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...
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.
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...
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...*
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.
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?
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.
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...
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.
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...
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. I think they also need to tax high fat/high calorie foods for much the same reason.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
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?
they dont cause cancer, they reduce the immune systems ability to fight it off.
Getting shot in the head doesn't kill you, it reduces your body's ability to keep your brains inside your skull.
Do you Gentoo!?
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).
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.
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
>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.
In Europe we pay premium taxes for alcoholic beverages. Also, my drinking doesn't affect your liver, does it?
>I think they also need to tax high fat/high calorie foods for much the same reason.
My eating burgers doesn't raise your cholesterol level. Also, unlike tobacco, food actually helps keep me alive.
---- Take the Space Quiz!
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.
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.
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
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.
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)
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
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.
> Studies paid for by the alcohol industry?
Try peer reviewed scientific journals instead:
Beer and health: Preventive effects of beer components on lifestyle-related diseases.
Plant polyphenol antioxidants and oxidative stress.
Flavonoids in food and their health benefits.
---- Take the Space Quiz!
Actually, speaking as someone who has operated a company and dealt with UK Customs & Excise, VAT is not 'horribly complicated' really, you just charge 17.5% on everything you sell, subtract from this amount the VAT on everything you buy in order to make/supply those goods, and return the difference to Customs & Excise. It only gets complicated if you are dealing with a mix of VAT exempt and liable supplies, or if your trying to claim every penny of expenses (depreciation, to offset you VAT liability. For most retail operations (i.e. box shifters) it's really quite simple.
*--BigMan--- Time flies like an arrow.. but personally I prefer a nice glass of wine!
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.
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
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.
Hey, c'mon down to New Orleans...rapidly becoming one of the last bastions of free willed people. You can pretty much still smoke anywhere you want (still have smoking at bars in the airport even)...and no open container laws on the streets, hell, you can take drinks to go out of the bar, they will give you a plastic 'to go' cup if you ask.
Then...there's the drive through daquiri shops...what a great city. You can still partake in adult activities....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
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!
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?
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."
Harmonized Sales Tax
I feel calmer just thinking about paying this.
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.
How is this insightful and not flamebait? I think it's obvious that you don't know the average smoker's opinion. As a former smoker, let me break it down for you:
Smokers have the right to purchase cancer-causing tobacco sticks at a low price
I wouldn't say the right, but they do unreasonably tax the hell out of them. I used to joke that it's a rip off to slowly kill yourself now a days. I don't know how things work where you come from, but here in Cleveland, our professional sports facilities were in part paid for by a "sin tax" on tobacco and alcohol. Jacobs Field should have been named The Ashtray, b/c that's what paid for it. Of course, if you want to smoke there, you can only do it in certain areas, b/c we don't want to offend the non-smokers. So, we were welcome when it comes to paying for it, but not when it came to using it.
light those cancer-causing tobacco sticks on fire anywhere they want to
You know, I've never met a smoker that assumed they could light up wherever they want to. Apparently "smokers = no manners" in your book. I think you're just being angry on that one.
raise the cost of health care for everyone
I thought it was primarily the greed of the insurance companies combined w/ the fact that most people don't eat right and exercise that really drove up costs. I'll grant you that smoking plays a part, but it seems that the average health of Americans as a whole is going down, whether they smoke or not.
cause cancer in people that are affected by their second-hand smoke
IIRC, I read somewhere the numbers affected by second-hand smoke were statistically insignificant, something like 1 in 6 million or 600,000. It was my understanding that the effects were blown way out of proportion, and that the initial gov't report that the anti-smoking organizations use to fuel their fire was later overturned by that same gov't department (I don't remember which one it was). Just b/c someone yells something over and over again doesn't make it true. After all, I'm still waiting for proof that Iraq was allied w/ Bin Laden.
and shirk taxes that have been levied on products they purchase
So, by your logic, not only do "smokers = no manners", but also "smokers = criminals". Am I correct on that? An interesting point of view, but I'll have to respectfully disagree w/ you.
Again, I don't smoke anymore, and I prefer it that way, but I can't sit idly by and let this obvious flamebait go unanswered. After all, your words: I think that pretty much sums up the average smoker's opinion. I think it's pretty obvious that you don't know what that is...
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)=
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
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
For a small business, it is nearly impossible to comply (which is why enforcement has been suspended).
For instance, I live outside the city limits, but have the same zip code as everyone inside the city. So my sales tax would be less than what my cousin (for instance) would have to pay. But how would the local Mom and Pop store know that? Zip codes won't work of course, and there is no mechanism currently in existance that would.
The Tao that can be spoken is not the one eternal Tao