Print 35 comment(s) - last by The Raven.. on Oct 15 at 12:39 PM

NC gonna get paid, privacy be damned
NC wants names, addresses, and products purchased for all NC amazon customers

One of the longest running battles between states and online sellers has been the desire for states to capture sales tax revenue on purchases made by its residents. As it is today, taxes are not automatically recovered by a company online unless it has a physical presence in the buyer's home state. State residents, however, are supposed to report these purchases on their state tax returns.

One of the states pressing the sales tax issue the hardest is North Carolina. NC filed a suit against online giant Amazon in April of 2010 seeking to recover what it claims to be $50 million in sales taxes that were not paid by citizens on purchases dating back to 2003. Amazon sued NC in an effort to block the request by the state for Amazon to turn over information about the buying habits of people living in NC on grounds that the information would violate the user's privacy.

Amazon and its customers in NC are getting some help in the legal suit by the ACLU with the group set to go to court this week in Seattle. The ALCU will fight the state's request for specifics on what NC customers purchased online, including names and addresses of the buyers. According to the NC Revenue Department, it, for example, is not seeking specifics about what book a customer purchased, but only wants to know if the customer purchased a book or a CD.

Amazon states that it has already provided the state with purchase details as requested without providing any information about what each of the customers actually purchased. Amazon says that if it turns over names and addresses of the NC residents who made purchases that the state would be able to link the buyer to a specific product purchased.

The ACLU wrote in a statement, "The American Civil Liberties Union will be in federal court in Seattle Wednesday, October 13 to argue that requests by the North Carolina Department of Revenue (NCDOR) for detailed information about purchases made by customers are unconstitutional because they violate Internet users' rights to free speech, anonymity and privacy."

Comments     Threshold

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

RE: i wonder
By mattclary on 10/13/2010 1:32:04 PM , Rating: -1
If minimum wage wasn't $7.25, more local businesses could compete and products would be more affordable locally.

Union wages are tied directly to minimum wage, that is why it get's bumped so frequently.

The argument is usually made that no one would make a living if min wage wasn't $xx.xx. If a higher minimum wage is really good, why not just make it $30-$40/hour?

Raising min wage just raises prices, making places like Amazon the go-to place for inexpensive goods. If you have to pay some high school dropout $7.25 to flop a Whopper, they are just going to raise the price of the Whopper.

Obviously, buying in bulk is Amazon and Wal-Mart's real strength, but don't underestimate min wage's impact.

RE: i wonder
By Anoxanmore on 10/13/2010 4:00:37 PM , Rating: 2
$7.25/hr is $15,080 a year.

Unless you live in South Dakota, North Dakota, Montana, or parts of Nebraska. One cannot live on that.

Keep in mind that is before taxes... After taxes (avg 15%($2,262) depending upon your W2), you are down to $12,818.

That is a ludicrous wage even in the states I mentioned. I don't know how people surivived on 5.15$/hr. ($10,712 before taxes)

RE: i wonder
By FITCamaro on 10/13/2010 8:36:06 PM , Rating: 3
You're NOT supposed to live on minimum wage. You're supposed to work on that as a teenager. Or in college. Not taking care of yourself or, much less, a family.

This idea that minimum wage is something you should be making past 22 needs to end. It's called MINIMUM for a reason.

RE: i wonder
By YashBudini on 10/13/2010 11:08:48 PM , Rating: 3
You're supposed to...

But you use these words for all people as if it's always possible.

Guess again.

RE: i wonder
By The Raven on 10/15/2010 12:25:06 PM , Rating: 2
Although I agree with your objection, I disagree with your reasoning. It is not just for teens. People can live on min wage fine. Especially if you have a dual income. My wife and I did it for a year (not dipping into savings, but adding to it) and it was uncomfortable at first but we kind of got used to it. That's all relative I conceed, but what isn't relative is that you can't get by w/o a job.

And due to min wage laws, jobs are being eliminated because employers are expecting more out of their artificially priced employees.

And if an immigrant is coming here for sub-min wage, then I also think it speaks to the fact that you can live on min wage (granted that is a combined wage among all family members, including children, but it is still less than 15k in many cases). Just not in a big house with all the trimmings.

We have it REALLY good in this country and it is difficult for most people to imagine life w/o many of the luxuries that we consider necessities.

And if anyone dares to attack me for not being compasionate or some crap like that, then why aren't you in Africa helping people there live to see their 20th bday? That's right, because you really aren't as compassionate as you think you are. You just want to make people who believe in the free market look like a bunch of dbags so you can help prevent your standard of living from being reduced. Trust me. A free market is the greatest equalizer. And if you want to be compassionate you would support that (and keep in mind that private charity is a part of that).

"Game reviewers fought each other to write the most glowing coverage possible for the powerhouse Sony, MS systems. Reviewers flipped coins to see who would review the Nintendo Wii. The losers got stuck with the job." -- Andy Marken

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki