January 29 The Spark Tablet was announced (later renamed to Vivaldi). Two months it was supposed to be on the market. Now, it's 2 months after that and it still isn't shipping...
I want the tablet, but hell if I know when I'll be able to buy one.
The initial run was sold out, so if you didn't reserve one, you will have to wait for the 2nd run. The good news is that the extra delay allowed them to upgrade the specs on the tablet. If you are really desperate, you can purchase the Zethinks C71 which is the original Vivaldi spec'd tablet and install the plasma active image on it. The Vivaldi cost slightly more, but makes a contribution to KDE, so if you go the Zethinks route, you could also make a contribution to keep all things equal.
For instance, the Great Lakes in the US are rising. As they rise, the more and more water runs out of them and eventually finds its way to the sea.
How do the lakes rise AND more water runs out of them?
Also... there aren't many Great Lakes in the US. Or do only half of the lakes rise?
The bedrock in the area is rising, basically the floor of the Great Lakes. As it rises, the water is pushed out because the volume of space for the water to occupy is less. Accepted theory is the area was compressed during the last iceage from the weight of the ice sheet and has been gradually re-expanding to its natural contour. Of course this does not happen equally at every location and one end of the Lakes is rising faster than the other which has same effect as taking a baking dish full of water and lifting one end. The water runs out the lower end.
Actually, I know that 1 of the great lakes (forget the one) is lower and the amount is approximately the amount taken out of it for freshwater use (farming is always a big water user.) I heard about the studies back when the Great Lake states were discussing a deal where they would forbid any other state from stealing water from the Lakes - which sounded a bit nuts to people up here but people in AZ just assume someday they'll get water from the Great Lakes like we were just next door. I followed the hardly covered issue back then because having been in AZ, I know it was not crazy to the people wanting to make the deal. Thankfully our politicians opposed it (no lobby or media coverage) but when the time comes they'll easily change positions and undo past law if properly bribed.
Actually, the whole region around the Great Lakes is rising. It was compressed during the last iceage and has be returning to it's normal, decompressed state ever since. If it was simply water being taken out of the lakes for other use, then the level would be low everywhere. However, the one end has raised significantly (in geological terms) and has nothing to do with water usage. However, the water that was in the now lifted area has run out, ultimately into the ocean (through the normal channels).
Other parts of Canada and the northern Midwest are also experiencing the lifting/tilting. They just don't have massive bodies of fresh water on top of them so it isn't noticeable like it is on a shoreline.
There are other causes besides just melting ice caps and expanding water and man made activities. For instance, the Great Lakes in the US are rising. As they rise, the more and more water runs out of them and eventually finds its way to the sea. There are other large bodies of water with similar geological forces in play that have nothing to do with man's activity.
It seems like places like Venice were worried about rising water levels long before 20th century man started irrigated cropland and the like. I am not a climatologist or anything like that but it seems like an awfully simple model that only looks at melting ice, warming water and the rest is because of people.
In that case, the FAA fee sounds more like a blend of both types: it's 7.5% of the fare plus $3.80 per segment. So its amount very much depends on the price of airfare, unlike a typical excise tax, such as your gasoline example, which is not percentage-based.
Except that it is a tax on a provided service, not the sale of goods.
I don't think there's actually a legally solid difference between sales taxes and excise taxes. I agree it's arguably an excise tax, since it's applied to a certain product, not generally. But excise taxes are usually not based on a percentage of the sales price, rather on volume or units or some other such objective measure. In that sense, the "September 11 Security Fee" of $5 per segment is more of a classic excise tax, while an x%-of-all-airline-tickets tax is more like a sales tax. It's definitely not the same as the general state sales taxes that this article is about, in any case.
Fuel tax on gasoline is an excise tax. It is the same tax amount whether gas is $3/gallon of $5/gallon. Sales taxes are a percentage of sales and are only on goods sold. Excise taxes can also be on items disposed of as in a tire fee for getting rid of old tires. Both types, sales and excise, are obviously taxes, but how they work are vastly different as is how they are enacted in most states.
If Amazon has an office in Maryland (I don't know where their office is located), and warehouses in Tennessee, California and Minnesota (again, I don't know where their warehouses are), they only have Nexus in 4 states: Maryland, Tennessee, California and Minnesota and are only responsible for sales tax collection/remittance in those 4 states.
I live in California and Amazon has never collected any sales tax from me, so I guess they must not have warehouses here (except that some of my purchases have clearly shipped from "fulfillment centers" in California). Nor do I know anyone who has paid sales tax on an Amazon purchase in any other state. One presumes Amazon must have offices or warehouses somewhere. Therefore it is logical to surmise that Amazon is using (presumably legal) means to dodge sales taxes.
If Amazon has a fulfillment center in CA and you live in CA, then they have Nexus and they should be charging you sales tax regardless if you purchase online or not (same with Walmart). However, the seller doesn't dodge sales tax, the consumer is responsible for it. Maybe CA doesn't require online sellers to collect and remit it on behalf of the seller. Other states, those where Amazon doesn't have nexus, usually have what is called use tax, which is like sales tax except that the purchaser is responsible for filing the tax. Most individuals don't Most business don't until they get caught and pay the interest and penalties the first time, then they do.
If you read my post, I stated that I don't know what the UK taxes. However, CA does not charge a sales tax on airline tickets according to their own statutes. The do charge sales tax on the purchase of an air plane. So, most likely, CA is charging some other type of excise tax and the ticketing entity is calling it a sales tax. For instance, most states also charge an entertainment tax on sporting events and everyone calls it a sales tax, but in reality, it is not, it is an entertainment tax. Sales taxes only apply to sale of goods, not services.
Well, it could be because the infrastructure to ship all of those goods people are buying from Amazon and other online retailers is supported by sales tax.
It could be, but it isn't supposed to be. Infrastructure like roads is supposed to be supported by fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees.
Most county roads are maintained through sales and property taxes. Only states and federal government get fuel taxes and the federal fuel tax given back to the states can only be used for new construction. Likewise, counties and municipalities don't usually share in vehicle registration fees. Of course those are the general rules, there could be states that have passed statutes creating exceptions to them.
I betcha didn't know that there is now a national sales tax. Most people don't know about it because it targets only one very specific industry.. indoor tanning outlets. This was given to us by the helathcare reform shaft.
Try again when you travel across the globe every other week.
I have no doubt you ticket says it is a sales tax, however it is not. It is an excise tax. The federal transportation excise tax on air travel used to be 7.5% don't know what it is now. California adds it's own transportation tax (and environmental clean up tax, or something like that) and then there is the terminal fee. Maybe to keep it simple, the airline just lumps the whole thing as a sales tax.
Does the ticket also list the other excise taxes along with the sales tax or just the sales tax. If it is listing only a sales tax, you should form your own non-profit and have it buy the ticket, which would be exempt from sales tax (but not excise tax) and tell the airline you aren't required to pay sales tax.
However people were hoping to see Bubble like growth. We think back of the good times during the 1990's where a Web Developer who just used Front Page would get a low 6 figure salary. Getting paid in Stock Options seemed like a good deal. Then we had the Pop where a lot of these jobs were outsourced. Stocks dropped, where a lot of these company who did nothing went out of business, and the ones that were over valued dropped a lot.
The companies that took on more modest growth, when times went bad went to a modest declined, they didn't have to layoff thousands of workers, they operated in their means. If Facebook doesn't plummet or shoot crazy up, then it was priced fairly and both sides got a good deal.
It can only be told if investors got a good deal based on what FB does in the future, not what they did in the past. It is definitely true that FB got a good deal, but unless the can turn the proceeds of the IPO into future business at a sustainable rate greater than what the investors could have invested in, then the investors did not get a good deal. It's all about opportunity cost.
It stayed within 10% because JP Morgan was paid $177 million to insure the stock. a bad bet for them; who knows how much they stand to lose now that they've had to buy so much FB stock to cover the policy? They're the big losers here, not the FB guys who dumped half their insider stock on Friday and made a killing.
There is a reason why after the depression that banks were not allowed to venture into speculative markets and real estate and the like. Then in the 90s, most of those laws were rescinded under the guise that regulation was hurting the banking industry. Now that a new generation has had experience with what happens when somebody your trust gambles with your money, maybe we'll go back to regulating banks so that they don't speculate on markets and insuring stock issues. Just a thought.
These reporters are just being sensationalist, manufacturing stories to get page views off this big IPO.
Truth is as you say. I think it shows a great sense for rational valuation if after the first day the stock stayed within 10% of its opening either way. Much more shows dangerous wild speculation by traders, or the company completely blew their valuation estimates.
Unless you were one of the people who lost 10% of the value you just purchased. 10% decline in one or two days is a very big decline. It also didn't help that GM announced that they were pulling advertising from FB as they found that it wasn't effective.
It's troubling because after the initial speculators drove up the price, now that clearer heads are making the decisions, the price is below what was asked for initially. In other words, once all of the hype cleared, investors think the initial asking price was too high.
The US charges an excise tax, not a sales tax. I don't know what the UK charges. but California charges terminal fees and departure fees, again not sales tax. Are you saying that you have a ticket that actually lists sales tax as one of the additional charges?
If you want to know why your taxes are so high you only need to look at the deals which are given to major corporations to attract and retain their business.
But in this case, each of the cities in question will get $8M more in tax revenue plus 1,000 new jobs. Why is that a problem?
From the article, the "deal" means that each of the cities in question will net an additional $8M in tax revenues plus 1,000 new jobs and all of the benefits to the local economy that those jobs will entail. So, instead of waiving property taxes like most cities do to lure a business, they are letting them keep most, but not all of the local sales tax. Different tax, same principle.
The reason that the local governments are giving rebates is because they are not the ones the tax is remitted to in the first place, but the state is. As such, the local government has no authority to give a discount like the state does. The effect is the same, though. The local government is allowing Amazon to keep a portion of the local sales tax to offset the cost of collecting and remitting. It is serving the same purpose, just using a different mechanism.
Many would be wrong. The price is already set at what the market will bear, why lower it?
Costs have very little to do with price.
..dodging the tax was originally how amazon managed to do their market takeover in the first place. don't pretend it had no effect on pricing.
Amazon didn't dodge any taxes. To be liable to charge/remit sales taxes, a business must have Nexus in the state. Most mail order and internet businesses only have Nexus in states where they have offices or warehouses, since they don't have store fronts. If Amazon has an office in Maryland (I don't know where their office is located), and warehouses in Tennessee, California and Minnesota (again, I don't know where their warehouses are), they only have Nexus in 4 states: Maryland, Tennessee, California and Minnesota and are only responsible for sales tax collection/remittance in those 4 states.
That is the law for every jurisdiction levying a sales tax. No Nexus, no tax due. Amazon, being in compliance with the law, does not make them a tax dodger. That said, not having to charge sales tax meant purchasing goods from Amazon was cheaper than purchasing them locally, assuming the shipping was less than the sales tax, which very often was not.
What really allowed Amazon to take over the market is the same thing that allowed Walmart to take over the local market: selection. Just as Walmart would come into town and over more products than the local ma and pa store so people shopped at Walmart. Amazon offers infinitely more products than any local retailer could possibly offer. I could drive to the store and maybe have the choice of one or two brands for the item I am looking for or go to Amazon and see 100 brands along with reviews from people who purchased the item. As a consumer which is preferable? As a local vendor, though, it sucks.
Many would be wrong. The price is already set at what the market will bear, why lower it?
Costs have very little to do with price.
Nobody said anything about lowering the price. That is not a requirement in any of this. However, the discount figures in the bottom line which figures in on ROI. If ROI is too low, prices rise (or other cuts are made).
Costs have everything to do with price, because one business's price is another's cost. That's why they are called supply and demand curves. The price of goods and services sets the demand and the demand for goods and services sets the price.
FAA taxes are not sales taxes, nor are they levied by state and local governments.
As for tax hikes getting passed through or not, that depends. Very often, they result in layoffs. The magic number for corporations is the bottom line and there are many ways to keep it at the level the board or shareholders demand. So, technically, if a company feels it cannot increase prices to offset taxes they will cut staff. That usually, though, is not the case.
Can local government just "give" money back like this? Seems like it's public money, surely it can't just be given to a private company?
Almost all states allow the retailer to keep a portion of the sales tax collected to cover the cost of calculating and remitting it to the state. Your local Walmart gets this deal, too, as does your local family owned business. Of course, it made more sense prior to computers when it was a manual process to tally up all of the sales calculate the taxes prepare the statements and remit them to the state than it does today. But that would be a different argument.
Slashdot Mirror
January 29 The Spark Tablet was announced (later renamed to Vivaldi). Two months it was supposed to be on the market. Now, it's 2 months after that and it still isn't shipping...
I want the tablet, but hell if I know when I'll be able to buy one.
The initial run was sold out, so if you didn't reserve one, you will have to wait for the 2nd run. The good news is that the extra delay allowed them to upgrade the specs on the tablet. If you are really desperate, you can purchase the Zethinks C71 which is the original Vivaldi spec'd tablet and install the plasma active image on it. The Vivaldi cost slightly more, but makes a contribution to KDE, so if you go the Zethinks route, you could also make a contribution to keep all things equal.
For instance, the Great Lakes in the US are rising. As they rise, the more and more water runs out of them and eventually finds its way to the sea.
How do the lakes rise AND more water runs out of them?
Also... there aren't many Great Lakes in the US. Or do only half of the lakes rise?
The bedrock in the area is rising, basically the floor of the Great Lakes. As it rises, the water is pushed out because the volume of space for the water to occupy is less. Accepted theory is the area was compressed during the last iceage from the weight of the ice sheet and has been gradually re-expanding to its natural contour. Of course this does not happen equally at every location and one end of the Lakes is rising faster than the other which has same effect as taking a baking dish full of water and lifting one end. The water runs out the lower end.
Actually, I know that 1 of the great lakes (forget the one) is lower and the amount is approximately the amount taken out of it for freshwater use (farming is always a big water user.) I heard about the studies back when the Great Lake states were discussing a deal where they would forbid any other state from stealing water from the Lakes - which sounded a bit nuts to people up here but people in AZ just assume someday they'll get water from the Great Lakes like we were just next door. I followed the hardly covered issue back then because having been in AZ, I know it was not crazy to the people wanting to make the deal. Thankfully our politicians opposed it (no lobby or media coverage) but when the time comes they'll easily change positions and undo past law if properly bribed.
Actually, the whole region around the Great Lakes is rising. It was compressed during the last iceage and has be returning to it's normal, decompressed state ever since. If it was simply water being taken out of the lakes for other use, then the level would be low everywhere. However, the one end has raised significantly (in geological terms) and has nothing to do with water usage. However, the water that was in the now lifted area has run out, ultimately into the ocean (through the normal channels).
Other parts of Canada and the northern Midwest are also experiencing the lifting/tilting. They just don't have massive bodies of fresh water on top of them so it isn't noticeable like it is on a shoreline.
There are other causes besides just melting ice caps and expanding water and man made activities. For instance, the Great Lakes in the US are rising. As they rise, the more and more water runs out of them and eventually finds its way to the sea. There are other large bodies of water with similar geological forces in play that have nothing to do with man's activity.
It seems like places like Venice were worried about rising water levels long before 20th century man started irrigated cropland and the like. I am not a climatologist or anything like that but it seems like an awfully simple model that only looks at melting ice, warming water and the rest is because of people.
the water mass trapped behind dams world wide is negligible
I bet if you ask the people of Johnstown, PA or anywhere else that a dam has collapsed, they would have a different point of view.
In that case, the FAA fee sounds more like a blend of both types: it's 7.5% of the fare plus $3.80 per segment. So its amount very much depends on the price of airfare, unlike a typical excise tax, such as your gasoline example, which is not percentage-based.
Except that it is a tax on a provided service, not the sale of goods.
I don't think there's actually a legally solid difference between sales taxes and excise taxes. I agree it's arguably an excise tax, since it's applied to a certain product, not generally. But excise taxes are usually not based on a percentage of the sales price, rather on volume or units or some other such objective measure. In that sense, the "September 11 Security Fee" of $5 per segment is more of a classic excise tax, while an x%-of-all-airline-tickets tax is more like a sales tax. It's definitely not the same as the general state sales taxes that this article is about, in any case.
Fuel tax on gasoline is an excise tax. It is the same tax amount whether gas is $3/gallon of $5/gallon. Sales taxes are a percentage of sales and are only on goods sold. Excise taxes can also be on items disposed of as in a tire fee for getting rid of old tires. Both types, sales and excise, are obviously taxes, but how they work are vastly different as is how they are enacted in most states.
If Amazon has an office in Maryland (I don't know where their office is located), and warehouses in Tennessee, California and Minnesota (again, I don't know where their warehouses are), they only have Nexus in 4 states: Maryland, Tennessee, California and Minnesota and are only responsible for sales tax collection/remittance in those 4 states.
I live in California and Amazon has never collected any sales tax from me, so I guess they must not have warehouses here (except that some of my purchases have clearly shipped from "fulfillment centers" in California). Nor do I know anyone who has paid sales tax on an Amazon purchase in any other state. One presumes Amazon must have offices or warehouses somewhere. Therefore it is logical to surmise that Amazon is using (presumably legal) means to dodge sales taxes.
If Amazon has a fulfillment center in CA and you live in CA, then they have Nexus and they should be charging you sales tax regardless if you purchase online or not (same with Walmart). However, the seller doesn't dodge sales tax, the consumer is responsible for it. Maybe CA doesn't require online sellers to collect and remit it on behalf of the seller. Other states, those where Amazon doesn't have nexus, usually have what is called use tax, which is like sales tax except that the purchaser is responsible for filing the tax. Most individuals don't Most business don't until they get caught and pay the interest and penalties the first time, then they do.
If you read my post, I stated that I don't know what the UK taxes. However, CA does not charge a sales tax on airline tickets according to their own statutes. The do charge sales tax on the purchase of an air plane. So, most likely, CA is charging some other type of excise tax and the ticketing entity is calling it a sales tax. For instance, most states also charge an entertainment tax on sporting events and everyone calls it a sales tax, but in reality, it is not, it is an entertainment tax. Sales taxes only apply to sale of goods, not services.
Well, it could be because the infrastructure to ship all of those goods people are buying from Amazon and other online retailers is supported by sales tax.
It could be, but it isn't supposed to be. Infrastructure like roads is supposed to be supported by fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees.
Most county roads are maintained through sales and property taxes. Only states and federal government get fuel taxes and the federal fuel tax given back to the states can only be used for new construction. Likewise, counties and municipalities don't usually share in vehicle registration fees. Of course those are the general rules, there could be states that have passed statutes creating exceptions to them.
I betcha didn't know that there is now a national sales tax. Most people don't know about it because it targets only one very specific industry.. indoor tanning outlets. This was given to us by the helathcare reform shaft.
WRONG. They charge a sales tax (8.5 %)
Yes, that ticket lists it.
Try again when you travel across the globe every other week.
I have no doubt you ticket says it is a sales tax, however it is not. It is an excise tax. The federal transportation excise tax on air travel used to be 7.5% don't know what it is now. California adds it's own transportation tax (and environmental clean up tax, or something like that) and then there is the terminal fee. Maybe to keep it simple, the airline just lumps the whole thing as a sales tax.
Does the ticket also list the other excise taxes along with the sales tax or just the sales tax. If it is listing only a sales tax, you should form your own non-profit and have it buy the ticket, which would be exempt from sales tax (but not excise tax) and tell the airline you aren't required to pay sales tax.
However people were hoping to see Bubble like growth. We think back of the good times during the 1990's where a Web Developer who just used Front Page would get a low 6 figure salary. Getting paid in Stock Options seemed like a good deal. Then we had the Pop where a lot of these jobs were outsourced. Stocks dropped, where a lot of these company who did nothing went out of business, and the ones that were over valued dropped a lot.
The companies that took on more modest growth, when times went bad went to a modest declined, they didn't have to layoff thousands of workers, they operated in their means. If Facebook doesn't plummet or shoot crazy up, then it was priced fairly and both sides got a good deal.
It can only be told if investors got a good deal based on what FB does in the future, not what they did in the past. It is definitely true that FB got a good deal, but unless the can turn the proceeds of the IPO into future business at a sustainable rate greater than what the investors could have invested in, then the investors did not get a good deal. It's all about opportunity cost.
It stayed within 10% because JP Morgan was paid $177 million to insure the stock. a bad bet for them; who knows how much they stand to lose now that they've had to buy so much FB stock to cover the policy? They're the big losers here, not the FB guys who dumped half their insider stock on Friday and made a killing.
There is a reason why after the depression that banks were not allowed to venture into speculative markets and real estate and the like. Then in the 90s, most of those laws were rescinded under the guise that regulation was hurting the banking industry. Now that a new generation has had experience with what happens when somebody your trust gambles with your money, maybe we'll go back to regulating banks so that they don't speculate on markets and insuring stock issues. Just a thought.
These reporters are just being sensationalist, manufacturing stories to get page views off this big IPO.
Truth is as you say. I think it shows a great sense for rational valuation if after the first day the stock stayed within 10% of its opening either way. Much more shows dangerous wild speculation by traders, or the company completely blew their valuation estimates.
Unless you were one of the people who lost 10% of the value you just purchased. 10% decline in one or two days is a very big decline. It also didn't help that GM announced that they were pulling advertising from FB as they found that it wasn't effective.
didn't undervalue themselves
16 billion is about $18 per user. that's ridiculous.
Plus FB doesn't get all of the $16B, there are numerous IPO and legal fees that come off the top.
It's troubling because after the initial speculators drove up the price, now that clearer heads are making the decisions, the price is below what was asked for initially. In other words, once all of the hype cleared, investors think the initial asking price was too high.
The US charges an excise tax, not a sales tax. I don't know what the UK charges. but California charges terminal fees and departure fees, again not sales tax. Are you saying that you have a ticket that actually lists sales tax as one of the additional charges?
"FAA taxes are not sales taxes, nor are they levied by state and local governments."
Have you bothered getting a full run-down of your airline tickets?
Let me bust out my most recent overseas flight ticket to Heathrow from LAX.
Shit, the actual cost is roughly $199, but the added taxes almost brings it to $1,000.
From THREE fucking governments, Los Angeles, California, then UK.
I didn't say that it wasn't a tax. I said it wasn't a sales tax. There is a difference.
If you want to know why your taxes are so high you only need to look at the deals which are given to major corporations to attract and retain their business.
But in this case, each of the cities in question will get $8M more in tax revenue plus 1,000 new jobs. Why is that a problem?
From the article, the "deal" means that each of the cities in question will net an additional $8M in tax revenues plus 1,000 new jobs and all of the benefits to the local economy that those jobs will entail. So, instead of waiving property taxes like most cities do to lure a business, they are letting them keep most, but not all of the local sales tax. Different tax, same principle.
The reason that the local governments are giving rebates is because they are not the ones the tax is remitted to in the first place, but the state is. As such, the local government has no authority to give a discount like the state does. The effect is the same, though. The local government is allowing Amazon to keep a portion of the local sales tax to offset the cost of collecting and remitting. It is serving the same purpose, just using a different mechanism.
Many would be wrong. The price is already set at what the market will bear, why lower it?
Costs have very little to do with price.
..dodging the tax was originally how amazon managed to do their market takeover in the first place. don't pretend it had no effect on pricing.
Amazon didn't dodge any taxes. To be liable to charge/remit sales taxes, a business must have Nexus in the state. Most mail order and internet businesses only have Nexus in states where they have offices or warehouses, since they don't have store fronts. If Amazon has an office in Maryland (I don't know where their office is located), and warehouses in Tennessee, California and Minnesota (again, I don't know where their warehouses are), they only have Nexus in 4 states: Maryland, Tennessee, California and Minnesota and are only responsible for sales tax collection/remittance in those 4 states.
That is the law for every jurisdiction levying a sales tax. No Nexus, no tax due. Amazon, being in compliance with the law, does not make them a tax dodger. That said, not having to charge sales tax meant purchasing goods from Amazon was cheaper than purchasing them locally, assuming the shipping was less than the sales tax, which very often was not.
What really allowed Amazon to take over the market is the same thing that allowed Walmart to take over the local market: selection. Just as Walmart would come into town and over more products than the local ma and pa store so people shopped at Walmart. Amazon offers infinitely more products than any local retailer could possibly offer. I could drive to the store and maybe have the choice of one or two brands for the item I am looking for or go to Amazon and see 100 brands along with reviews from people who purchased the item. As a consumer which is preferable? As a local vendor, though, it sucks.
Many would be wrong. The price is already set at what the market will bear, why lower it?
Costs have very little to do with price.
Nobody said anything about lowering the price. That is not a requirement in any of this. However, the discount figures in the bottom line which figures in on ROI. If ROI is too low, prices rise (or other cuts are made).
Costs have everything to do with price, because one business's price is another's cost. That's why they are called supply and demand curves. The price of goods and services sets the demand and the demand for goods and services sets the price.
FAA taxes are not sales taxes, nor are they levied by state and local governments.
As for tax hikes getting passed through or not, that depends. Very often, they result in layoffs. The magic number for corporations is the bottom line and there are many ways to keep it at the level the board or shareholders demand. So, technically, if a company feels it cannot increase prices to offset taxes they will cut staff. That usually, though, is not the case.
Can local government just "give" money back like this? Seems like it's public money, surely it can't just be given to a private company?
Almost all states allow the retailer to keep a portion of the sales tax collected to cover the cost of calculating and remitting it to the state. Your local Walmart gets this deal, too, as does your local family owned business. Of course, it made more sense prior to computers when it was a manual process to tally up all of the sales calculate the taxes prepare the statements and remit them to the state than it does today. But that would be a different argument.