Conference 7.286::digital

    I had the reverse happen last year: moved from a job in MA to a job in
    NH; continued to live in NH.  Yet they kept deducting MA state tax.
    
    I made several calls and in-person visits to Personnel (HR) folks. 
    They eventually turned off the "deduct" flag and, in a separate action,
    refunded to me the overpayment of MA tax.  FYI - I originally called
    the Payroll folks, but they said it had to do with my records and it
    wasn't their jurisdiction.
    
    So I believe this person should contact his HR rep.  Be prepared to
    explain the story repeatedly to several people, perhaps, but stick it
    out and they can do "the right thing".  Don't assume the first call
    will fix everything, but don't yell at anybody.  The HR side of the
    business has been cut back enormously, and something like this case is
    probably pretty complicated and something they don't do every day.  But
    it should work out in the end.  And if "one call does it all", have a
    party!  :-)
    
    -Mark

    re: Note 4082.0 by NEMAIL::GEIS
    
    Legally, he's liable to MA (come filing time, of course) from the date
    he became a resident, whether or not MA knows he's here, and whether or
    not he has it deducted weekly!
    
    Usually, it takes a memo from a CC manager to change this kind of 
    information on the Employee Master File.
    
    Ken....
    
    

    I think he should also be careful that enough Massachusetts tax
    will be deducted from his paychecks by the end of the year, otherwise
    he could wind up paying a tax penalty.  So, he may need to increase
    this year's deductions over what would be normal. 
    

    
    CC Manager should submit an EDCF (Employee Data Change Form) to HR
    with all changes including home state and work site code. One does
    not have to live in MA to be liable for state income tax.
    
    Besides, the employee should submit to HR a State W-4 form for tax 
    purposes.
    

    complete payroll deduction form #en-01446-06 and send to:
    
    	HR Admin Center
    	MSO1-1/B4
    
    	Employeee signature on the form required.
    
    rick

Just because Digital payroll is not paying out his taxes does not mean MA does
not "know" about him (nor does it mean he does not have to pay them)! Does he
drive a car? If so presumably he has gotten a driver's license and an auto
license. The previous reply on year-end penalty for insufficient payment is
worth listening to. He might be able to make a lump sum payment to bring it up
to date (I don't know if MA state tax payments work that way). I would also
expect that the state he is currently paying tax to would refund the portion
paid after he moved at the end of the year, just as MA state taxes are prorated
for the portion of the year a person lives in MA. The longer he waits, the more
taxes get paid to the wrong state, taxes for which he is liable *now* in MA (or
at least by year-end), but will not get refunded from his old state until after
January. He will have to float the difference for awhile.

    Um, not all states have income tax, Steve.  If he moved from Texas his
    state withholding is zippo.  Texas has no interest in his income in any
    way, shape, or form.
    
    Moving Rule #1 - never move from a free state to a socialist one. :^]
    
    								Tex

  (Fine print: NH has an income tax, and it's set at quite a
  high rate. But it only applies to interest and dividends, so
  it mostly hits retired folks just trying to get by, rather
  than electronically-connected influential yuppies. A pro-
  vision of it that exempted interest and dividends from NH-
  and VT-based institutions was just ruled unconstitiotional.

  NH also has a wide variety of sales taxes, but they don't
  call them that.)
                                   Atlant

    Sorry for the continuation of the rathole, but I can't let
    .8 stand

>  (Fine print: NH has an income tax, and it's set at quite a
>  high rate. But it only applies to interest and dividends, so
>  it mostly hits retired folks just trying to get by, rather
>  than electronically-connected influential yuppies. A pro-
>  vision of it that exempted interest and dividends from NH-
>  and VT-based institutions was just ruled unconstitiotional.

    The Tax rate is 5% - this is Atlant's definition of "quite high".
    Tell me Atlant, at what rate does Massachusetts tax such income?

    Further, for a retired couple, the first $7200 of interest income
    is exempt from tax. So...assuming a 3.5% savings account return,
    the couple could have over 200K in their account and pay 0 tax.
    This sounds like they're "just getting by" to me.

    Further, as I understand it, the exemption was not ruled 
    unconstitutional, but there were a number of court challenges to the
    exemption so the state removed it (and doubled the amount
    of income that was not subject to tax).

    But you are a right when you say the tax hits retired folks the most.
    After all, they are the richest segment of the population.

    						Ed

    Re: .9
    
    Even a CD out here gets about a 6% return, so your retired
    couple would have a bit above $100,000 in total life savings.
    Not exactly a pile of money for two people to live on for
    15 to 20 years.
    

>>    Moving Rule #1 - never move from a free state to a socialist one. :^]

Unfortunately, there are no socialist states in the USA to move to.

						Brian

    
    
    
    Vermont?
    
    
    
    ;-)

> Vermont?

  Nahh, that's just the congressman!

                                   Atlant

>Unfortunately, there are no socialist states in the USA to move to.
    
    :^]  Check the definition of "socialist".
    
    								Tex

re past few

	  I'm not sure what you might call "socialist", but
	I have a few friends that moved to Vermont from 
	the "People's Republic of Cambridge" because they
	felt that Cambridge Ma was too conservative.

>> >Unfortunately, there are no socialist states in the USA to move to.
>>     
>>     :^]  Check the definition of "socialist".

I did, that's why I posted the comment.

						Brian

    
    	Let's see -
    
    		There is Taxachusetts, Minnenoplace, Ecofornia, just two
    name three where socialism rules and anyone right of Marx is not
    welcome.
    
    		the Greyhawk

    
    Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary says:
    
    so-cial-ism 1: any of various economic and political theories advocating
    collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of
    production and distribution of goods.
    
    > Amtrak and the USPS pop to mind fairly quick from the Fed level.  I'm
    sure you can think of a few examples in Massachusetts, by chance? 
    Subsidization of developers?  Tax breaks for "enterprise" zones.  The
    general trend has been more socialistic over the past 60+ years.
    
    2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private
    property
    
    > Welcome to Cabrini Green or any other government housing development.
    
    2b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production
    are owned and controlled by the state
    
    3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism
    and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and
    pay according to work done.
      
    > Of course, it's still unequal, but income taxes *do* help flatten the
    >curve out, especially when they're on a graduating scale.  The
    >"redistribution of wealth" is a Socialist agenda item and, IMHO, is
    >carried out fairly well via state income taxes...but not in Texas
    >which, by the way, would be the 11th largest economy in the world were
    >it a country, not a state.  Not tootling a Texas horn, but I *don't*
    >care to pay state taxes, property taxes, etc.
    
    								Tex

    
    Re: .18
    
    >The "redistribution of wealth" is a Socialist agenda item and, IMHO,
    >is carried out fairly well via state income taxes...    
    
    You are obviously forgetting the American Trial Lawyers Association!
    Private "enterprise" at its finest. :-) 

    

Pardon me if I burst any bubbles, but pure "capitalist" economies
have not always flurished in the real world because they are not sustainable.

A simple thought experiment will reveal that most of the value
of "private property" derives from public expenditure (roads, bridges,
schools, electricity, communication infrastructure, security, and
markets to name a few details).

The framers of our constitution understood that a broad
distribution of benefits, or "wealth", was necessary to sustain a
free democratic society, but some people still argue for a monarchy.

Oops, this isn't soapbox.  Now back to your regularly scheduled program.

- Peter

Re: .18

I disagree with your interpretation of the definition, but I had a feeling that
would be the case, c'est la vie.  I'm not trying to start a capitalist -
socialist debate here, I'm just a wee bit tired of the barrage of unchallenged
comments about the "People's Republic of <fill-in-the-blank" and comments that
equate income tax with socialism (or at least appear to).  Please remember that
not everybody agrees with that view.

						Brian

>comments about the "People's Republic of <fill-in-the-blank" and comments that
>equate income tax with socialism (or at least appear to).  Please remember that
>not everybody agrees with that view.
    
    "From each according to their ability, to each according to his needs".
    

    
    	-1
    
    	OK...
    
    	What about me.
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    	I need it all :-)
    
    
    		
				the Greyhawk

    Greedy bugger!  If it wasn't for people like you, Communism would work
    just perfectly, you know.
    
    Then again, "If we had ham, we could have ham and eggs, if we had
    eggs". :^]
    
    								Tex