Centerfield

Let me tell you how it will be

There's one for you, nineteen for me

Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet

Taxman!
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

If this weren't so pathetic, I'd just have to laugh. I may do just that anyway...

The traffic cams are a debate that's just beginning in my home town...we'll see where it goes. I have no problem with the enforcement of laws, but I do have a problem with enforcement targeted specifically to bring in "income."

It's much like your phone and cable bill. Politicians know that raising taxes is a sure way to find oneself fighting to keep their job in the next election, which is exactly why they have snuck in "useage fees" and the like in everything. Call it what you will, it's a tax! When your phone company tells you that their most basic plan is $28 and you order it, only to find out that your bill is actually $37 a month, there's a reason--taxes!

Tully, do we have to call you George now?

This raises a number of issues, I think. It seems that the state is imposing a fee for the use of its roads by certain non-residents of the state. I'm not sure that under the full-faith-and-credit clause and the general right of interstate travel that a state can require a citizen of another state to have a special license or otherwise pay for the privilege of driving on its roads. Certainly they could not do so if the tax applied only to the non-resident drivers.

What exactly is the penalty for not paying? Presumably you do not owe it if you do not ever drive in New York again. Does the fee become due the instant one next drives within the state of New York? If one only drives through New York to get to, say, Connecticut, I think that would raise very significant constitutional issues.

As a policy matter, state legislatures, which always consider themselves strapped for cash, have been increasingly turning to court costs and fines aimed at traffic violators to raise money, out of all proportion to the enforcement costs. Speeders have a better public image than burglers, but given the choice between raising taxes on an honest, god-fearing taxpayer who always obeys the law of the road and raising taxes on those speeding scoff-laws, guess who wins out?

By calling it a "tax" I think they're heading on to thin ice.

Say that my state decides that chimney smoke from Colorado is a nuisance, and starts sending tax bills to everyone in Denver....

Helloooooo, SCOTUS.

Tomorrow (2/22) they start fining violaters caught by the cameras on the 101 in Scottsdale here. The cameras have been up and operational for about a month, and you can't drive along that stretch without seeing the flashes of pictures taken.

They caught several motorists in excess of over 100 MPH is a 65 zone. One, doing 130, was arrested for reckless driving. (he's going to fight it)

I don't mind these cameras. They won't make any difference come rush hour, because the top speed is one digit, and during the rest of the day, it frees up physical police to be in other places they need, rather than stuck on the side of the highway...

Refresh my memory; didn't the Supremes already decide this one based on acid rain produced in industrial states damaging crops in agriculteral states?

Jean, the ways by which the states try to get around Supreme Court rulings to tax stuff are as infinite as the sands of time.

In 33 years of driving I've never had a speeding ticket. Going 72 in a 45 should have cost him more than $155. It could have cost someone their life. I hope his insurance company sticks it to him.

Taxation without representation? How about when I drive the Illinois toll roads? I'm not from Illinois.

Driving isn't a right.

A user fee isn't a tax. This guy is being taxed.

Just wait for the outcry when and if the feds ever authorize sales tax collections from internet & mail order. It'll put tens of thousands of small businesses either out of business or underground. The paperwork requirements alone will completely wipe out home mail-order, and knock eBay's stock through the floor.

Yes, and Tully's knows what he's talking about, as we've already got an internet tax here in Kansas; of course, it's basically on the honor system, so it's a tax on honor, you might say. ;-)

LOL! Very poetic there, Pat.

Speaking of payment, don't let Harrisongs get hold of you, Tully.

They do this in Texas, too. But I don't think they call it a tax. More of an offer you can't refuse.

Tim, very few toll roads are the only way to get where you're going. It's your choice whether to take the toll road or not. Anyway, this fee is not like a toll road, it's more like an entry fee to be allowed into the state with a car at all.

I can't get to Massachusetts at all without going through New York. New York cannot change me a fee simply for the privilege of passing through it on my way to another state in the Union. I have a right to travel through one state to another under the Constitution.

It's not really an internet sales tax, Jean, but a "mail order" tax. The compensating use tax has been around since SCOTUS made the "physical nexus" ruling on interstate collections. Good thing, too--there are 7500+ sales tax jurisdictions in the US. Can you imagine what it would do to small businesses to have to track sales points and file quarterly and annual sales tax reports for each one of them? Not to mention the gov't bureaucracy that would be needed to deal with the flood of paperwork!

It does drive the revenue-hungry legislators crazy, though. (As if they needed help.) It was bad enough with just catalog sales, and then the internet came along. All those out-of-state goods coming in and no sales taxes being paid the state on them! And those darn citizens just won't voluntarily report their purchases and cough up an extra 5% or whatever.

Harrisongs is prickly, aren't they? Good thing I didn't post the notes too. :-)

Pat: You don't have to drive to MA, you can take a train, a bus, fly or ride your bike. You can even get on a boat and go around NY. There are lots of choices, just like whether or not to use a toll road. The constitution is preserved. You just think you should still have the right to drive in NY after committing a crime that endangers innocent and law abiding citizens, then refuse to serve the penalty. Drive the speed limit and you'll be fine. That's a choice too.

Tully: Okay, a user fee isn't a tax. A local option sales tax certainly is. If I shop in a county that has one I have to pay it, even though I didn't have an opportunity to vote on it.

And why shouldn't internet sales be taxed? Other than it requires a little more electronic tracking, what makes internet companies, including home-based ones so special that they don't have to pay a tax that other business have to pay?

The big problem here in my view is governments choose to make a big splash with voters by cutting income taxes (or some other high profile tax) but don't control spending. Or they cut income taxes too much to cover the spending they have already committed to, so they turn to or increase sneaky user fees in the hopes that nobody notices. And usually nobody does, or at least not enough notice to force a more open and honest system of raising revenue.

tim... internet businesses also do not consume nearly the same level of services as a local business does. The sales tax is actually on the consumer, thu business merely collects it from the consumer. But why should a mom-and-pop mail order outfit here in Baton Rouge have to undertake the significant expense of collecting and remitting sales taxes on behalf of Chicago, Illinois?

As for the travel, the issue is not the mode of transportation, but the charging of a fee to cross the border in any mode of transportation. The Supreme Court, in a line of cases largely springing from very similar issues, have held since the beginning of the 19th Century that a state can not charge you a tax for crossing the border. They cannot charge you a tax for crossing the border on a boat or on a train, nor with a goat nor in the rain, for that matter. (although the goat may violate other laws, depending on local morality)

They can certainly fine me for violating local laws while I am there. And if their traffic statutes provide that any speeder must, as part of the punishment for speeding, pay a significant fine, then that's fine. But that doesn't seem to be what's happening here. This is not part of the sentence/fine handed down by the judge. It's an administratively-imposed special burden imposed long after the fact of the conviction, lasting for an apparently indefinite duration.

Other than it requires a little more electronic tracking

A little, my ass. Tim, how would you like to file 7500+ seperate tax reports five times a year? Do that just once, then come back and try that "little" line again.

The postage alone would wipe out every single small mail-order/internet business in the nation, and a lot of the medium-size ones. Before you even begin to consider the man-hours required. Or the cost of remitting all the collections to 7500+ different agencies. The statistical certainty of being constantly audited by multiple agencies, perhaps dozens at a time, with all the hearings being held in other jurisdictions.

That's before you get to the privacy issues of maintaining complete customer data on behalf of the government to show that you're in compliance.

The privacy issue is a huge one, by the way. Imagine, say, Mississippi, demanding the Mississippi customer list from Adam & Eve or some other on-line purveyor of "marital aids", in order to make sure the sales taxes were paid on all items shipped into that state.

Or Texas demanding that the adult online store turn over all customer records to show "tax compliance," when it's obvious that they want them for other reasons. Like prosecuting the customers.

Tully: Okay, first I'll borrow a line from Dear Abby, or was it her sister? Anyway, it's time to get out the wet noodle. A little humble pie for dessert.

However, I believe your first reference was if the Feds authorize the collections (and I did mis-speak when I used the term "pay", I am aware businesses are merely a conduit for this money). If the Feds authorize collections on internet transactions I presume they will also provide guidance as to how the transactions are monitored. Probably there will be a formula of some kind so Mom and Pop don't have to keep track of all 7500 jurisdictions. My guess is software similar to Turbo tax can do that for them and maybe the Feds will make that easily available for businesses to use.

Pat: Philosophically, Dayton Hudson shouldn't have any more interest in keeping track of sales tax receipts from a Lousiana customer using their credit card at a Target in Mississippi, but they have to anyway. My point is businesses shouldn't expect special treatment simply because they sell their products and services differently.

And going back to the original post, you seem to go back and forth on whether the issue is travel, or mode of travel. First you say you think the state is charging a fee for the use of its roads by certain non-residents of the state (although the article appears to imply the fee/tax is applicable to all, including NY residents). Then you say the issue isn't the mode of transportation but a fee for crossing the border. I'm not sure that's correct either. I guess the courts will ultimately decide.

But I think it can be interpreted as a "sin" tax. Some states charge very high taxes on cigarettes and alcholol, much higher than the general sales tax. It can be argued that drivers who go 72 in a 45 are more likely to have an accident, which is a harm to society similar to smoking and drinking.

I think you underestimate the scope and scale of the problem, tim. The states won't trust the feds to do the collecting for them. Heck, the locals barely trust the states to remit their portion of the collected sales taxes now. With good reason--the remittances are often much less than the known collections for the area.

Look at the New York "bad driver" tax a different way. If the person they're attempting to collect from doesn't live in New York, and never drives again in New York, what the heck is New York's justification for trying to collect an annual tax from him? This isn't a "sin tax" like the surtaxes on alcohol and tobacco--those are only collected from those using the product, and in porportion to their use of the product. If they quit buying the product, they don't pay the tax.

What if New York decided smoking was unhealthy (true enough) and decided to levy an annual tax on smokers. Why would it be OK for them to send tax bills (legally collectible debts, the non-payment of which may constitute criminal violations) to smokers in California?

Tully:

I don't pretend to be an expert on sales taxes. But recently I purchased a bicycle online (a rather cool stingray knockoff for my daughter) from a very mom and pop outfit in Texas. When I made the order I had to enter my zip code. After a few seconds the price was recomputed with the sales tax for my location included. It didn't seem that complicated to me. My guess is the business hired some company to manage this, and the software probably keeps the records too. I don't think an internet sales tax system would have to be anywhere near as complicated as you originally stated, particularly the part about postage. It would be like online banking and there are companies that probably exist to offer this service for a fee. Of course, it's still another expense of running a business.

I would be okay with no sales tax at all, but that brings me back to the original post of states viewing citizens as nothing more than revenue sources.

The NY tax is not a tax like the one you mentioned. It isn't charged to everyone that travels in the state, only those who were guilty of committing a traffic offense, and from what I read, it applies to residents and nonresidents alike. In effect, the driver did use the service; he drove dangerously on a NY road, putting himself and others at risk, and he is paying for it. The state can take the position that speeders cost the state money because they cause accidents that have to be cleaned up and creating more work for police and road crews, not to mention hospitals and undertakers. Maybe it's not the best method, simply raising the speeding fine another couple hundred bucks would be simpler. But I don't think it's out of line to make dangerous drivers pay. And 72 in a 45 is dangerous.

Good thing, too--there are 7500+ sales tax jurisdictions in the US. Can you imagine what it would do to small businesses to have to track sales points and file quarterly and annual sales tax reports for each one of them? Not to mention the gov't bureaucracy that would be needed to deal with the flood of paperwork!

Yikes! That's scarier than the last horror movie I watched!

It does drive the revenue-hungry legislators crazy, though. (As if they needed help.) It was bad enough with just catalog sales, and then the internet came along. All those out-of-state goods coming in and no sales taxes being paid the state on them! And those darn citizens just won't voluntarily report their purchases and cough up an extra 5% or whatever.

LOL! Yes, I'm sure our fair legislature is hatching all sorts of dark schemes to squeeze money out of their surf-net citizens. Fortunately, they haven't been able to track who buys what on the net...yet.

Harrisongs is prickly, aren't they? Good thing I didn't post the notes too. :-)

Yes, they are. They're somewhat more laid back than whoever owns the Lennon-McCartney catalog at the moment, but that's like saying a black bear is somewhat less dangerous than a grizzly; you don't want either one sniffing around your campsite if you can possibly avoid it.

Of course, I may be jaded, since my brother worked for Apple Computers, which has been sued again and again for infringing on the late, lamented Apple of the 60's. The joke around the office used to be that the Fab Four will get more money for naming their company Apple than for writing and performing music. (And looking at how the Fab Four were screwed over and over again in their music contracts, I can see how.)

Anyway, you're wise not to post the notes. You must be taking a page out of Bob Dole's campaign book, when he used that song in '96. (Not that it did him much good) Clinton countered with "A Little Help From My Friends." If you go by the theory that your favorite Beatles song tells a lot about your personality, then that sums up '96 right there. ;-)

I enjoyed your site so much so i have to say it to you. Stake can Make Mistery: http://www.baltimoresun.com/ , Loose Round is very good Boy right Plane will Give Plane without any questions , when Cosmos is Plane it will Destroy Player Profound is feature of Greedy Pair

Karlik4