to legislators to explain why their laws are good and necessary.
There is a genuine issue with the law. No amount of computing power helps when you are trying to interpret an ambiguous law. It is not a matter of how smart you are. So I don’t really understand why you think this is so funny.
I agree with (what I take as) bob g’s point; how complex can the law be? I suspect that the definition of “technology services” is either too vague or not vague enough for the industry’s purposes.
But if the law is actually ambiguous, like our maddening marijuana law, that’s another issue altogether.
Narrow in scope and meant to close a loophole.
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4027541&cid=44411843