this post was submitted on 18 May 2026
204 points (97.2% liked)
Technology
84807 readers
5651 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I agree, its not fair, let's just remove the sales tax, k? π
Also pretty sure no one is buying software from Best Buy in 2026, that would be dumb as hell.
this is just reclassifying 'digital' software as taxable. the same as software on physical media already is in california. some states have a similar tax status for these products.
many states already did the same with digital video and streaming.
i don't really see a problem with it.
I think their point may be more thay sales taxes are regressive- they disproportionately impact people with less money, as those people need to spend all or most of what they have for necessities, while folks with a large surplus of wealth or income only need to spend a small portion and much of it can go towards savings or investments
I dont think its unreasonable for someone to say they'd rather just do away with sales tax altogether. We may have more appropriate tools with which to fund the government
Edit: the IRS and also taxfoundation.org both explicitly describe sales tax as being regressive. I just checked cause I'm not an expert and someone asserted that they aren't regressive. I dont believe thats accurate.
https://apps.irs.gov/app/understandingTaxes/teacher/whys_thm03_les02.jsp https://taxfoundation.org/taxedu/glossary/regressive-tax/
I would rather see the sales tax go away entirely. And switch to some different method that's more efficient, effective and doesn't punish lower earners in the poor and middle class in California as much. Cuz heaven knows California is brutal enough on most of us here.
But on But on the flip side if there is going to be a sales tax it shouldn't have some stupid ass exemption just because it's online. So either tax it all fair or get rid of it f****** entirely.
Having weird nonsense b******* reasons for this. That or the other thing did not have it just for some stupid ass reason is confusing and also unfair.
Cuz not having it on digital platforms while having it in stores is just hurting my local video game shop, my local game store, my local mom and pop computer repair store that happens to sell video games, office copies of Windows or what f****** have you. It now cost more money to buy it from them than to just go online and buy it. Which means my local shop is getting less sales because of the sales tax.
Make it fair or get rid of it And I really rather they just get f****** rid of it.
It's definitionally progressive, not regressive. The more money you spend the more tax you pay. If you have more money, it's highly likely you're spending more, in absolute terms. Relatively, you might spend less percentage of income though. That's why we should have other taxes, like wealth, property, and land value βthe latter I think is one of the most important taxes we could add, particularly in high population areas.
Regressive doesn't mean you pay less as you get richer. Regressive means you pay a smaller portion of your income as you earn more (the opposite of a progressive tax like income). Higher income people spend less and less of a portion of their income on consumable products and services (and more on sheltered investments or property), so spend a smaller fraction of their income on sales tax. That is the definition of a regressive tax.
*even though it is a regressive tax, it still should be applied fairly or eliminated all together. No more exemptions for silicon valley.
You just described what regressive means. Sales tax is absolutely a regressive tax, since it impacts poor people more than rich people.
No? Progressive is "the more you have, the more you're taxed." A regressive one is one that the doesn't increase as you gain more wealth. At the highest ends of wealth, sales tax may break down, because you literally can't spend all that wealth.
A sales tax at targeting the wealthy, but not ultra-wealthy. It just isn't a single solution to everything, and nothing is. I think a sales tax is a great option, if it's instituted with a decrease in income tax on poor people (or in general, because income tax doesn't tax investments making more money, so it doesn't effect the wealthy much).
We can both agree, I assume, that an income tax is progressive, right? It still becomes regressive with the ultra-wealthy though, since their increase in wealth is largely not from income. That doesn't change the fact it's a progressive tax though.
A regressive tax is like a lump sum tax. It's a higher percentage for poor people. A sales tax increases as spending increases, aka progresses.
I'm no tax expert but my understanding is that sales tax is classified as a regressive tax
https://taxfoundation.org/taxedu/glossary/regressive-tax/
I mean they list it as their first example of a regressive tax. I learned that it was considered regressive from hank green, who's a well known science educator. And its always possible he got something wrong, this isnt science, but thats why I looked it up just now..
Edit: the IRS website has a reference page for teachers on educational content and exercise for school kids. It describes some taxes as "truly regressive" and the wording suggests its considered a gradient of impact relative to wealth, but it also explicitly says:
Maybe. I see it more as a mixed bag. It's regressive only after you have too much money to spend, and the people with literally zero savings (the latter can be solved with a tax rebate).
It does do a better job at capturing wealth that is trying to be obfiscated though. Income tax works for people recieving their money as income, but for others it's easy to avoid. A sales tax captures it at spending though. The only way to avoid it is to just not purchase anything.
I see pros and cons for it. It's not the first option I'd reach for (land value tax is my #1, since it solves cost of living issues too, but also capital gains, inheritance, and wealth taxes should be first), but it can be part of the solution. It just needs to also come with methods of either reducing the harm to poor people, or helping them in some way.
Certainly, it almost undoubtedly has pros and cons, but every source I saw explicitly describes it as an example of a regressive tax, so I do feel like its fair to put "regressive" in the cons column... π
I dont personally have a strong stance on the subject, I dont know a ton about taxes, I was mostly just explaining why someone might want to do away with it because folks were misunderstanding the person who wished we didn't have it. I only know its considered regressive because hank green talked about it in a video. I was just trying to add context based on something I had learned
I think its fair to ague it still serves certain purposes or has advantages, but I get the distinct impression its considered 'on the regressive end of the spectrum' by every authority on the subject that I have access to, I'm not sure you're right that it's just "maybe" regressive π
Sales tax is a regressive tax. Thats my problem with it. It taxes the poor more than the rich.
Regressive or not, it should be consistently applied. The Internet got these weird exemptions back in the 90s to encourage development of tech companies. Tech companies don't need sweetheart deals anymore.
I didnβt even know CA had an exemption. Both states Iβve lived in always have the tax applied on software sales online.
Yes, I also read the article.
Also I fucking doubt Newsome been anywhere near a Best Buy much less bought software from there.
If he plays video games, old people love Best buy. I work with a lot of old people and they almost exclusively only go to Best buy. These are people with net worth of tens and hundreds of millions of dollars and they love Best buy. They f****** adore it.
Every weird gadget, speaker, TV, electronic video game, anything rich people get it for them Best buy. Cuz to a lot of older people and a lot of the rich Best buy is seen as the upscale option. It's convenient, it's right there and the interiors of the stores are usually nice enough to not scare them off.
And old people do play video games. He could have gone to buy office too. Almost every older retired rich person. I know if they need to get office Photoshop or any other software they go to Best buy. Hell, some of the personal assistance for some of these people are sent explicitly to Best buy to go get boxed copies of software for their clientele.
Most of the time if someone needs a new macbook or laptop or phone they also go to Best buy for them.
If an old person needs something. Techy the only place they know to go that's still operates in most places is Best buy.
So you would probably be really surprised. Just how likely it is an old rich white dude in California goes to Best buy.
Video games I bought at Best buy constantly. One of the largest sections at like my local Best buy for example.
Video games are software... This is functionally just a tax correction on video games.
You all are buying software? I just donate to my friendly neighborhood FOSS Developer.
You paying tax on those donations? π§
How else would I get this year's version of Macaffe Antivirus!
It's more video games. How would you get your your Nintendo console? How would you go by your kid? The new super Mario Brothers how would you go buy your teenager? The new GTA? How would you go by yourself? A nice little present of a brand spanking new super Nintendo entertainment system with yoshi island from your local mom and pop game store.
Oh you would do it all online and not go to a store because if you went to a store and bought those same things you would get taxed on them.
Actually the fact that software hasn't had a sales tax online has really only just hurt computer repair stores, mom and pop video, game stores and other local businesses
Big corpos are eating the loss of sales by just selling the same s*** on their own website. They're not having any sort of f****** issue with it. So for them it doesn't matter if the sales tax is applied fairly or not.
But for your mom and Pop store selling video games or other software it matters a great deal like a lot and it does make a difference.
Your first paragraph has way too many questions marks. I'm not asking you to buy a teenager.
You could always try clicking on some shady links online.
Let me know when your friendly neighborhood FOSS developer creates a CRM or accounting software that doesn't cost me more in time to get running and figure out how to use than the paid options.
CRM: https://github.com/twentyhq/twenty
Accounting: https://github.com/bigcapitalhq/bigcapital
Yeah I didn't say "when they exist".
These are also not "free as in beer".
Also your Big Capital has a .Claude file at the top of it and likewise Twenty has .cursor so LOLOLOL no thanks
I'm not saying these are plug and play, but they are quite literally free as in beer.
AI is definitely problematic. But if you think your paid for software doesn't use AI in it in the present day, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.
Weird. Most free things don't have a "pricing" page, in my experience.
There is an option to pay for their storage, hosting, and support. But both have options to run the code yourself absolutely free. Not an uncommon way for FOSS developers to get the financial support they need. And awesome that it looks like all features are available FOSS. Just managed hosting is paid for.
Yeah, our IT department will definitely replace our CRM and Accounting software with some random GitHub projects.
Thanks!
Stop shifting the goal post
This seems nice https://civicrm.com/
Your IT department likely just selects some random vendor that doesn't really give a shit and puts all your data beyond some bullshit cloud service anyways. That they probably cobbled together from github anyways.
Did you not read? Those are established for-profit companies who also happen to release open-source versions of their stack. They also have hosted cloud versions.
You're just backing away because you've been pointed out to be wrong in your sarcastic bullshit, buddy. Just walk away.
Wow. Thatβs a lot of hostility for me making a sarcastic but truthful comment.
Any large company will pay for corporate level software. To deny this shows youβve never worked in this environment and thatβs ok.
Have a nice day.
The majority of people cannot easily turn a few hours of their time on a whim into money because most of their working life is pre-scheduled. Others especially those most likely to be able to pick up a shift aren't paid all that much. I find that ANY new software requires spending time learning in addition to any cost up front. Furthermore most of the paid software would require me to use a worse OS and pay for the privilege so its an awfully hard sell to bother.
As far as accounting software I who simply manage my wages haven't ever needed anything more complicated than a spreadsheet. What software I've seen is kind of obnoxious and terrible so maybe this is an opportunity for someone.
Yes, thank you for elaborating on my point.
Why are you against a sales tax?
Sales taxes are regressive. The poorest people pay way more of their income to buy things at stores. Therefore they are getting taxed a lot more than someone who saves money because they have bigger incomes
That actually makes sense, thank you
It's only regressive when framed as a tax on consumers - which is of course easier to do in a ridiculous country that allows retailers to advertise prices without all the retailer's costs included.
A properly organised VAT type tax is not regressive - it's a tax on corporations that buy product for cents and then sell them on for dollars, pocketing the difference. I've no idea why sales taxes bring out this "but won't somebody think of the corporations!" handwringing.
I really enjoy your snarky tone, but can you explain how any consumption tax regardless of labeling are not regressive when poor people consume a lot more of their income than people with people with higher incomes? Sure you can mitigate this by only taxing x products or offering rebates to poor folk. But it just seems like it is inherent to the system.
It seems to me that progressive income taxes, direct taxes on profits of corporations, wealth taxes, and the like are much better targeted and donβt harm the poorest among us. But Iβm from a βridiculous countryβ so what do I know?
People who downvote someone asking a question is insane. Gods forbid you want to learn something or engage in a dialogue.
Same reasons I'm against most taxes.
How dare the government raise money to fund useless things, like infrastructure, education or social services, right?
How dare the government steal your money (the same money over and over) to fund genocide and line the pockets of the Trump-Epstein class, under threat of imprisonment.
That's not a problem with taxes that's a problem with management.
No tax is objectively fucking stupid and anyone against the concept of tax or collective public money pooling is fucking stupid.
I hate what they use my taxes for because that's the problem. Oversight in management of public resources and funds is an issue.
But without those public resources, funds and us working together for the betterment of us, all is stupid. It doesn't matter if the tax is in the form of money, labor group effort. What have you at the end of the day? Any form of collective resource pooling is a tax even if it's as simple as your time.
There needs to be some form of tax. We need to fix the management in the overhead.
There is also a point to be made that we have too many different kinds of taxes and that the system could be streamlined and that taxation could be simplified. But gotten rid of is just objectively dumb. We need to work together.
Hell, I would even say there's a good argument that monetary taxation could be replaced with a different form of collective effort. But at the end of the day it's still just a tax no matter what you call it or how it's done and it's still necessary to have a functional society.
Even the both basic of hunter-gatherer groups in the most perfect idealized concept of a fully communistic society, for example, still has tax. It may be under a different name or in a different system, but at the end of the day it's still giving your time up for the betterment of the group.
The only difference between donating eggs from your chicken to the local food bank so that everyone has access to eggs versus giving money in a sales tax so that the local government can ensure that food is provided to the poorest is management.
It all just comes down to the only real difference is management. Could management makes for good taxes? Pad management makes for bad taxes.
If you dislike what management is doing with your taxes, you should work to change the management, not f*** us all over because you don't like the management.
By being against collective effort regardless of its form, is just you helping the rich. It makes you the prick the s*** face the a******.
Don't give in to class warfare just because you don't like where your money is going. Go do something about the people spending your money, spending your time, spending your resources on things you don't agree with.
Go get involved with local politics and start working your way up to make the change you want to see. Just make sure you're not f****** us all over as you go please.
What tangible difference does that make? The two are inseparable.
I agree, and wasn't suggesting such a thing. But when the govt taxes the same money 5 fucking different ways, and use it to perpetrate crimes against humanity, all while the ultra rich pay none of it, it gets real fucking aggravating, and I want to pay as little of it as humanly possible. The 1% could pay the other 99% taxes for them and experience no change in lifestyle at all.