Conference 7.286::digital

>There is also a provision to tax intra-state phone calls but it is not
>clear that this applies to a private net such as we have.

Interesting.  The original proposal was to tax all phone bills whether
inter- or intrastate, that were over $100/month.  The authority for a
state to tax interstate calls has been tested in federal court by other
states.  As such, it would apply to any monthly service charges we pay
for telephone service, certainly including our leased circuits and
probably including the maintenance charge we pay N.E.T. for our privately
owned fiber.

/john

    
     In N.H. I believe they are about to, or have already implemented
    a %5 "communications tax". It sounds like there will be some
    similarities between the two. I don't know any details about
    it yet though.
    
    Paul W.

    re .-1
    
    Paul,
    	What happened to "THE PLEDGE"?  (no new taxes).  Will there be
    	a state income tax next?
    
    Steve D /state=maine

    
      You just didn't listen - the pledge wasn't
    
      "no new taxes",  it was
    
      "KNOW new taxes!"  :^)
    
    
    						-al
    

	RE: .4 I believe that .3 refers to NH elected officials not Mr Bush.

	RE: .3 For the most part the recent taxes are expansions on existing
	taxes rather then completely new taxes. The NH officials appear to
	be trying hard to keep up with a deficit rather then let it get totally
	out of hand. That discussion rightly belongs in CNOTES::NEW_HAMPSHIRE
	except were it directly relates to Digital.

	RE: .2 There is a tax on telephone bills. I don't remember the details
	but there is probably some discussion of it in CNOTES::NEW_HAMPSHIRE.
	There may even be some in BTOVT::TELEPHONES.

	RE: .0 I would assume that someone in our telecom group is working
	on figuring out how much this tax is going to cost us. It probably
	not an avoidable tax though. We do after all have to keep doing
	business in MA. At least until all our customers move out. 

	What may be or should be an even bigger worry is how difficult the
	tax load is making bringing employees into the state. It seems like
	most of the jobs being posted these days are in MA. It's pretty hard
	for a NH living/working employee to concider a 5-6% (what ever today's
	number is) cut in gross (much higher percentage in net) pay. I know
	of several groups who'd be having a much easier time filling jobs
	if they either could compensate for the tax bite or were located in
	NH.

				Alfred

>           <<< Note 1141.5 by CVG::THOMPSON "Aut vincere aut mori" >>>
>
>	for a NH living/working employee to concider a 5-6% (what ever today's
>	number is) cut in gross (much higher percentage in net) pay. I know

I don't understand what you mean.  Why would there be a cut in gross pay --
the amount you're paid before deductions such as an income tax, FICA,
insurance, SAVE, ...?  Net pay is the pay after deductions.  

A NH resident moving to a MA job would suffer a decrease in net pay of the
MA income tax.  Right?

    RE: .6 Sorry if I wasn't clear. Gross pay would not go down. What
    I was trying to say is that 5% of gross pay is a much higher percentage
    of ones net pay. For example 5.5% of someones gross might be over
    7% of their net. In that case moving ones job to MA would mean more
    then a 5.5% cut in take home. The 5.5% is deceivingly small.
    
    		Alfred

    re: .5 (+ corrections in .6 and .7)
    
    Verrrry interesting 'problem'.  Many (15) years ago when I lived in
    Mass. and was offered a job by a NH company at a MUCH lower salary,
    their argument was 'NH pay scales are lower since cost of living is
    lower'.
    
    While some may take offense - a lower net income from working in Mass.
    is higher than a zero net income from NOT working in NH.
    
    	-Barry-
    

    RE: .8 The cost of living in NH is not much different then it is
    in MA these days.
    
    		Alfred

>           <<< Note 1141.7 by CVG::THOMPSON "Aut vincere aut mori" >>>
>    RE: .6 Sorry if I wasn't clear. Gross pay would not go down. What
>    I was trying to say is that 5% of gross pay is a much higher percentage
>    of ones net pay. For example 5.5% of someones gross might be over
>    7% of their net. In that case moving ones job to MA would mean more
>    then a 5.5% cut in take home. The 5.5% is deceivingly small.

Interesting analytical point, but I think it's off the mark.
Massachusetts has before-tax deductions and personal exemptions,
much as the Feds do.  You get to deduct your first $2000 of FICA,
for example.  The result is that the tax bite is 5.5% of an "adjusted 
gross income," which, while not quite a "net income," makes it come to 
somewhat less than a full bite.

       Speaking as a life-long resident of Taxachusetts, I'd strongly
     suggest that the time has come for DEC's Management to investigate
     the feasibility/benefits of "re-chartering" DEC (the Corporation)
     as a Delaware corporation rather than a Massachusetts corporation...
    
    						food for Mgt. thought,
    									Bob
    
    						who's_owned_a_MA_corp.
    

   re .last
   
   No, let's go for broke. The island group of Vanuatu (formerly the New
   Hebrides) is a tax haven. Located half way between Fiji and New Zealand, it
   makes for a wonderful working environment as well.
   
   :-)
   
   q

    State of incorporation has no bearing on tax liability.
    
    State of incorporation has bearing on the site where legal actions
    under corporate law are disputed (such as shareholder rights during a
    takeover).