I didn't know that. Still - unemployment goes up and Texas loses a bunch of money that was coming in from out-of-state to pay Texas workers, who naturally would have to buy a lot of stuff in Texas which would be subject to the sales tax. So they're still losing.
Or they might just be doing it to give Texas the shaft and move their future business to less litigious regions.
In effect - "Sorry about all those income taxes you were collecting on those workers, Texas. *snigger* not really. I'm sure somewhere else would be happy to have it."
Why should they care if anyone notices? It's a loophole. Legally, they're completely different corporations. It was all perfectly legal according to Texas law, and there's nothing Texas can do, short of change the law. And they absolutely can't retroactively apply the new law and collect taxes on the sales.
Most or all States try to collect an interstate sales tax anyway, under the euphemistic name of "use tax" payable and reportable by the buyer. (That this "use tax" appears to violate Constitutional restrictions on State-imposed import taxes doesn't seem to bother the States. Some State courts have even ruled the tax to be Constitutional!).
Of course it's constitutional. They live there, they're subject to the laws.
If you go to Mexico and buy a bunch of stuff because it's really cheap there, the US can't tax your purchases there. But they sure as hell can charge you import duties on the goods when you come back. This is no different.
Because they didn't have a physical presence in Texas. So it was a loophole in the law - so what? If Texas wants to change the law to close the loophole, that's fine, but they can't go and say that the new law retroactively applies to all of Amazon's past sales in the state of Texas.
You sales tax everything else, and things with a social cost, like drugs and alcohol more.
And the government then has a fairly high monetary interest in ensuring that people continue to consume lots of those things.
Sort of like the traffic light cams... no matter how well-founded some of the intentions may have been, it's just another piggy-bank by the time it gets to the politicians, and they squeal if it starts running dry. Oh my gawd, people aren't smoking as much as they used to... and then they just have to raise taxes on everyone else to try to get that money, which their budget has grown to depend on.
I use a credit card for everything I possibly can, because it's free (actually, it's 1% cash back), and it's extremely convenient, and a single transfer at the end of the month pays the entire balance for everything I spent. Actually - no - it's an automatic transfer for the card I normally use, come to think of it.
It's win-win-win. You might as well take advantage of it.
I'm well aware that it's still profiting the credit card company because they're skimming their 3% off everything I spend, but as long as the merchant isn't tacking that on extra, I don't care - i.e. even if the merchant had to raise its prices by 3%, if they wouldn't discount me the 3% if I paid in cash, then why bother - the credit card is easier.
They played by the rules, to the letter. Now Texas is saying "no, that was a loophole, you owe us $big-amount."
They can't do that. You can't change the rules, mid-stride, because of a "loophole", and then say that the rules retroactively applied to everyone.
If they could do that, they could call anything they wanted a "loophole" and send out a letter telling you that you owe a few thousand dollars in back taxes due to the "loophole" that they found.
I live in Georgia.... when I buy products in Florida, Georgia has no rights to collect taxes from that Florida business owner, nor from me.
On the contrary, Georgia has every right to collect taxes from you... if they can. (Yeah, good luck with that.)
Texas in fact has a law specifically stating exactly that. Any out-of-state purchase that isn't subject to sales tax is subject to a "use tax" which the resident of Texas owes to the state. The people of Texas should have been paying the state every time they bought something online. The state is, of course, completely unable to collect these taxes. This is just an underhanded attempt to shift that bad tax debt over to Amazon, plain and simple. Maybe they thought Amazon would be too vested to just pull their flag down and leave, but apparently not.
And without physical presence in the state (which shutting down the warehouse is just a way to unarguably settle), Amazon is under no obligation to collect state taxes for Texas (as you correctly stated)... but it can continue to make online sales to people living in Texas and ship through USPS/UPS/FedEx.
No, they didn't. There's a loophole in the law that allowed Amazon to operate its warehouse by technically having the warehouse be owned by a different company that didn't have any sales in Texas.
Texas has basically said no, anybody who used that loophole can't anymore, AND you have to pay us back taxes on all the stuff you sold here. Well, nice try, but it doesn't work that way. They can close the loophole, but they can't claim that they're owed any back taxes. Just like if they catch you counting cards in a casino, they can throw you out, but they can't confiscate your winnings.
And since Amazon is shutting down the warehouse that Texas claimed was Amazon's physical presence in the state of Texas, Amazon can now freely do business with residents of Texas and collect no sales taxes whatsoever, free and clear according to interstate commerce law. If Texas wants to collect that use tax, it can now go ahead and try, because under no possible interpretation of the law is Amazon obligated to collect it if they have no physical presence in the state of Texas.
No, if every state stood up to parasites like Amazon, they'd go out of business
Erm, what? How do you figure? Amazon is still going to be doing business with customers in Texas. They're just having a warehouse shut down.
That warehouse was owned by a corporation that isn't Amazon, in fact, so they shouldn't have to pay sales tax in Texas. But Texas claimed that the warehouse gave them physical presence in Texas, so Amazon had to collect sales tax on all of its sales to people in Texas.
Without that warehouse, Amazon can continue to do business with internet customers in Texas and ship there, and they won't have to collect Texas sales tax by any interpretation of the law. Texas is the only one getting screwed...
In fact the online customers are still supposed to be paying taxes in Texas on all of their online purchases, but according to interstate commerce laws, Amazon doesn't have to collect any taxes for Texas if they don't have a physical presence in the state of Texas. According to those laws, it's up to Texas to figure out how to collect that tax from the people living in Texas who buy online from out of state, if the vendor doesn't have in-state presence.
it is very clear that Amazon is trying to cheat on their taxes, pretending that they don't do business in Texas when they clearly do
No. What is clear is that Texas had a law that said if you aren't physically present in the state, you don't have to collect sales taxes on your sales.
Sales tax is NOT a tax on Amazon. It's a tax on the people living in Texas who buy from Amazon. Amazon was operating under the impression that it didn't have to collect sales taxes from people in Texas. It didn't.
Now Texas pulled a fast one on Amazon and wants them to pay a few hundred million dollars in taxes that they never collected. If they had collected it, they would have paid it... but as they didn't, they can't. Amazon doesn't have the money. The Texan customers still have it, because they never paid it to Amazon. Texas can collect its own fucking taxes, since it tried to be clever and didn't inform Amazon that it was supposed to be collecting them.
A neat trick by Texas, too... transferring some of its citizens taxes over to Amazon! Make Amazon pay... they have big pockets... and Texans needed a tax break anyway...
Just noticed the title of the thread. (Slashdot helpfully hides it on replies.) Well, that answers a few of my questions, I guess, but why's the teacher still writing assignments like that if the kids no longer have the textbook? Sounds like they're lazy.
i_liek_turtles referred to "my classes", and I was replying more to him than to you.
But it sounds like your original comment is based on the idea that she can't take her textbook to the library. Why not? And I was under the impression that grade schools had school library computers with internet access, too. Doesn't hers?
Dumb people do things like: - Throw water on a grease fire. Best Idea Evar. - Turn the stove on and pass out drunk so they can't hear the fire alarm. - Not have working fire alarms in the first place. - Leave the house while the stove is on.
Smart people generally don't start cooking fires in the first place, but if they do, they know to put a lid on it, turn the stove off, and use baking soda and/or a fire extinguisher. They certainly don't call the fire department over an easily-contained cooking fire... fire departments are notorious for making a big fucking mess and then leaving.
Take your pick of the existing TLDs (say,.com) and you're in the same boat as you are currently. And it's still a problem if browsers think the URL is malformed and helpfully do a web search instead of a name lookup, which means that anybody who manages to get the top Google ranking can fraudulently misrepresent themselves as the website that you expected to reach. (I turn that off whenever possible - the URL bar should not be a search bar. Note that searching bookmarks and history is fine, as long as what it's loading is a URL that I've previously visited.)
I guess the only reason for even having TLDs is that it keeps the ICANN's job simple. Delegation, basically. Opening the registration of TLDs to anyone and everyone would do away with that benefit.
Obama's campaigning for re-election already. Not only will this not happen (sort of like Gitmo), it's a stupid idea that we don't have the money to pay for even if we wanted it. But if he promises them 4G coverage and a pony, I guess he figures someone somewhere will vote for him.
Slashdot Mirror
Jeopardy! is the game where an answer is given and the contestant must supply a question...
Once their AI is sufficiently good at it, they're obviously planning to give it the answer 42.
Restaurants have those minimal shirt and shoe requirements because of health codes, not because of indecent exposure laws.
I didn't know that. Still - unemployment goes up and Texas loses a bunch of money that was coming in from out-of-state to pay Texas workers, who naturally would have to buy a lot of stuff in Texas which would be subject to the sales tax. So they're still losing.
Or they might just be doing it to give Texas the shaft and move their future business to less litigious regions.
In effect - "Sorry about all those income taxes you were collecting on those workers, Texas. *snigger* not really. I'm sure somewhere else would be happy to have it."
Why should they care if anyone notices? It's a loophole. Legally, they're completely different corporations. It was all perfectly legal according to Texas law, and there's nothing Texas can do, short of change the law. And they absolutely can't retroactively apply the new law and collect taxes on the sales.
Well... they can try. But they'll fail.
Most or all States try to collect an interstate sales tax anyway, under the euphemistic name of "use tax" payable and reportable by the buyer. (That this "use tax" appears to violate Constitutional restrictions on State-imposed import taxes doesn't seem to bother the States. Some State courts have even ruled the tax to be Constitutional!).
Of course it's constitutional. They live there, they're subject to the laws.
If you go to Mexico and buy a bunch of stuff because it's really cheap there, the US can't tax your purchases there. But they sure as hell can charge you import duties on the goods when you come back. This is no different.
on a 6-8% sales tax and no income tax
What dream-world does that exist in?
I pay 6-8% sales tax and income tax. How does that stack up against the situation you currently live in?
Yes... it was the company who owned the warehouse's obligation to pay taxes on all sales it made in the state of Texas.
But the company wasn't Amazon. The company made no sales in Texas.
Amazon made the sales, and Amazon didn't have physical presence in Texas, so it didn't have to collect sales tax.
Call it a loophole, but that's how the law was written and it was all perfectly legal.
Because they didn't have a physical presence in Texas. So it was a loophole in the law - so what? If Texas wants to change the law to close the loophole, that's fine, but they can't go and say that the new law retroactively applies to all of Amazon's past sales in the state of Texas.
You sales tax everything else, and things with a social cost, like drugs and alcohol more.
And the government then has a fairly high monetary interest in ensuring that people continue to consume lots of those things.
Sort of like the traffic light cams... no matter how well-founded some of the intentions may have been, it's just another piggy-bank by the time it gets to the politicians, and they squeal if it starts running dry. Oh my gawd, people aren't smoking as much as they used to... and then they just have to raise taxes on everyone else to try to get that money, which their budget has grown to depend on.
Taxation is habit-forming.
I use a credit card for everything I possibly can, because it's free (actually, it's 1% cash back), and it's extremely convenient, and a single transfer at the end of the month pays the entire balance for everything I spent. Actually - no - it's an automatic transfer for the card I normally use, come to think of it.
It's win-win-win. You might as well take advantage of it.
I'm well aware that it's still profiting the credit card company because they're skimming their 3% off everything I spend, but as long as the merchant isn't tacking that on extra, I don't care - i.e. even if the merchant had to raise its prices by 3%, if they wouldn't discount me the 3% if I paid in cash, then why bother - the credit card is easier.
Bullshit.
They played by the rules, to the letter. Now Texas is saying "no, that was a loophole, you owe us $big-amount."
They can't do that. You can't change the rules, mid-stride, because of a "loophole", and then say that the rules retroactively applied to everyone.
If they could do that, they could call anything they wanted a "loophole" and send out a letter telling you that you owe a few thousand dollars in back taxes due to the "loophole" that they found.
I live in Georgia. ... when I buy products in Florida, Georgia has no rights to collect taxes from that Florida business owner, nor from me .
On the contrary, Georgia has every right to collect taxes from you... if they can. (Yeah, good luck with that.)
Texas in fact has a law specifically stating exactly that. Any out-of-state purchase that isn't subject to sales tax is subject to a "use tax" which the resident of Texas owes to the state. The people of Texas should have been paying the state every time they bought something online. The state is, of course, completely unable to collect these taxes. This is just an underhanded attempt to shift that bad tax debt over to Amazon, plain and simple. Maybe they thought Amazon would be too vested to just pull their flag down and leave, but apparently not.
And without physical presence in the state (which shutting down the warehouse is just a way to unarguably settle), Amazon is under no obligation to collect state taxes for Texas (as you correctly stated)... but it can continue to make online sales to people living in Texas and ship through USPS/UPS/FedEx.
Ha! I'd like to see how well that would hold up, since the property and physical assets are owned by a corporation that isn't Amazon.
No, they didn't. There's a loophole in the law that allowed Amazon to operate its warehouse by technically having the warehouse be owned by a different company that didn't have any sales in Texas.
Texas has basically said no, anybody who used that loophole can't anymore, AND you have to pay us back taxes on all the stuff you sold here. Well, nice try, but it doesn't work that way. They can close the loophole, but they can't claim that they're owed any back taxes. Just like if they catch you counting cards in a casino, they can throw you out, but they can't confiscate your winnings.
And since Amazon is shutting down the warehouse that Texas claimed was Amazon's physical presence in the state of Texas, Amazon can now freely do business with residents of Texas and collect no sales taxes whatsoever, free and clear according to interstate commerce law. If Texas wants to collect that use tax, it can now go ahead and try, because under no possible interpretation of the law is Amazon obligated to collect it if they have no physical presence in the state of Texas.
Texas is getting screwed.
No, if every state stood up to parasites like Amazon, they'd go out of business
Erm, what? How do you figure? Amazon is still going to be doing business with customers in Texas. They're just having a warehouse shut down.
That warehouse was owned by a corporation that isn't Amazon, in fact, so they shouldn't have to pay sales tax in Texas. But Texas claimed that the warehouse gave them physical presence in Texas, so Amazon had to collect sales tax on all of its sales to people in Texas.
Without that warehouse, Amazon can continue to do business with internet customers in Texas and ship there, and they won't have to collect Texas sales tax by any interpretation of the law. Texas is the only one getting screwed...
In fact the online customers are still supposed to be paying taxes in Texas on all of their online purchases, but according to interstate commerce laws, Amazon doesn't have to collect any taxes for Texas if they don't have a physical presence in the state of Texas. According to those laws, it's up to Texas to figure out how to collect that tax from the people living in Texas who buy online from out of state, if the vendor doesn't have in-state presence.
Amazon DOES do it. Customers living in Washington have to pay sales tax when they buy things on Amazon.
it is very clear that Amazon is trying to cheat on their taxes, pretending that they don't do business in Texas when they clearly do
No. What is clear is that Texas had a law that said if you aren't physically present in the state, you don't have to collect sales taxes on your sales.
Sales tax is NOT a tax on Amazon. It's a tax on the people living in Texas who buy from Amazon. Amazon was operating under the impression that it didn't have to collect sales taxes from people in Texas. It didn't.
Now Texas pulled a fast one on Amazon and wants them to pay a few hundred million dollars in taxes that they never collected. If they had collected it, they would have paid it... but as they didn't, they can't. Amazon doesn't have the money. The Texan customers still have it, because they never paid it to Amazon. Texas can collect its own fucking taxes, since it tried to be clever and didn't inform Amazon that it was supposed to be collecting them.
A neat trick by Texas, too... transferring some of its citizens taxes over to Amazon! Make Amazon pay... they have big pockets... and Texans needed a tax break anyway...
*facepalm*
Just noticed the title of the thread. (Slashdot helpfully hides it on replies.) Well, that answers a few of my questions, I guess, but why's the teacher still writing assignments like that if the kids no longer have the textbook? Sounds like they're lazy.
i_liek_turtles referred to "my classes", and I was replying more to him than to you.
But it sounds like your original comment is based on the idea that she can't take her textbook to the library. Why not? And I was under the impression that grade schools had school library computers with internet access, too. Doesn't hers?
What school doesn't have computers with internet access in the library?
In fact if you're at college (I'm guessing so) there are probably dedicated computer labs entirely separate from the library for students to use.
Dumb people do things like:
- Throw water on a grease fire. Best Idea Evar.
- Turn the stove on and pass out drunk so they can't hear the fire alarm.
- Not have working fire alarms in the first place.
- Leave the house while the stove is on.
Smart people generally don't start cooking fires in the first place, but if they do, they know to put a lid on it, turn the stove off, and use baking soda and/or a fire extinguisher. They certainly don't call the fire department over an easily-contained cooking fire... fire departments are notorious for making a big fucking mess and then leaving.
They have perfectly functional forms of reasonably fast long-distance communication. They didn't when that section was written. It worked as intended.
Where does it say that they have to get upgraded every time a newer, faster form of communication is pioneered?
Take your pick of the existing TLDs (say, .com) and you're in the same boat as you are currently. And it's still a problem if browsers think the URL is malformed and helpfully do a web search instead of a name lookup, which means that anybody who manages to get the top Google ranking can fraudulently misrepresent themselves as the website that you expected to reach. (I turn that off whenever possible - the URL bar should not be a search bar. Note that searching bookmarks and history is fine, as long as what it's loading is a URL that I've previously visited.)
I guess the only reason for even having TLDs is that it keeps the ICANN's job simple. Delegation, basically. Opening the registration of TLDs to anyone and everyone would do away with that benefit.
Obama's campaigning for re-election already. Not only will this not happen (sort of like Gitmo), it's a stupid idea that we don't have the money to pay for even if we wanted it. But if he promises them 4G coverage and a pony, I guess he figures someone somewhere will vote for him.