Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Amazon Fights For Privacy of Customer Records

Posted by kdawson on from the taxing-demands dept.

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.

57 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. All these states should be like New Hampshire by tgd · · Score: 5, Funny

    Sales tax!? Bah, if you give up schools and paved roads, you can do without it entirely.

    We do!

    1. Re:All these states should be like New Hampshire by matt_king · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think my state (Massachusetts) tried to sue a tire company in NH for this same info, and eventually lost (could be mistaken, it was a year or two ago)...precedent?

    2. Re:All these states should be like New Hampshire by Etherized · · Score: 4, Funny

      Sales tax!? Bah, if you give up schools and paved roads, you can do without it entirely.

      We do!

      NC's government is so corrupt, we're currently giving up schools and paved roads even *with* the sales tax.

    3. Re:All these states should be like New Hampshire by NotOverHere · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Disclaimer: I grew up in NH.

      And Tax-achusetts is doing soooo well with it's superior roads and schools. Must be something up when the only visible tax is property tax, and the visible use of taxes (roads and schools) are doing better. Or that with no sales taxes, the malls just over the boarder have more cars with Mass plates than NH (even with the price increase that comes with passing property taxes on to the consumer). The Pheasant Lane mall is mostly in Tyngsboro, but the main office is in Nashua, and the mall tenants only pay for property tax, no sales tax.

      Or how the Mass Pike was supposed to abolish tolls once it "broke even"? For the Pike west of Worcester, I've only seen worse roads in NY.

    4. Re:All these states should be like New Hampshire by OhPlz · · Score: 5, Informative

      Sullivan Tire. The MA SJC shot down the attempt, so I don't think it's much of a precedent. NH did pay close attention to this, various public officials said they would fight this matter to the end.

      http://salestaxbuzz.org/2009/08/26/live-fee-or-die-vs-taxachusetts-how-story-ends/

      There was a slight difference. Sullivan actually had some stores in MA. I think MA was trying to use that fact to exert pressure on the chain to supply info on sales that took place in other states.

      Reminds me of way back when MA used to send state police to NH to stake out the parking lots of liquor stores. They'd record MA license plates and radio cops along the border to pull those vehicles over for not paying tax on the alcohol they purchased. NH didn't want to lose the sales, so they sent out our own state troopers to remove the MA police.

      The fun continues. Not too long ago a MA state rep was photographed at a liquor store in NH buying alcohol. The ironic thing was that he had just voted on increasing the liquor tax in MA. No laws broken, but it seemed a bit unethical to many. "Do as I say, not as I do."

    5. Re:All these states should be like New Hampshire by inf4mia · · Score: 5, Informative

      In NC we have the highest taxes in the southeast. We still don't have decent schools and we have some of the most dangerous bridges in the country (our roads are no picnic either). NC used to be called the "good roads state" but that no longer applies... This is just another money grab by Raleigh since they spent like drunken sailors during the dot com boom and are now broke (just like a drunken sailor).

    6. Re:All these states should be like New Hampshire by tophermeyer · · Score: 2, Funny

      Disclaimer: I grew up in NH.

      And Tax-achusetts is doing soooo well with it's superior roads and schools.

      Some of us here like potholes and unmarked one-way roads. Makes driving here a challenge, and by nature makes us all better drivers.

    7. Re:All these states should be like New Hampshire by allseason+radial · · Score: 4, Funny

      [...] Residents have to voluntarily pay the use tax on "foreign" purchases. You think the state rep was going to do that?

      Of course he was. That's what his little black book contained: records of out-of-state purchases, disguised as the names and phone numbers of loose women.

    8. Re:All these states should be like New Hampshire by QuantumRiff · · Score: 3, Funny

      The key to stopping this kind of boarding hopping is to take a note from the west coast, and make your states bigger.. I mean sure, in vancover, WA, they hop over the river, and buy things in portland tax free, but thats just a small percentage of the population. Now, you guys just gotta have some mergers and aquisitions, and combine some states, so its more than a 20 min drive to the next state. Seriously, the western states have counties bigger than you easterners.. Of course, out west, they tried to do the opposite, and tried to form the State of Jefferson by carving out a piece of northern CA, southern OR, and a bit of Nevada.. (google it) but put it on hold when WW2 started.

      ps. my old county had a land area bigger than most eastern states, and only 4 cops per shift to patrol it... No wonder they are a little more pro-gun out there..

      --

      What are we going to do tonight Brain?
    9. Re:All these states should be like New Hampshire by drinkypoo · · Score: 2, Informative

      It seems like the states with the lowest tax base got it figured out..strange.

      Yes, it's called stealing money from California and other populous states. California gives more to the Federal government than it gets back. Those poor-ass states get more than they give. So the state where most of the people live (at least, more than any other state) and where most of the miles are driven (likewise) has the shittiest roads. Of course, there's plenty of corruption in California, but that doesn't set it apart from any other state.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    10. Re:All these states should be like New Hampshire by curunir · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The states are going after the wrong companies in trying to collect data for assessing use taxes. I get that they're going after the big fish like Amazon in an attempt to convince smaller retailers to comply of their own accord, but that still means collecting data from tens if not hundreds of thousands of sources. And given decisions like the one you referenced, they're not likely to get anywhere near 100% reporting from retailers, especially when states have a vested interest in protecting the rights of their own businesses...after all, more online vendors located in their own state means more tax revenues from those businesses.

      The much simpler solution would be to deal with the credit card companies. There's relatively few of them and they've got data on nearly every out-of-state transaction. What they don't have is a breakdown of the transaction including items purchased and shipping costs, but it's enough to know whether taxes should have been collected or whether the resident should be declaring use taxes. Using data from the credit card companies, the states can come close enough to decide whether the resident has been truthful in his or her use tax reporting and whether or not the resident should be selected for audit.

      And the credit card companies should be easier to deal with since they can likely be enticed or threatened by possible legislation governing how they do business in the state (i.e. personal bankruptcy laws, credit card terms disclosure, limits on excessive fees, etc.)

      --
      "Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos!"
  2. This is where the FTC could really step in by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Interstate trade regulation is one of the few enumerated responsibilities that the American government has. Its role is to step in to solve precisely this type of dispute. This would be a grand opportunity to decide once and for all whether internet purchases can be practically taxed, or whether the whole of interstate commerce law is a sham.

    North Carolina shouldn't be demanding this type of information from Amazon, but the citizens of NC shouldn't be skirting the law and avoiding paying taxes either.

    1. Re:This is where the FTC could really step in by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not paying an unconstitutional tax on interstate commerce—the regulation of which is expressly limited to Congress—isn't "skirting the law", it's "doing your duty as a citizen of the country".

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    2. Re:This is where the FTC could really step in by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      What isn't touched on in the article is that the NC state government is extremely corrupt in dealings with money. We already have the highest state income tax, sales tax, gas tax, property taxes and insurance rates in the region. Honestly, about 45% of my income goes to the above mentioned things. The rest go for cell phone (taxed), car payment (taxed), dog (taxed)... you see where this is going. Our idiot governor keeps making trips to Hollywood and China, trying to bring jobs to the state (really?); all she's doing is blowing $100k everytime she takes a trip like that. Amazon was the only way I could afford my text books when I was in college, seeing as how the STATE college charged 130% of the list price in their bookstore. NC needs to learn to make do with all the money they rob from their residents without taxing us on something else.

    3. Re:This is where the FTC could really step in by Chaos+Incarnate · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's only "legitimate" if you accept that their tax on interstate commerce is also legitimate. Those taxes are the very kind of thing the interstate commerce clause was meant to prevent.

      --
      Benford's Corollary to Clarke's Law: "Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced."
    4. Re:This is where the FTC could really step in by LaminatorX · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not quite, though the distinction is sometimes subtle. If use tax applied only to goods purchased across state lines, then you would be correct that it would be a tariff between states and unconstitutional. However, it applies generally to any transaction where the seller is not obligated to collect sales tax on behalf of the state. This is irrespective of whether the seller is in or out-of state. If I sell my stamp collection to my neighbor for $500, I am not collecting sales tax on that transaction, and my neighbor should report that and pay use-tax on his state return. It doesn't matter if he boutght it from me, or from someone out of state. His obligation would be the same.

    5. Re:This is where the FTC could really step in by Stele · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fix -what- locally? Demand smaller gov't, and less taxes? Done!

      That really worked well during Bush's 8 years, didn't it?

    6. Re:This is where the FTC could really step in by Late+Adopter · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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).

    7. Re:This is where the FTC could really step in by bigdavex · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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
    8. Re:This is where the FTC could really step in by rhsanborn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Tea partiers aren't an arm of the Republican party. There are Democrats involved, and many people who generally feel disenfranchised by both Democrats and Republicans, mostly because both of them have been taking turns at tooting the same horn, which is larger government and more spending. They just tend to disagree on exactly where to spend that money. Note: I said more spending, I didn't say anything about revenues, because neither party has actually figured out how to pay for any of this stuff they spend on.

    9. Re:This is where the FTC could really step in by tophermeyer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think you'll find that many Tea Partiers are just as angry about the Bush era as the liberals are. Some certainly would like to revert back to Bush era government, but as with any political group the membership represents a spectrum of beliefs.

      The real tea party movement lacks strong consolidated leadership by design, its one of the things that the movement pushes for in government. The problem is that allows many of the fringe members and rallies to be co-opted by traditional conservatives who like to think of themselves as leading a patriotic charge in the name of the people. People like Sarah Palin and other fox-news bobbleheads can easily step in because there is no single charismatic figure there to keep them out. This is unfortunate, because in the minds of outsiders it paints tea partiers as gun nut ultra conservatives that want to send another Republican to the white house. To many of us, this is the opposite of true.

    10. Re:This is where the FTC could really step in by bzipitidoo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I've been thinking that the media has greatly misrepresented the Tea Party movement. The reporting makes the Tea Party look so nutty that I begin to doubt it on the grounds that no group of people sharing a common interest or three could be quite that incoherent, contradictory, and plain stupid.

      There are a bunch of problems with taxation that make perfect sense to protest. Taxes are overcomplicated. An excellent example are these Taxsaver plans, in which taxpayers are asked to estimate what their medical expenses will be, and if they guess wrong, they pay more, and think it's their fault! Guess too low, and pay tax on the difference, or guess too high and simply forfeit that difference to the government! That's the sort of crap cell phone providers pull with their confusopoly. Another is the double standard in which the government pays no interest if they withheld too much money from your pay, but if it's the other way around, you pay a "penalty" calculated at a very high rate of interest. Rather like what credit card issuers do. For decades now, American politicians have been abusing the tax code to implement policy because they think that's an easier way to slip things past the public. This is why people are so angry with Congress and what I think the Tea Party is really about. They weasel extra money from the public with all this dirty pool, then they insult our intelligence by acting as if we don't see it, and then they blow most of the money on pork and unfair regulation designed to sneakily transfer wealth to their "friends" while the rest of us are left out. Taxes that are unexpected because they violate the norms and the law are unfair. I lived in NC briefly, and had no idea there was a "use tax" on items from out of state, until tax time. If someone ordered thousands of dollars worth of merchandise, it's possible a surprise tax like that could catch them without enough money on hand to pay in time, because they didn't know and had no reason to inquire about such a possibility. If this tax is legit, then Amazon should collect the tax for NC at the time of sale. Either way, NC should not be allowed to engage in a fishing expedition.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  3. Oooohh!!! by tgd · · Score: 5, Funny

    I think that's my first first-post in 13 years of Slashdot!

    *wipes away tear*

    (And to you damn kids with mod points who want to mark this off-topic, give an old man a break... Some day you'll be old, too!)

    (Oh, and get off my lawn.)

  4. NC is desperate for money by CodePwned · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Not that this is an excuse, but because the NC government won't play triage with projects and cut what it can tolerate so the budget is experiencing a shortfall again in the billions.

    1. Re:NC is desperate for money by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 3, Informative

      They can't force out of state companies to collect taxes for them. That would be illegal.

      However the tax must be paid (akin to a customs fee) upon entering the state. But since there is no feasible way for the state to know what is passing into its borders, citizens are able to avoid paying the state sales tax (or use tax in this case).

      The answer to your question is yes. They need the personal information to pursue the purchasers individually.

    2. Re:NC is desperate for money by stonewallred · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As a NC native I am sad and outraged at this. Our state used to be known as the "Good Roads" state, but now the roads are falling apart, we have a ton of unsafe bridges and a state government full of thieves and morons(I apologize to any morons I offended by comparing politicians to you). The politicians spend, spend, spend, from te state level down to the cities and counties. Hell, in Winston-Salem, they just built a minor league baseball stadium, using mostly tax money, for a mere 30 million or so. Of course they claim it will pay back the money by selling 4500 tickets per home game. Lol, at the old stadium they were lucky to get 900 folks, and there you could avoid getting mugged walking to your car. At the new stadium there is only about 2000 parking spaces and 75% of them are on the street roughly 4 blocks or more away, in the middle of crack town, with syringes and crack vials littering the gutters. Not to mention our state parks being gutted by lack of funding. I hope Amazon wins and I hope the NC government DIAF.

    3. Re:NC is desperate for money by sglewis100 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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...

    4. Re:NC is desperate for money by RogL · · Score: 4, Insightful

      In short: "I do not like the government spending money on stuff I don't like (sports stadiums). They should be spending it on things I do like (state parks)."

      More like: "I do not like the state spending money on funding new private commercial enterprises that traditionally lose money. They should be spending it on maintaining existing state-owned properties, held in trust by the state for its residents."

    5. Re:NC is desperate for money by natehoy · · Score: 2, Informative

      Let me first say that IANAL.

      Use tax is not a tax on interstate commerce. The state is not asking for any money specifically because the sale was across a border or from another state. Use tax is a tax on you as a purchaser and citizen of your state, levied by a state that has taxation authority over you, on items that you purchase for use in your state. When a seller collects it, it's called "sales tax". When you pay it yourself because you did business with a seller who does not have to collect it, it's generally called "use tax".

      Sales taxes and "use taxes" (sales taxes not collected by sellers on your behalf) are really the same thing, just collected differently. They are owed by the purchaser who is subject to the laws of the state in which they live. Everything you purchase that you intend to use or consume in your home state is almost certainly subject to that tax (your state laws may differ, but I doubt it), regardless of where you bought it. Your state is free to pass a law that anything you buy for use within the state is subject to taxation. They can also pass laws that sellers who have a presence in your state (and are therefore subject to your state's laws) have to collect that tax on your behalf and remit it to the state. At that point, it is called "Sales Tax" and you have no paperwork to file. The money is added to your purchase and the seller remits it to the state, and everything is all legal.

      If the seller you purchase your goods from does not collect that tax, then it's highly likely that your state laws still say that you have to pay it. You just don't have someone conveniently collecting it for you and forwarding it to the state. You have to pay it yourself. This is generally referred to as "use tax", though states may have their own term for it.

      In my home state (Maine) we have a tickybox on our state income tax form that allows us to pay a small percentage of our income (something like 0.6% or something - it's a small amount) that is designed to replace any small purchases we make out of state. It's basically a "check this box, pay your $x, and you are absolved of any small items you've purchased and not paid sales tax on". The alternatives to that are to keep all of your out-of-state purchase receipts and remit sales tax on all of those purchases for which you did not pay sales tax (there's a form for that), or to break the law and skirt paying the sales tax you legally owe the state (there's a penalty for that, even though it's what most people actually do and chances are they'll never actually get caught at it).

      Your state cannot impose laws on sellers in other states to force them to collect the taxes on your behalf. That does not absolve you, as a citizen of your state, of the obligation to pay taxes on things you purchase for use within your state under the tax code of your state. It just makes it less convenient for you to do so, and more likely that you will break the law by not paying that tax.

      There may be some states that are OK with their citizens skirting their sales/use tax laws and buying things outside the state and never paying taxes on them. I don't personally know of any, but I've only lived in 4 states and one of them (New Hampshire) did not have Sales/Use Tax. The other three had very strict laws about paying taxes on everything you bought, no matter where you bought it. The fact that most people were ignorant of those laws (willfully or otherwise) does not invalidate the laws.

      North Carolina (and, by the way, Oregon and a few other states) is looking for information on purchasers within their own states so they can start going after their own citizens for nonpayment of their taxes. That is invalid, to my knowledge (REMINDER: IANAL), since Oregon cannot pass a law stating that companies from other states have to disclose anything to them. Oregon would have to have the Federal government pass such a law, at which point Amazon would have to comply.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  5. A means to an end... by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I would think that this is North Carolina's way to have amazon.com to start collecting taxes when items are shipped to their state. It's a force move.

    Logically, there would be way to much spent then collected IMO. The state would have to track down each customers tax returns for (they can only go back a certain amount of time for an audit and I though it was 5 years, not 7 which NC wants), and then correlate the data to either ensure that the taxpayer claimed the items or did not claim the items. Then the state would have to calculate taxes on said items, or see if it affects the effective tax rate for said taxpayer, then tack on interest to those monies, then notify the taxpayer if the state can find the tax payer (moved since filing, died, etc...).

    Another question would be how the state came up with the number of purchases from amazon.com to their state?

    --
    There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    1. Re:A means to an end... by Obyron · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There is also the nuclear option: Amazon refuses to ship to North Carolina, owing to the higher costs of compliance.

      --
      --Obyron
    2. Re:A means to an end... by Stele · · Score: 4, Funny

      There is also the nuclear option

      That's right! Take off and nuke NC from orbit. It's the only way to be sure, of, er, something.

  6. A use tax is all fine and dandy... by protodevilin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...but I can't imagine why in hell the revenue department should know what particular items were purchased by each customer. If they're worried about losing revenue then their focus should be limited to the monies paid only; gathering data on which specific xbox games that Cleetus T. Carolina purchased during the tax year seems irrelevant.

    1. Re:A use tax is all fine and dandy... by LaminatorX · · Score: 3, Informative

      The goods purchased may not all be taxed at the same rate, or some may be exempt. General catagories rather than specific titles may be acceptable, but a total dollar amount alone is likely insufficient for proper assessment.

  7. Obviously, I hope Amazon wins... but by DigitalSorceress · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I sincerely hope Amazon wins, but it seems to me that without some kind of federal-level intervention, more and more states are going to push to get online / mailorder merchants to collect their taxes.

    Amazon's big enough that if push came to shove, they could probably implement a sales tax system based on delivery address that could cover all 50 states and the territories.

    However, what really scares me is that this would be a death blow to a lot of smaller online and mail order retailers. I built a catalog and shopping cart system for a friend who had a business model that just didn't quite fit existing off the shelf models, and I have to say that I do not relish the idea of having to build in a system for 50+ different sets of taxes. However, that task is childs-play compared to the accounting nightmare my friend would have in having to fill out forms and remittances to all those different jurisdictions. She gets by, but doesn't exactly have a huge margin... the extra complication of collecting for all those jurisdictions and time/effort needed to deal with it could tip the scales on whether her business continues to be profitable or not.

    So, this isn't really about one state being greedy - it's about the camel's nose under the tent.

    Sooner or later, someone will suggest that the federal government charge some modest tax (say 5%) on all online / mailorder sales, then distribute the funds to the states based on their share of the delivered sales.

    Of course, the federal government would probably not be able to resist getting THEIR hands on the money and we'd either end up with an insane rate with the federal government back-dooring a national sales tax in, or the states complaining that the rate needs to be higher since they're still "losing money" versus collecting their full state sales tax.

    This is just an ugly situation all 'round.

    Personally, I would think that the success of online retailers is at least partly due to the largely tax-free nature of sales transactions. I doubt we'd see sales taxes kill e-commerce, but I can see it hurting small e-tailers and having a bit of a downward pressure on sales as it'll be eating into the spending power of the buyers.

    --

    The Digital Sorceress
    1. Re:Obviously, I hope Amazon wins... but by Sesticulus · · Score: 5, Informative

      I do not relish the idea of having to build in a system for 50+ different sets of taxes.

      Like it's only 50! Sales taxes can change along county and township boundaries. What is actually taxed changes too.

    2. Re:Obviously, I hope Amazon wins... but by cyberworm · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Also, for some purchases, shipping is cheaper than or equal to sales tax. At the point that you add tax+shipping, then purchasing online has really lost most of it's appeal and it just makes more sense (from a budget perspective) to go to the brick and mortar store and but it.

    3. Re:Obviously, I hope Amazon wins... but by cgfsd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good luck Amazon, as Al Capone found out, you can get away with murder, but you can't beat tax evasion.

      Why when it comes to taxes you are guilty until you prove yourself innocent, and then you are still guilty anyway?

    4. Re:Obviously, I hope Amazon wins... but by misexistentialist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Starving the beast just made the beast hungrier. VAT will probably be a priority in Obama's second term.

    5. Re:Obviously, I hope Amazon wins... but by natehoy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, try something closer to 50,000 tax rates once you factor in county/municipal/local sales taxes, differing rates based on the item sold of which categories differ by state (a bag of potato chips sold here in Maine is considered a "snack" if it's a small bag and is therefore taxable, but "groceries" if it's a large bag and is therefore nontaxable, unless it is sold in a place that depends on prepared food sales like a restaurant for more than 50% of their income at which point it's a "snack" again).

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  8. I doubt Amazon cares much about our privacy. by PAjamian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They're just using this as a legal reason not to release their customer records. If you could cite a constitutional amendment to get out of a tax audit wouldn't you?

    --
    Windows is a bonfire, Linux is the sun. Linux only looks smaller if you lack perspective.
  9. On the other hand by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:On the other hand by Omestes · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      I'm not a libertarian, nor conservative, I actually am a lefty bordering on socialist, and I somewhat agree with your statement. I live in Arizona, a state that recently decided to close down most of their parks and rest-stops, and gutted their already second worst in the US education system, for lack of money. The state is making less money than it has in years previous, but it still is making more money than it did a long time ago when it had parks, education, and police. This state has always been known for its shitty services, even in good tax years. So it makes me wonder where the hell all this money goes?

      And now their are basically blackmailing voters by saying "vote for a 1% sales tax, or we'll take away your cops, firefighters, and universities".

      I'm all for the government collecting taxes and putting it into programs that benefit the people, but this doesn't happen. The government collects money and it somehow disappears.

      I'd be in favor of very high taxes if our government wasn't run by clowns, and the money actually benefited the public. I don't think most US political fiefdoms are there yet.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  10. Re:keeping records? for how long? by glwtta · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Aren't companies obliged to purge these records after some time, just like say, google, is obliged to purge search records?

    Don't think I've heard of that. I'm pretty sure, at best, there are limits on how long they are required to keep the records.

    --
    sic transit gloria mundi
  11. Property taxes fund the majority of schools by Shivetya · · Score: 3, Interesting

    and many have specific taxes aimed at roads.

    Wait till the majority finds out how plush federal, state, local, and school, retirements are and how much of a debt bomb we have coming up funding programs that would cause so much angst if there were in the private areas, especially those bailed out.

    I know you might have tried to be witty, but when push comes to shove you can guarantee that three areas will be cut to make the pain unbearable

    1. Schools
    2. Police
    3. Fire

    Politicians know what buttons to push. Look at NJ for what uncontrolled spending does to a state and the actions needed to fix it.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:Property taxes fund the majority of schools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Property taxes fund the majority of schools by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      State employee here.
      Most young people I work with are pretty much only here for the benefits. If I stick with the State, I'll have made anywhere from 20-100% less than my peers (depending on factors like location and willingness to travel) for the course of my career, I've been 4 years now without a raise, despite being a dedicated and productive employee (I did no programming when I started, and now I am, yet I'm still making the same salary). I've been with the State for 10 years now, and of those 10 years, the only raises I've seen that weren't from me changing jobs were ~3% COL increases, which has happened 4 times. That's pretty crummy, considering the absolutely insane amount of growth the state saw over the past decade.

      However, if I stick with the State, I'll be eligible to retire with full benefits before I'm 55. If you're on the pension plan here, that's it. There's no 401(k) with % matching contributions. Anything extra comes out of pocket (like my 6% deferred compensation contribution).

      The bargain has always been understood that to be a public employee, you won't make as much, but you'll be taken care of if you stick with it.

    3. Re:Property taxes fund the majority of schools by ProfBooty · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.
    4. Re:Property taxes fund the majority of schools by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've been 4 years now without a raise, despite being a dedicated and productive employee (I did no programming when I started, and now I am, yet I'm still making the same salary). I've been with the State for 10 years now, and of those 10 years, the only raises I've seen that weren't from me changing jobs were ~3% COL increases, which has happened 4 times. That's pretty crummy, considering the absolutely insane amount of growth the state saw over the past decade.

      Welcome to the real world son, I've worked at my current job for 3 years, seen one promotion and a job change, and not a dime of extra pay - no COL, no nothing. I even saw a 5% cut when the economy went south. All that, and relatively speaking I have a good, secure job.

      I'd be pretty happy with your 12% raises in the current economic climate.

      Very few private companies have plush retirements that match State retirements. Of those that did have them, like GM, they've been getting rid of them.

      My last employer even had a convoluted sliding-scale 401k matching system - they'd match up to 6%, but you'd have to put in 12% of your income to get that, and it took three years to get vested. My current employer is a bit better about that - matching % for % up to 6%, but that's still not as good as most State pensions.

      The upside to public employment is you've got to really suck to get fired. It's almost unheard of. The only time you really see public employees get fired is when they screw up so bad that the public is made aware of it, and is demanding their head. Then it's a tossup. This is why government jobs tend to be filled by either idealists or nincompoops. It's not universally true, but it's common.

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
  12. Re:keeping records? for how long? by amaiman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Not that I'm aware of. If it is a requirement (and I've never heard that it is), they're certainly not doing it. I can see my Amazon purchases on my order history page going back to 1999 (when I started shopping there.)

  13. One click taxation by Alain+Williams · · Score: 2, Funny

    Maybe NC ought to patent ''One Click Taxation'' and charge the other 49 states to use it - that would be a nice little earner for them and might solve their budget balancing problems.

    1. Re:One click taxation by NotBornYesterday · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Heh heh. Funny, but the truth is that more money never solves the problems caused by waste. It only encourages it.

      --
      I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
  14. Political tool by michaelmalak · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The CNet article mentions the Video Privacy Protection Act but not the events leading up to it. The Slashdot summary, of course, doesn't mention it at all except vaguely that the videos "deserve enhanced protection".

    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.

  15. Re:What Amazon needs to do ... by christrs · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is not keep sales records for anyone - anywhere - for any longer that is required to process the transaction and handle disputes (60-90 days). After that, then they can aggregate the sales data and strip the identify of the user. Keeping records going back to 2003 (and earlier) is just stupid and bait for any state to try this (especially if NC wins this in court).

  16. Get rid of sales tax by frinkster · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.

  17. This is a settled Constitutional issue... by John+Murdoch · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is pretty simple. North Carolina is bluffing, hoping that Amazon will not take this to the federal appellate courts.

    There is longstanding legal precedent banning government authorities from requiring bookstores or libraries to disclose information about a customer's interests. This has been litigated repeatedly, all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court; the rulings have subsequently been applied to videotape/CD rentals as well. There is related case law pertaining to the subscription lists of magazines and newspapers--but that's a slightly different subject.

    Brief synopsis of legal history:
    A brief synopsis of bookstore and library privacy issues can be found at ReaderPrivacy.org.

    But there's a bit more
    As the Reader Privacy article notes, the PATRIOT Act (rushed into law immediately after the 9/11 tragedy) specifically gives the FBI the ability to subpoena purchase records from bookstores, as well as borrowing records from libraries. However--that power is limited to the FBI (although it can probably be exercised by other federal law enforcement agencies)--but it requires a federal judge to sign the warrant, based on probable cause, naming a specific individual. That gives no support at all to a state sales tax authority asking for a complete data dump of 7 years worth of purchase transactions.

    In short--this will annoy Amazon's management, provide hefty fees for a bunch of lawyers, and produce a grand total of zero revenue for the state of North Carolina.

  18. Re:What Amazon needs to do ... by omnichad · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I would rather keep my ability to log in at any time and see my own entire purchase history.