General discussion

Locked

18% tax on soda, iPod tax, movie theater tax, sporting event tax, taxi tax,

By DadsPad ·
Ouch!! Glad I don't live in N.Y.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/12/16/2008-12-16_gov_david_paterson_unveils_dire_new_york.html


88 new fees and taxes New York has proposed to fix its debt. "Gov. David Paterson unveils New York State budget that includes ... new taxes, layoffs and cuts."

Will this be the coming trend in other states? It just might be.

Any comments?

This conversation is currently closed to new comments.

Thread display: Collapse - | Expand +

All Comments

Collapse -

government

by jck In reply to 18% tax on soda, iPod tax ...

In working in government, the one thing I see they could cut that would usually cut cost is the use of long-term contractors.

I know that I have seen contractors come in and get entrenched in the operations and get an agency dependent on their services, and continually hike fees and extend timelines to milk the system.

Usually if a government agency would just hire staff to do the work on a long-term project and use a contractor for initial setup and training, it would make things better.

Then, things like taxes on soda wouldn't be necessary.

But, that's bureaucracy.

Collapse -

I agree

by DadsPad In reply to government

Governments seem to hire contractors with an end date in mind. If the contractors are to research,say, better increasing of technology, it often is not followed.

I have been in a non-gov big company and seen layoffs, with contractors in plain sight sitting around doing nothing, still being paid.

Life is not always fair. Unfortunately, when they get a tax on soda, it will stay, even if it is not needed.

Collapse -

But doesn't the exact same thing happen...

by JohnMcGrew In reply to government

...when government agencies handle long-term projects themselves? The incentives for those running the project to become entrenched and make the agency dependent are exactly the same, regardless of who the employer is.

Collapse -

True, however...

by jck In reply to But doesn't the exact sam ...

with an employee on staff, they are generally employed in an exempt position and don't incur a cost in overtime.

Any additional requirements added to a project with a contract almost always requires renegotiation and added cost.

Hence being that most government agencies always have projects to work on, I really can't see a contractor being needed unless it's in an initialization or re-factoring phase where outside consulting brings in a short-term expertise that you need to educate your staff on.

Collapse -

And there adds in one of the biggest expenses

by jdclyde In reply to True, however...

every new contractor has to be taught the systems that are in place, to a point, to be able to integrate them together, where as an on-staff developer would know the old systems inside-out and maybe even be able to just modify existing code instead of starting over with something else.

Collapse -

In I.T., that's called SAAS

by Dr_Zinj In reply to government

"contractors come in and get entrenched in the operations and get an agency dependent on their services, and continually hike fees and extend timelines to milk the system."

read that as

"service provider comes in and gets entrenched in the operations and gets an agency dependent on their database access and storage, and then continually hikes fees and extends timelines to milk the system."

Collapse -

re: Government and Contractors

by ThumbsUp2 In reply to government

You said: In working in government, the one thing I see they could cut that would usually cut cost is the use of long-term contractors.

Add to that, the use of purchasing agreements, especially when the agreement is made with a company which, after the agreement is made, has no incentive to offer lower prices to government agencies. Most, if not all, government agencies are locked into purchasing agreements for nearly everything they buy and those agreements don't allow for any kind of price shopping. For example, a particular State government might have a computer peripheral purchasing agreement with a certain company, or maybe an office supplies purchasing agreement. When an agency or department of that State government needs to purchase keyboards or paper, they're forced to purchase through the agreement company instead of having the ability to shop around for price.

Most of us who do any kind of purchasing at all know we can find that same item cheaper at another company, including the local shop around the corner which saves on freight. But, since we're forced to either buy from the company we have the agreement with or not buy at all, we're stuck with the price.

Hundreds of thousands of dollars every year could be saved by each and every state and local government, in office supplies and computer peripherals alone, if they simply allowed the people in charge of doing the purchasing to shop for price before they buy.

Collapse -

Trend? Not a problem.

by CharlieSpencer In reply to 18% tax on soda, iPod tax ...

There will always be some neighboring state that figures it can keep it's taxes lower and make it up on the volume. See cigarette smuggling as a working example.

Collapse -

New Jersey will likely be the beneficiary of New York's new taxes...

by JohnMcGrew In reply to Trend? Not a problem.

...as consumers will flock there for their sodas and clothing, as they do for cigarettes and other overly-taxed goods now.

Collapse -

NJ will definitely benefit, except . . .

by AV . In reply to New Jersey will likely be ...

I'm sure we'll be taxed on the same stuff in NJ soon. We even had a governor once (Florio) who taxed toilet paper! It didn't go over well with the people

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE6D8133CF931A35754C0A966958260

Before Governor Corzine raised the sales tax in NJ to 7%, we had lots of NY shoppers here. Not so much anymore.

AV

Related Discussions

Related Forums