5 ms·

I actually thought I did (it's Florida by the way)... I want to be clear, that I don't blame the state in the slightest. I honestly feel that companies should

I actually thought I did (it's Florida by the way)... I want to be clear, that I don't blame the state in the slightest. I honestly feel that companies should have to pay taxes where they operate regardless of how many employees live there, but what sucks is that a lot of states have difficult tax codes, esoteric and difficult ways of sending taxes in, have varying laws that make it extremely hard to follow the law unless you are a lawyer familiar with that area, and often won't help you if you need it. I also don't really blame the company. I still feel like I would have been more than worth the extra hassle, but they aren't sure. And if they can avoid having to pay taxes in that state by not hiring me, and that can provide them a material benefit, then I'd probably do the same as them if I were in their position.

djschnei 8y ago
Blame the state! A complicated, unwieldy tax code is their/our fault. They created an untenable system that got in the way of you entering into a mutually beneficial contract with another individual(s). It is 100% their fault.
- Klathmon 8y ago
  But it may not have been my state in particular, but the fact that they are all different. Even the easiest tax system in the world won't make up for the fact that they need to record and charge for tax in that state, then send that money back to the state. Short of not having sales tax, there really isn't a way that they can simplify it. And again, unless you are a lawyer that knows the tax laws in that area, you won't know how good or bad the local tax system is until you go to try and enter it.
  - T2_t2 8y ago
    Why not centralise it? Imagine a single account# that employees were paid to, where everything was taken care of? Lets say one earns $120K, an employer pays $10K a month to that number, and everything is taken care of, and the employee is responsible for the outcomes, e.g. if you move, you are responsible for changing your state of residence. It is weird - and I say this as an Australian - that an employer can be on the hook for employee's moving. it would be much easier if this was managed centrally.
- T2_t2 8y ago
  America has it rough there. Australia (with a MUCH lower population) has only federal income tax, and a clear delineation of what taxes each level of government can charge.
ajross 8y ago
> I also don't really blame the company. You should. Or conversely, you can look at this as having dodged a bullet. On paper, they were willing to commit to multiple years of a presumptively-six-figure salary to you (seriously: an employment agreement is a big financial deal, even if it's legally "at will" -- there's a lot of money on the table) but pulled out because of some fear of bureaucracy and (maybe) a tax increase? That tells me that the commitment they were thinking of putting on paper wasn't worth, heh, the paper. That's not a loyal employer, basically. If they're willing to cut corners with the State of Florida they'll do it with their own employees too.
- 1123581321 8y ago
  No, this is backwards. The company didn’t want to cut corners, and full compliance with state laws is expensive. It’s a good sign that a company would carefully consider subjecting their legal and HR resources to this additional complexity. The additional tax burden is just a straightforward addition to per-employee overhead and there is a number of in-state employees above which that overhead is worth paying. Cutting corners would be hiring an employee as a contractor in order to avoid dealing with the new state’s laws, or simply punting on acquiring any research or consultation, which would actually endanger the OP’s employment status. Perhaps you are used to companies operating this way, but it’s not a sign of a good employer.
- T2_t2 8y ago
  I wonder when people say this sort of thing how much time they spend on tax compliance. I have a company in the UK and one in Australia, and man, it is a MINEFIELD. Very little of what one knows translates very well, as each country has its own quirks. The USA is like that on STEROIDS. You can have 3 levels of income tax. that's insane! I can't image the costs of being complaint with that - not least of which is the cost of making an accidental mistake. I doubt many small businesses want to be experts in {INSERT STATE HERE}'s tax regulations and laws. Far easier to avoid the headache if at all possible. And if you don't think that is the case, imagine instead of states it was countries. How much does a US company want to deal with Haitian laws?
  - 8y ago
cosmie 8y ago
Several states have joined a consortium called the Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board[1], which harmonized, standardized, and streamlined the sales tax policies between those states in order to support easier compliance across multiple states. South Dakota's recent win at the Supreme Court[2] related to collecting sales tax from internet sales was due in large part to SD's very pragmatic and fair approach for out-of-state sellers (doesn't require you to know/care about local sales tax fluctuations and only want a base state-wide rate, exempts sellers with less than $100k of sales to the state, etc). I'm with you in that I don't blame the state for wanting to collect taxes; stuff has to get paid for somehow, and states don't have the same infinite/unbounded pocketbook that the federal government has. But don't disregard what you said immediately after that - the difficulty with compliance is a huge hurdle. If the company could have made compliance a minor additional cost, they could bake that into their decision. Instead, it was an unbounded additional cost with unknown future repercussions and required heavy ongoing administrative work (it's another legal/accounting variable that adds potentially non-trivial overhead to all future legal and accounting work). The streamlined sales tax stuff demonstrates the same type of collaboration that could be done to simplify remote employee administration, without having the full compliance baggage that comes with the same level of administrative overhead as if you had a full fledged office in the state. Doing so would make it far easier and less onerous to hire remote employees (or allow an on site employee to keep working for you if they move out of state). So it's still worth raising the issue to political figures, as it's very similar (if far smaller in magnitude) to the revenue loss they had by not making it easy to comply with sales tax stuff. [1] http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/ http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/ [2] http://thehill.com/policy/finance/393441-supreme-court-rules-for-south-dakota-in-online-sales-tax-case http://thehill.com/policy/finance/393441-supreme-court-rules...
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

djschnei 8y ago

Blame the state! A complicated, unwieldy tax code is their/our fault. They created an untenable system that got in the way of you entering into a mutually beneficial contract with another individual(s). It is 100% their fault.

Klathmon 8y ago
But it may not have been my state in particular, but the fact that they are all different. Even the easiest tax system in the world won't make up for the fact that they need to record and charge for tax in that state, then send that money back to the state. Short of not having sales tax, there really isn't a way that they can simplify it. And again, unless you are a lawyer that knows the tax laws in that area, you won't know how good or bad the local tax system is until you go to try and enter it.
- T2_t2 8y ago
  Why not centralise it? Imagine a single account# that employees were paid to, where everything was taken care of? Lets say one earns $120K, an employer pays $10K a month to that number, and everything is taken care of, and the employee is responsible for the outcomes, e.g. if you move, you are responsible for changing your state of residence. It is weird - and I say this as an Australian - that an employer can be on the hook for employee's moving. it would be much easier if this was managed centrally.
T2_t2 8y ago
America has it rough there. Australia (with a MUCH lower population) has only federal income tax, and a clear delineation of what taxes each level of government can charge.

ajross 8y ago

> I also don't really blame the company. You should. Or conversely, you can look at this as having dodged a bullet. On paper, they were willing to commit to multiple years of a presumptively-six-figure salary to you (seriously: an employment agreement is a big financial deal, even if it's legally "at will" -- there's a lot of money on the table) but pulled out because of some fear of bureaucracy and (maybe) a tax increase? That tells me that the commitment they were thinking of putting on paper wasn't worth, heh, the paper. That's not a loyal employer, basically. If they're willing to cut corners with the State of Florida they'll do it with their own employees too.

1123581321 8y ago
No, this is backwards. The company didn’t want to cut corners, and full compliance with state laws is expensive. It’s a good sign that a company would carefully consider subjecting their legal and HR resources to this additional complexity. The additional tax burden is just a straightforward addition to per-employee overhead and there is a number of in-state employees above which that overhead is worth paying. Cutting corners would be hiring an employee as a contractor in order to avoid dealing with the new state’s laws, or simply punting on acquiring any research or consultation, which would actually endanger the OP’s employment status. Perhaps you are used to companies operating this way, but it’s not a sign of a good employer.
T2_t2 8y ago
I wonder when people say this sort of thing how much time they spend on tax compliance. I have a company in the UK and one in Australia, and man, it is a MINEFIELD. Very little of what one knows translates very well, as each country has its own quirks. The USA is like that on STEROIDS. You can have 3 levels of income tax. that's insane! I can't image the costs of being complaint with that - not least of which is the cost of making an accidental mistake. I doubt many small businesses want to be experts in {INSERT STATE HERE}'s tax regulations and laws. Far easier to avoid the headache if at all possible. And if you don't think that is the case, imagine instead of states it was countries. How much does a US company want to deal with Haitian laws?
- 8y ago

cosmie 8y ago

Several states have joined a consortium called the Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board[1], which harmonized, standardized, and streamlined the sales tax policies between those states in order to support easier compliance across multiple states. South Dakota's recent win at the Supreme Court[2] related to collecting sales tax from internet sales was due in large part to SD's very pragmatic and fair approach for out-of-state sellers (doesn't require you to know/care about local sales tax fluctuations and only want a base state-wide rate, exempts sellers with less than $100k of sales to the state, etc). I'm with you in that I don't blame the state for wanting to collect taxes; stuff has to get paid for somehow, and states don't have the same infinite/unbounded pocketbook that the federal government has. But don't disregard what you said immediately after that - the difficulty with compliance is a huge hurdle. If the company could have made compliance a minor additional cost, they could bake that into their decision. Instead, it was an unbounded additional cost with unknown future repercussions and required heavy ongoing administrative work (it's another legal/accounting variable that adds potentially non-trivial overhead to all future legal and accounting work). The streamlined sales tax stuff demonstrates the same type of collaboration that could be done to simplify remote employee administration, without having the full compliance baggage that comes with the same level of administrative overhead as if you had a full fledged office in the state. Doing so would make it far easier and less onerous to hire remote employees (or allow an on site employee to keep working for you if they move out of state). So it's still worth raising the issue to political figures, as it's very similar (if far smaller in magnitude) to the revenue loss they had by not making it easy to comply with sales tax stuff. [1] http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/ http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/ [2] http://thehill.com/policy/finance/393441-supreme-court-rules-for-south-dakota-in-online-sales-tax-case http://thehill.com/policy/finance/393441-supreme-court-rules...

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]