Slashdot Mirror
Online Cigarette Customers Get Bill from State
wakebrdr writes "The Michigan Treasury Department has sent bills to state residents who purchased cigarettes online to avoid Michigan's high taxes. One pack-a-day smoker received a bill for $2,500 in back taxes. If a simple subpoena of customer data allows them to easily go after lost cigarette taxes, how long until state treasuries across the country subpoena Amazon.com or other big online retailers to collect unpaid sales taxes?"
if they decide to tax porn...
And you thought ceasing to answer the phone would make them go away...
Isn't it against federal law to tax interstate commerce? Plus if you bought them via the internet the fed's have specifically made it a "no tax zone".
Love stupid the taxes
how long until state treasuries across the country subpoena Amazon.com or other big online retailers to collect unpaid sales taxes?
18 months. You heard it here.
Do you Gentoo!?
These styles of cases are going to have to be settled in the federal court system. The state, upon joining the union, gave up specific rights to regulate interstate commerce that is up to the Federal system. The Federal law currently doesn't allow states to tax imports from other states and has banned any Internet taxes. Thus, the only recourse is a federal ruling to set precedence - of course there is already precedence but may not be specific enough to thwart the state attempt of taxing.
In Massachusetts, the state income tax fillers have to estimate the value of imports to the state thus taxing the citizens that way. This too will be settled from a federal case, as all these types should be. If the law says you can't tax interstate commerce then that is the way it is. If the law is twisted forcing imports to be taxed then that is fine too - we will just all know the law and not be hit with a $2500+ unexpected (or should I say unjustified at this point) tax bill.
This case is where state law and federal law collide but it will have implication to all internet purchasers.
'The collection of purchasers' names is allowed by a 1949 federal law called the Jenkins Act' - Sec. 376. Reports to State tobacco tax administrator
(a) Contents
Any person who sells or transfers for profit cigarettes in interstate commerce, whereby such cigarettes are shipped into a State taxing the sale or use of cigarettes, to other than a distributor licensed by or located in such State, or who advertises or offers cigarettes for such a sale or transfer and shipment...
I don't see where this individual is required to pay state tax.
internet sales are not supposed to be taxed, the fed agreed to this
Smokers have the right to purchase cancer-causing tobacco sticks at a low price, light those cancer-causing tobacco sticks on fire anywhere they want to, raise the cost of health care for everyone, cause cancer in people that are affected by their second-hand smoke, and shirk taxes that have been levied on products they purchase.
I think that pretty much sums up the average smoker's opinion.
I'm a big tall mofo.
And what if I buy something while on vacation in another state that has a different tax rate than my home state?
Also, if these web sites are owned/run by people in the USA, could the state that they live in or incorporate their business in go after the taxes as well?
This seems dangerous to consumers. States can, at any time, subpoena Amazon.com and other online suppliers to regard tax revenue? What's the statue of limitations on this? Most states are hard up for tax dollars right now, and this could be one very scary way for states to generate revenue. Just a thought...
I thought various laws have been discussed or passed which allow Internet sales to avoid sales taxes. This article discusses a sin tax, not a sales tax (although they might try to collect that, too). I can't see any govt. body not trying to collect or allow others to collect on sin taxes.
State - Did you make any online purchases this year? You - *fills in no whilst using your new uber computer you just dropped a few K on from newegg...*
Oh sorry. You get +1 for insightfulness, but you lose all prestige from that by misposting as the first post :(
The cigarette tax pursuit is aided by a 1947 FEDERAL law specifically geared towards tobacco that authorizes states to use these measures to subpoena records from other states. I don't think officials trying to collect state sales taxes would have that authority.
NOTE: I'm going from memory from an NPR story I heard on the way in this morning. 1947 may not be accurate.
While I do not want to pay sales tax on out of state items, each year on my state tax return there is the box to make my own claim. Each year I make my contribution so I can legally sign that I have represented all taxes owed.
In a way, people have abused the ignorance of the system. If you live in a state, like mine, that requires you pay and you do not, don't complain when they catch you. You committed tax fraud. If you don't like it, have the law changed.
People who complain about this amuse me. Would you complain if the police pulled you over for doing 70 mph through a school zone? But no one gets hurt when I don't pay you say. I disagree that money was planned for allocation somewhere and someone else will be making it up in raised taxes elsewhere.
But please don't get me started about useless spending of our tax dollars. I could not agree more.
The Ohio Use Tax is designed to tax out of state transactions if one did not pay sales tax in that state. As another poster has mentioned, this seems to violate the ban on the taxation of interstate commerce.
In Ohio, your Use Tax liability is left up to you to calculate (that is, it is hardly subject to audit). In my experiences, nearly everyone cheats by putting $0 down for out of state purchases.
"It is illegal to bring any cigarettes into Michigan from other states unless by licensed sellers who pay the appropriate tax."
This has nothing to do with taxes on purchases from Amazon or similar online retailers.
Unfortunately, Amazon decided to put a warehouse in western Kansas, so now I get to pay taxes on all my Amazon purchases anyways.
Has anyone else had similar bad luck??
The law is actually be broken buy the consumers is it not? I don't see that states are doing anything illegal. As long as they get the prope warrents for search and have probable cause.
We should pay are taxes you know.
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
In Vermont it is already included. We have a new tax this year called a use tax which is a function of income. IT is said to cover internet purchases which did not charge state sales tax.
Not a huge amount, (I paid $15, on the $45,000 I earned) but still how do they know how much I purchased online and what about people like my father who have never used a computer, they are being unfairly taxed.
It is bullshit. They need to crack down on retailers for the money. Tell Amazon that it owes the state X amount of money for sales tax. Then they will start charging and it will be fair.
In my "opinion", sales tax should work by the seller charging for sales tax based on the physical location of that business. So if someon from like Oregon buys cigarettes from like Florida, the Oregonian would be paying Floridian sales tax.
My logic is that if someone travels from one state to another, in person, you end up paying the sales tax at the location of the business. That is, a Californian travels to Texas for vacation, wouldn't he or she be paying Texan sales tax at the place he or she is staying?
If we have it the other way around, where the buyer pays the sales tax where he or she is located, and not the business, it complicates things a whole lot more.
Here's a thought. What if someone travels in-state to a Native American Reservation and pays no tax?
Not as fast as we all are burning through Napsters music collection
l
http://blog.kordix.com/marv/archives/000400.htm
It's a free for all!! WOOOHOOO!!!
Thank goodness all you have to do in the U.K. to avoid paying tax on something is to buy it abroad and hide it under your hat while going through customs...
One good turn - gets all the covers.
Most tax as far as I know is levied against items sold in the state. Is the online service is located in your state you will pay tax otherwise you are not required to do so. Unless the state is taxing not on the purchase but on the shipment into the state of specific items. They should check their tax laws to see how it is written.
At $2500 per year for a pack a day habit a P.O. box at a private place (like the UPS store) and a preloaded Visa grift card would present a viable altenative. Wow thats something like $6.80 a pack and P.O. boxes only run about $10 a month. Its the same old story whether their talking about movies, songs or cigarettes... People have always pirated the stuff, but "the internet has maid it so easy to do" so the powers that be are freaking out with reactive litigation instead of responding with new law that incorporates new technology.
I'd like to say that this is a little different, but I'm not fully confident that's true. From what I can tell, there was an explicit law preventing sale in the state of cigarette packs that did not contains a stamp proving the taxes were paid.
But now I'm not so sure. Several states (including good old Taxachusetts) get very grumpy about "use tax" (what you're supposed to pay if you purchased something in another state and didn't pay sales tax), and occasionally go after people. Usually, however, they don't do that unless it's a big ticket item (car, boat, etc). The state was losing a lot of money on cigarette tax (much, much more than sales tax on the same amount), which is what motivated them in this case.
If the state was to go after everyone who purchased a few books from Amazon, they'd be so overwhelmed with paperwork, it wouldn't be worth their while. Then again, Amazon keeps selling more and more expensive things tax-free (I got a $1900 radial arm saw in my Gold Box a while back), so maybe it'll happen.
There is no sig, there is only Zuul.
We have a Democrat for a govenor. Tax, spend, tax spend, tax, spend, tax, spend!
Maybe smokers who want to avoid taxes should grow their own tobacco?
I'm not a smoker, but I'm a coffee addict... so to save money and get the freshest coffee possible, I buy green coffee beans and roast them myself, which saves me a lot of cash.
Sure, I'd save more money if I quit drinking coffee, and believe me, I can quit whenever I want, I just choose to keep on drinking it because I love the taste of fresh home-roasted coffee...
Tobacco companies, from what I recall, have a pretty tight relationship with not only the current administration in specific, but politicians in general.
This'll never, ever, ever fly. It'll get shot down, and fast. Frankly, it's a small miracle that they can now levy a fat tobacco tax to begin with. The Powers That Be are just too tightly aligned with the Big Tobacco lobby.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
The Jenkins Act requires anyone who sells cigarettes into any state, to report those sales to each state monthly. This would include your name and order information. Native Americans are exempt from the Jenkins Act because they are independent nations under their federal treaties.
Most states prohibit bringing tobacco and alcohol products into their state without an extra tax on them. Take a look at a pack of cigarettes, there is usually some "stamp" on them showing that the taxes were paid for in their state. Bootleggers make a mark up shipping alcohol or tobacco from states with low taxes to states with higher taxes. Sometimes buying cigarettes that are destined for export to other countries. Sometimes hijacking trucks.
I suspect that the states doing this are using the laws against bootlegging rather than trying to implement "internet sales taxes." I also suspect that the reason for the states to get into pursuing this are doing so to suck up to distributors and retailers. Why do you think that wine.com had so much trouble over the years? Because they were stepping on government sanctioned monopolies: the liquor distributors.
Tax is not right. It is a tool. It's there to make sure that money is available for the needs of that state.
The message on the other side of this sig is false.
I was under the impression (very possibly an incorrect impression) that sales taxes could only be charged when a company has a physical presence in a state, and the taxes go to pay for, at least in part, state services provided to the company (police, fire fighters, etc.) - and that was why I could order something from a catalog or on the internet and not pay sales tax, so long as the company was not in my state.
Any lawyers out there? Does this vary from state to state? I'm in FL.
Cigarette taxes are above and beyond sales tax however, so that may be completely different.
As for getting Amazon's records and taxing people - as far as I know most states havn't made much, if any effort to track down people and charge the sales tax before this, doesn't that constitute some sort of precedent? This has been going on well before the web existed, hell well before the internet existed in the form of phone and mail orders from catalogs. No sales tax there either so long as they don't have a physical presence in your state, at least that's always been my experience.
Seems like there'd be some very valid legal challenges to this sort of thing with simple sales tax on books and other goods - several generations have lived with these laws on the books but no attempts to enforce them - sort of like sodomy laws in some states - and usually those seem to get struck down when challenged in court.
I quit smoking. Because, coughing, smelling terrible, yellow teeth, cancer and a premature death weren't enough.
Now, the reason I finally quit was not monetary. Once you start paying for smokes, the 30 bucks a week doesn't kill you, because you are accustomed to paying for it. Hitting people in the pocket books isn't going to make them quit. Taxing the hell outta them isn't going to make them quit. The bottom line is, if they want to smoke, they will. It's taxation masquerading as the Gov't helping people quit smoking, and generating revenue at the same time. Baloney.
Now, kindly stop harassing these online retailers, and let the smoking masses get back to systematically killing themselves.
hi mom!
Woo-hoo!
Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a soportar Si la vida me da palo, yo la voy a espabilar
Let's say this. I drive to delaware and buy some fancy electronics. I pay no sales tax because the store is in Delaware. See, its not really me who pays the sales tax. It's the store that pays the sales tax. The store just charges me extra so they have the money to pay that tax, and so they can account for it.
Now, even though I live in a state with a lot of sales tax, they don't charge me if I buy stuff from a store in Delaware. So lets say we have an online store in a state with 6% sales tax. That store should have to pay the 6% sales tax whether its sales are online or offline. If they want to charge online customers that 6% they are free to do so. So an online store in delaware wouldn't have to do anything.
You could even take it a step further. See, me driving to delaware and buying something is completely an issue for the state of Delaware. But driving those goods over state borders could be interpreted as a federal issue because its interstate commerce. Me buying goods online from any store that resides in a different state or country is absolutely a federal issue. There is no federal sales tax. Therefore, we don't have to pay anything. Unless you buy something online from a store in the same state as which you reside. In that case the place you bought stuff from should pay the state the appropriate tax and charge that to you if they so desire. In fact, there are many setups like this already. For example if you buy legos online or via catalog from the state of CT you have to pay tax. But if you buy them from anywhere else, it's tax free.
And that, is how it should/does work.
The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
One way or another the tax man is going to screw you... he just has to find the right lube thats all!
Good Karma, Bad Karma, doesnt matter to me... I'm still going to say whats on my mind!
In California, we have to declare all of our out-of-state purchases that we didn't pay sales tax on and would have, had the purchases been made in-state. It's called Use Tax and we have to pay the standard sales tax on them. Since we are a business, we have to keep records and submit to audits. I've been told that the state office that handles use tax compliance audits rakes in over $4000 per hour of audit time.
"Eve of Destruction", it's not just for old hippies anymore...
If your state has a sales tax, they want their cut. If you buy it and bring it back, you own them. Now most people just don't bother. Because hey, it's not like they were there in Oregon,Montana,whatever when you bought the laptop, right?
And that usually true. But if you do something stupid like buy a trailer full of wine right after pissing off your bitch of a wife make sure she's not the type of vindictive shrew who'll fire up the computer/dig out the phonebook and tattle to the taxman. They'll be all too happy to bust your ass. While you might not find yourself in state "pound me in the ass" prison, you will find yourslef completely screwed.
It's my understanding that state sales taxes are explicitly exempt (in most states) from mail-order. The same is true for most provinces in Canada.
Article 9, Section. 9. Clause 5: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."
Can someone please explain to me why extra-state USE taxes are legal but extra-state SALES taxes are not?! Changing the name doesn't fool me. Why are they fooling everyone else?!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Michigan law, as stated in the FA, prohibits importing tobacco from out of state to circumvent the tax.
Does it set an ugly precidence? Not likely. I would doubt very much that their laws prohibit the importation of books. It is true that most states have moved to requiring that the consumer report and pay a 'Use Tax' for Mail-order/Internet goods; but, the reporting responsibility is purely on the consumer, and the state gains little from pursuing individual residence for what will likely be tiny amounts -- certainly nothing like $2,500.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
Don't know about online cigarette buying? You can buy cartons of cigarettes from places like http://yesmoke.ch for as little as $15. They include most brands, including Lucky Strike and other hard-to-find (in Cincinnati) gems. The $15 is cheap, but only if you don't mind waiting three weeks for your smokes.
www.kiwilyrics.com - a wiki for lyrics
This evokes and obvious idea for how an online store can obtain an advantage over their competitors: "We don't keep records of out-of-state purchases after either 60 days or receipt is confirmed, so there's nothing for your local vampires to subpoena."
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
Yea, I'm tempted to say Ha-Ha because taxing cigarette smokers seems quite legitimate for the healthcare costs they are almost guaranteed to incur on the rest of the country...
However, it's a slippery slope. If it's the doorway to taxing all online purchases that's a dangerous prescedent.
Forget that, how about a $5 per pack federal surcharge on cigarettes to offset the extra thousands of dollars we and our employers pay in health insurance every year to pay oncologists and cardiologists to treat these addicts?
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Even the posters don't read the stories these days. TFA expressly states that it's illegal to bring cigarettes into michigan except by licensed driver. Clearly this is not a precedent case for expecting that states will tax all online commerce... just the illegal tax-circumventing stuff!
Read jack phelps dot net
Your math is a bit off. the 6.80 per pack is not in taxes. They say they can collect for up to 4 years in back taxes, thus.. the person who has to pay 2500 in back taxes, providing they bought every single pack online, out of state, one a day, would require 3.42 years worth of back taxes. Besides, 6.80 a pack? Yeesh, even here in california we only pay about $4 a pack. (Or if your smart buy Tops rolling tobacco, 36 cigs for 2 bucks ;)
It seems as though the responsibly to pay sales tax should be on the seller, not the buyer - and if the state goes after anyone it should be the seller, even in the case of cigarette taxes.
I know damn well if I walk into a brick and mortar store they're not going to let me say "Just charge me for the item, I'll pay the sales tax to the state myself" - they won't go for it.
It's a long-established practice: government needs dough? Tax the smoker/drinker/sex worker/'sinner.' This works because society has conditioned 'the sinner' that he is dangerously self-indulgent, and so such singling out, although perhaps not "fair," is quite possibly "just." The "sinner," for his part, not wanting to draw too much attention to his addiction/habit/fun, usually goes along for the ride.
By testing the retro-online waters [first] with a sin tax, they get all the legal precedents set and groundwork covered with minimal radar blippage. "What, you mean smokers were avoiding paying taxes? Screw 'em!"
Come on, you know I'm right: How many people, even here on liberal/libertarian slashdot, will think when they hear about this, "Ha! Stupid smelly bastards!! Nailed 'em!!" -- before realizing books, music, and Boba Fett dolls could just as easily be next? Of course, by the time we're done schaudenfreud'n the smokers, they'll already be well on their way to ticketing us, um, "normal" folk.
As a EU citizen I'm allowed to buy anything from any EU country paying sales tax in the country from which I purchase the goods. It's a key part of the "free movement of goods and services" idea upon which the EU is founded.
To me, it seems as though trade between US states are more restricted than between EU countries. Is this correct?
maid/made, sorry.
this could be one very scary way for states to generate revenue
Sales tax scares you? A trip to the store must be a terrifying experience, then.
Quite true. I have to wonder though whether there would be more public pushback if it was given a more apt name like "buying tax". After all it isn't the sale that's being taxed (it isn't the seller's state that's important), it's the buyer.
IMHO, if they want to continue calling it a sales tax, they should tax the seller and the price listed is the final price to the consumer. This would mean no more silliness about trying to figure out the over-the-top tax rates when one buys goods, no stupid use tax traps, and make interstate commerce a LOT easier (calculating tax often requires knowing the actual municipality based on zip code -- quite a pain the tuckus).
If they are changing the law, how can they go back and hold persons responsible for taxes which were not owed at the time of the transaction? If I buy cigarettes out of state, why do I owe taxes on them when I bring them back across state lines, when they've already been paid for and already have been paid for in the jurisdiction where they were purchased?
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
in New York state, troopers pull people over as they leave the reservation
if you have a quantity greater than for 'personal use' i.e. 2 cartons, they levy a fine..
same thing crossing the border from canada into NY at niagara falls.. more than two cartons, per smoking age adult in the car and you pay more
when my sister and I (she lives in NYS) met up at the falls, we had lunch in canada, and she used me to bring a total of 4 cartons back into the US
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
There are excise and duties levied on items like cigarettes and liquor. I believe you'll see a little state seal on packs of cigarettes and what-not. Remember that taxes on cigarettes
So, I think we're mixing up two very different ideas and legal issues when we call it a sales tax.
Info from 2003 here
As you can see we're talking money well over and beyond the sales tax for these items.
--- I wish I could hear the soundtrack to my life. That way I'd know when to duck.
- both smell bad
- both create health risks for others
- both involve butts
On the flip side, tobacco has provided a bittersweet, if belated, revenge for Native Americans on those who "discovered" America ("you gave us smallpox, we gave you tobacco -- look who's dying now...")Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
It seems that States want it both ways - they like to get nicotine addiction classified as a handicap (MN) in order to pursue tobacco companies to get huge settlements, then they turn around and enact outrageous, disporportionate taxes on this same addiction. Is it morally right to collect $1.7 million based on people being addicted to a substance? Are Michigan smokers really just a big nicotine fueled cash cow? If the state is able to tax that much based on something a person is addicted to, what motivation does the state really have to help get that person off nicotine? It seems as though all of these lawsuits against the tobacco companies were just a way to give the state a cut from our addictions - more like the Gambinis muscling in on the Gottis than any sort of public representation.
Earlier this week there was a front page article in PA that 63 people in 20 counties were being charged for back taxes for buying from 2 specific internet wholesale sites that had been subpoenaed (Link)
Don't have the article with me, but both of the sites had already been shut down at the time of print.
and you can shop tax free at the AAFES BX/PX... I tend to purchase my more "high dollar" items there to avoid paying the taxes on them...
a preloaded Visa grift card
As an industry insider, I'll tell you that you now need a Social Security number to get a prepaid Visa as of the Patriot Act. We used to sell prepaid Mastercards from vending machines, but that's all gone tit's up as of Patriot act.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
And what if I buy something while on vacation in another state that has a different tax rate than my home state?
Absolutely nothing. You will have paid sales tax in the location of purchase. I've seen some Internet sites that allow this also, handy if the state they're located in has a lower tax rate. (Not sure what implications this has for purchases from Rhode Island...) On the other hand, with the large amounts of money flying around, I wouldn't be too surprised if someone decides this lack of extra taxation is an oversight. I know that when I was residing in Kentucky and working in California (co-op program. I was also attending school in Ohio, but that's another matter entirely), I had to pay extra income tax to the state of Kentucky because California taxed me at a lower percentage.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
For the past two years New York has had a spot where you can include total non-taxed purchases (internet, mail order) so they can collect sales tax on them. Alternatively, you can pay a sales tax fee based on your income. It has still worked out to be slightly better for me to pay the alternative fee than to pay the actual sales tax on things I've bought online, though I think the difference was only about $10 this year. In previous years I bought far more online. This year the economy has ment that we're buying less of everything regardless of the source... I suspect that most internet based merchants will start collecting sales tax in the next few years. I recently got a notice from CDW that all future purchases shipped to New york state will include sales tax.
I think this is a good thing.
States need revenue to function and provide services, and they have every right to tax themselves however they see fit to generate this revenue. Where a sales tax is inappropriate, many states have enacted a "Use Tax." This is essentially a tool that taxes the use of products purchased outside the sales tax system, rather than the sale itself.
When we consider the alternative, it only makes sense that states pursue new ways to collect the taxes they need. The folks that smoke internet cigarettes are likely to generate health care costs born by the state, how does the state pay for this? Likewise with ordinary sales tax used to fund your roads, police, school, fire department, court, legislature.....
Personally, I am very impressed that a state took the initiative to meet new methods of conducting business with a new method for collecting taxes. Would we rather our states cling to some old, outmoded taxation model and try to impose burdensome limits on our rights to protect it (like some **AA?)
Trying to use sarcasm in text-based forums does not work.
She was most likely buying for other people too.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
you didn't name your state- or I'd give a link
see if your state has a "Use" tax or not.
ever buy a car across state lines? was it tax free?
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
For the past two or three years, the state of Ohio has been including a line item on their tax returns to fill in how much money you'd spent online.
Until now, I never had to keep track of anything I purchased via phone or mail order. Now the State wants to track my online purchases? What if I'm purchasing things I don't necessarily want the State to know about, like a RealDoll(TM) or my 1000 rights-for-gay-marriage buttons?
Some may argue the State only wants to collect taxes. This is certainly true, but in this age of information-collecting, we have to fight tooth and nail to avoid giving corporations the leverage they need to force decisions on us we wouldn't normally have to make.
So what you are saying is "Tax is beginning", "We are on our way to taxation" and "someone set us up the taxes" ?
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
Also, I don't think you are supposed to be able to make online purchases with gift cards. Perhaps for this very reason. My American Express gift card puts some restrictions on how I can use it. No gas, no online purchases, no car rentals, etc. Not sure about Visa though.
-matthew
"THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
Actually, I have bought a car across state lines and it was tax free. My wife (at the time girlfriend) lived in NH, and was going to school in IN. She bought a car in IN and since she lived in NH, she didn't pay sales tax on it. Ever. The IN dealer didn't collect sales tax as she was from a different state and NH doesn't have sales tax. It rocked!
If I bought a car over the internet and had to pay Use Tax, couldn't I pay the tax on the value car in 10 years. I'm still using it.
Maybe Amazon should move there headequarters to a indian reservation. Some online cigarette shops are run by Indian tribes from reservations. Which really upsets the states. Try to serve a supena there. Do you know what soverign means? Go home white man...
Just because the states claim the right doesn't mean that they will be allowed the right. Look at gay marriage and slavery.
But beyond that, it seems that the easiest way to beat this wrap is to take a vacation elsewhere (especially a place that doesn't have high smoking tax or regulation such as D.C., Mexico, or Puerto Rico) and take legal evidence of smoking and consuming these products outside of Michigan. You may not be able to show that you consumed all of the cigarettes outside of the state, but it will add a significant burden to the prosecution's case to prove that you consumed the majority inside the state.
Even so, I think the prosecution is going to have a hard time proving that the cigarettes were consumed at all. Some people collect cigarette packaging (or wine bottles or coke cans) and don't give a flip what happened to the content. Did the defendant smoke the cigarettes or did he simply throw them away? Prove it! Where were these sticks consumed
I personally don't smoke anything legal or illegal. But I find government regulation of smoking to have gone to greedy excess. As soon as this revenue stream starts drying up, they'll all move on to other items to tax (or other internet revenue). This needs to be stopped right now.
As an industry insider, I'll tell you that you now need a Social Security number to get a prepaid Visa as of the Patriot Act.
Ah, but a valid SSN is required? And if only valid ones are accepted, what's to keep me from glancing at someone's checkbook or driver's license and lifting the SSN off of there and using it?
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
That is the Value Added Tax. See Canada or Europe for examples.
In practice it's a horribly complicated beast, fraught with just as much paper work and red tape as our current system.
The cesspool just got a check and balance.
For anyone who is concerned about paying taxes on all of their online purchases, pay close attention to your receipts. Some online sellers charge your state's sales tax upfront, depending on what state you are in and where they have brick-and-mortar warehouses and outlets.
For example, Apple charges sales tax for my state (Indiana) for all online purchases made through them. That even includes music purchases from the iTunes music store.
I wish that my inferiority complex were as good as yours.
-RenderHead
The credit card companies might have made some policy on their own, but we can't blame everything on the Patriot Act.
Heh! I'm assuming you meant that as a joke.
I follow up only because I know there are people out there who will actually believe this as a serious point.
I really can't wait till they levy (higher) taxes on all alcohol products (especially wine) because those products also raise the cost of health care for everyone.
One glass of red wine per evening has been demonstrated in numerous scientific studies to lower the risk of heart disease and stroke. Your "sin" tax (the kind of thing a Mormon would propose) would penalize people who are living healthier than teetotelers and reducing the cost to the health care system.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
good, i HATE cigarettes, they are filthy stinking nasty evil cylinders of death burning on one end and a idiot on the other...
There is a use tax theshold in many states that have the tax. In Minnesota, it's $770 (which hasn't adjusted for inflation over at least 5 years, probably more). I know my state's been cracking down, so I've paid it twice in the last three years. As far as I can tell, it's per household, too, which screws families. Keeping track of my wife's purchases is next to impossible, since sometimes the only record she has is on her computer at work, especially for those little gifts she buys for friends.
:)
What's really lame is the mail in stub I got said due by Feb 9, but the tax document says April 15 (which is when they're getting it, since I missed Feb 9, anyway). If they bitch about it, I'll site the conflicting information and tell them they need to get their act together. Hee hee - I love sticking it to the man
The idea is that if you buy something in one location to be delivered to your home, the seller would have to collect sales tax for your location.
For my state, Kansas, it would work like this - I buy a chair in Wichita to be delivered to my house (3 counties away). The furniture store would have to collect my county's sales tax, not the Wichita tax.
It's a controversial setup, with many problems that don't have solutions yet, but it is probably the direction that sales tax collection is going.
The Tao that can be spoken is not the one eternal Tao
The cigarette use tax is not a sales tax. The federal government has exempted internet transactions from state sales taxes only. Not paying sales taxes for internet transactions is perfectly legal, you needn't worry about your state trying to collect back taxes for unpaid internet sales taxes.
Smokers usually pay a set amount for each pack or carton of cigarets' purchased, while a sales tax is always proportional to the sale price of the item. Gasoline is also taxed by the gallon rather than by the dollar (also not a sales tax). So if you go to another state, or an indian reservation to guy cigarets or gasoline, you should be aware that you are still responsible for paying those respective taxes. I'm not sure about sales taxes and inter-state purchasing. But you defiantly aren't responsible for paying sales taxes online.
[...]so the powers that be are freaking out with reactive litigation instead of responding with new law that incorporates new technology.
Um, I'm not sure you really want them to do that.
Ever heard of the DMCA?
They did "incorporate new technology", alright, but not the way most Slashdotters would have liked...
"Oh, a lesson in not changing history from Mr I'm-my-own-Grandpa." - Dr Hubert Farnsworth
This shows how a "universal" healthcare system, into which everyone contributes at the same rate, places a disproportionate burden upon people who live a healthier lifestyle.
Since smokers are far more likely to develop health problems and would draw more from the system, why should healthy people be punished for living more responsibly?
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
If the TAX was only $2500 imagine how much that idiot payed for the actual CIGARETTES??
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
The cigarette tax pursuit is aided by a 1947 FEDERAL law specifically geared towards tobacco that authorizes states to use these measures to subpoena records from other states. I don't think officials trying to collect state sales taxes on other products would have that authority.
1) The taxes here are not sales taxes, they are CIGARETTE taxes, which are excise taxes. Excise taxes are not exempted by interstate commerce
2) Sales taxes are only exempt if the vendor of the purcased item does NOT have a business entity in the state where the purchaser lives.
3) Sales taxes can be levied by your home state, regardless of whether the transaction is interstate, if the state of purchase does not levy its own sales tax. (Example is PA-DE - no sales tax in DE, so PA can tax things you drive to DE to buy to avoid sales tax)
Posting online ISN'T and english test.
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
Ok.. So this really isn't about cigarettes.. and it isn't about how the consumers got cigarettes. Read inbetween the lines here.. All States are suffering because the feds have cut their funds. They are trying ANY way to make more money. This is just a test case for this State. Like it or not, if this goes smoothly without opposition, the WILL start taxing every internet purchase. Don't think this taxing everything under the sun is getting out of control? Take California as a good example. For years they have been pushing their citizens to drive less, drive fuel efficent cars, and or use fuel alternatives. This actually SAVED them money becuase their is less pollutin = less sickness. Now they want to tax cars by the mile using GPS because "hey, we are loosing SALES TAX on gas! Forget the fact that these smaller cars probably rip up the road much less than a large gas guggling truck. Forget the idea that it was their idea that consumers should drive smaller and more efficient cars. And dear god, forget that this will also save in health bills throughout the state. Then again.. I ramble... :)
So basically, then, MI (and other states) aren't going to be able to do what they're doing for long. I imagine those people will just start buying tobacco from companies on Native American reservations.
-- Fugacity: Confusing chemists since 1908
Smoking saves money. Maybe we should put a surcharge on non-smokers' insurance premimums to cover the extra expense incurred taking care of your Alzheimer's and your prostate cancer because you are going to be around 5 years longer, minimum.
That seems fair to me. We should be discounting smokes and encouraging smoking to cut down on health care costs.
What, you bought the big lie about 'smoking related medical expenses' that was the justification for the big tobacco settlement? The lawyers nationwide are having a laugh at your expense.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
I think it IS just a matter of time before online retailers are required to tax based on state legislation.
Mercy was given to me by Christ...I must give the same to others.
Wow, what an intelegent response. You have convinced me, I change my mind.
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
I agree. This has nothing to do with "typical" Internet sales so much as it is a crackdown on bootlegging.
Tobacco and alcohol are regulated with peculiar laws pretty much anywhere in the Western world. So are medical drugs, too, although regulation in those cases is even stricter.
Most European countries even claim an official monopoly over these goods, meaning that they decide who sells them, and taxes them indipendently of official VAT and/or "typical" customs duties. Many countries put official stamps on packs of cigarettes or alcohol containers to ensure that they've been through the official duties agency.
This happens in the US, too, although they may not have gone so far as to call it a monopoly. There's even a federal agency whose mission is to ensure that controlled substances and goods are properly taxed and sold according to law, and to assist individual states in doing so.
The obesity tax cannot be levied on food because it unfairly discriminates against those who are not obese. I am a picture of health and I'll be damned if I am going to pay a tax on a food just because other people are fat.
Similarly, since obesity is a federally protected disability, the obesity tax could not be levied solely against fat people because it would violate discrimination laws.
Excise taxes can only be levied against the users of the product which is taxed. This is just a peculiar instance where there is no way to legally apply the tax since the users of the product are a protected class.
Such a genious!
She saved tax by buying online! Now they are billing her tax, and it is almost the EXACT SAME amount.
She estimated that she saved a few thousand dollars buying cartons of cigarettes over the Internet.
"I probably saved right around what they're billing me," she said.
Whats wrong with me dig? It not meant to be a complete sentance (there wasn't enough room).
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
I could be wrong here.. but I thought that sales taxes were levied on the individual sale of items onto the business itself and that it was the sole responsibility of the business to collect these taxes and that the business was responsible for paying them. Otherwise the business could easily say that the customer never paid the sales tax and therefore the business couldn't pay it to the state.
So if the state all of sudden wants to charge sales tax on previous sales, it needs to be going after the business in question and not the customer.
Not that I condone this, but I'm just stating that it is the business's responsibility.
The Nomad
"Men of lofty genius when they are doing the least work are most active."-da Vinci
Michigan's version of the Use Tax actually requires you to pay the 6% on any item which wasn't sales taxed at an equal (or higher) rate. So, if you bought something in another state and paid only 4% sales tax, you are supposed to pay an additional 6% to Michigan. (for a total of 10%!!!)
Grrrrrrr......
McFly777
- - -
"What do people mean when they say the computer went down on them?" -Marilyn Pittman
If they can use databases to track all these cigarette tax absconders, why don't they use those fscking databases to track down all the corporations who are dodging taxes? Oh, yeah, that's right. Because they've contributed way more money to the campaigns of these weasly congresscritters.
Awwww, got your hand caught in the cookie jar didja?
If you purchase goods in the state in which you reside, you're required by law to pay state sales tax on them if the retailer does not have a presence in your state. If the retailer has a presence, then the retailer must pay state sales tax. This is why, for example, Apple must charge you tax but Amazon doesn't have to. That's both state and federal law (and the feds partially define it, through the commerce clause).
This is not a big brother issue. You broke the law and contributed to the deficit. It's perfectly reasonable, in fact desirable, for them to go after Amazon.com. And for you to pay up, slacker.
If I had to guess, I would have to say that 'thbigr' doesn't speak a word of English and is actually just using AltaVista's Babelfish. I think he(assuming) put the article summary into Babelfish, converted it to French, read it, replied in French, converted it to English, and then posted whatever came out of Babelfish.
Occam's Razor, anyone?
I went to yesmoke.com, which used to be the premier Switzerland-based smoke shop a few years back. Oh noes! A Philip-Morris splash screen! But I need my $12/carton Marlboro!
;)
But there was an interesting read in the redirect's FAQs, such as:
Q: Do I have to pay tax on cigarettes purchased over the Internet?
Absolutely. Every state and some localities impose an excise tax on the purchase of cigarettes, and some states and localities also impose an additional sales tax. Purchasers are required to pay that excise tax even if they buy cigarettes outside a state and bring or ship them into that state. This also applies to Internet sites operated by Native Americans selling to non-Tribal members. The state taxes are owed by the purchaser, regardless of any statements to the contrary on the Internet site. In addition, Federal law requires Internet vendors who sell or ship any quantity of cigarettes into a state to report the sale of cigarettes and certain information concerning the sale, including the name and contact information of the purchasers, to state tax authorities. State tax authorities can then use this information to collect taxes from in-state consumers. In recent months, a number of states have sent tax notices to residents demanding payment of unpaid taxes and imposing substantial penalties on consumers for the non-payment or untimely payment of taxes on cigarettes purchased over the Internet.
So yeah. R.I.P. yesmoke.com
Another thing I noticed about TFA is the statement that "smokers who have bought cigarettes online are starting to get notices from the state to pay up the $2-per-pack cigarette tax they avoided."WTF? Taxes makeup 2/3-3/4 of the total cost to purchase? No wonder Michigan is pissed.
Jennifer Granholm has single handedly run this State's economy into the shithole with her stupid "state funded programs" and has done nothing but raise taxes and fees on everything from State Park permits (A HUGE part of our economy is our nature tourism, camping, hunting, fishing, snowmobiling, and the like) to the latest exploit which is trying to levy taxes on Internet purchases.
7.5% unemployment; takes 6 months or longer to find a decent paying job, and I can't even get a break on buying a cheap pack of smokes and a 6 pack of beer to numb the pain.
All these taxes are put into place to cover her as on the HUGE deficit that she has rung up with her "programs".
**Exit Soap Box**
Um, Amazon better already be paying my state the sales tax I pay when checking out.
Later,
-Slashdot Junky
.
Landfill Mining Co.
Managing the (Un)natural Resources of Tomorrow
Man you people are just cruel. Nope I am just another but hole sitting in the midwest.
Although I wonder if the method would improve my english.
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
It's unfortunate that obesity is protected as a disability because most likely it is a self-inflicted condition (as lung cancer usually is).
Let's go back to my second suggestion... $7.00 gallons of gas. Spread the tax around.
Word Axis
from the Democrat run Michitucky.
Remember, there is a difference between Democrats and Republicans. Democrats are tax and spend, while Republicans are Borrow and Spend. So, yes, they probably go after Amazon and all other online shopping sites.
Congress alone has the Constitutional right to tax interstate commerce, but it also has the right to give allow states to tax interstate purchaces. The answer is this: what laws have been passed which allow states to do this? It could be a law from 1839 for all I know.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
For all those slashdotters over time who have read articles about the Patriot Act, or online surveillance, or dark people being tortured in Gitmo, or cameras on every fire hydrant and trackers in every car and phone, and said: Who Cares? this one's for you, something you actually can care about:
Your money. They're coming for your money.
Saying "should" is a large qualification. A guy who buys his cigs over a state line to get them cheaper is of NO concern to me. Sure, he's avoiding taxes. But I don't care. Good for him. We have much bigger fish to fry with stopping America slipping even deeper into outright Fascism ... which chasing a private "cigarette tax cheat" will only hasten.
Get some perspective, Roscoe. Increasing enforcement from (say) 50% to 80% will require the imposition of actual martial law. And then you'll find enforcement will slip back to 50% as the black market will the TRUE reality behind your absurdly authoritarian enforcement mechanisms. Pervasive law enforcement is simply slavery. Pervasive law enforcement is a perversion of the Human condition. We should stop caring so much about law enforcement and start living instead.
[You have a stable society when some nut guns down a schoolyard and the law doesn't change.]
Needless to say governments are hooked on taxes. If people stop smoking, cigarette tax revenues would dry up and they would start taxing you for something else. In a recent Slashdot story http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/15/20 1217&tid=158&tid=219 California wants a new "by the mile" tax on cars because more fuel efficient cars pay less gas tax.
Economics states that people will move to a cheaper (less taxed) alternative when the current one becomes to expensive (usually through taxation). Eventually those alternatives have to be taxed as well.
We could just give them 50% of everything we make, but next year they would want 52%......
geez I almost fell out of my chair laughing. Whatever mod said overrated needs to die and some other mods need to + this to funny!
Reading through the posts here, seems that there needs a clarification as to what $2,500 in taxes is being collected.
If you walk into a retail store in Pennsylvania, there is a 6% sales tax on the $3.50 cigarettes.
The $3.50 cigarettes does not include sales tax. It *does* include cigarette taxes, which the retailer paid in advance when the cigarettes were brought into their distribution chain from the cigarette manufacturer. The proof of the cigarette tax is in the form of a official stamp on the carton.
If you live in Pennsylvania, and order cigarettes online you have avoided the cigarette tax and the sales tax. In this Michigan case it looks as if they are only going after the cigarette taxes, which are much larger than the lost sales tax revenue. You would claim the sales tax on the "use" tax on your tax forms every April.
The online ordering of these cigarettes is circomventing the cigarette tax and the sales tax, of which the state can only back tax you the cigarette taxes (for the moment- let's hope that does not change). The cartons of cigarettes you get online will not have any stamps showing that the retailer has paid the appropriate cigarette tax to the state.
I left Michigan right after they started this tax. They now have a fine if they find a resident with a pack of cigarettes with no tax stamp on them(not sure but think in the 500 dollar range), and the government there is thinking about taxing internet services. ( I could see my online game play being taxed real soon.) So I left the state.
I have no problem with the tax on cigs, and no problem with the fact that states are now looking to actually collect on cigs purchased online.
However, sending a bill for 2,500 to a man out of the blue is wrong. While a lot of us "know" that states are supposed to collect taxes on cigs bought online, we've very rarely seen it in effect.
What Michigan did was wrong and too fast. They should make the public aware that at a certain point in the future, these things will actually be taken seriously. An ad campaign simply saying *As of m/d/y, we will track all cig purchases online and make you pay taxes on them* would be much better than the possiblity of massive hear attack deaths because people are getting 2500 dollar bills in the mail.
If O2 is good, O3 must be 1.5 times better!
It's all fun and games until you find out you're going to be a "bottom." :)
Vermont used to have a cigarette tax dramatically lower than the New York levy.
It used to be fairly common for NYS Tax Agents to sit in the parking lots of the gas stations or tobacco shops around the Vermont border or in Bennington and record the license plates of New Yorkers who stopped in to buy a few cartons. The New Yorker would get bill from the tax department to the address on his vehicle registration.
Conformity is the jailer of freedom and enemy of growth. -JFK
I'm wondering if this had added fines, compounded interest, or something else funky. As per the headline "One pack-a-day smoker received a bill for $2,500 in back taxes."
If you look at the cost, assuming a 5% tax:
$2500 / 0.05 = $50000
So effectively, this person bought $50,000 in cigs? That's more than a lot of people make in a year. Yes, I have friend that smoke a lot, but I have a hard time imaging any regular person being able to afford smoking that much in a year's period, or possibly even 2-3 years. So how long do these "back-taxes" actually go?
It just shows the abuse that states have granted certain companies over their people. The same trick is used to govern the sale of alcohol. Worse that same abuse was used to confiscate alcohol stored in public resturaunt wine cellars here in Georgia. Yes, the state authority declared that such storage of wine that people purchased elsewhere and brought to Georgia was subject to tax and since it wasn't paid they confiscated. This does nothing to protect consumers, it is done to protect big money who has an interest in controlling the markets with artificially high pricing. They pad their pockets and the politicians who back them.
If people only understood the extent of how much certain items are overpriced because of these laws they would be marching in the streets. Yet people also do not bat an eye at land seizures for private interest I guess I should not be surprised at abuses like this getting a pass.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
how did this get modded redundant? MOD UP!
Say I live in Mass or New Hampshire. I go on a business trip to New York. I forgot to bring cigarettes. So I buy a carton in New York despite the high prices. I smoke a pack there, but the rest comes back with me to New England. So I just overpayed my usage tax since I live in a cheaper state. Can I claim a negative amount?
The tax situation is a mess and now states are going to impose tarrifs on each other.
What's next? State currency to ensure that the money stays in the state?
Who will play at currency trading then? Will it be fixed or floating exchange rate? (What would a Montana 'Buck' be worth?)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Those laws where created by popular elected officials. Got a problem with the law, change the law. It is nothing but hypocrasy (sp?) to say yes it is illegal, but I don't care anyway.
In other words, we all aggreed to pay taxes, so why not simply pay them? We complain when others want to enforce the law?
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
I'm a smoker and I have to say that if I received a letter like this in the mail, I would seriously consider quitting. Make so the state can't get any money from whatsoever.
Personally if the price of cigs gets any higher down here in Florida, I will quit.
To be honest, I'm going to see my PCP later next week to get Welbutrin (sp?). I hear that it not only helps you kick the habit, but it also will help me deal with the suicidal depression I went into when I tried to quit before.
And who saids these things aren't addictive.
I think this is a good thing. States need revenue to function and provide services, and they have every right to tax themselves however they see fit to generate this revenue. Where a sex tax is inappropriate, many states have enacted a "masturbation Tax." This is essentially a tool that taxes self pleasure outside the marital system, rather than the mutual enjoyment itself. When we consider the alternative, it only makes sense that states pursue new ways to collect the taxes they need. The folks that masturbate are likely to generate health care costs born by the state, how does the state pay for this? Likewise with sex used to fund your roads, police, school, fire department, court, legislature..... Personally, I am very impressed that a state took the initiative to meet new methods of conducting business with a new method for collecting taxes. Would we rather our states cling to some old, outmoded taxation model and try to impose burdensome limits on our rights to protect it (like some **AA?)
I forget what 8 was for.
Cigarette stores on Indian reservations are licensed, and pay the appropriate taxes for their locality (zero)
Eye hope yoo is be trolling.
I forget what 8 was for.
"Isn't there like a statue of limitations on that?" "Statute." "What?" "Statute of limitations. It's not a statue." "No, it's statue." "Fine, it's a sculpture of limitations."
Anyhow, I'm just pointing out that there's ways around these things. People not paying their use tax is technically illegal too, but here we are discussing alternatives to paying it.
This sig has absolutely no significance and serves only to take up screen space and waste the time of the reader.
I don't know about others, but the state I live in (Indiana) already asks us to estimate how much we purchased out of state and report it on our state taxes. So, unless they are aiming for double-taxation, I can't see how they could do this.
In Georgia, and other states, you cannot, as an individual, order wine mail order or on the Internet. There is some crazy law that prohibits this. I know this is a bit off-topic, but it's another example of a state limiting interstate commerce.
Techincally, everything you buy ( as a consumer anyway ) has a local sales tax.
If you buy online and dont pay, its tax fraud.
Now that the states are in the red, dont be suprised if they start hitting up places like amazon and borders for records so they can send you a bill.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
But social-security numbers aren't national ID numbers, nope, they're nothing like that...
As soon as they will tax internet purchases, most of the internet stores will close out. They are going to be more expensive then local stores. The shipping charges will just kill them off.
Right now you simply compare what will cost more shipping or taxes.
Taxing internet purchases will be very shortsighted decision as most of the states will loose a big revenue stream.
Prosecution? Nobody's been charged with a crime; they've just been told to pay the taxes that are owed. The woman quoted in the article figured that she'll still break even after paying them.
But that aside, you must live in a fantasy world if you think that the courts are going to put up with crap like your suggested "defenses"...
How about a nice cup of shut the fuck up ;)
:)
It is presumptive to think you are paying any part of a smoker's health bill. If fact, smokers already pay higher insurance premiums (I assume to cover their health costs.).
And exactly how does a government surcharge help offset the cost to a private insurer? Unless *gasp* you're advocating fascism.
Arrogance and stupidity are unforgivable. Pick one or the other, but you can't have both
While I don't smoke and hate being around those who do, what can be done to smokers can be done to the rest of us on everything else too. I'd be more willing to patronise retailers who promise that the records of the sale are destroyed as soon as the order is received. This isn't the first time that an on-line retailer has been forced into revealing records that have then been used even by private companies to extort legal purchasers.
Now how long before some 89-year-old grandmother who never smoked in her life is sued because her grandkids used her name to buy a pack?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
is/was your own tobacco much nicer than the big company stuff? I'm not a smoker
GrimRC
If you buy a dictionary from Amazon, I'll gladly pay the sales tax for you.
Ceci n'est pas un sig.
Why does the USA have so many confusing state taxes? In Australia we have a 10% GST on everything countrywide, and that's it. Much easier to understand.
The Jenkins Act requires that cigarette distributers that sell across state lines provide a copy of the invoice to the state on a monthly basis. Also the law states that if that invoice is provided its presumptive evidence that the cigarettes were sold, so the state has all the proof they need.
*sigh* no I am not. I typeth to fast and thinketh noteth.
Oh welleth.
Luckely, I am willing to be forgiven.
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
A more interesting question/answer would be:
Q: Do you keep records on my sales that you will turn over to my home state under any circumstances?
I'd like to see the answer to that one.
Or how about...
Q: How may I order anonymously from your site since my employer will fire me if they find out that I use tobacco?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
They didn't actually explain what the Jenkins Act did, though.
In this case the earlier back story should be there too: in August of 2002 the General Accounting Office reports on non-compliance with the Jenkins Act by internet vendors.
My question is: why is the state of Michigan going after buyers (not vendors) in restrospect rather than trying to enforce the law better? I don't find that out in the FreeP article.
This does seem like just a bush way to get revenue. Sure, they don't have jurisdiction over the vendors in other states -- but this is almost like a cop who pulled my brother over once: there was a garage sale sign obscuring a stop sign, and he was ticketing people for running the intersection. Take down the garage sale sign, bub.
"Fundamentalism" isn't about divine morality. It's about human authority.
That is incorrect. I bought 10 prepaid http://www.simongiftcard.com/ and paid cash for them. The kid behind the counter only asked for my zipcode.
Anyone else getting a card? I suggest going in person and picking one up.
LOL :-)
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
"People are cheating the system. They are hurting Michigan small businesses, and they're very open about it," Sarafa said. "People tell store owners they're buying a pack of cigarettes only because they're waiting for their next shipment to come in."
Actually, it is the tax itself that is hurting businesses -- they don't see that revenue, and demand drops.
One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
I work in DC and live in NC. God forbid they tax me at the DC rate (where I pick up packages to take home). Seems like they would have something else to do, or if not some government jobs to cut...
but sometimes I have to because I live in NJ where newegg charges tax....
In fact I want states to go after vehicle purchasers who buy their vehicles in other states to avoid higher taxes. That way the different states could tax the vehicle more than once.
In fact I want roadblocks established at every state border to stop and search vehicles for any contraband that could conceivably be sold in that state.
Surely it's only dangerous to consumers who have been avoiding paying tax. Isn't that the choice you make when you decide not to pay your taxes in the first place?
Mind you, it was irritating when DHL contacted me last year with a final demand for taxes they had payed on my behalf on a couple of ThinkGeek orders and invoiced to an old address they found in god knows what dusty old fileing cabinet, so I never knew I owed them and had assumed the order fell under some obscure ``zero rate tax on stupid toys'' clause.
_O_
.|< The named which can be named is not the true named
Cigarette Taxes, on the other hand, have always been very strictly enforced. IANAL but IIRC, purchasing cigarettes in a state with a lower cigarette tax and taking them to a state with a higher cigarette tax, especially with the intent to sell, can be considered cigarette smuggling (that isn't precisely what the actual crime they'll charge you with, but that's what I've heard it described as).
Should several states decide to hit up Amazon and various other companies for consumer records so they can hit those purchasers for sales tax revanue, this could cause such a hullabalou (sp?) that it could make it up to the national legislature, or even the Supreme Court, and receive (negative) national news media attention. That is more then I doubt state legislatiors would want.
Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
If I travel to a neighboring state and buy a TV and take it back home, I can usually get a refund on the sales tax. It's a lot of paperwork but it's doable.
The funny thing is it may not be worth it:
Some states that charge "use tax" will credit you for sales tax paid to another state. If the tax rates in my home state and the other state are identical, it's a wash.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Crap! Well at least i'm warned now.
Regardless of how the states try to phrase it, it most certainly still *is* a sales tax. It is the state's way of collecting taxes that they did not get because you went outside of the borders. (Oh, you evil person!) You do not pay "use taxes" on items that you did *not* purchase outside of the state's borders because use taxes are based on the price that you paid to acquire the item; therefore, it is a sales tax. But because states cannot force other states' business entities to collect taxes, they have used this "use tax" as an excuse.
It is, in effect, nothing more than punishing citizens of a state for daring to purchase items in places other than that particular state. This is offensive is way that cannot possibly be described in mere words.
Taxes on interstate commerce are forbidden as per U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10, which states...
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
A "use tax" is nothing more than a euphemism importation duty. I don't know of any law that has ever gone through the U.S. Congress that allows duties of one state to another, thereby making "use taxes" in violation of the above clause at the current time.
Granted, I'm not a lawyer, but this is one of those things that I've done a lot of research on. I want desperately to shove this in the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue's every time they ask about this during income tax time.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
"Granholm sucks!". Worst governer ever!
She gained a lot of publicity just recently by saying that the state will no longer provide free coffee for prisoners, which I highly support, but it's really just the latest in a long string decisions she's made that allow her to scrape a little bit more money away from the average working class person.
In case you weren't aware, this is the same lovely person who's been sending letters to online retailers around the country, trying to persuade them (it's not quite threatening them, but it's pretty darn close from what I've seen) into tracking all customers from Michigan, and then forcing those customers to pay taxes on out-of-state purchases.
My opinion is obviously that she's a real bitch to deal with, and that she treats the average citizen like crap, all the while avoiding any changes to the upper class, higher income bracket. As much as I like the aforemention coffee idea, it doesn't make up for the fact that she's screwing over her constituents in the name of a quick buck. It's doubly annoying when you contrast it with Michgan having one of the highest unemployment rates in the country currently, much less one of the higher crime rates (Look no further than Flint or Detroit for evidence of this...).
When Granholm starts looking into providing some services for her constituents, then I'll accept some of the increases, and penaltys that she's proposing.
I ran into another bill passed recently under her admnistration... My car got hit by another driver a couple of weeks ago... When we contacted the insurance companies, they said that under new Michigan laws, you are only able to get up to $500 from the guilty partys insurance company... So even though this guy was at fault, and he was very open about this fact, his insurance companies only obligated for up to half a grand, no matter the extent of the damage, and/or guilt of the insured. The excuse was given that this was a way lawmakers thought they could avoid frivilous lawsuits from happening, but instead it's prevent legitimate lawsuits, which would be up-holdable in other states, from ever happening here.
And do you know why this was done? Because too many people only have the bare minimum insurance coverage for their vehicles in this state, so owners of nice cars, who had full coverage but were driving poorly and hit a beater car, were upset about having to pay money out to repair what they considered to be a throw-away car... Any guess why so many of Michigans drivers only have the bare minimum of coverage? Look no further than our unemployment rate, and our average incomes... Again, one more example of Michigans laws protecting those with money, while screwing the working class over.
I know I sound bitter in this posting, but I seriously think that the state's in much worse shape now then when Engler was running the state (which is really saying something, asn he wasn't too impressive either!). The reason why all these laws are going into place is because the state has elected a former prosecutor for governor. Hire a money grubbing, self-centered lawyer for your governor and see what happens in your state!
I personally can't wait for the state elections to come up so that we can get back on track here... The goals of our governor is SO far off the goals of the people living in this state, who she's supposed to be working for!
Sorry for any mispellings... I just got up on my day off, but when I checked the headlines and saw this, I just had to reply. 8)=
I think that's it exactly. The State of Michigan is basically saying, "All your tax base are belong to us." April 15th is rapidly approaching! Smokers of Michigan: You have no chance to survive. Make your time!
I'd hope that Babelfish could at least spell correctly...
Doesn't make it legal. Legslatures are good at passing laws that aren't legal. Remember: since we have a heiarchy of laws, to be legal a law must abide by higher laws. You can't (legally) pass a law making free speech illegal within your city, it's overriden by higher laws.
Now in this case, it's the highest law, the constution. Article 1, section 9 states "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." It's pretty explicitly clear here, not no sales tax, no tax period.
Now I'm not a constutional scholar, and more importantly I'm not a federal judge, so it's not my word that decides this. However, you can see how it's a federal case. If you interpret the constution the way I do, it bans these use taxes. The states can't tax each other's good period, and cloaking it in some kind of "use" tax doesn't change that.
We'll have to see if the circut court and maybe supreme court agree with me, their opinions are the ones that matter, but they have a case at least.
Truthful and to the point.
I have heard of people being stopped/detained here in Michigan for violations, but that is too much work and is messy; the State Government is made up of lawyers and businessmen after all. It doesn't surprise me they went after low-hanging fruit...
And it wouldn't surprise me if this text was buried in a log for future governmental perusal...
Then in that case, buy a giftcard at some store that A) sells cigarettes online, B) accepts that giftcard as payment online and C) doesn't give a shit about your SSN.
Only on
The taxes you pay on items you buy on eBay or other online stores vary depending on both the seller's AND buyer's juristictions in addition to what is being sold. Often used goods are tax-exempt. It is common that if you are not in the same state/province/country you are not charged taxes. If you bought an item on eBay from a California-based seller and you live in California, the seller probably has to collect taxes, but if you live in Washington then the seller probably doesn't.
Apparently many states have these "use taxes", where the buyer is responsible for paying the tax. I guess this is because an out-of-state seller can't be compelled to collect taxes for a government outside its juristiction. I suppose if a state trooper can't cross state lines in pursuit of a speeder then a bureaucrat can't reach into your pockets across state lines either.
What I don't understand about this cigarette use tax thing is why the gov't let it go to to the point where they had to snoop into people's purchasing history and send assessment notices for hundreds to thousands of dollars in back taxes. When I buy items on the 'net/by mail order and taxes and/or duty are due then they are held at the post office until I sign a gov't form and pay what is due. If UPS/FedEx/Purolator are delivering right to me the same thing applies--I gotta pay to get my stuff. What happened in Michigan? Was the seller delivering themselves, or were the packages labelled deceptively? In either case I'd go after the seller for fraud, before (or in addition to) chasing down the customers. Perhaps I'm missing something--has the online retailer (esmokes?) been reprimanded in some way?
Anyways, it seems the schemes behind sales/use/value-added taxes are getting antiquated. It's bad enough for some border towns to contend with, and with 'net sales everyone has to deal with tax confusion now. Perhaps it's time for gov'ts to come up with newer/fairer/more creative ways to collect revenue. Better yet, they should start looking for ways to spend more efficiently.
>I imagine those people will just start buying
>tobacco from companies on Native American
>reservations.
Many people already are. I live not far from several Haudenasaune (Iroquois) reservations, which do a brisk business (both brick & mortar and online) selling cartons of cigarettes. As a matter of fact, officials in New York are desperately trying to find ways to tax this resource; it has thus far proved elusive (due to the autonomous nature of the native nations), but a deal might be in the works to allow on-reservation tax collection by the state in exchange for rights to build more casinos on non-reservation land.
I am not a number - I am a free man!
This is why people should be buying from foreign sellers. Yessmoke.ch is located in Switzerland, we all know about how Swiss privacy rules are fantastic.
LK
"Hi. This is my friend, Jack Shit, and you don't know him." - Lord Kano
On number two, here is what I meant.
1) A business sets up in a small town.
2) The business does very well.
3) None of the customers come from the locale, resulting in no sales tax to the city.
Ignore income tax, property tax, and business tax. We're focusing on sales tax.
Here is what happens. The business may be using some services provided by the city that is specifically paid for by city sales tax. But since none of the customers are citizens of the city, none of the sales tax done by the business goes to the city. Inbalance.
In my honest opinion, it would be better to do things in reverse. I.e., sales tax would be done by the location of the business.
Also, here's something to think about.
Example 1...
Customer A lives in City A.
Customer A orders online a product from City B.
Customer A pays the sales tax of City A.
Example 2...
Customer B lives in City B.
Customer B drives to City A, and buys a product.
Customer B pays the sales tax of City A.
Result...
Whether you drive or order online, a customer will be getting the product. But it's backwards in my opinion because depending on how you got the product, depends where the taxes will end up going.
Stop giving them ideas!!!!!
The cig tax is a consumer use tax. This means it matters where the consumer is rather than where the item is sold. It doesn't matter if the cigs are bought from a Native American reservation or from Russia, the purchaser has to pay the tax for whatever state they are in.
I spoke with the Revenue dept. of the state I live in and they said that many states have been billing people for cig taxes for a few years now now. They don't bill everyone, but some states make more of an effort than others. This is very old, very un-newsworthy news.
There'd have to be a way to offset it. Here's a very simple idea, which could even be done at the state level.
1) Set sales tax as needed.
2) Times sales tax by 10/7ths, which is only a number I chose to use for calculations.
3) The excess money you're collecting, that 42%, will be used for universal rebates.
Universal rebates, giving each legal resident citizen a check for a given amount. Everyone gets the same amount regardless of income. Maybe an age limit of two to prevent people from having babies to get more money. As for minors, the checks would be written to the parents.
Over-rated eh? guess you pushed someone's jingoistic button.
(yes, it's obscure)
Uhm this isn't a big deal. If you buy a good and use it primarily in state A, you must pay state A a Use Tax if you didn't pay a Sales Tax through the merchant. This is not a bad thing. Pay your taxes. If you aren't paying your taxes, then I fully support the state goverments bringing you to court for it.
Of course, much of this has been said in the conversations above and thus I mod myself -1 Redundant, and since many people will be offended by my "Conservative Views" (i.e., obey the law, don't try to get around it), I will be modded by others -1, Troll.
--me
You can buy visa prepaid cards in lots of other countries :)
That doesn't change the fact that it seems to function as a tax on interstate commerce and, if the courts decide it is, it'll go away.
/. seem to be forgetting is that it's not about what it's called, it's what it does that determines what it is legally. You can't just think up a new name for something to get around the law.
The thing many "use tax" advocates on
Consider the fourth ammendment: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Now let's say a new law is passed that allows the police to conduct "surveliance" of people's houses. Law allows looking in, and even entering houses to "Survey the house for any illegal or unsafe activites in the intrest of public safety." They then claim no warrant is needed because it's not a search, as covered by the 5th ammendment, it's a "surveliance". They aren't searching for anything, just "surveying" the house for problems.
Ya, ok, that would last about 10 seconds before getting struck down. It's clear that what they are doing is illegal searches, couching it in another terms doesn't change what they are.
So, to me, it seems the same thing is being done here. States are pissed about people buying form other states and want to charge a sales tax. They can't, so they charge a "use tax". However the tax functions just like a sales tax, and is charged in place of it. I believe it's just an illegal sales tax, and they are trying to hide that. I believe that when it is challenged in court, the district court will agree, and it'll be struck down.
As I said, I'm not the one who decides such things, but this isn't comming out of left field here.
NDC (HUGE wine distributer) is headquartered in Atlanta
the history of the world
Massachusetts. They will also unregister you to vote, cancel your license, and your insurance, and you won't know until you're pulled over.
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
The fact that states don't collect sales taxes on interstate sales is largely their own fault. Some have tried for years to work out an interstate pact that would allow states to collect sales tax from all sales, then distribute it to other states as appropriate. But states with low sales taxes have traditionally blocked these agreements because - and you guessed this already - they benefit the most from not having an agreement in place.
I know its been said here.. how the people who import cigarettes are breaking the 'law' of the state "its illegal to import.... yadda yadda" and how that state law violates the federal interstate commerce laws...
what about how states also restrict Alcohol. Some states forbit importing Alcohol from outside the state.. you have to be a licensed distributor.. That would violate Federal law too. I think their is a CA cort case going to federal or supreme court over this from a smal Wine vinard... i forget.
I think 'use tax' is stupid.. whats next. You visited Amazon.com.. that resides in state X.. so state X can now say 'you used OUR resources and were going to tax your use' Or better... what if I buy cigarettes in state A, I live in state B, but I smoked a pack in state C... do I owe all of them a 'use tax' as i 'used the product' in multiple places... this is all fluff.
While I hate smoking, I feel for the people who will get fined, arrested, and taxed over this stupid thing... this will happen more and more to other products.. Better not buy any food or items away on vacation! better not bring anything back to your home state!
There is no specific law requiring sales tax to be paid on items purchased over the Internet. The state of Michigan should not be allowed to get away with this.
It seems that from what I can make with your accident, I think the other guy's insurance company is trying to pull a fast one on you. I'd recommend getting the advice of a lawyer and see what he/she has to say before I'd accept the meager $500. The other guy's insurance company is NOT your friend, nor do they care for your best interests, and they'll tell you anything and everything to hold onto the money and make you go away, so I really wouldn't take them for their word. Definately get a lawyer. I wouldn't be too surprised if he tells you different.
This is an issue of Interstate Commerce, and only the federal government has power over that. Michigan may very well be overstepping their bounds to tax products sold in other states for personal use (as opposed to commercial or resale use).
However, it's been pointed out elsewhere that this is a consumption tax, not a sales tax, in which case people are paying a tax related to an activity. I would still posit that Michigan has no legal authority to tax behaviors, but I'll leave the decision to revolt against tyranny to the Michigonians, since I'm too busy fighting the man in my home State.
Because, unfortunately, you cannot demonstrate that you are a lower cancer risk. You may have good BP and lung x-rays... or otherwise no signs of poor health, but statistically speaking, you are demonstrably at higher risk for a number of smoking-related illnesses that may have nothing to do with other tangible health measures such as weight and BP.
I agree with you that obesity should not be granted protected status if it can be shown that it is not the result of a glandular or other medical condition that is not under the control of the person in question. If you're obese because you choose to live an unhealthy lifestyle, you deserve no special treatment from society.
I have no problem with the gas tax because it only taxes people who drive. The only significant emissions from modern cars are Water Vapor and Carbon Dioxide. Everything else is trace amounts, and the last emissions inspection my car went through showed undetectable levels of the major toxins they test for.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, and probably a million times more. If you do the calculations (I am not going to go through them again here just for the sake of time), you'll find that 6 billion people breathing emit more CO2 in ONE YEAR than has the combustion of fossil fuels, since 1900, in total.
Gas tax won't solve anything, although I would be completely for a bicycle-centric society..
What we need is a deduction for people who don't drive to work. It's completely unfair that so much of my tax money goes to maintain roads that I do not use; treat people that make themselves sick on their own accord; pay people who choose not to work; and so on...
Well, before I start my rant, let me qualify my statement. I moved from Michigan to Arizona in mid-January of this year. So while I'm not currently a resident, I have been previously for nearly 28 years, and most of my family and friends still are.
I was one of the foolish saps that voted for Granholm in the first place. After Blanchard, and then Engler, I thought we needed some REAL change. Well, we got it. But it was the wrong change to get. So far, I honestly can say that Granholm has done as much (bad) for Michigan as Coleman Young did for Detroit in roughly the same time. Thank the gods that she can't stay in office for the same amount of time.
I was recently made aware that Michigan is now the state with the highest unemployment rate (at ~7.5%) in the country. But wait... wasn't unemployment one of her top priorities? Sadly, many new policies and laws of the state have been driving businesses (small and large) out of the state for a couple of years now. That cuts back on revenue for the state and cuts away needed jobs. Wasn't that her biggest issue? The states budget deficit? So we're still moving in the wrong direction.
By the way, I forgot to mention at the top that I'm a soldier in the Army National Guard. For those of you that don't know, the Guard has dual-requirements to answer to the president and to the governor of your particular state. While in reserve status, your state pays for your training (drills, annual training and the like). However, when you get activated for federal duty, the DoD pays your way. Granholm had the audacity to activate her states troops more than 3x as often (per capita) as any other state, for the sole purpose of getting those soldiers off her books. Sure, that's our job. But we're not a tool to be used frivilously for financial purposes. We're a tool to be used to protect our country and state and the citizens which live in them.
At any rate, I regret having contributed to her gaining this office in Michigan. Sadly, I won't be able to take part in the attempt to remove her from it. I hope all of the Michiganders here take note and vote for somebody else next election.
Don't worry about the cost, since as you can see, not fixing the problem can lead to continuing problems that will be nothing but a legal hassle. Hire a Massachusetts attorney who specializes in tax law. What this will get you is a laywer who knows who to talk to on the phone at the Mass. Dept. of Taxation so that this problem goes away and your SO gets her money back (minus legal fees).
Tax offices are used to dealing with deadbeats, and there's no law saying they can't drop the hammer on anyone they choose, just to make their jobs easier. That said, virtually everyone in a civil service job will back down when they're confronted by someone who knows the game and plays it for a living (like an attorney) because they know that a lawyer isn't going to cave in to vague threats and also probably plays golf with their boss's boss.
People hate scum-sucking lawyers because they're good at getting what their clients want. It's your turn to be on the winning side of that, considering how airtight your case is.
Virg
> http://www.massdor.com/help/guides/abate_amend/Per sonal/issues/Usetax.htm
.com domain, not .gov?
Am I the only one who finds it odd that the Massachusetts Department of Revenue web site has a
Virg
You don't actually buy cigarets, you pay a licensing fee that grants you permission to smoke them. Unlike software, music, and movies, the cigarets are destroyed by usage, so you have no choice but to license more of them. Didn't you ever notice the EULA printed on the inside of the pack? It's smoking services - there should be no sales tax.
"Smokers forced to cough up"
Bwaahahahaha
AT&ROFLMAO
"Dude" ","" "What's" "with"" "all""" ""the" "quotation" ""marks"""" ""?""
I have no problem with reasonable taxes, but pushing cigarettes up to more than $5.00 a pack is ridiculous. And to do it because you've been spending irresponsibly makes it even worse. States can't be surprised that people are buying their cigarettes elsewhere.
Personally, I'll be leaving Michigan for good some time in the next 18 months and cigarette taxes play a large roll in my decision. So now they won't have my income tax, my property tax or a body to fill a skilled position (doesn't matter, the job will be off-shored soone enough).
Word Axis
When discussions about smoking in restaurants and bars comes up, there's always a forgotten group of people involved, and the reason for the ban is primarily them: employees. The waitstaff in a restaurant have to deal with the smoke if smoking is allowed, and it's not considered acceptable to tell them simply to find work elsewhere if they don't like it. By the logic of "go elsewhere", your office manager could allow smoking in your office and tell you to go find a job somewhere else if you didn't like it. Since that was made illegal, the same rule applies to restaurant and bar owners.
Virg
does Michigan state law have a provision for recalling the governor from office? Based on what I'm reading in this thread, it shouldn't be too hard to collect enough signatures for a recall election, and probably get 50% of the voters to vote for removal from office. Then, you could do what we did and replace the governor with a celebrity... Michael Moore? Barry Sanders?
Doesn't sound like it could be much worse than who you have already.
Remember the days when Republicans were the party of fiscal responsibility?
I live in New Jersey, and I've been hearing on the news about how a lot of folks in NYC are getting slammed with back taxes for buying cigarettes online, too.
This sig is false.
Call it what you like, I call it a pre-cancer tax, or a medicare premium, or whatever, but keep it. While they're at it I wish they'd do the same thing with fast food and alcohol. Make it more expensive to be shortsighted and hedonistic, spend everything now, and make the rest of us take care of your sorry ass when you eventually break down and are too poor to afford commercial medical coverage. It's selfish and stupid to think you have the right to enjoy yourself beyond your means, be it future or present means.
The real cool thing would be if they could use the "tax" to subsidize healthier food, do anti-drug campaigns, and to educate the underpriveleged, instead of misappropriating it like it is now.
No, I'm not against someone else's personal enjoyment, I'm against doing it on my dime. Which is precisely why I didn't vote for our current president.
I don't know if you intended to use it as a strawman argument, but the following made me laugh aloud: "Would you complain if the police pulled you over for doing 70 mph through a school zone?"
I love it! It is, on the surface, apropos of nothing but is so audacious that it may well be apropos of everything. How can you argue with such a thing?
Them: I don't think paying a Use Tax is right, so I won't
You: Not paying a Use Tax is like doing 70mph through a school zone
Them:
I plan on using it regularly from now on in all my arguments. Thank you!
now that is some horse trading.
Those sneaky career political people at their finest.
http://www.livewireforums.com/W6/start/login.php?w ebtag=rig&msg=
> (doesn't matter, the job will be off-shored soone enough).
I feel your pain... it is only a matter of time for me now. There are now more Indians in my office than there are Americans. They're here for, guess what, Training! Yay...
for those who don't live in MI, or govenor has come up short 100million dollars the last two budget years. This is another atempt by govenor granholm to raise addional funds she has lost year after year. Most people i know in MI just started buying them off the internet because the govenor keeps raising the price every year. time to start Rollin' 'yer own!
mass wanted to get shipping records to find out who recieved amazon/cigg etc packages and didn't list any use tax on their taxes. It was in the globe last year around tax time. They also were looking at getting order information from online retailers (especially ciggs).
I belive NY also is looking into taxing internet ciggarette purchases and may even start laying taxes on the native american -> US Citizen sales of gas and ciggs. (Soverign nation argument goes out the window when its not native american -> native american, but the state has looked the other way for 250 years...)
Alcohol? Fast food? Excuse me, but I moderate my unhealthy intake. If my health insurance company wants to ask me those questions and raises my premiums or lowers my payouts that's one thing. The government taxing me and putting that money into unrelated coffers is ludicrous.
postmodernsideshow.com
That's complete BS. Conservative my arse. A true conservative would be for less gov't (and less gov't power), not more.
Being able to tax a behavior is complete BS, as are sales taxes (which are regressive and hurt the poor more then anyone else).
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death." Proverbs 16:25 (NKJV)
Look at requirements 1 and 4, specificly 4. All states provide a large amount of services related to automobiles. From public roads, to licensing authorities, to highway patrol and so on. Thus it is essential to a state that they recieve auto taxes to provide those services. Some are licensing taxes, some are fees for specific things, some are fines for things like speeding, some are for new cars. Thus it seems reasonable that a state might need a use tax on that.
How does this apply to all items though, espically things like consumer electronics? The state provides no services for computer parts. Tehy only thing even remotely related is sanitation (as in trash pickup) and that is funded by a direct charge, irrespective of the source of the refuse. However they provide no services in relation to the good purchased.
I realise that it is cigarettes we are talking about here, but use taxes are levyed against everything, most people jsut don't know about them and don't pay them.
So, in my amature interpretaion, it fails to meet this standard. It's just an attempt to get around the fact that they can't charge a sales tax. Like I said, not a cut and dry issue.
I'm all for paying taxes required by law... but buying something online is perfectly legal.
Here a truth for you. Everytime the tax or regulation "burden" gets to high, it invites people to use the black/grey market. Unfair regulation happened in the prohibition and I can see it happening with cigarettes. The government starts to see certain vices as a golden goose.
The effect is: the more you tax the more the price becomes unbearable and the more likely a product will be trafficked. Obviously, there is a threshhold where people will refuse to pay and instead try to find a way around the high price.
The music industry saw something similar with the advent of digital music. Once people had a decent means of getting around the price-fixing and ridiculous prices, they flocked in droves to embrace the new method. I'm not saying that some piracy won't happen (that's a given), but if CDs had been at what consumers had viewed as a fair price, I think the piracy wouldn't have been quite so bad.
The government wants us to think that taxing a "vice" more than other products is ok. Why? Is it wrong to smoke? It seems arbitrary. What's next salt?... sugar? If these things are truly wrong then make it illegal, don't use them to fill your coffers.
--BUT Ahhhhhh... that would remove their income. Wouldn't want that.
The solution is to simply not screw the citizens with high taxes. The government is due some taxes, but once they pass a certain rate, the people are going to be more willing to cheat.
Find a balance where everyone shares in the benefits of consumer use. The government should take it's due share (tax) and stop overtaxing/over-regulating every aspect of people's lives.
The price we pay for immortality... is death. Narnia The Great Fall
To some degree I agree with you about rising taxes, but this isn't an issue where they are taxing you above and beyond the old tax just for buying them online.
Its not illegal to buy things online, its illegal to buy things and not pay the state required Use/Sales tax on the thing.
Basically what is going on here is that people are trying to get out of paying for a tax by buying things online, but now they are being told that it doesn't matter where you buy them, you still have to pay the same tax.
The smokers aren't getting screwed any more than usual here.
Whether or not the luxery use tax on cigarettes is a GoodThing or a BadThing is not the issue here. The article originally posted saw (it seemed to me, anyway) that governments going after the legal use tax on cigarettes where the use tax had not been paid meant that soon the state govenrments would also go after other legal use taxes that had not been paid, and that this was a BadThing. I am saying that irregardless of the Goodness/Badness of use taxes/luxery taxes/sales taxes in general, state governments trying to get unpaid taxes is a GoodThing. Or, at least not a BadThing.
--me
Just looking at my phone bill, there are at least 6 taxes. Federal Universal Serv Fund, Federal Universal Serv Fund Private Line, School Infrastructure Tax, Federal Tax, State Tax, and Federal Access charge. I need a phone so I just go ahead and pay the bill, but doesn't the state and federal government already make enough money by taxing my income and everything I buy?
Cigarettes are a fat target. They are something you don't need, a lot of people don't use. Also the media has demonized their use. No one but smokers care and both parties want more money so you don't really have an option to voice your dissent come election day. This seems an awful lot like what King George was doing back in 1776, maybe we should dump some cigarretes in Boston Harbor...
ATF = Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms; i.e., three things that almost always get special legal treatment on the Federal level.
...hence my answer to the "when will they subpoena Amazon?" question: apples and oranges.
Everyone will start to cheer when you put on your sailin' shoes.
I once received a bill in the mail for NY use tax for a purchase I made over the phone to a music store in CT two years previous. Apparently NY and CT have some sort of partnership in that regard, and flags multi-thousand dollar transactions. They wanted interest as well.
Yeah I agree that they're right to go after unpaid taxes... But I guess I'm wondering if the higher taxes on cigarettes don't push some people to find ways around the price. It doesn't make it right, but part of the solution is to ahve a fair tax.
The price we pay for immortality... is death. Narnia The Great Fall
Tobacco grows like a weed. If people really wanted to save money, they can just grow their own. It takes a lot of work to cure the tobacco so it stinks the right way, but it can be done.
Help cure AIDS, cancer, and more. Donate your unused computer time to worldcommunitygrid.org. Join Team Slashdot!
Americans retain this "I've got to have it now" mentality...waiting for something to ship via an internet purchase breaks this paradigm. Having a product shipped overnight is very expensive, so it often isn't a consideration.
Here's just a very small, probably completely insignificant anecdote: I needed some memory for an older computer. I did quite a bit of research online, comparing prices and the like. That in itself is quite a hassle. After all was said and done, instead of ordering and waiting, I hopped on down to the local computer store and bought some. I probably paid more than I could have gotten it for online, but the point is, I needed it, and I got it. Now.
I'm tempted to think the fear had by brick-and-mortar retailers might be at least partly unfounded. As I see it, this issue based far more on consumer psychology than anything else.
No tax is a fair tax.
This is a question of Constitutional Law. All the people who claim they're "Conservatives" without quoting the Constitution's prohibition against States regulating inter-State commerce are deceiving themselves about their political stance.
States can not regulate interstate commerce. Period. Not. Can't. Prohibited. That means they can't tax you for something that happens in another state.
One man's religion is another man's belly-laugh. - LL
Just go to your nearest Native-American run Casino. People have done this (buy tobacco on reservations) for years because of the tax difference.
I'm surprised that nobody has been quoting the Sears decision. Taxing of interstate commerce is illegal by the federal constitution. Besides, wouldn't it be a "purchase" tax if the burden were on the consumer?
DISCLAIMER: This post was not checked for speling and grammar- if you complain- you're a whiner
When did we all agree to pay taxes? And exactly how, if I'm not an extremeley weatlthy individual, am I going to get a law changed? Write my congressman? I'd hate to think I'm overly cynical, but that's a naive sentiment.
I'd suggest you don't use Slashdot as your only news source, or you will suffer permanent brain damage.
...do you have to cough up to get a $2500 tax bill on cigarettes?!
According to this article, the Federal Government disagrees about immunity for Indian tribes under the Jenkins act. They assert that theh Jenkins act would apply for shipments FROM indian reservations to non-indians, just not TO indian reservations. This does not appear to be legally clear, and I find this assertion confusing. I don't see how the federal government can make indian tribes report tax information since they are on sovereign land, unless there is a treaty or something?
I think he is learning a new keyboard layout and quite possibly used keycaps that are blank.
I sure hope he is not a programmer, 'cause debuggin would be hell.
maybe he codes perl?!
moo.
I'm sorry but that is just a string of semi coherent words brought together.
Everyone is ripping you because you cannot seem to hit any of the right keys.
"Whats wrong with me dig? It not meant to be a complete sentance (there wasn't enough room)"
Whats wrong with MY Sig? It'S not meant to be a complete sentEnce (there wasn't enough room).
and
"WAY are talking about tazex that should be paid"
WE are talking about TAXES that should be paid.
Every post you wrote had major errors in it. Not just one post out of many, but every post had at least 2-3 spelling errors, and a few grammer errors. I am not a grammer nazi(and usually think that they go overboard with the nitpicking), but this just had to be said.
On second thought, nevermind... it just makes me seem all the more intelligent when I be ritin better den u.
moo.
Hmm... The company I work for handles backend transactions for ABN AMRO, and we can't activate a prepaid mastercard without the user buying it, and calling in to activate the card over the phone so we can verify their identity.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
New York taxes cigs up to about 8$ a pack now, I think. I used to buy my cigs from Europe, but they came in through JFK or LaGaurdia (sp?), and NY state confiscated all of them for owing back taxes. Back taxes on paying state tax on an international shipment? Basically every state is going to try to tax the hell out of cigarettes until us regular folk can't afford to pay for them anymore.
Guess what?
At a certain price point (different for each person), we will quit. I'm just at that point myself, a few more dollars in tax and I'm willing to give it up. Of course the "legislators" (aka, the screw 'em till they bleed) won't notice until people actually stop smoking, at that point they will freak and wonder why all that money just dried up. Go figure.
B
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
How long before enraged citizens burn the halls of the legislature to the ground?
I as a single male do not make use of the school system yet of course pay school taxes.
That's because everyone benefits from public schooling regaurdless of wether or not you actually have kids. Do you like having a middle class? Do you like having a large middle class to purchase whatever goods/services your employer produces? Would you rather these kids get a decent education and become bankers or accountants and make a decent wage, or would you rather they make 7 bucks an hour at Wal-Mart? The more they pay in taxes the less you have to pay, and the more Social Security you'll be collecting when you retire.
Not wanting to pay for schooling just because you don't have children is simply being shortsighted and greedy. This is why states with no income taxes, like Texas, suck. Just because you don't use something directly doesn't mean you don't derive massive benefits from it.
Hypothetically speaking, what if something like this happened? And this is only a hypothetical, not based on real facts.
Iowa passes a law so sales tax is based on the seller's location rather than buyer's location. That is, if Amazon.com were to be located in Iowa, and someone from Oregon bought from that business, Iowan sales tax would be used.
However, what if Oregon were to have a law saying that if the buyer is in Oregonian at the time of purchase, Oregonian sales tax is paid.
The result would be double taxation.
Although I believe in states' rights, we need some form of sales tax uniformity. And the simplest way would be to base sales tax on the business location. And it's more fair since the sales tax would benefit the locale of where the business is physically located.
There's another very odd issue we may end up having to deal with. What happens when there are two sellers of the same item, or two buyers of the same item? How is sales tax determined then? Two persons pooling their money together to buy a bulk set of something, and will be sharing it. They order online, and decide to get it delivered to one of their post office boxes.
Bollocks. If you only smoke moderately then you won't be paying much tax. It's the same principle as "the polluter pays" and it's the fairest method of funding health services: those who through sheer irresponsibility are likely to cause the biggest drain on communal health funds (whether state-funded or insurance-premium-funded) pay the most.
I say this as someone who still smokes 20 a day and has done so for the past 25 years, the vast majority of whose cigarette money goes to the government, so there is no hypocrisy or special pleading here.
What I do disagree with is the tax thus raised being spent on other things. It should be spent on providing health services - including initiatives to eliminate smoking - and nothing else.
Still don;t understand why any one would care? What does it matter, if you can still communicate a thought and it is understand, all be it difficult, what the big deal?
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
You agree by living in a country/state that has taxes. I look to Socrates, he would rather die then run away from the rules of the City he choose to live.
And I insist, there are many, many groups working to change the tax code, just join one. Trust me I bet there will be some kind of major change at the federal level soon.
Come the revolution, the Bourgeois, Capitalistic, "A PARKING STICKER HOLDERS", will be first against the wall!
I spent a couple years in New Jersey court over the very same issues... Unfortunately, the American Constitution has no meaning to the traitorous tyrants who have taken over our justice system... I wasted countless hours, and hundreds of dollars to get thoroughly abused by the system... for daring to defend my right not to be abused. This country sucks! The whole long ugly story:
http://inmendham.com/smoke/
Michigan, is a high dollar state, but I feel it's wrong, where do they get the power to do this?
Read http://www.koin.com/news.asp?RECORD_KEY%5Bnews%5D= ID&ID%5Bnews%5D=1324 to know what I'm talking about below.
Right now, Oregonians don't pay Washingtonian sales tax when they cross the border. There's a proposal to make them pay sales tax on purchases less than $50.
We need some kind of national sales tax uniformity in the U.S.A.
Those articles were talking about non-EU countries selling to the EU. And I feel the articles you linked to explains themselves pretty well. In fact, they seem to agree with me.
Doug Stanhope sounds like an asshole, but notwithstanding that, the general public has overwhelmingly voted to the effect that telling someone to go elsewhere for a job if they don't like cigarette smoke is not acceptable. This isn't about a workplace being dangerous because it needs to be to get the job done. The number of restaurants and bars that had to close their doors due to smoking bans has been vanishingly small, so the argument that pub owners will be driven out on the street in droves by the ban is simply not true.
Virg