Why should Netflix pay a tax like your cable company. The cable company is collecting taxes from you and remitting them to your government because it has a physical presence and the service they are offering is the transportation of digital data packets. Likewise with your grocery store for food or your car mechanic for car repairs. If they were to tax Netflix and Amazon for the content they send to you (more correctly, tax you and require Netflix and Amazon to collect it from you and remit it on your behalf) they would also have to tax Facebook, Youtube and your neighbor down the street who runs that recipe blog you enjoy so much for the content they send to you. If you agree that you should pay for everything you view on your computer screen, go ahead and beg to be taxed for it.
Courts tend to reject these laws when the state is trying to claim jurisdiction over entities that are not physically present in the state. IOW, a state can tax the streaming of movies and they can tax streaming a movie differently than they tax a movie theater because, while the content may be the same, the service is different. What they cannot do the streaming of movies over Netflix at a different rate than streaming Amazon Prime. Another thing that they cannot do is require the streaming company to collect and remit those taxes (IOW, to act as a collecting agent on behalf of the state) if the streaming company has no physical presence in that state. That is why I was able to order from Newegg and Amazon to Wisconsin 8 years ago without being charged sales tax but not from Cabelas or JC Penney. For the past few years, Amazon has also been charging sales tax since they opened a warehouse in Wisconsin a few years back because that gave Wisconsin jurisdiction over all shipments into Wisconsin.
Except that there has to be a legal basis for claiming to have taxing authority. If memory serves, the US Constitution directly forbids states from levying taxes on goods that simply pass through the state. I think a very good case can be made for a claim that packets of digital data are no different from a transportation and legal standpoint than cases of lettuce.
It is also well settled law that a state (or any other government agency) cannot claim jurisdiction over something that happened outside of its physical borders. I know that the Feds have reached beyond this a bit with business practices in foreign lands but the general theory there is that the authorization was given in the US so they have jurisdiction. Such cases aside, it is very obvious that a state is not allowed to charge a resident with a crime for travelling to a different state to participate in some activity that is illegal in the persons home state, regardless of whether the activity is legal or illegal in the other state. Three examples: 1) Wisconsin criminalizes all use of marijuana but Wisconsin cannot charge a Wisconsin resident of having violated Wisconsin's drug laws if that resident travels to Colorado to purchase and consume marijuana unless the person brings some of it back to Wisconsin. 2) The Wisconsin resident can travel to Illinois (where recreational marijuana usage is also illegal) to purchase and consume marijuana recreationally and Wisconsin still cannot charge the person for marijuana use or possession. 3) California cannot charge a California resident for any gun crime if that resident travels to Utah and carries a concealed Springfield Armory XDS (not legal for sale within California), a Springfield Armory XD-M with 17 round magazine inserted and an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine and having a working magazine release button over his/her shoulder.
It is also fairly well-settled law that states cannot require business to act as a tax collecting agent for the state if the business has not physical presence in that state. That is because of the lack of jurisdiction.
So, yes, states can pass laws requiring use taxes on the consumption of streamed movies and music and they can require such business who have a physical presence in the state to collect such taxes but they cannot require that collection for all circumstances. It is also well-established law that a physical presence requires some form of building or office such as a warehouse, rented office space for a programming team, a support call center, etc. What I have not seen tried yet is whether an offsite employee working at home can be counted as having a physical presence.
The question is not so much whether the service can be taxed but whether the state can force the serving company to remit the taxes as a collecting agent.
Last I checked, the Ukraine and Russia were practically at war. I'm not sure how the involvement of a Ukrainian automatically means a Putin managed it.
Musk and Hawking are frequently going on about branches of science where they have no understanding nor expertise. Why should computers be any different?
Volcanoes are driven by the molten mass that is the core of the Earth which is around 6,000 C. Can you please explain how trace amounts of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are going to affect the core of the Earth. Volcanoes happen when fissures in the Earth's crust open from seismic activity and such and open a channel to the surface. If a large enough channel opens, the ice won't stand a chance.
Global warming has zero affect on volcanoes but you idiots will try anything when imitating Chicken Little. Volcanoes, on the other hand, could have everything to do with warming surface temperatures if the insulation (Earth's crust) is growing thinner.
I agree with you. And it should be a two-way street such that bakers are not required to create custom works of confectionary art to celebrate weddings they disapprove of.
Think about how lucky we are that the Nazis won those fights. Had the Communists won, we would be living with an entire Communist Europe now because the leadership of America at the time (along with many since) was enamored with Communism and Uncle Joe.
I wasn't counting money spent within the US as charitable donations to other countries as that wouldn't be foreign aid but I guess if that works for you.
What fake jobs? I have family paying a bunch of teenagers slightly over minimum wage to sell burgers, fries and frozen custard. Just how much should somebody get paid for doing that and how much do you want that burger and frozen custard to cost.
Also, tending and harvesting crops and cattle and such is not a FAKE JOB. They are real jobs.
"have to use texting to tell them dinner is ready" "Have to" is pretty strong there. "Choose to coddle them by texting" is a much more accurate way to state this as most people don't even need to use a phone to tell people in the house that the food has been prepared.
Considering that the MBTA does not pick you up at your doorstep, there just might be a slight difference. I'm not saying the cost is entirely justified but that the stops are more customized so that some increase is worthwhile.
I know that a number of years ago, San Francisco made heavy use of the regular transit buses fro school transportation; no idea whether that is still the case.
No, they are saying that they are a now a parent, are somebody's son, and rode the bus for 3 years (presumably as a student but possibly as a "bus dad"; then they asked a question.
And your solution is to continue wasting tax money paying people to do a job that is not needed. That is about the dumbest idea I have heard for a while.
Maybe we could pay these people to do some of those "jobs that Americans don't want". I'm sure some Americans would want them if the choice was between "job I don't really want and starving" instead of "job I don't want and welfare." Use welfare to pay the relocation costs.
Wait, we are not allowed to discuss whether doing something is good or bad or both depending on what happens after that something unless we pass a law imposing an infinite fine for doing the first something first?
When was the law passed that made it illegal to pass a law about de-anonymizing so that we could debate passing the de-anonymizing law?
No, it just doesn't go far enough. it is not enough to simply tell people they can't do something because bad people will ignore that. We need to pass laws that tell us we cannot even think about doing something bad and then people will start to follow the law.
"Because the bad actors aren't going to care that it's against the law to de-anonymize." Are you absolutely sure about that. I've heard a few people, rich people even, telling me that criminals will stop selling guns to each other in the US if only US law would require permission from the government before any gun is sold. I don't see this de-anonymizing thing being any different.
Yes, people really are that stupid and it is not generally the ones that voted against Hillary and others of a similar ilk.
And you are also including the phony dossier purchased by the Clinton Campaign "detailing" how a certain businessman enjoyed the feel of urine, right? You are not actually claiming that the Trump campaign purchased that dossier and convinced everyone in the world to claim it was actually Hillary that did it, are you?
Of course, anyone who believes that articles discussing Hillary's involvement with unapproved and illegal email servers are "fake news" is not really bright enough to understand the rest of the world.
But the majority of US aid is in the form of private charitable donations distributed outside of the national government. That is something that Leftists absolutely refuse to believe in as it so closely mirrors the idea of having private ownership of the means pf production.
Therefore, such giving is not counted in Leftist statistics.
And how much cargo are they moving in those America's Cup races and on that 48 footer? Consider for a moment that Panamax can have a displacement almost 6,000 times that little 48-footer and tell me how big the sails are going to be get a Panamax moving at 12-14 knots which is the current target. Modern cargo ships are generally capable of 25 kt. Also, bear in mind that Panamax are considered medium sized container vessels.
We won't even discuss the Mississippi and Ohio River barge traffic and how wide those rivers are for tacking a set of barges back and forth.
Slashdot Mirror
Why should Netflix pay a tax like your cable company. The cable company is collecting taxes from you and remitting them to your government because it has a physical presence and the service they are offering is the transportation of digital data packets. Likewise with your grocery store for food or your car mechanic for car repairs. If they were to tax Netflix and Amazon for the content they send to you (more correctly, tax you and require Netflix and Amazon to collect it from you and remit it on your behalf) they would also have to tax Facebook, Youtube and your neighbor down the street who runs that recipe blog you enjoy so much for the content they send to you. If you agree that you should pay for everything you view on your computer screen, go ahead and beg to be taxed for it.
Courts tend to reject these laws when the state is trying to claim jurisdiction over entities that are not physically present in the state. IOW, a state can tax the streaming of movies and they can tax streaming a movie differently than they tax a movie theater because, while the content may be the same, the service is different. What they cannot do the streaming of movies over Netflix at a different rate than streaming Amazon Prime. Another thing that they cannot do is require the streaming company to collect and remit those taxes (IOW, to act as a collecting agent on behalf of the state) if the streaming company has no physical presence in that state. That is why I was able to order from Newegg and Amazon to Wisconsin 8 years ago without being charged sales tax but not from Cabelas or JC Penney. For the past few years, Amazon has also been charging sales tax since they opened a warehouse in Wisconsin a few years back because that gave Wisconsin jurisdiction over all shipments into Wisconsin.
Except that there has to be a legal basis for claiming to have taxing authority. If memory serves, the US Constitution directly forbids states from levying taxes on goods that simply pass through the state. I think a very good case can be made for a claim that packets of digital data are no different from a transportation and legal standpoint than cases of lettuce.
It is also well settled law that a state (or any other government agency) cannot claim jurisdiction over something that happened outside of its physical borders. I know that the Feds have reached beyond this a bit with business practices in foreign lands but the general theory there is that the authorization was given in the US so they have jurisdiction. Such cases aside, it is very obvious that a state is not allowed to charge a resident with a crime for travelling to a different state to participate in some activity that is illegal in the persons home state, regardless of whether the activity is legal or illegal in the other state. Three examples: 1) Wisconsin criminalizes all use of marijuana but Wisconsin cannot charge a Wisconsin resident of having violated Wisconsin's drug laws if that resident travels to Colorado to purchase and consume marijuana unless the person brings some of it back to Wisconsin. 2) The Wisconsin resident can travel to Illinois (where recreational marijuana usage is also illegal) to purchase and consume marijuana recreationally and Wisconsin still cannot charge the person for marijuana use or possession. 3) California cannot charge a California resident for any gun crime if that resident travels to Utah and carries a concealed Springfield Armory XDS (not legal for sale within California), a Springfield Armory XD-M with 17 round magazine inserted and an AR-15 with a 30-round magazine and having a working magazine release button over his/her shoulder.
It is also fairly well-settled law that states cannot require business to act as a tax collecting agent for the state if the business has not physical presence in that state. That is because of the lack of jurisdiction.
So, yes, states can pass laws requiring use taxes on the consumption of streamed movies and music and they can require such business who have a physical presence in the state to collect such taxes but they cannot require that collection for all circumstances. It is also well-established law that a physical presence requires some form of building or office such as a warehouse, rented office space for a programming team, a support call center, etc. What I have not seen tried yet is whether an offsite employee working at home can be counted as having a physical presence.
The question is not so much whether the service can be taxed but whether the state can force the serving company to remit the taxes as a collecting agent.
Last I checked, the Ukraine and Russia were practically at war. I'm not sure how the involvement of a Ukrainian automatically means a Putin managed it.
Musk and Hawking are frequently going on about branches of science where they have no understanding nor expertise. Why should computers be any different?
Volcanoes are driven by the molten mass that is the core of the Earth which is around 6,000 C. Can you please explain how trace amounts of carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere are going to affect the core of the Earth. Volcanoes happen when fissures in the Earth's crust open from seismic activity and such and open a channel to the surface. If a large enough channel opens, the ice won't stand a chance.
Global warming has zero affect on volcanoes but you idiots will try anything when imitating Chicken Little. Volcanoes, on the other hand, could have everything to do with warming surface temperatures if the insulation (Earth's crust) is growing thinner.
What are you talking about with the Mormon reference? Why are you equating Mormons with Nazis?
I agree with you. And it should be a two-way street such that bakers are not required to create custom works of confectionary art to celebrate weddings they disapprove of.
Think about how lucky we are that the Nazis won those fights. Had the Communists won, we would be living with an entire Communist Europe now because the leadership of America at the time (along with many since) was enamored with Communism and Uncle Joe.
I wasn't counting money spent within the US as charitable donations to other countries as that wouldn't be foreign aid but I guess if that works for you.
Nobody needed any help to doubt Hillary's character.
What fake jobs? I have family paying a bunch of teenagers slightly over minimum wage to sell burgers, fries and frozen custard. Just how much should somebody get paid for doing that and how much do you want that burger and frozen custard to cost.
Also, tending and harvesting crops and cattle and such is not a FAKE JOB. They are real jobs.
"have to use texting to tell them dinner is ready" "Have to" is pretty strong there. "Choose to coddle them by texting" is a much more accurate way to state this as most people don't even need to use a phone to tell people in the house that the food has been prepared.
What?
Considering that the MBTA does not pick you up at your doorstep, there just might be a slight difference. I'm not saying the cost is entirely justified but that the stops are more customized so that some increase is worthwhile.
I know that a number of years ago, San Francisco made heavy use of the regular transit buses fro school transportation; no idea whether that is still the case.
No, they are saying that they are a now a parent, are somebody's son, and rode the bus for 3 years (presumably as a student but possibly as a "bus dad"; then they asked a question.
And your solution is to continue wasting tax money paying people to do a job that is not needed. That is about the dumbest idea I have heard for a while.
Maybe we could pay these people to do some of those "jobs that Americans don't want". I'm sure some Americans would want them if the choice was between "job I don't really want and starving" instead of "job I don't want and welfare." Use welfare to pay the relocation costs.
Wait, we are not allowed to discuss whether doing something is good or bad or both depending on what happens after that something unless we pass a law imposing an infinite fine for doing the first something first?
When was the law passed that made it illegal to pass a law about de-anonymizing so that we could debate passing the de-anonymizing law?
No, it just doesn't go far enough. it is not enough to simply tell people they can't do something because bad people will ignore that. We need to pass laws that tell us we cannot even think about doing something bad and then people will start to follow the law.
"Because the bad actors aren't going to care that it's against the law to de-anonymize." Are you absolutely sure about that. I've heard a few people, rich people even, telling me that criminals will stop selling guns to each other in the US if only US law would require permission from the government before any gun is sold. I don't see this de-anonymizing thing being any different.
Yes, people really are that stupid and it is not generally the ones that voted against Hillary and others of a similar ilk.
you left out the space "go ogle" not "google".
And you are also including the phony dossier purchased by the Clinton Campaign "detailing" how a certain businessman enjoyed the feel of urine, right? You are not actually claiming that the Trump campaign purchased that dossier and convinced everyone in the world to claim it was actually Hillary that did it, are you?
Of course, anyone who believes that articles discussing Hillary's involvement with unapproved and illegal email servers are "fake news" is not really bright enough to understand the rest of the world.
But the majority of US aid is in the form of private charitable donations distributed outside of the national government. That is something that Leftists absolutely refuse to believe in as it so closely mirrors the idea of having private ownership of the means pf production.
Therefore, such giving is not counted in Leftist statistics.
And it will be called iEML (i-Emrgency Mobile Location) and not quite compatible with AML Apple will sell somebody a format converter.
And how much cargo are they moving in those America's Cup races and on that 48 footer? Consider for a moment that Panamax can have a displacement almost 6,000 times that little 48-footer and tell me how big the sails are going to be get a Panamax moving at 12-14 knots which is the current target. Modern cargo ships are generally capable of 25 kt. Also, bear in mind that Panamax are considered medium sized container vessels.
We won't even discuss the Mississippi and Ohio River barge traffic and how wide those rivers are for tacking a set of barges back and forth.