Slashdot Mirror
Amazon Fights For Privacy of Customer Records
suraj.sun notes a CNET article on Amazon's lawsuit against North Carolina on the grounds that the state is trying to violate the privacy and First Amendment rights of Amazon's customers. "Amazon.com filed a lawsuit on Monday to fend off a sweeping demand from North Carolina's tax collectors: [for] detailed records including names and addresses of customers and information about exactly what they had purchased. ... North Carolina's Department of Revenue had ordered the online retailer to provide full details on nearly 50 million purchases made by state residents between 2003 and 2010. Because Amazon has no offices or warehouses in North Carolina, it's not required to collect the [state's] 5.75 percent sales tax on shipments, although tax collectors have reminded residents that what's known as a use tax applies on anything 'purchased or received' through the mail." Amazon is arguing that the records of what books, music, and videos its customers bought deserve enhanced protection.
We're talking about the most expensive government in the entire history of centralized power. To claim that lack of revenue is a problem is utterly laughable. With the trillions of dollars spent by the US government every year, we should be living in a utopia by now. But we're not. We're far from it.
Clearly, the problem is where the money goes, not lack of it. In fact, it could be argued that too much money is the problem. We ought to support any measure which keeps money out of the hands of the power elite, because common sense tells us that at the very least, they have way, way too much of it.
In 1987, the Washington City Paper, a paper from the left, published the video rental history of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork, from the right. There was next to no dirt found, but it wasn't for lack of self-admitted trying. It was a politically motivated stunt, and they were desperate to find X-rated rentals or even just a penchant for a particular actress of the day.
By revealing detailed media purchases to a government, it gives the incumbents the opportunity to smear political challengers.
Not sure where you're getting unconstitutional from... The Supreme Court explicitly ruled use-taxes constitutional in Henneford v. Silas Mason Co. (300 US 577, 1937), provided the tax "is not so measured or conditioned as to hamper the transactions of interstate commerce or discriminate against them" (read as: as long as Use Tax isn't larger than the Sales Tax).
Suppose two parties privately sell an item in one state and then the new owner transports the item to a second state. He uses the item in the second state. Tax is paid in the first state. The tax is paid on the transaction not on the use. So how can the state say with a straight face that this is a "use tax"? It's clearly linguistic gymnastics to circumvent the commerce clause.
-Dave
Posting AC. As a Federal employee, I can tell you that our retirement is not "plush" and hasn't been since CSRS went away. Now we have a small (reasonable) pension and a 401(k)-like account called a TSP that has a small match (5%).
Given that as an attorney I make far less with the government what I would in the private sector, yet I go to work every day happily, believing in what I do, and working hard, my retirement benefits are perfectly reasonable.
Hell, in Winston-Salem, they just built a minor league baseball stadium, using mostly tax money, for a mere 30 million or so.
While I'm FAR from supporting tax-payer funded stadiums in most cases, there's a huge difference between a five hundred million park for a professional team threatening half-heartedly to move and an affordable stadium meant to lure or keep a low revenue minor league park.
Minor league teams are great for families (bring a family of four for the price of one ticket in a major league park), and it's very feasible that the tax collected over the life of that stadium will absolutely exceed 30 million. So it may very well fund a road or two. Beats another toll road every day...
States need to recognize that they have lost the battle with online retailers and instead do what they can to lower the cost of business for in-state retailers.
Namely, get rid of sales taxes and make it up via property tax and income tax.
As luck would have it, the Federal tax code encourages this. An individual is allowed to deduct their choice of two out of these three forms of taxation via Schedule A. Residents of the states which only have two of the three taxes get an unfair advantage as they are allowed to deduct their entire state taxes instead of a portion of them.
Any state that eliminates sales tax gets the advantage of lowering the overall tax burden of their residents AND providing an attractive location for online retailers to build warehouses and provide jobs that increase the tax base for the state.
I'd say FERS is fairly generous compared to a private employer. I'm a GS-14 and if I was to retire with 40 years of service I would get 44% of my 3 year average high salary, which would be roughly 61k a year in pension on top of TSP. You can also continue FEHB as well, assuming you have at least 5 years of service, though I am unsure if you are required to pay the entire portion or not.
Bring back the old version of slashdot.