We have not seen the last of this moneygrubbing, as governments insist that their services are vital/mandatory even when no one is using them - and government largely stayed at work while their tax levies plummeted because they told the public to stay home and go broke. That this was due to their own policies is irrelevant.

Surprising not to see Cali on that list.

Musing over coffee, a new principle comes to mind:

You shouldn't be surprised that elected representatives become self-importantly rapacious when you name their place of work "sacrament."

Meanwhile—

> The Supreme Court just refused
> to hear a case on this,
> unfortunately.

It would have been expedient if they'd intervened, but Scotus has never been tenderly responsive to the convenience of the governed. And let's be clear, the Courts are Team Government, with jerseys, retirement benefits, and all the rest of it.

But we can be confident that the Zuckerbergerian response to these trends will be to move the 'worksites' of these employees (meaning, in practice, the location of the host server to which they connect every morning) to states where the taxation is least burdensome… The companies won't want excessive taxation to diminish the appeal of their salary ranges in an already competitive labor market.

And of course, Facebook (et al.) have clearly marked their boundaries in the other direction, stating that they're not going to pay the enormous salaries of Silicon Valley to employees who choose to dial in from Kansas City.

(That last part's kind of joke. None of those people want to live in Kansas City.)

More about this, but the coffee's not kicking in yet. Back later.

How do states with cross-border urban-suburban areas handle it - i.e., NY/NJ, NY/CT, NC/SC, SC/GA?

When I worked as a consultant, my taxes on income earned in other states was paid to those states and California used a formula to determine what part of that income it could steal - usually more than that to which I thought it was entitled, but less than that to which California thought it was entitled.

Well not a state but in DC/Virginia if you work in DC but live in VA you pay VA income tax. Company location in Maryland. But if become "unemployed" you file unemployment in DC.
Part of the argument around DC statehood, and why Virginia and MD won't want it, so DC can tax all the out of town workers.But if DC gets the tax $ VA or MD don't

It's not called Taxachusetts for nothing.

I’m trying to figure out why anyone thinks this is anything new. I’ve had friends pay income taxes to North Carolina (where they have never lived) while working ostensibly for Duke University in Africa.
Used to be Federal employees and military “tax shopped” for their residency. Always established it at what ever duty station or home of record had no state income taxes.

A lot of people used to not care because the state and local taxes were deductible against Federal Income tax. Now they do, thanks to Trump who got rid of much of that loophole.

It is particularly insidious because if you file a joint return, many of the states will try and tax your entire income including that of your spouse, and not just the portion earned from a company operating in their state.

I dunno, "If you want to do business here you have to pay taxes here" seems reasonable to me.

"I dunno, "If you want to do business here you have to pay taxes here" seems reasonable to me."

Most work 40 hrs a week, out of 168 hours. So less than 25% of your time is doing business there. why should 100% of the money go there? and none to the place you spend 75% of the time. That is the best case for the city getting the money. The more common case is one parent works there the other parent and kids are in home state 24x7. Considering how much of the state tax goes to education, it really matters where the kids are.

So how do the city places make money, property taxes, business taxes (sometimes) and sales taxes , so if your business has office there they get the cut of the rent, and if employees eat lunch or shop there they get a cut.

Switch the world to people working remotely and 0% of anyone's time is there, office space is still being rented, for now, but that will be cut back a lot in the near future. 9/11 turned some places in the DC area into ghost towns, since they changed the laws for gov't buildings and contractor offices to must have an office near (under a mile) the gov't building, and must have concrete barrios or other anti car bomb defenses, between building and road. Many existing office buildings don't qualify since not tourist areas sidewalks are small no room for such barriers. Crystal city named for all the office building windows became a partial ghost town. Expensive office space in DC raised their rent.

I dunno, "If you want to do business here you have to pay taxes here" seems reasonable to me. ~NicoleK

But they don't do business there. That was the point.

Isab, New York certainly goes after your full income. There were doctors and nurses that went there and volunteered their time during the height of covid. New York repaid them by taxing 8.8% of their total income. None of which was generated in New York City.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/andrew-cuomo-healthcare-workers-who-volunteered-to-help-new-york-with-pandemic-must-pay-state-income-taxes

All I can say is people are starting to learn their lesson. After all this isn't the first time. Next time they need first responders and linemen most people will probably say f-em.

> The order does not give a reason for the Court's decision.

Well then, we'll just make one up. In order to rule for New Hampshire, the court would need language that could be used to undermine the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA). From the Wiki:

"The Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) is a 2010 United States federal law requiring all non-U.S. foreign financial institutions (FFIs) to search their records for customers with indicia of a connection to the U.S., including indications in records of birth or prior residency in the U.S., or the like, and to report the assets and identities of such persons to the U.S. Department of the Treasury.

"Under U.S. tax law, U.S. persons (regardless of country of residence) are generally required to report and pay U.S. federal income tax on income from all sources.[26] The U.S. and Eritrea are the only two countries worldwide which tax non-resident citizens."

Since the Court declined to hear the case, the States are left to play mini-me on collecting taxes from remote workers. They can do this under the penumbra of a federal law which says that's fine. The justices punted on this one.

I used to work for company that had an office in Boston - well a far out suburb. A lot of employees were working from home...not like now but a lot more than a few days a year when the did feel well. One of the states near by which a lot of people where working from home and through some kind of fit. So my employer has to (as in a legal settlement) to track employees very careful and file (and likely pay taxes) reports. Which meant my division said no more working from home unless you are sick.

"Crystal city named for all the office building windows became a partial ghost town."

It sure did. The underground shops were devastated, and what survived has been hit hard by the pandemic and loss of office workers in the area.

But with Amazon's HQ2 coming. a lot of those old office buildings are coming down and new ones going up. Amazon is trying to rebrand the area as "National Landing."

Except they are doing business in MA. They're working for a MA company and getting salaries from them. Makes sense. But then they shouldn't pay NH taxes or CT or wherever they live.

In theory you pay taxes in a state to cover the expenses of that state. Property tax covers local schools, parks, libraries, street cleaning, etc. State income tax, same thing at the state level (DMV, highway patrol, state parks). But if you never set foot in the state, how have you incurred any expenses there? Taxes should strictly be on where you live (income tax) or where the building is (property tax).

NicoleK, if you are a checkout clerk at Walmart in a store in Louisiana should you pay income taxes in Arkansas (where Walmart is headquartered)? New York City wants to say yes as long as those taxes go to New York City. Most places you are working where you are physically located not where the business is headquartered.

No, they are not doing business in MA.

New York City is also famous for getting angry when anyone who lives there buys anything outside of the city. Claims they are avoiding sales taxes and sometimes tries to bill residents for not paying local sales taxes on goods not locally purchased. The greed is endless.

"Amazon is trying to rebrand the area as "National Landing."

Influence alley would be more appropriate.

The state's basically saying, "what we have here is a failure to communicate."

Awe come on, you get the reference right?

"Awe come on, you get the reference right? "

Sure, everyone remembers the eggs scene!

Pink Flamingos. What a classic.

Here's the solution: End the SALT deduction for federal income tax purposes.

Make every state and local jurisdiction feel the full righteous anger of their taxpayers. Put the pressure on them to reduce those state and local taxes, competing with each other over who can do the most for the least cost.

The basic trouble with all taxes is that the people who are spending them are playing with other peoples' money, but insulate themselves from the day-to-day reality of those people.

Rural, while I am all fore removing the salt deduction I'm not sure it has an impact on states wanting to tax non-residents who didn't work there.