Online Cigarette Customers Get Bill from State 856
wakebrdr writes "The Michigan Treasury Department has sent bills to state residents who purchased cigarettes online to avoid Michigan's high taxes. One pack-a-day smoker received a bill for $2,500 in back taxes. If a simple subpoena of customer data allows them to easily go after lost cigarette taxes, how long until state treasuries across the country subpoena Amazon.com or other big online retailers to collect unpaid sales taxes?"
We're doomed... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:We're doomed... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:We're doomed... (Score:4, Funny)
Re:We're doomed... (Score:5, Funny)
[Remember folks - asterisk after one's UID marks a paying subscriber]
Isnt' against federal law? (Score:3, Interesting)
Love stupid the taxes
Re:Isnt' against federal law? (Score:5, Informative)
The back of my Illinois tax form has had a 'Use Tax' form forever. You're supposed to pay it for all items purchased outside of the state.
There is nothing new about this - it's been around as long as mail-order has. It only become a big deal since the Internet made it a lot easier to do it.
I remember when I was a kid (1960's) that states were making a big deal about mail-order catalog companies not paying sales tax...
Re:Isnt' against federal law? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Isnt' against federal law? (Score:5, Informative)
The Internet tax ban is on discriminatory taxes--taxes that only apply to Internet-based sales--and also tax on use of the Internet itself. Use taxes already apply to almost all Internet-based interstate transactions, just as they have always applied to catalog/mail-order sales. There's nothing unconstitutional about them. (What is probably unconstitutional is the federal government collecting tax on interstate commerce, or perhaps states levying discriminatory taxes against interstate commerce--that is, state-level import/export taxes. I'm not an expert in the Constitution or in tax law.)
The reason you currently don't pay a state or local tax on transactions where the seller does not have a physical presence in your state, is not because the tax itself is unconstitutional, but because it's an undue burden on the seller to have to figure out the intensely complicated state and local tax rates for everyone in the country. At least, this was the case almost 40 years ago when the US Supreme Court decided this (google for National Bella Hess, Inc. v. Dept. of Revenue of Illinois (1967)). So you actually do owe tax for every purchase, Internet or otherwise (unless you live in a state without sales/use tax)--it's just not legal for the state to require the seller to collect the tax, and it's not practical for the state to come after you.
Plenty of people are trying to change this sorry state of affairs, because as you say, the Internet wasn't around when the rules were made. The main approach seems to be to simplify the state and local sales tax codes across the country, so it would no longer be an undue burden on retailers to calculate the appropriate tax, and Bella Hess could be overturned. 1 [streamlinedsalestax.org], 2 [e-fairness.org], 3 [washingtonpost.com].
Re:Isnt' against federal law? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, it's called the cigarette excise tax.
Re:Isnt' against federal law? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Isnt' against federal law? (Score:4, Informative)
A rose by any other name... (Score:5, Interesting)
It is, in effect, nothing more than punishing citizens of a state for daring to purchase items in places other than that particular state. This is offensive is way that cannot possibly be described in mere words.
Taxes on interstate commerce are forbidden as per U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 8, Clause 10, which states...
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
A "use tax" is nothing more than a euphemism importation duty. I don't know of any law that has ever gone through the U.S. Congress that allows duties of one state to another, thereby making "use taxes" in violation of the above clause at the current time.
Granted, I'm not a lawyer, but this is one of those things that I've done a lot of research on. I want desperately to shove this in the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue's every time they ask about this during income tax time.
Re:Isnt' against federal law? (Score:3, Insightful)
You can try to call it a use tax but really it's a 'sin tax'. Sin taxes are the second dumbest tax method after corporate income tax and on the same tax-stupidity level with inheritance tax. All three ought to be abolished.
Re:Isnt' against federal law? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Isnt' against federal law? (Score:5, Informative)
It is illegal to bring any cigarettes into Michigan from other states unless by licensed sellers who pay the appropriate tax. People who bring less than $50 in cigarettes don't face penalties. Michigan requires that cigarettes sold in the state have a stamp attached to the pack to signify the payment of taxes.
This is not uncommon, most states claim the right to tax things purchased outside of the state and will be used primarily within their own.
Misnamed Tax (Score:5, Insightful)
Quite true. I have to wonder though whether there would be more public pushback if it was given a more apt name like "buying tax". After all it isn't the sale that's being taxed (it isn't the seller's state that's important), it's the buyer.
IMHO, if they want to continue calling it a sales tax, they should tax the seller and the price listed is the final price to the consumer. This would mean no more silliness about trying to figure out the over-the-top tax rates when one buys goods, no stupid use tax traps, and make interstate commerce a LOT easier (calculating tax often requires knowing the actual municipality based on zip code -- quite a pain the tuckus).
Re:Can you say VAT (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Can you say VAT (Score:3, Funny)
I feel calmer just thinking about paying this.
Line in the Sand (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because the states claim the right doesn't mean that they will be allowed the right. Look at gay marriage and slavery.
But beyond that, it seems that the easiest way to beat this wrap is to take a vacation elsewhere (especially a place that doesn't have high smoking tax or regulation such as D.C., Mexico, or Puerto Rico) and take legal evidence of smoking and consuming these products outside of Michigan. You may not be able to show that you consumed all of the cigarettes outside of the state, but it will add a significant burden to the prosecution's case to prove that you consumed the majority inside the state.
Even so, I think the prosecution is going to have a hard time proving that the cigarettes were consumed at all. Some people collect cigarette packaging (or wine bottles or coke cans) and don't give a flip what happened to the content. Did the defendant smoke the cigarettes or did he simply throw them away? Prove it! Where were these sticks consumed
I personally don't smoke anything legal or illegal. But I find government regulation of smoking to have gone to greedy excess. As soon as this revenue stream starts drying up, they'll all move on to other items to tax (or other internet revenue). This needs to be stopped right now.
Re:Line in the Sand (Score:5, Insightful)
You make a HUGE mistake in trying to apply logic to tax laws...
Yes, you could point to a million possible ways that the "use" taxes don't apply. But state taxation departments simply don't care - They can and will make your life hell, even if you "win" your argument.
Case in point... My SO and I moved from state A to state B roughly four years ago. Last year, she received an excise tax bill from state A, plus tons in penalties, for those three years.
After literally dozens of hours wasted on the phone (which at her salary, arguably cost quite a bit more than the tax bill itself), she finally convinced them she no longer lived in state A. She STILL had to pay the late penalty charges on the bill that everyone involved agreed she never actually owed (the "logic", if you can call it that, ran something like "You may not have owed us that money, but you did fail to pay it promptly, so the penalties still apply even though the original bill doesn't"... Whiskey Tango Foxtrot???). She paid it just to get the whole miserable mess over with. Okay, all seemed great.
Guess where she got a new excise tax bill from this spring?
Get a Lawyer (Score:3, Interesting)
Tax offices are used to dealing with deadbeats, and there's no law saying they can't drop the hammer on anyone they ch
Re:Line in the Sand (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, beside the black mark on her credit, we also visit State A fairly often (every couple of months), as all of our family still lives there. Kinda inconvenient when simply getting pulled over means a night in jail (since they could put out a warrant for her in that state).
And, although I don't know how much of it they can actually do, they threatened all manner of nasties, from getting her insurance, license, and registration suspended, to actual prison time if the
Re:Isnt' against federal law? (Score:4, Informative)
Sales tax needs to be collected by the seller only if the seller has a physical presence in the state from which the buyer makes the purchase.
If the buyer makes a purchase in person, the seller must collect sales tax for the state in which the store is located.
If the buyer makes a purchase online, over the phone, or by mail order, the seller must collect sales tax for the state to which the item will be delivered; only if the seller also has a presence in that state. A presence is an office or location.
Regardless, if a buyer makes a purchase outside of their home state without being taxed, it is the responsibility of the buyer to declare that purchase on their tax forms. That, of course, is a croc of bull.
Re:Isnt' against federal law? (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe not in your state, pal.
Re:Isnt' against federal law? (Score:3, Insightful)
You've never taken anything to federal court, have you?
Re:Isnt' against federal law? (Score:3)
Also Michigan's "use" tax has already been ruled Unconstitutional, so I don't know how they think they'll be able to enforce this.
Reference please.
How long? (Score:5, Funny)
18 months. You heard it here.
but not in Oregon (Score:2)
Woo-hoo!
Re:How long? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:How long? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How long? (Score:3, Funny)
What a missed opportunity at a Simpson's reference. Mmmm.... low hanging juicy fruit. [wired.com]
Re:How long? (Score:3, Insightful)
Law will double in size and complexity and have the efficiency cut in half every 18 months.
Re:How long? (Score:3, Informative)
> 18 months. You heard it here.
Quoth TFA, "It is illegal to bring any cigarettes into Michigan from other states unless by licensed sellers who pay the appropriate tax. People who bring less than $50 in cigarettes don't face penalties."
So don't worry about this action affecting future tax's on Amazon et al coming from the states as other products which are not as controll
Re:How long? (Score:3, Informative)
You must be about the only person I've ever known that got taxed by Amazon.com. That's one of the main reasons to order from them...no taxes, and mostly free shipping.
Now, possibly
To federal court or bust (Score:5, Insightful)
In Massachusetts, the state income tax fillers have to estimate the value of imports to the state thus taxing the citizens that way. This too will be settled from a federal case, as all these types should be. If the law says you can't tax interstate commerce then that is the way it is. If the law is twisted forcing imports to be taxed then that is fine too - we will just all know the law and not be hit with a $2500+ unexpected (or should I say unjustified at this point) tax bill.
This case is where state law and federal law collide but it will have implication to all internet purchasers.
'The collection of purchasers' names is allowed by a 1949 federal law called the Jenkins Act' - Sec. 376. Reports to State tobacco tax administrator
(a) Contents
Any person who sells or transfers for profit cigarettes in interstate commerce, whereby such cigarettes are shipped into a State taxing the sale or use of cigarettes, to other than a distributor licensed by or located in such State, or who advertises or offers cigarettes for such a sale or transfer and shipment...
I don't see where this individual is required to pay state tax.
Re:To federal court or bust (Score:5, Interesting)
However, there's an alternative to paying it. There's a "safe harbor" provision that says if you pay a certain fixed amount based on your income, they won't come knocking on your door to check what you bought with one exception. The "safe harbor" only applies to items under $1,000. If you buy 150 widgets for $999 apeice at seperate times, you're fine, you can pay $15 "safe harbor" tax if you make under 40,000 (or $0 if you make under 25,000).
Confused yet?
http://www.massdor.com/help/guides/abate_amend/
Re:To federal court or bust (Score:5, Interesting)
As far as I know, every state has something like this. Most folks don't pay tax for Internet purchases, but some companies (Best Buy, for one) already applies tax based on where you live. You are supposed to report and pay tax on all goods purchased from out of state.
Given the costs of shipping (and the time it takes to deliver), I think Internet shopping can only survive if there is no sales/use tax. If I have to pay tax and shipping, I simply won't buy online.
On the other hand, it's in the state's best interest to apply that tax - not only for the immediate tax revenue, but also creating incentive for people to shop in-state.
Re:To federal court or bust (Score:3, Insightful)
Ah, but then it's a form of corporate welfare by allowing "internet" transactions to be tax-free. Internet (and mail-order) companies are supposed to be able to offer wider selection and lower prices because of the way they operate (i.e., you don't have to hire X people per store to man the stores 12 hours a da
Re:To federal court or bust (Score:3, Informative)
I used to buy stuff from the Apple Store online and never paid any sales tax. Then they opened an Apple Store in Milwaukee and just like that, the online store started charging me tax. It became cheaper to just drive to the store in the mall.
Re:To federal court or bust (Score:3, Informative)
This is simple sales tax, these people do owe it, and it is not a federal issue. It has nothing to do with interstate lines.
If you buy anything in MI (as the end users, which this case is) you owe sales tax to the state. It's that simple. If you go elsewhere any buy it, then this does not apply.
These people were in Michigan when they bought the cigarettes, they owe sales tax. Michigan is not imposing a tax in goods brough into
Different states with different tax rates? (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, if these web sites are owned/run by people in the USA, could the state that they live in or incorporate their business in go after the taxes as well?
Re:Different states with different tax rates? (Score:2)
RE: (Score:5, Interesting)
eBay (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it IS just a matter of time before online retailers are required to tax based on state legislation.
Of course not! (Score:4, Funny)
Not QUITE as easy as that (Score:5, Informative)
NOTE: I'm going from memory from an NPR story I heard on the way in this morning. 1947 may not be accurate.
Not Long At All (Score:4, Interesting)
In a way, people have abused the ignorance of the system. If you live in a state, like mine, that requires you pay and you do not, don't complain when they catch you. You committed tax fraud. If you don't like it, have the law changed.
People who complain about this amuse me. Would you complain if the police pulled you over for doing 70 mph through a school zone? But no one gets hurt when I don't pay you say. I disagree that money was planned for allocation somewhere and someone else will be making it up in raised taxes elsewhere.
But please don't get me started about useless spending of our tax dollars. I could not agree more.
Re:Not Long At All (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, now that we've determined you're an accountant, how about an option for the rest of us?
Re:Not Long At All (Score:3, Insightful)
How can they account for and plan to spend money generated from the sale of an item that I might not even have decided to make yet?
Oh, you mean they are guessing how much people will spend, and thus how much sales tax they will make? Sounds like they'd better figure out a new way to project budgets.
Re:Not Long At All (Score:4, Insightful)
So for instance, if you make $50,000 a year, you pay $35 in out of state "use tax".
You could argue that it's unfair for some, but for the majority of Slashdot readers, I suspect this is actually an underpayment. None the less, it's a perfectly legal way to fill out the tax forms.
Re:Not Long At All (Score:5, Insightful)
Such taxes should be repealed, yes. But civil disobedience is a force to be reckoned with.
Re:Not Long At All (Score:3, Insightful)
That's such a trite, smug, holier-than-thou phrase it's beneath you. Your chances of getting any law changed without having millions to spend are exactly zero.
If taxpayers are supposed to be paying out of state sales taxes the way to collect them is to go after the sellers and get changes in the federal laws, not beat up individual taxpayers.
Some of my online purchases have sales tax added to them, some do not. How is the average Joe Sixpack reasonably expe
Ohio Use Tax (Score:3, Interesting)
In Ohio, your Use Tax liability is left up to you to calculate (that is, it is hardly subject to audit). In my experiences, nearly everyone cheats by putting $0 down for out of state purchases.
Pointless Article (Score:5, Informative)
"It is illegal to bring any cigarettes into Michigan from other states unless by licensed sellers who pay the appropriate tax."
This has nothing to do with taxes on purchases from Amazon or similar online retailers.
Re:Pointless Article (Score:5, Insightful)
That state law is a violation of federal law and of the constitution. States may not regulate interstate commerce. Cigarettes can only be illegal to import into Michigan if they are illegal to possess in Michigan (like, for example, marijuana). They obviously are not illegal to possess, so the Michigan law is unconstitutional and won't hold up to a legal challenge. Which, if someone sent me a bill for $2500, would be exactly what I would do: join with everyone else who also received these rediculous bills and sue the state in federal court, getting the law overturned and maybe a little pocket money in punitive damages as well.
Re:Pointless Article (Score:3, Interesting)
The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.
I understand that courts have interpretted this more generally (eg. also giving states more power in cases that are less than outright prohbition). My gues
Re:Pointless Article (Score:3, Informative)
Ever heard the saying - "knows just enough to be dangerous" ? That's you. You are wrong wrong wrong.
True - the constitution grants the right to regulate interstate commerce - IN GENERAL - to the Federal Government, and takes that right from the states. However, the Federal Government can re-grant that authority to the states, and the states may act in areas where the Feds have chosen not to act - so long as the effect is non-discriminatory and applies to activities in that state. (This i
Way are talking about tazex that should be paid? (Score:2, Interesting)
We should pay are taxes you know.
It has already happenend in Vermont (Score:2, Interesting)
Not a huge amount, (I paid $15, on the $45,000 I earned) but still how do they know how much I purchased online and what about people like my father who have never used a computer, they are being unfairly taxed.
It is bullshit. They need to crack down on retailers for the money. Tell Amazon that it owes the state X amount
Sales tax based on location (Score:3, Insightful)
My logic is that if someone travels from one state to another, in person, you end up paying the sales tax at the location of the business. That is, a Californian travels to Texas for vacation, wouldn't he or she be paying Texan sales tax at the place he or she is staying?
If we have it the other way around, where the buyer pays the sales tax where he or she is located, and not the business, it complicates things a whole lot more.
Here's a thought. What if someone travels in-state to a Native American Reservation and pays no tax?
Re:Sales tax based on location (Score:3, Insightful)
Destination based sales tax (Score:3, Informative)
The idea is that if you buy something in one location to be delivered to your home, the seller would have to collect sales tax for your location.
For my state, Kansas, it would work like this - I buy a chair in Wichita to be delivered to my house (3 counties away). The furniture store would have to collect my county's sales tax, not the Wichita tax.
It's a controve
Re:Destination based sales tax (Score:3, Informative)
The principle is that when you take possesion of it I think. So if you take it from the store, you pay local sales tax for the store's location. If they deliver it, you pay for your location.
Re:Update (Score:3, Informative)
For a small business, it is nearly impossible to comply (which is why enforcement has been suspended).
For instance, I live outside the city limits, but have the same zip code as everyone inside the city. So my sales tax would be less than what my cousin (for instance) would have to pay. But how would the local Mom and Pop store know that? Zip cod
Yeesh, what a complicated system! (Score:3, Funny)
I would refuse to pay it (Score:2, Insightful)
Most tax as far as I know is levied against items sold in the state. Is the online service is located in your state you will pay tax otherwise you are not required to do so. Unless the state is taxing not on the purchase but on the shipment into the state of specific items. They should check their tax laws to see how it is written.
At $2500/year a P.O. Box Presents a Viable Option (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:At $2500/year a P.O. Box Presents a Viable Opti (Score:3, Informative)
As an industry insider, I'll tell you that you now need a Social Security number to get a prepaid Visa as of the Patriot Act. We used to sell prepaid Mastercards from vending machines, but that's all gone tit's up as of Patriot act.
Different ... or is it? (Score:5, Interesting)
I'd like to say that this is a little different, but I'm not fully confident that's true. From what I can tell, there was an explicit law preventing sale in the state of cigarette packs that did not contains a stamp proving the taxes were paid.
But now I'm not so sure. Several states (including good old Taxachusetts) get very grumpy about "use tax" (what you're supposed to pay if you purchased something in another state and didn't pay sales tax), and occasionally go after people. Usually, however, they don't do that unless it's a big ticket item (car, boat, etc). The state was losing a lot of money on cigarette tax (much, much more than sales tax on the same amount), which is what motivated them in this case.
If the state was to go after everyone who purchased a few books from Amazon, they'd be so overwhelmed with paperwork, it wouldn't be worth their while. Then again, Amazon keeps selling more and more expensive things tax-free (I got a $1900 radial arm saw in my Gold Box a while back), so maybe it'll happen.
Re:Different ... or is it? (Score:3, Informative)
There was a study during the election last year that showed that Mass. actually has some of the lowest taxes/fees in the nation (expressed as dollars taxed/dollars earned). I think it came up after Zell Miller made a taxachusetts reference in his keynote speech. IIRC, Georgians pay more per dollar earned in taxes/fees than Mass'ians.
"Taxachusetts" is a right wing myth, in the vein of 'welfare queens', the social security 'crisis', and Iraqi WMDs.
Re:Different ... or is it? (Score:4, Informative)
maybe (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not a smoker, but I'm a coffee addict... so to save money and get the freshest coffee possible, I buy green coffee beans and roast them myself, which saves me a lot of cash.
Sure, I'd save more money if I quit drinking coffee, and believe me, I can quit whenever I want, I just choose to keep on drinking it because I love the taste of fresh home-roasted coffee...
Legal under Jenkins Act of 1949 (Score:5, Informative)
The Jenkins Act [senecasmokes.com] requires anyone who sells cigarettes into any state, to report those sales to each state monthly. This would include your name and order information. Native Americans are exempt from the Jenkins Act because they are independent nations under their federal treaties.
Re:Legal under Jenkins Act of 1949 (Score:4, Insightful)
Sales and Use taxes vs Sin taxes (Score:2)
Most states prohibit bringing tobacco and alcohol products into their state without an extra tax on them. Take a look at a pack of cigarettes, there is usually some "stamp" on them showing that the taxes were paid for in their state. Bootleggers make a mark up shipping alcohol or tobacco from states with low taxes to
Taxes need to reflect the needs (Score:2)
State its in (Score:2)
Now, even though I live in a state with a lot of sales tax, they don't charge me if I buy stuff from a store in Delaware. So lets say we have an online store in a state with 6% sales tax. That stor
This is nothing new for businesses (Score:3, Informative)
State sales taxes are exempt (Score:2)
How is this legal?! (Score:2)
Can someone please explain to me why extra-state USE taxes are legal but extra-state SALES taxes are not?! Changing the name doesn't fool me. Why are they fooling everyone else?!
Importation Illegal (Score:2)
Does it set an ugly precidence? Not likely. I would doubt very much that their laws prohibit the importation of books. It is true that most states have moved to requiring that the consumer report and pay a 'Use Tax' for Mail-order/Internet goods; but, the reporting responsibility is purely on the consumer, and the state gains little from pursuing individual residence for what will likely be tiny amounts -
No free trade within the US? (Score:4, Insightful)
As a EU citizen I'm allowed to buy anything from any EU country paying sales tax in the country from which I purchase the goods. It's a key part of the "free movement of goods and services" idea upon which the EU is founded.
To me, it seems as though trade between US states are more restricted than between EU countries. Is this correct?
Re:No free trade within the US? (Score:4, Informative)
The federal government (through Congress) now has the power to "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." U.S. Const. Art. 1 Sec. 8.
As far as the instance at hand here, most states have had use taxes on out of state purchases for quite some time. I would be surprised if it had not already been challenged and upheld.
I located this page [myflorida.com] which provides some good information on the details of Florida's use tax on out-of-state purchases.
Most states don't bother to pursue collecting these taxes because the cost to collect is much greater than the benefit of the tax they receive.
Re:No free trade within the US? (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, this isn't quite true. It is true for most items, however tobacco and alcohol have a "personal use" restriction - ie: you can transport only as much as is reasonable for personal use.
There are other restrictions on items such as cars, whereby local taxes come into effect b
Re:No free trade within the US? (Score:3, Informative)
The US does not have a federal sales tax, and with each state being its own entity they can tax as they like.
Most of the use taxes allow you deduct the the taxes from the other state so generally you only have to pay any additional taxes. It would be like going to Germany 16%VAT from France 19% and then France collecting the additional 3% as you come in. Other have aggrements with bordering states where people do not have to pay thoses taxes but only the one of thier residence, provided you fill out
Re:No free trade within the US? (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, I call bullshit on that completely. The only ways to get to NY from Jersey (which has a controllable border and has tax amnesty on various goods you'd want to buy like clothes..CT doesn't count because you can get through to Westchester 100 different ways) are from the Tappan Zee (by way of the GSP or 287), GWB, Lincoln Tun, Holland Tun, the Goethalls Bridge via 278 to the verrazano or the Outerbridge crossing down at the south end of SI. All of those routes are major interstate routes and it'd be nigh impossible to mess with already painfull holiday traffic to shake down people for their Christmas presents.
If the cops did that, you'd see Blue and whites being thrown of the George Washington Bridge by angry commuters.
Re:No free trade within the US? (Score:3, Informative)
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of
Re:No free trade within the US? (Score:3, Informative)
So yes to amazon customers, however since the company has no presence in the state the state has no way of forcing amazon to collect or to provide the information. This case is special since it is done using a federal law forcing the companies to provide the information.
Taking advantage of the handicapped (Score:3, Insightful)
RTFA, then listen carefully.. (Score:5, Informative)
2) Sales taxes are only exempt if the vendor of the purcased item does NOT have a business entity in the state where the purchaser lives.
3) Sales taxes can be levied by your home state, regardless of whether the transaction is interstate, if the state of purchase does not levy its own sales tax. (Example is PA-DE - no sales tax in DE, so PA can tax things you drive to DE to buy to avoid sales tax)
spooky actually... (Score:3, Interesting)
Was this compounded or what? (Score:3, Informative)
If you look at the cost, assuming a 5% tax:
$2500 / 0.05 = $50000
So effectively, this person bought $50,000 in cigs? That's more than a lot of people make in a year. Yes, I have friend that smoke a lot, but I have a hard time imaging any regular person being able to afford smoking that much in a year's period, or possibly even 2-3 years. So how long do these "back-taxes" actually go?
Can't do it without the data (Score:3, Insightful)
While I don't smoke and hate being around those who do, what can be done to smokers can be done to the rest of us on everything else too. I'd be more willing to patronise retailers who promise that the records of the sale are destroyed as soon as the order is received. This isn't the first time that an on-line retailer has been forced into revealing records that have then been used even by private companies to extort legal purchasers.
Now how long before some 89-year-old grandmother who never smoked in her life is sued because her grandkids used her name to buy a pack?
As a Michigan resident, I just have to say... (Score:3, Interesting)
She gained a lot of publicity just recently by saying that the state will no longer provide free coffee for prisoners, which I highly support, but it's really just the latest in a long string decisions she's made that allow her to scrape a little bit more money away from the average working class person.
In case you weren't aware, this is the same lovely person who's been sending letters to online retailers around the country, trying to persuade them (it's not quite threatening them, but it's pretty darn close from what I've seen) into tracking all customers from Michigan, and then forcing those customers to pay taxes on out-of-state purchases.
My opinion is obviously that she's a real bitch to deal with, and that she treats the average citizen like crap, all the while avoiding any changes to the upper class, higher income bracket. As much as I like the aforemention coffee idea, it doesn't make up for the fact that she's screwing over her constituents in the name of a quick buck. It's doubly annoying when you contrast it with Michgan having one of the highest unemployment rates in the country currently, much less one of the higher crime rates (Look no further than Flint or Detroit for evidence of this...).
When Granholm starts looking into providing some services for her constituents, then I'll accept some of the increases, and penaltys that she's proposing.
I ran into another bill passed recently under her admnistration... My car got hit by another driver a couple of weeks ago... When we contacted the insurance companies, they said that under new Michigan laws, you are only able to get up to $500 from the guilty partys insurance company... So even though this guy was at fault, and he was very open about this fact, his insurance companies only obligated for up to half a grand, no matter the extent of the damage, and/or guilt of the insured. The excuse was given that this was a way lawmakers thought they could avoid frivilous lawsuits from happening, but instead it's prevent legitimate lawsuits, which would be up-holdable in other states, from ever happening here.
And do you know why this was done? Because too many people only have the bare minimum insurance coverage for their vehicles in this state, so owners of nice cars, who had full coverage but were driving poorly and hit a beater car, were upset about having to pay money out to repair what they considered to be a throw-away car... Any guess why so many of Michigans drivers only have the bare minimum of coverage? Look no further than our unemployment rate, and our average incomes... Again, one more example of Michigans laws protecting those with money, while screwing the working class over.
I know I sound bitter in this posting, but I seriously think that the state's in much worse shape now then when Engler was running the state (which is really saying something, asn he wasn't too impressive either!). The reason why all these laws are going into place is because the state has elected a former prosecutor for governor. Hire a money grubbing, self-centered lawyer for your governor and see what happens in your state!
I personally can't wait for the state elections to come up so that we can get back on track here... The goals of our governor is SO far off the goals of the people living in this state, who she's supposed to be working for!
Sorry for any mispellings... I just got up on my day off, but when I checked the headlines and saw this, I just had to reply. 8)=
Good Argument Against Socialized Healthcare (Score:3, Insightful)
Since smokers are far more likely to develop health problems and would draw more from the system, why should healthy people be punished for living more responsibly?
Re:Violation of Smokers' Rights (Score:3, Interesting)
In Europe we pay premium taxes for alcoholic beverages. Also, my drinking doesn't affect your liver, does it?
>I think they also need to tax high fat/high calorie foods for much the same reason.
My eating burgers doesn't raise your cholesterol level. Also, unlike tobacco, food actually helps keep me alive.
Re:Violation of Smokers' Rights (Score:3, Insightful)
Try peer reviewed scientific journals instead:
Beer and health: Preventive effects of beer components on lifestyle-related diseases. [nih.gov]
Plant polyphenol antioxidants and oxidative stress. [nih.gov]
Flavonoids in food and their health benefits. [nih.gov]
Re:Violation of Smokers' Rights (Score:3, Interesting)
Hey, c'mon down to New Orleans...rapidly becoming one of the last bastions of free willed people. You can pretty much still smoke anywhere you want (still have smoking at bars in the airport even)...and no open container laws on the streets, hell, you can take drinks to go out of the bar, they will give you a plastic 'to go' cup if you ask.
Then...there's the drive throug
The Forgotten People (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Get the Target Off of My Back (Score:3, Insightful)
Similarly, since obesity is a federally protected disability, the obesity tax could not be levied solely against fat people because it would violate discrimination laws.
Excise taxes can only be levied against the users of the product which is taxed. This is just a peculiar instance wher