Newegg Defies New York Sales Tax Law 635
JagsLive informs us that the electronics retailer Newegg.com is defying New York lawmakers; it has suddenly stopped collecting sales tax from New York online shoppers. The "Amazon tax," which went into effect June 1, requires online merchants to collect sales tax if they have any affiliates in the state. Amazon is complying but has sued the state on constitutional grounds. Overstock.com dropped all of its New York affiliates and then joined the Amazon lawsuit. Newegg started out complying with the law on June 1, but stopped collecting taxes for New York on August 21. From Newegg's letter to its customers: "After careful review and consideration, we are pleased to inform you that we have stopped collecting New York sales tax, effective August 21, 2008," reads an email the company tossed at customers late last week, including at least one loyal Reg reader. "This decision was driven by your direct and candid feedback and our continued commitment to you as our valued customers."
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:5, Informative)
You don't have to pay sales tax in your state on goods purchased in another state. The whole problem with internet companies is deciding what "state" they are in.
The argument Amazon et. al make is that under the US constitution the federal government has sole jurisdiction to regulate interstate commerce - and New York imposing a sales tax on goods purchased in another state would run contrary to that.
The arguments in court certainly are going to surround in what "state" Amazon.com is operating in.
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:5, Informative)
It is required, in theory, but the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution prevents them from collecting tax on any sales across state boundaries.
They still try to do so, generally under the guise of a "use tax" that's conveniently only applied to purchases from out-of-state, but as far as I'm aware such unequal taxes have never been tested in court. IANAL, of course.
Use tax = sales tax and you are supposed to pay (Score:3, Informative)
YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE PAYING TAXES ON ON-LINE PURCHASES. THEY'RE CALLED USE TAXES.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_tax [wikipedia.org]
Here is the deal:
- If you don't pay them, your state can send you nasty grams in the mail saying "We see you have filed zero dollars in use taxes, please pay them." These notices are fairly common. IOW, the state tax departments are saying "Look, we aren't stupid, you're buying stuff on line, pay your tax". Now who here wants to keep records of the crap they buy JUST so you can pay use tax at the end of the year?
- With a mandated sales tax, it means YOU don't have to keep records for paying end-of-year taxes. They just add it on to your purchase like any other state(if your state has a sales tax). I don't know about you but I'd much rather pay the friggin tax up front then worry about the stupid EOY paperwork.
One thing to make life easier for consumers AND businesses: only allow one tax rate per state. example: Wisconsin has a moronic tax system where every county can charge differing rates something up to like 1/2% on top of whatever the state charges. Some counties are 5%, some are 5.5%, or like 5.25%. So to make it easier on on-line retailers, just legislate single tax rates per state for those that have a sales tax. End this moronic madness now.
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:5, Informative)
"You don't have to pay sales tax in your state on goods purchased in another state. The whole problem with internet companies is deciding what "state" they are in."
Yes you do, albeit indirectly. You have to pay a "use tax [wikipedia.org]" on anything purchased outside of your tax jurisdiction which you then bring in for use or consumption. This is a whole branch of our tax code that doesn't cope well with the modern, internetworked world.
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:5, Informative)
An outside observer might wonder why this is such a big deal since the tax is going to be paid as use tax rather than sales tax. The difference here is that sales tax is charge at the point of sale while the use tax is charged on state tax returns.
Use tax is notoriously hard to enforce because the state necessarily doesn't know about any items you bought in a different state. Many people lie about their use tax liability on their state tax returns because the state usually doesn't have any evidence to the contrary.
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:2, Informative)
You don't have to pay sales tax in your state on goods purchased in another state. The whole problem with internet companies is deciding what "state" they are in.
You most certainly do. Feel free to call up your state revenue office (assuming you live in a state that collects sales tax, some do not) and ask them how they feel about good purchased in another state.
Re:Use tax = sales tax and you are supposed to pay (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:5, Informative)
It doesn't matter how they feel. New York State can't tax a purchase made in Texas (or wherever Amazon is located) any more than they can tax a purchase made in Mongolia. Moreover, they can't impose taxes on New York citizens importing goods from other states, because the Constitution and its commerce clause forbid that.
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:5, Informative)
And just to make things more difficult, the NY law in question isn't even talking about warehouses. It's talking about affiliates. NewEgg is located in California, but they have an affiliate program. I'm an affiliate of theirs and I live in NY. Does that make NewEgg have a physical location in New York state? Of course not. I'm not an employee of NewEgg, I'm just an affiliate. I post a link to NewEgg on my website and get a small kickback for any sales that it generates. The website that I run is hosted by a company in Texas. Does that mean that NewEgg has a "physical presence" in Texas also and should pay Texas sales tax? The whole "affiliate = physical presence" argument is just a money grab. Then again, we shouldn't be surprised. This is the state that also taxes telecommuters on their full income even if they only work inside NY for a short period of time. (See the story of Scott Smallwood: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/business/businessspecial2/20tax.html [nytimes.com] )
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:5, Informative)
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:5, Informative)
Except, you do have to pay sales tax if you buy something out of state.
It's just that if you buy something out of state, the store isn't obligated to collect the sales tax. The purchaser is supposed to declare the item and pay it later to their state.
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:1, Informative)
Yes they can. And they do.
You state nice legal theories. Good luck with them.
The NYS tax agency makes the Fed IRS look like kind and gentle souls.
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:3, Informative)
It doesn't matter how they feel. New York State can't tax a purchase made in Texas
They can and they do [nysscpa.org]. Moreover, this is not new. Nor is it unique to New York.
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:4, Informative)
They have been, at least in the pre-web era. I don't recall the specific name of the case but the upshot of the decision was that as long as the use-tax wasn't discriminatory toward out-of-state purchases (i.e. as long as it closely mirrored the sales tax), it was ok.
Now the real question is what Constitutional grounds does the state of NY have to enforce *Newegg's* collection of this use tax. Is the State of NY going to sue Newegg in Delaware court? This could get quite complicated...
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:4, Informative)
Obligatory Car Analogy (Score:3, Informative)
sort of...
I do know that if you buy a car in a state with a sales tax of, say 3%. And move to NY a year or so later. They're going to want the difference (4%) when you go to register your car. So when you think your registration's going to cost $100* and it ends up costing $1000, it's a bit of a shock.
*Not sure what a registration costs these days. I've been living in Europe for the past 6 years. w00t!
Oz
Re:Any tax revolt is a good one. (Score:3, Informative)
(emphasis mine)
I do not think that word means what you think it means. In the context of taxes, it's not a meaningless epithet; the sales tax is not progressive, it is flat.
Re:It is like every other tax. (Score:3, Informative)
Repeat after me, ALL taxes come from the consumer. There is no such thing as a "corporate" tax. They just apply whatever taxes they have to pay to the cost of their goods.
All corporate taxes do is increase the costs of the goods these corporations produce. Well, that and has them leaving the USA to avoid the punitive taxes applied to them. Anyone want a Miller High Life(Corporation now based in South Africa).
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:2, Informative)
Use tax is usually applied to the difference between the sales tax paid at point of purchase and the sales tax you would have paid had you bought it locally. So, if you pay 0% sales tax online the use tax would be your localities sales tax amount, 7% in my case in Indiana (yeah, WTF, 7%!). If I pay 6% in a neighbouring state then I'd still owe the 1% difference locally.
Re:Any tax revolt is a good one. (Score:5, Informative)
If you are any kind of economicist you would realize that no functioning economy in the world today taxes at a rate that exceeds the Laffer curve inflection point. Regeanomics is a ridiculous idea
First off, the argument of Reaganomics is that the industrialized world is actually to the -right- of the inflection point, in other words, taxes are too high.
Meanwhile, the rest of the industrialized world has lowered corporate tax rates and investment tax rates below that of the USA. So, yeah, on one hand, you have the Europeans saying that Reaganomics is terrible, and people like you say, "oh yeah, you are so right"... but then, the Europeans lower their taxes, and suddenly the Euro goes sky high because of the flood of investment into the old continent.
Yeah, the EU is saying Reaganomic sucks, but that's not what they did, and they are laughing all the way to the bank.
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:5, Informative)
"This is a whole branch of our tax code that doesn't cope well with the modern, internetworked world."
Modern? Ever heard of a Sears, Montgomery Ward, or Best Catalog? Buying goods from an out of state vendor predates the modern income tax system and even the IRS in this country. Heck, buying from catalog predates indoor plumbing in a lot of places. The Sears catalog was commonly used as toilet paper in outhouses. This was a big deal back then when it was hard to enforce use taxes but now that the technology exists to squeeze more money from the taxpayer, governments are jumping at the opportunity.
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:2, Informative)
Sure they have [taxfoundation.org]. The whole "physical presence" thing comes out of caes like Bellas Hess [findlaw.com] and Quill Corp. v. North Dakota [cornell.edu]
I know whining about taxes is as American as apple pie, but the issue here is not whether states can impose taxes, but whether they can make merchants collect them.
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:4, Informative)
The states have different ways of determining whether a seller has nexus. Generally, these involve operating a facility or having employees in that state.
What New York did was to extend the definition to include the affiliates of the seller in the definition. This is not on its face silly, since the affiliates operate in much the same way as a store would.
Therefore, what will be before the court will not be the constitutionality of the sales tax, but the more limited issue of this extension of the definition of nexus.
This is a way to close a loophole the online retailers are using to give themselves a leg up over brick and mortar stores.
stopwithholding.com (Score:1, Informative)
" Personally, I think we should also do away with "withholding" as well, and make everyone actually cough up $10-30k every April 15th"
http://www.stopwithholding.com/ [stopwithholding.com]
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:5, Informative)
You're omitting the difficulty in figuring out the tax status of items.
For example, in MA if you buy 1,2 or 3 donuts, that's taxable. If you buy a dozen donuts, that's not taxable. Why? One is consider "a meal", and one is considered "food" (i.e. groceries). Snacks over $3.50, taxable. Under $3.50, not taxable. Some clothing is taxable, some is not. Books are taxable, Textbooks are not. What makes a textbook a textbook? Retailers have fancy computer programs to figure out the tax status of each item, and even they get it wrong. The MA DOR recommends that you call or write for specific determinations "Because of the complexity of the law". http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=dorterminal&L=6&L0=Home&L1=Individuals+and+Families&L2=Personal+Income+Tax&L3=Forms+%26+Publications&L4=Publications&L5=Publications+Index&sid=Ador&b=terminalcontent&f=dor_publ_sales_use&csid=Ador#exempt [mass.gov]
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:3, Informative)
Use tax is also not well enforced because use tax can be deducted on tax forms, so what you don't report in use tax doesn't increase your tax return. In a sense, you're paying use tax indirectly by not reporting your purchases.
Well, wait, aren't "deductions" deducted from your income, not from your income tax? I don't get how reporting use tax saves you money...
Reporting: you pay use tax, use tax is deducted from your income, your income tax goes down by a small fraction of the amount you paid in use tax (unless you know how to work the system - in which case a deduction could put your income numbers into a more comfortable bracket or something...)
Not reporting: you don't pay the tax and don't claim the deduction.
So it seems like you don't come out ahead by reporting, you actually lose money...
Re:It is like every other tax. (Score:3, Informative)
In response to a tax, a corporation can raise its prices, it can cut its dividends, or it can slow its investment in expansion. In a functioning market, the corporations that raises prices will lose business and the ones that cut its dividends or expansion will gain business.
If corporate taxes cause prices to go up, that's a symptom of market failure.
You are wrong, if the market is functioning, the business is already operating at the lowest amount of profit that is sustainable. In a properly functioning market, if the government increases the business' taxes, the business must raise prices or go out of business.
If a business can absorb an increase in corporate taxes without increasing what it charges consumers it is evidence of an inefficient market.
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:2, Informative)
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:3, Informative)
Anyone can make any argument that they wish to, but the fact that the State of New York takes a position that is spurious and tries to enforce it to gain revenue does not make it any less unconstitutional. US legal history is replete with instances where states have made other Constitution-trampling pronouncements, only to be smacked down by one court or another.
I'm not so sure it's that spurious. Here's the issue - remove this from the online world for a moment. Let's say I have a regular business and some guy in New York generates sales leads for me, and I give him a kickback for the sales created from his leads. Does that constitute a presence in the state? I don't know NY law (not being a lawyer, nor a NY resident), but my impression from reading documents related to this case is that such a relationship in real life DOES constitute a presence in the state. I think that's why Amazon is trying to make a case that the Amazon affiliates aren't agents, but that they're just "advertising", and sales kickbacks are just a way of paying for "advertising". To me, that sounds a bit weak, because agents who get commissions aren't passive advertisers from a common-sense standpoint.
If having referral agents in NY means you have a presence in NY, then Amazon is quite likely in trouble. From what I've read, it seems like they're really pinning their case on that argument. To win, they have to convince the judge that they don't have representatives soliciting business in New York. That's going to be hard to accomplish, since that's exactly what their 'affiliates' program seems to do.
New York is grasping at straws in a strictly logical sense, however, with judicial activism on both sides gradually eroding our rights...
Actually, this isn't judicial activism, this case presents trouble for Amazon based on a strict comparison of Amazon's business model with traditional bricks and mortar retail. See above.
For what it's worth, have you closely read the details of this specific case? This isn't as cut and dried as the usual attempt to make a cash grab from internet retail.
Re:It is like every other tax. (Score:3, Informative)
Also without a tax, they'd be able to sell more and gas prices would be cheaper.
Buh? Have you never heard of supply and demand? If taxes were lower, demand would go up, and world prices (as in, the cost of a barrel of crude oil) would go up, not down (though the net change may be zero, it's hard to say). Why do you think oil prices dropped a bit after a number of nations announced they were thinking of cutting oil subsidies? Answer: reduced demand projections.
Which, really, just furthers my original point. Reducing taxes would increase demand, and allow these corporations to charge more for a barrel of oil (up to the point where demand destruction kicks in). Those profits would go straight into their pockets. So not only would they benefit from lower taxes, they would also benefit from higher prices.
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:3, Informative)
Use tax is notoriously hard to enforce
That depends on which use tax you are referring to. If you buy a car outside of NYS you won't be able to register it and get license plates until you either pay the NYS sales/use tax or provide proof that you had to pay sales/use tax to the state in which you bought it.
The use tax that's hard to enforce is the tax that NYS attempts to assess on out of state/online consumer purchases, like books, DVDs, etc, etc. You are supposed to pay this tax on your NYS income tax return.... but most people (myself included, I admit) just put down $0.
Re:Welfare States (Score:5, Informative)
Uh, according to you own link, there are several states in the West that pay more than they receive. California ($0.78), Washington ($0.88), Oregon ($0.93). In fact, California subsidizes at a higher rate than New York ($0.79). So, yeah, we are pretty independent.
"Maine gets a little more than it pays"
Maine gets a shitload more than it pays ($1.41). Do you even read your own link before you post?
Re:Welfare States (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the "lazies" you're talking about are the "Red States", which all get more money back from the Federal government [taxfoundation.org] than they send it in Federal taxes. The "Blue States" like New York pay to prop up those Welfare States by sending more taxes to DC than we get back.
Well, there's a textbook logical fallacy for ya. Just like those nationwide red/blue election maps that make it look like 90% of the country voted for Bush.
Big cities pay more taxes because they have more people, and big cities tend to vote Democrat. Those two data points aren't necessarily related, and without showing that they are, your entire argument falls apart. Come back when you have some "laziness per capita" figures.
Re:Welfare States (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, it makes a lot of sense. Blue states are the ones with residents who desperately want taxes to go up, and go up they do. In red states, they avoid passing state tax laws. The citizens campaign for lawmakers who will return taxes to the people. They probably itemize much more carefully to avoid sending even a dime more to the federal government than it is owed. They are quick to support and take any economic stimulus packages the government will hand out, because that means more money to the people. It short, it is the goal of these states to get as much of their money back to the people as possible, and their representatives to congress work that way to. It's not surprising that they suck more out and pay less in.
I think the key test would be to stop taxing so much (therefore sending less back to all states) and see if the red states complain. I bet they don't. Blue states would go nuts about welfare, but I bet red states would be fine not getting much money as long as taxes were low. When they are high, though, they'll find a way, earmarks or otherwise, to get money out of the government.
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:3, Informative)
Nobody is missing anything...well, except you. You've completely missed why this whole thing came about. The state of New York has asserted that having affiliates located in the state constitutes a business presence in the state. That's what Amazon's lawsuit is about.
You make it sound like the state is blatantly and intentionally violating the law, when the fact of the matter is there is a dispute over the law and that needs to be clarified in court. Until it is clarified, each company can choose how it wants to proceed. Amazon has temporarily complied. Newegg has temporarily resisted. Overstock has just completely sidestepped the issue.
I don't think I agree with the state's assertion, but I don't think it's a silly assertion either. In some ways, on a certain level, it does make a bit of sense. It's not as ridiculous as saying something like "your website is accessible in the state, therefore you have a presence in the state".
Re:Welfare States (Score:3, Informative)
Red States, not just "Western States", are the Welfare States, as I clearly state in my post, as is clearly supported by the data. California is a Blue State. So of course it's paying to carry the Red States (that attack it for the fraudulent opposite), just like I said.
You've really got a lot of nerve pretending you can tell me about reading comprehension, when you got that basic premise of this discussion so basically wrong.
And though Maine receives the welfare at a substantially higher rate than it it pays in taxes, it pays so little in taxes compared to, say, New York, that it's actually getting a little more than it pays, compared to the huge amount the US is paying to prop up Maine and the other net recipients.
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:5, Informative)
You're timing is off a bit. Mail order sales started in the late 1800s. The first sales tax was in 1921, and most didn't start until the 1930s. [wikipedia.org]
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:3, Informative)
No it isn't the same. New York claims to tax Amazon purchases even though Amazon has no physical presence in New York precisely because Amazon has an affiliate program; if a New York resident is an affiliate, they claim sales tax on purchases made via that affiliate. It's a new wrinkle on things, but it isn't nearly as bizarre or blatantly illegal as most people suggest.
Re:Taxed to death (Score:3, Informative)
State Sales Tax 6.25%
Chicago Sales Tax 1.25%
Cook County Sales Tax 1.75%
RTA Tax 1.00%
MPEA Pier Tax 1.00%
TOTAL SALES TAX 11.25%
Plus
Restaurant Tax
TOTAL TAX 11.50%
Typical liberal shit for brains. (Score:3, Informative)
Reaganomics never worked, and never will, because all it does is put more money in the hands of the rich and fucks the poor.
What poor has Reaganomics fucked, prey tell? The poor that now have at least one family car? The poor that have TV's, designer shoes, new clothes, food so much that they are fat, a higher home ownership rate than ever before, playstations, xboxes, ipods, cell phones... do you mean those poor?
America's poor are in some ways arguably richer than the middle class of America was 30 years ago. They have more stuff, and in fact, they have so much more stuff, not only in America, but in every place where capitalism has been put into place, that the biggest complaint from the left wing these days is that the poor actually have too much stuff. When you distill away all the crap and lies about saving the planet, at the very heart of the idea of environmental movement is to make poor people have -less- stuff, not more.
This is just horseshit for one very good reason... the population is expanding! It may not be expanding at the same rate but it continues to do so. Changes in the rate are to be expected. The problem with our entitlements is that the money that's supposed to be for them have been raided by democrats and republicans alike. They are running out of money because politicians take money out inappropriately and don't put it back
The population is not expanding enough, relative to the amount of money being blown on entitlements. And the other thing is, people are living longer and medical care is more exotic and more expensive. It simply isn't.
Let's look at one thing, a heart bypass. That will set you back anywhere from 50k to 200k, depending on what's involved. That's at least a car, if not a house. Now, let's toss in a few months at nursing home for grandma, maybe mom does a year long cancer battle, and you can pretty much see that there's just no way people can afford to pay for all of this.
Your simplistic answer is to just claim, "oh, inequality", and keep going on about national health care... but you lie to the American people and you don't admit that what national health care is, is rationing. Health care will get cheaper, because the government is going to flat out say no to the bypass, no to the exotic drugs, just so everyone can get some care.
Re:Obligatory Car Analogy (Score:3, Informative)
if you buy a car in a state with a sales tax of, say 3%. And move to NY a year or so later. They're going to want the difference (4%) when you go to register your car.
At least NY only goes for the difference. DE taxes the full blue book value of the car when you move to DE and register it there, with no regard whatsoever for previous taxes paid on the vehicle in other states.
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:3, Informative)
I think that that clause only applies if the seller is not in the business of selling that item. If I buy a case of pickled herring for my own use, and sell you four cans (because I don't intend to live long enough to finish-off a case of pickled herring), then I am a 'casual' seller who does not have to collect sales tax.
Re:Any tax revolt is a good one. (Score:3, Informative)
You make some good points about New York's failed overtaxation policy, but how can you blame this on liberal orthodoxy when the state legislature has been controlled by Republicans for years now. It seems that Republicans are to blame for much of the overtaxation in New York state. Tax and spend Republicans indeed. I never thought I'd utter those words, but it seems lately the Democratic party is less likely to overspend and overtax the people.
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:4, Informative)
So it seems like you don't come out ahead by reporting, you actually lose money...
You come out ahead until you get caught, in which case you're looking at having to pay the tax, interest and penalties on pain of tax evasion charges. If you get caught a second time (i.e. after you've been cited for a previous "underpayment") or the tax in question is large enough, your state's tax authorities might decide to press criminal tax evasion charges right from the get-go.
Don't think you you're going to get caught? That's about to change as a result of the recent passed housing bill [slashdot.org]. This bill contained a provision to report nearly all online merchants' credit card transactions to the IRS; it's pretty hard to survive as an online business if you're not making more than 200 credit card sales a year or grossing $10,000 in credit card transations. Since the vast majority of Congress represents states that have a sales tax, if this data isn't already being shared with the state governments, expect it to happen in a bill in the next congressional session.
Five years from now, it's going to be very easy for states to find out their residents' out-of-state transactions, confirm the shipping address is within the state, and bill people for unpaid use taxes. If you hate the idea of paying sales and use taxes that much, you can move to one of the handful of states that doesn't have a sales tax. Otherwise, while it's been nice to catch a break from easy enforcement for the past 10 years, it's time to realize that buying online "tax free" in most states is basically tax evasion and that eventually Mr. Taxman will be looking for his cut.
Re:I'll admit, I'm a bit confused (Score:5, Informative)
Only twice?
Your employer pays its taxes. Then they pay their share of your taxes. Then you pay your share of your taxes. Then repeat all three steps for the state.
Then, you spend your income. You get taxed on the purchase. You then get taxed to keep several of the items you buy in many states (home, car, etc).
Then you pay taxes to use your phone, even though your tax dollars helped pay for the infrastructure for the phone company in the first place. You pay a tax on your car's fuel, to register it, on top of the insurance premium you're required to have for it, and on any parts and labor to maintain it.
If you buy an investment and it actually does return money, you get taxed on that even though the company that issued the bond or stock pays revenue and profit taxes or that you're paying property taxes on real estate investmenats.
This really only scratches the surface. If everything was a simple, one-step tax, people would be horrified at the amount they pay.
Re:Welfare States (Score:3, Informative)
And the money that "goes for the war in Iraq" mostly goes back to the people (sadly, little of it actually goes to salaries of military personal). Military bases are a huge source of local employment, as are the research facilities, as are the factories where most of that milspec stuff gets built. The much vilified Haliburton, for example, hasn't been paying huge dividends (even if it were, shareholder are people too) as they've been paying (mostly) American citizens a lot of money to provide services in Iraq.
NASA too (it's been described as a jobs progam for the over-educated before now) whether or not you agree that we get any useful value from NASA, the actuall money is spent giving jobs to engineers and manufacturing workers, mostly in red states.
You get *more* economic activity (jobs, etc) out of a dollar if you don't tax it in the first place than if you spend it on the military, but it's not a huge difference (it's been 20 years since people last got worked up about this, but I think it's a 20% advantage of consumer spending over military spending, plus the frictional losses in the taxation process).
Re:Taxed to death (Score:4, Informative)
I especially love cars here, for those who buy them. You have the manufacturer price. Add about a third in a purchase tax (purpose unknown, except moneygrabbing government). 19% sales tax over that all. Then to keep it, you pay road tax. Gasoline is about US$8.6 per US gallon, 70% of which is tax (I shit you not).
Mine's a company lease car. So the company pays everything to the lease company (who paid that purchase tax over the car, mind you). But because I use it for personal use, I have to pay income tax over 25% of the list price (including all taxes) of the car every year.
Yeah, your taxes sound really bad... *sigh*
Re:taxes in Florida (Score:3, Informative)
When my state got the lottery (back in the 80's), they said the same thing, money for the schools. But as soon as the money came on, they took money from the schools to equal almost no gain in school funding. Sure, they kept the promise that the lottery money would be shoved from the lottery account to the schools accounts but in the end it wasn't more.
As for wetlands and hurricanes, the new building standards in Florida pretty much means a new home or any type of building can survive a hurricane. A problem is that the better built homes actually cost more to repair in order to keep up with the newer building codes which I think has a lot of influence on the insurance. As for bulldozing wetlands and so on, you can engineer it so that a person can reasonable be assured against natural disasters like flood. Washington DC was almost all swamp land at one time and how often does it flood? It just depends on how much someone is willing to spend and how much they are willing to change things.
Re:Welfare States (Score:2, Informative)
Get less political and more educated please Doc Ruby. This issue has nothing to do with anything you've stated above.
What is does have to do with is the fact that states aren't allowed to tax interstate commerce, only intrastate commerce, according to the U.S. constitution and amendments thereof. Interstate commerce is the purvey of the federal government.
Therefore, states lose retail sales tax revenues when consumers order products via catalog or internet from businesses in other states instead of from the local Worst Buy, for example.
In this particular case, if New York succeeds with this new law, the tax revenue generated will go into the coffers in Albany, *NOT* Washington D.C. I can't comprehend how you believe any of your diatribe above has anything to do with the article at hand.