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