[Vincent Ferrari]

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local...e_new_york.html

"Gov. Paterson's proposed $121 billion budget hits New Yorkers in their iPods - and nickels-and-dimes them in lots of other places, too. Trying to close a $15.4 billion budget gap, Paterson called for 88 new fees and a host of other taxes, including an "iPod tax" that taxes the sale of downloaded music and other "digitally delivered entertainment services." "We're going to have to take some extreme measures," Paterson said Tuesday after unveiling the slash-and-burn budget."

 

I don't know if I care that much about this.  My initial reaction to this was "Don't they already tax those?"  I had to look at some old iTunes receipts to see if they did (they most certainly don't).  I'm not happy paying more, but if I went and bought the CD I'd have to pay sales tax on that just the same.  Of course, with a CD you own the music, so paying the sales tax on something you own is one thing; your right to own a CD is a little more set in stone than your right to "own" a digital download.  I know I'm probably opening up a can of worms, but what do you all think?  I'm guessing most of you are going to be very much against this.  Am I wrong?

[Vincent Ferrari]

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local...e_new_york.html

"Gov. Paterson's proposed $121 billion budget hits New Yorkers in their iPods - and nickels-and-dimes them in lots of other places, too. Trying to close a $15.4 billion budget gap, Paterson called for 88 new fees and a host of other taxes, including an "iPod tax" that taxes the sale of downloaded music and other "digitally delivered entertainment services." "We're going to have to take some extreme measures," Paterson said Tuesday after unveiling the slash-and-burn budget."

 

I don't know if I care that much about this.  My initial reaction to this was "Don't they already tax those?"  I had to look at some old iTunes receipts to see if they did (they most certainly don't).  I'm not happy paying more, but if I went and bought the CD I'd have to pay sales tax on that just the same.  Of course, with a CD you own the music, so paying the sales tax on something you own is one thing; your right to own a CD is a little more set in stone than your right to "own" a digital download.  I know I'm probably opening up a can of worms, but what do you all think?  I'm guessing most of you are going to be very much against this.  Am I wrong?

[Macguy59]

I'm amazed (and glad) that state government wheels turn so slowly with regard to "new" technologies. It's an easy way for them to garner revenue. Compliance is another issue.

[doogald]

Quick, everybody move to Hoboken! With real estate going down so fast, it'll be cheaper to live to boot! Criminy, New Yorkers already go to NJ stores/malls by the busloads to buy clothes. I guess they want to encourage that behavior.

[ucfgrad93]

I hope that Gov. Patterson is also cutting spending as well as initiating the iPod tax, the Coke tax, etc.

[Vincent Ferrari]

Originally Posted by ucfgrad93

I hope that Gov. Patterson is also cutting spending as well as initiating the iPod tax, the Coke tax, etc.

He's definitely cutting spending. I guess we can call that progress.

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by Vincent Ferrari

He's definitely cutting spending. I guess we can call that progress.

Are you sure?

Originally Posted by FoxNews.com

New York will spend about 5.5% more despite being $1.8 billion in the red.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,468984,00.html

Originally Posted by CNSNews.com

Thirty-six of the 50 states – or 72 percent – are now facing budget deficits in fiscal 2009, according to a mid-year report released Monday by the National Governors Association and the National Association of State Budget Officers.

At the same time, 22 of these states facing deficits have adopted budgets that call for increased spending in fiscal year 2009. (See chart.)

Click on the link, I provide below and then click on See chart and it will pull up the numbers quoted in the Fox News article.

http://www.cnsnews.com/public/conten...x?RsrcID=40908

[Vincent Ferrari]

Ouch. Looks like those "cuts" aren't cuts, but the usual "it's going to get a 1.5% increase instead of a 3% increase so that's a cut" type cut.

I have a feeling a lot of pols have their ear to the tracks right now and are hearing the seething outrage about the budget and may just make a populist move and send it back to Gov. Paterson for revisions.

At least that's what I hope.

[ucfgrad93]

Originally Posted by Vincent Ferrari

Ouch. Looks like those "cuts" aren't cuts, but the usual "it's going to get a 1.5% increase instead of a 3% increase so that's a cut" type cut.

I have a feeling a lot of pols have their ear to the tracks right now and are hearing the seething outrage about the budget and may just make a populist move and send it back to Gov. Paterson for revisions.

At least that's what I hope.

Yeah, I wouldn't count on that happening. Politicians just don't seem to realize that it is not a "cut" until you actually DECREASE the amount of money you are spending on a program. An increase of 1.5% instead of a 3% increase is still an increase. But yet, the will still come out and say, with a straight face, that they have cut the budget by 50%.