backtop


Print 46 comment(s) - last by Moishe.. on Oct 27 at 4:37 PM


You can bet NC is drafting a more specific request right now
Judge says state can make a more specific requiest for information

All around the country different states have tried to find ways to collect sales tax on purchases that state residents make online. More than one state has tried to capture sales tax from Amazon over the years and the latest to step up and try is North Carolina.

Amazon has been trying to block NC from forcing it to give up detailed customer data that the state could use to link buyers to specific products purchased. Amazon and the ACLU took the case to court and Amazon has won a small victory with the judge presiding over the case ruling that NC has "no legitimate need" for details about what books, music, and movies the customer purchased at the site according to
CNET News.

The judge presiding over the case is U.S. District Judge Marsha Pechman from Washington State. She wrote, "In spite of this [lack of need], (North Carolina) refuses to give up the detailed information about Amazon's customers' purchases, while at the same time requesting the identities of the customers and, arguably, detailed records of their purchases, including the expressive content." 

CNET News reports that the information that Amazon has already turned over includes details of what items were shipped to specific zip codes within the state. The legal battle began when NC asked for specific names and addresses for each purchase and threatened to sue if it didn’t get the information. Amazon has no physical presence in NC, but the state has a use tax of 5.75% that is applied to anything purchased or received via the mail.

The ruling isn’t a clear victory for Amazon. Pechman noted that there is nothing preventing NC from deleting the data it has on file and making a more specific request for information. She stated, "Issuing the declaratory relief as phrased does not prohibit (N.C. tax collectors) from issuing a new request for information as to only the names and addresses of Amazon's customers and general product information, assuming that (the state) destroys any detailed information that it currently possesses."

The ACLU joined Amazon in the fight to keep purchase data private for NC buyers earlier this month.  The saga between Amazon and NC started back in April 2010. NC residents that didn't pay the use tax could be hit with a 25% fine for not paying the state tax on their purchases.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

who cares?
By scottymyboy on 10/26/2010 10:07:31 AM , Rating: 3
I don't understand why North Carolina residents aren't up in arms over this. The fact that i have herd nothing about the people being upset suggest they are for being taxed more. So who cares, let them get taxed until they are willing to put up a fight and get the dbags out of office who are pushing this.




RE: who cares?
By Spivonious on 10/26/2010 10:26:55 AM , Rating: 5
This is not a new tax. It's a tax that all states (to my knowledge) have and just don't enforce.


RE: who cares?
By CZroe on 10/26/2010 12:29:36 PM , Rating: 2
As far as they are concerned, why are Internet purchases any different than by phone or by mail orders before it? Amazon is big and that is why they are a target. Shameful. If you are going to force this tax on out-of-state purchases, it needs to be on ALL of them AND they better prepare a system where people out of state are not taxed for purchases in your state. Then, there is still the issue of your states citizens not being able to opt out of other state's sales tax when traveling abroad. They aren't residents and they have to pay those states' sales taxes regardless, so it would be double-dipping to do this without finding a way to excuse them from the other sales tax. It's a two-way street, so they would also need to exempt people from other states if they are going to be fair about it. That also means no more tourism tax boost. You gave that up when you started depriving other states of theirs.


RE: who cares?
By Spivonious on 10/26/2010 12:44:31 PM , Rating: 2
A sales tax (when the item is sold) is not a use tax (when the item is consumed).

It has nothing to do with where the item is sold from; it's where the item is used. I order a book from California, but read it in Pennsylvania. I owe Pennsylvania a use tax.

Most states have wording in their use tax laws that exempt products for which a sales tax was already paid, regardless of state. If I buy a soda in Maryland, but drink it in Pennsylvania, I don't owe PA a use tax because I already paid a 6% sales tax to MD.


RE: who cares?
By Spivonious on 10/26/2010 12:58:32 PM , Rating: 2
PA's Use Tax Law:

"If you or your business buys items that are subject to sales tax – for which the seller does not charge and collect the tax on the invoice (or receipt) – you are personally responsible for remitting the tax directly to the PA Department of Revenue."


RE: who cares?
By vvume on 10/26/2010 3:47:59 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you so much for this clarification!

quote:
A sales tax (when the item is sold) is not a use tax (when the item is consumed). It has nothing to do with where the item is sold from; it's where the item is used. I order a book from California, but read it in Pennsylvania. I owe Pennsylvania a use tax. Most states have wording in their use tax laws that exempt products for which a sales tax was already paid, regardless of state. If I buy a soda in Maryland, but drink it in Pennsylvania, I don't owe PA a use tax because I already paid a 6% sales tax to MD.


RE: who cares?
By marvdmartian on 10/26/2010 2:40:55 PM , Rating: 2
The question I always have, whenever I read an article about some state trying to tax internet purchases, and suing an online retailer for the information is....

How much money would they actually collect with that info, versus how much money they're paying an army of lawyers to sue, in order to get the info?

If they want to see a real economic slump, have fun killing off online retail sales by starting to charge sales tax for them. Maybe a better idea, for these states, would be to learn to live within their means, instead of just trying to jack up more/higher taxes??


RE: who cares?
By vanka on 10/26/2010 5:37:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How much money would they actually collect with that info, versus how much money they're paying an army of lawyers to sue, in order to get the info?


You are missing the big picture here: the main objective of this lawsuit is not to recover the lost tax revenue due to NC's residents not paying taxes for their Amazon purchases; but to set a precedent. Once a precedent has been set (that out-of-state online companies must provide purchase information), NC can then pursue other online retailers and go after all their future sales. Since the trend has been for online purchases to increase, this is a very smart move on their part.


RE: who cares?
By sweetspot on 10/27/2010 2:28:20 PM , Rating: 2
Not True Many states done have a use tax, they have direct sales tax implied.

Aka California for one. Claiming a sales tax then attempting to claim a secondary use tax on the same items would be illegal. As that double taxation for purchase, is not elgal to do anyplace in the USA currently.

States that dont pay sales tax, those states try to get re-compensation by enforcing such back end USE taxes for purchase on their state tax laws. So purchases get taxed either at tax time ( the use taxation laws ) or taxed up front the (sales tax laws).

Most states claim nicey but as we all know everyone of them taxes poeple every nickle and dime they can either up front or after the effect ways.

Each stats a bit different in their approaches but they all end up taxing items via some routed way. either the seller or buyer up front or later taxation schemes.


RE: who cares?
By Krotchrot on 10/26/2010 10:29:18 AM , Rating: 2
Well, they wouldn't be taxed any more than they are now. All out of state purchases are required to be reported and the taxes paid now. This isn't a new tax, it would just be a way to enforce the taxes they require now.
And NC isn't the only state attempting to do this. Colorado and New York are a couple.


RE: who cares?
By Mitch101 on 10/26/2010 10:53:09 AM , Rating: 2
Im willing to state a number of people dont understand the tax laws to know they should be paying tax on out of state internet purchases.

To my memory I dont believe I have ever been asked by a tax preparer if I have any internet or out of state purchases I need to report and pay taxes on further increasing the lack of awareness to the average individual.


RE: who cares?
By tmouse on 10/27/2010 8:59:30 AM , Rating: 2
In NY it is very clearly stated on the tax forms. They supply a general table, but you are supposed to itemize all single purchases over $1000. NY also has tax agreements with NJ and CT so if you buy anything from any company that has a presence in any of those states you are required to have sales tax collected also if the sales tax collected is less than your local sales tax you’re supposed to send the difference to NY if you use the item in NY, that’s the use tax. This tax applies to any other purchase from any other state, just to be clear it only applies to NY residents. Now if you buy an item like a boat or car and NEVER bring it to NY you do not have to pay the use tax. The new software they installed from IBM will make it much easier for them to zero in on many big ticket items if they are not reported as it can cross reference insurance and NY, NJ and CT DMV databases. The best way in NY to get tagged for an audit will be to never claim any use tax. These types of law suits probably will be won by the states as they are considered a tax within the state on its own residents. It’s going to happen, like it or not. Mail order and phone orders never really reached a critical mass and effected sales on main streets in the states. The internet has and that’s lost revenue for the local governments. Many Icompanies incorporated in states with no sales taxes to offer better deals and with no store front or sales person overhead they really have a major advantage that effects sales taxes, commercial property taxes and job losses in most local areas. States are going to go after that revenue, the ACLU’s ONLY interest is in protecting the specifics of the purchases not on the amount paid.


RE: who cares?
By MrTeal on 10/26/2010 10:31:01 AM , Rating: 2
We go over this every time this comes up.

quote:
The fact that i have herd nothing about the people being upset suggest they are for being taxed more.


They aren't being taxed more. Those taxes are already there, people just aren't paying them. The citizens not properly reporting their taxes are the ones at fault. Just because people are ignorant of the law and think that shopping online is a tax free haven, doesn't make it so.


RE: who cares?
By corduroygt on 10/26/2010 10:43:42 AM , Rating: 2
Well for a lot of states, you can just pay a flat rate of 20-30 bucks when you're doing your income taxes and be done with it. I pretty much buy every big ticket item online, so that both gets the state off my back and saves me money.


RE: who cares?
By scottymyboy on 10/26/10, Rating: 0
RE: who cares?
By Krotchrot on 10/26/2010 10:50:05 AM , Rating: 2
So your take is that if people are cheating on their taxes then those taxes don't really exist?


RE: who cares?
By scottymyboy on 10/26/2010 11:53:25 AM , Rating: 2
to the person they don't exist. if you can get a way with not paying a tax, with no repercussions, then the tax doesn't exist to the person. It's like a sodomy law, in some places its in the books, but it's definitely not enforced(atleast i hope not!).

there is two sides to this argument, the people's side and the governments side. not that complicated.

The government is taking measures to enforce a tax that hasn't been enforced in the past. My overall point is, unless the people stop the government from trying to enforce this task, screw them and let them get taxed. It's a non issue if they are willing to pay the tax.

me personally, i would be up in arms..but that is just me


RE: who cares?
By KeithP on 10/26/2010 10:59:39 AM , Rating: 3
I don't think their purposes are "intensive".


RE: who cares?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2010 11:08:29 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
The citizens not properly reporting their taxes are the ones at fault.


No, the tax isn't just and can't properly be enforced. Government is at fault.

Enough with this pro-tax attitude. No Government "needs" the tax income from Internet sales, that's absurd.


RE: who cares?
By corduroygt on 10/26/2010 11:18:13 AM , Rating: 2
Mandate a minimum IQ of 140 and a Master's degree for anyone who's going to work for the government, and you might have less problems.


RE: who cares?
By guffwd13 on 10/26/2010 2:52:52 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
Mandate a minimum IQ of 140 and a Master's degree for anyone who's going to work for the government, and you might have less problems.


actually, you'd have fewer problems.


RE: who cares?
By cruisin3style on 10/26/2010 3:17:05 PM , Rating: 2
lol @ 140

so you're saying there'd be less problems because there'd be no gov? :D


RE: who cares?
By MrTeal on 10/26/2010 11:41:57 AM , Rating: 1
So, it is more just to have a use tax covering all retailers, that is selectively enforced on one type of retailer but not on another?

It's fine if you're an anti-tax crusader or hardcore libertarian, but then go after the entire use tax. If it's on the books it should be enforced and collected for all purchases. Otherwise, scrap it entirely.


RE: who cares?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/26/2010 12:07:27 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
It's fine if you're an anti-tax crusader or hardcore libertarian, but then go after the entire use tax. If it's on the books it should be enforced and collected for all purchases. Otherwise, scrap it entirely.


Sounds good to me. But hey, let's take baby steps first.

I'm not against taxes, per say. I am against progressively wasteful governments grabbing us by our ankles and shaking us for loose change.


RE: who cares?
By rdawise on 10/26/2010 8:46:07 PM , Rating: 2
@Reclaimer77

Whoa wait a minute. Isn't this a state's right? I thought you were all behind the Conservative message? Let the states decide...lol

Got to love the hypocrites....


RE: who cares?
By Reclaimer77 on 10/27/2010 9:02:59 AM , Rating: 2
Being for states rights doesn't mean you believe a State can exert ANYTHING over it's citizens and that's ok. States rights are brought up in context more of States vs. Federal than States vs. it's own citizens anyway.

Hypocrisy? I think you're trying a little too hard there.


RE: who cares?
By AlexWade on 10/26/2010 1:03:24 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
I don't understand why North Carolina residents aren't up in arms over this.


http://www.wral.com/golo/page/1896337/?id=8510642

North Carolina residents ARE upset about the state's actions.


RE: who cares?
By Moishe on 10/27/2010 8:44:03 AM , Rating: 2
I *am* up in arms over this.

For years, I buy a ton of stuff online, and for years I pay my taxes correctly according to the law. Now they want to track my spending? Eff that. If NC wins this, I will stop buying stuff from large retailers online. And for you asshats out there who buy stuff and don't pay your taxes, you should be ashamed. You can't b**ch and moan if you've done this to yourself.

The "honor" system could work, but people don't want to pay another few bucks in taxes, and in return they give the state a good reason to encroach on our privacy.

On the other side of this is the state, which is run by piles of corrupt politicians that spend more and more every year. Instead of living within their means, they spend and spend and then come after my money when they run deficits. I am the backbone of this state. I (and people like me) pay for the state's needs. We pay for the food for lazy-asz welfare recipients. We pay for the large salaries of corrupt "representatives" that just turn around and fleece us for more of our hard earned money.

So, yeah. I'm pretty fed up with the whole situation. At some point, the gravy train has to end.

By the way, the only good way to change all of this is to vote for what you believe. I don't care which "side" you pick, but be educated and vote. Every day we sit and let the world screw us up the asz, it's our own damn fault. It's time to get up and vote.

Here is a good website for voter education.
http://www.votesmart.org/voteeasy/


Need for national reform
By GruntboyX on 10/26/2010 12:39:05 PM , Rating: 2
So... if I buy an item as a gift and it is shipped to another person in a state, do I have to pay a use tax? it never entered state boarders. Do i have to pay the use tax to the state it was delivered to? What about goods I purchase at a brick and mortar store in another state. Technically I have to pay a use tax and then file for a refund from the state I purchased the good in.

It is ridiculous. The use tax should be abolished and ruled unconstitutional. It is basically a interstate tariff. Something that I thought was unconstitutional.

The also needs to be a law, that any law unenforced in a certain time frame has to be renewed through the state legislature, or automatically wiped from the books.




RE: Need for national reform
By Spivonious on 10/26/2010 12:53:24 PM , Rating: 2
No, a use tax is paid by the person consuming the item. In your example this would be the gift recipient.

If you bought goods and a brick and mortar store, you'd pay sales tax on the item. Most states have a clause that if sales tax is collected (in any state), no use tax is paid.

The solution to this problem is one of three things:
1. Force e-tailers to collect sales tax based on state of delivery.
2. Start enforcing the reporting of this tax.
3. Get rid of the use tax.


RE: Need for national reform
By cmdrdredd on 10/26/2010 7:01:42 PM , Rating: 2
IMO it should be like this. If the store has no presence (i.e no actual retail location in your state) then you pay ZERO TAX. If they do, you apply the correct sales tax to the purchase. No use tax needed. So if Amazon happened to have a warehouse in FL then I would pay the applicable tax on the product I purchase because I could have driven to the warehouse and gotten it. If they have the warehouse 3 states over, no tax except to residents of that state.

The biggest problem is the taxocrats in office who feel it's their duty to rip every penny out of our hands so that we grovel at their feet for assistance and they say "ok so now we enact this program and that program and we oversee it" thus creating a bloated government that rules like the USSR.


RE: Need for national reform
By Moishe on 10/27/2010 8:49:47 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
problem is the taxocrats in office who feel it's their duty to rip every penny out of our hands so that we grovel at their feet for assistance


Exactly.

Spending other people's money, to buy votes, favors, goodies for the elite. They just want more and more control. We need term limits to get these jackholes out of office. Even the newest unknown newbie would be better than the *known* Mr/Ms Happy Spendy.


RE: Need for national reform
By tmouse on 10/27/2010 9:26:31 AM , Rating: 2
The problem is the internet has had a huge impact on the bottom line of local governments. Small brick and morter stores are drying up and with them go the sales taxes, commercial property taxes and jobs. Amazon also acts as a middle man now so many people who might otherwise start small businesses in their local areas now use them for supply and order fulfillment with the resulting loss to the local economy. If it had stayed as a minor component of overall sales like catalogue sales it would never have become a target but it did not. I just do not see how people could ever have been so stupid to swallow the whole tech revolution creating jobs promise, it's totally the opposite. With greater efficiency you need fewer people, that’s how Amazon got to be as large as it is. IT companies have virtually no startup costs compared to other types of businesses. Even with this it is still cheaper to outsource so we have created our own competitors in places like India. Read Future Shock by Alvin Toffler, as a futurist he pointed out many of the problems we face today, one of them being how do you structure a society/economy where you only need 10% of the people to work to supply the needs of the other 90%, what do those 90% do with their time and how are they viewed when we have always valued a person’s worth by their work. Our own economy has become one of very little actual production, fueled by chronic consumption based upon debt spending which is simply unsustainable no matter what a person’s political beliefs are.


RE: Need for national reform
By Nfarce on 10/26/2010 1:44:53 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The use tax should be abolished and ruled unconstitutional. It is basically a interstate tariff. Something that I thought was unconstitutional.


On the one hand the Constitution refers to the federal government. We are talking States Rights here. As the 10th Amendment of the Bill Of Rights states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution...are reserved to the States."

On the other hand, the US Supreme Court has ruled for the nexus status of a business's involvement in the state and therefore warrants taxing under certain conditions irrespective of the Commerce Clause (http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/ff187.pdf). The Commerce Clause ironically is where Congress is validating Obamacare as a legal tax - one that doesn't violate a person's Constitutional right to not be forced into a binding contract (which it essentially is).

With that said, there always have been and always will be ways around paying certain types of taxes. Most of which - including seemingly harmless things such as garage sale and Craig's List sale revenue - are not enforceable as someone referenced above.


RE: Need for national reform
By tmouse on 10/27/2010 9:39:08 AM , Rating: 2
The thing is use taxes are not interstate, they are simple taxes on the residents of the state on the use of items within the state. The sticking point has been in the past states tried to have the seller collect the use tax which certainly is interstate and could be well argued that it is an unfair burden on the seller who has no relationship to that state. Now information on the customer and the final value is something that is already in the hands of the seller and does not make them direct agents of the state in the collection of the taxes. It can also be argued reporting this information annually is not any kind of major burden. At best I think the courts could toss it back into the hands of congress who pretty much will have to decide in the favor of the states or face massive future state defaults (which are really close for several states as it is).


Fight the taxes.
By Soulkeeper on 10/26/2010 2:05:50 PM , Rating: 2
As far as i'm concerned we should all be fighting the government every step of the way.
They won't get my money without a fight !




RE: Fight the taxes.
By guffwd13 on 10/26/2010 3:13:22 PM , Rating: 1
the stupidity and irony of your statement was incredibly amusing... thank you for that.

without paying taxes, you wouldn't have a government to fight.

you're the main problem with society, politics and government today. you don't understand that you can't have your cake (no taxes) and still eat it too (national security, authority and defense).

just think without a government, someone could shoot you and they'll be no one to point a finger or lock them up. is that what you want?

these taxes are necessary for survival - not insidious devices by which you can be screwed over. that being said, i am increasingly growing more in favor of the alternative tax proposal that would remove income, sales and all other taxes in favor of one tax for everyone. the biggest selling point is the amount of time everyone would save having to keep track of everything.

reduced IRS (greater workforce elsewhere), reduced HR (wouldn't that be nice - the people keeping the company afloat like engineers would get paid more) and more personal time not spent preparing your complicated returns - unless you pay someone else to do it, but then you'd be saving that too.


RE: Fight the taxes.
By vvume on 10/26/2010 3:53:33 PM , Rating: 1
Words of wisdom....finally.


RE: Fight the taxes.
By Moishe on 10/27/2010 8:58:51 AM , Rating: 2
So the government enables the people to exist?

NO. The government exists FOR the people. The government should be the people, not an elite class of disconnected rich folks.

quote:
without a government, someone could shoot you and they'll be no one to point a finger or lock them up
Without the government, I will defend myself. Unlike you, I've not given up my individual responsibility to maintain my own strength and vigor.

I agree with you that some limited government is needed. The United States government is far, far larger than it should be. The government's job is basically to maintain a military and a currency. Taxes are needed for that, and I gladly pay mine. Where you and I differ (maybe?) is that I believe the government is doing too much and taking too much to pay for it. They are spending unwisely at a minimum and in many cases they are stealing and lining their own pockets. They are not held accountable enough.


RE: Fight the taxes.
By guffwd13 on 10/27/2010 10:56:15 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Without the government, I will defend myself. Unlike you, I've not given up my individual responsibility to maintain my own strength and vigor.


If anarchy were ever to ensue, believe me sir I would defend myself far better than most would be capable (and those who know better than they would think me capable). I am not saying that life with big government is better than a life without entirely. In many ways, I'd relish anarchy because frankly the superficial goal to attain global peace is as much boring as it is irrationally idealistic. We watch sports to feed the hunger that we as (male?) humans require to feel alive. We need a goal and we need purpose and we need to fufill the desire to achieve (acquire?) something we had not previously (money, trophies, fame). How about territory? Freedom? We no longer have things to fight for because were are so well-protected. The Native Americans had it right with Lacross - which was a game often to the death while we pathetically weak and safety-pampered Americans squabble over helmit hits in the NFFL (national flag football league) - but I digress, that is a discussion for another day.

Based on the side of the coin that your philosophy tends to rely, you most likely oppose abortion rights and gay marriage too. The irony of this philosophy is that the imposition of such prohibitive laws is also just that - government overstretching its bounds and restricting the freedom that the government is intended to protect (that is the point, after all, is it not?).

I do agree the government needs to be reduced. Like the IRS. It is too big because its income system is antiquated and convoluted - a relic of 200 years of changing policy and conditions. How about significant reduction of state governments. Now before you raise up in arms about loss of havens for one to find a state that fundamentally agrees with ones respective points of view, those can still exist. But why can't the federal government simply reimburse the states based on a formula that accounts for population and gross product (the states with more people and more production get more because, well, they do more)?

There is so much redundancy in today's government I agree with you fully. The government should be smaller. But not simply in the way implied by the overarching philosophy of "down with big government." Burn, baby, burn? Perhaps we have replaced our war paint with bulls and donkeys.

Anarchy may yet be the prevailing standard.


RE: Fight the taxes.
By guffwd13 on 10/27/2010 11:07:44 AM , Rating: 2
make that elephants and donkeys - my bad. i was reading the market summary and had bears and bulls on my mind.


RE: Fight the taxes.
By Moishe on 10/27/2010 4:37:47 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Based on the side of the coin that your philosophy tends to rely


Really? I'm surprised you can pigeonhole me philosophy based on a couple of comments. Too bad for you really.

Like you, I can defend myself quite capably, and I think having too much peace makes our culture into soft-skinned wusses. People have no stomach for even the most humane and gentlemanly war because they sit back and soak in luxury and ease with only minimal effort. They are not attacked. They do not see bloodshed. They do not have to protect the lives of themselves or their loved ones. It's all too easy and all too unrealistic. I don't relish anarchy, but I do understand that challenge and strife produces character.

quote:
you most likely oppose abortion rights and gay marriage

I think that is a ridiculous statement. At the core of this is whether it is possible to legislate morality. I do not believe that it is possible, so I don't hold it against people that don't believe what I believe, so long as they don't try to force their beliefs on me. I support *liberty* as long as it doesn't harm others. I don't agree with abortion because I find it sad that human life is so cheap in our culture. It's a slippery slope, and one day we may regret our choice when the abortion comes for us... BUT I understand that the law of the land allows abortion and that's OK. Same with gay marriage. Gay people want to marry? Fine, just leave me out of it.

With every social issue, I reserve the right to b**ch and moan, and to use my vote to support my beliefs. I encourage everyone to do the same. Leave emotion on the steps, become educated and vote intelligently with a focus on the long term.

"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." - Benjamin Franklin

Here we are, a public that only wants the government to fulfill all their dreams and wipe their asz. If the fit ever hits the shan, these people will be sheep to the slaughter


Not inviting
By fishman on 10/26/2010 12:05:10 PM , Rating: 3
I'm near retirement, and we have been considering moving to NC to live. However, these sort of things may get us to plan to move somewhere else.




RE: Not inviting
By tmouse on 10/27/2010 9:45:03 AM , Rating: 2
Most states have them on the books, when one state finally wins a battle rest assured the others will follow.


Double Standard
By jrb531 on 10/26/2010 6:35:41 PM , Rating: 3
When the ultra-rich can stop avoiding paying taxes by moving their money out of the country, using loopholes in the law to reduce their tax burden to near zero... well then I'll send in my nickels and dimes to the states.

When businesses leave the country on paper but still maintain their buildings and stores here to avoid paying some taxes then I'll consider sending in my nickels and dimes.

When politicians stop taking donations (bribes) from big business and then proceed to represent them and not us... well then I'll send in my nickels and dimes.

Until that all happens I'll continue to use this "loophole" (legal or not) to my advantage.

So the states can cry up a river... if they are so short on revenue (they are) then they can start by closing the loopholes for their political contributors first before they go after the little guy




By JayJay357 on 10/26/2010 10:35:16 AM , Rating: 2
It seems a little strange that for a state that it so interested in getting all of the tax revenue it can from residents; it gives such great tax incentives to big corporations. I know the argument is you give up the taxes to the corporations because you will get more higher paying jobs which equals people to collect more taxes from. But if they are in such a bind that they have to try to get amazon to turn over customer information they should reevaluate some of their tax incentive programs for big business.




"We’re Apple. We don’t wear suits. We don’t even own suits." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki