SCOTUS thread

A Place to respectfully discuss those topics that you should never discuss.
post

Would you confirm Kavanaugh?

Yes
16
57%
No
12
43%
 
Total votes : 28

SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Feb 02, 2018 9:22 am

I have periodically been posting stuff about SCOTUS in other threads...I thought I'd create one strictly for it...we should be getting some important rulings soon.


Right now they are doing a 4th amendment case where a gal had a rental car and let her friend drive it (though the guy wasn't listed as a driver on the rental forms). The dude got pulled over and cops searched the car and found a bunch of illegal stuff. They didn't have a warrant. The court is hearing arguments about the constitutionality of the police action.


"The Fourth Amendment protects people from suspicionless searches of places and effects in which they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Does a driver in sole possession of a rental vehicle reasonably expect privacy in the vehicle where he has the renter's permission to drive the vehicle but is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement?"




Alito was leading the questioning and it seemed like he was supporting the right of the police to do a search when Gorsuch interjected:

"Mr. Faigin, you keep saying that," Gorsuch said, "but as a matter of property law, now and forever, a possessor would have a right to exclude other people but for those with better title. So someone in this position would have a right, I think you'd agree, to exclude someone who's attempting to get in the car to hijack it, carjack it. You'd also have a right to throw out a hitchhiker who had overstayed his welcome....I think you're having to argue that the government has a special license that doesn't exist for any other stranger to the car."






This is already the 3rd or 4th time Gorsuch is butting heads with the other R's on the court because he is coming from a much more libertarian viewpoint. The dude is quickly turning into my favorite Justice. I hope we get more like him.



more details can be found: http://reason.com/blog/2018/02/01/neil- ... butt-heads
Last edited by Zarniwoop on Fri Sep 28, 2018 7:51 am, edited 1 time in total.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6393
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 323 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Feb 09, 2018 12:47 pm

Big case will be heard soon -- on Feb 26th a case will decide if all workers at a unionized facility can be forced to pay union dues even if they don't want to join the union.


A $45 monthly fee could end up costing big labor billions. Public unions are getting nervous, while those who don’t like how they operate are claiming the free lunch may be over soon.

Petitioner Mark Janus works at the Illinois Department of Healthcare and Family Services and didn’t like that a certain amount was deducted from his paycheck — he didn’t believe he should be forced to pay union dues or fees just to be allowed to work for the state. He didn’t agree with the 1.3 million-member AFSCME union’s politics, and so believed, under the First Amendment, he couldn’t be forced to contribute.

In his court filing, Janus quotes Thomas Jefferson, who said to “compel a man to furnish contribution of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.”



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2018/02 ... ecide.html






This part pretty much summarizes my feeling:

For his part, Napolitano can’t summon up too much sympathy for these unions, since they’ve gotten themselves into this situation. As he puts it, “some labor leaders believe this will be almost a fatal blow — you know what, that’s their fault….No one is saying that labor unions [shouldn’t] exist; they just have to make themselves attractive so that people join voluntarily, rather than under the state’s compulsion.”
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6393
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 323 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:02 pm

Nobody should be compelled to join a union. However, a non-union employee should not benefit from the union's collective bargaining. They do. And then they sue because the union makes political contributions they don't like.

Solution:

1. Union Membership is voluntary. But no dues paid = no inclusion in collective bargaining agreement. Non-union employees would become second-class employees.

2. Unions are barred from making contributions to political candidates....so are companies. i.e. Citizens United is overturned.

Deal?


Edit: Scratch that. You don't wanna pay dues, go work somewhere else.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13733
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 642 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Fri Feb 09, 2018 1:32 pm

IMO an employment contract is solely between the employer (who traded money) and the employee (who trades labor). It isn’t between one employee and the rest of the employees in any form.


Ultimately it will be seen through the Supreme Court ruling if other employees have a coercive right into the contract between individual laborer and owner
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6393
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 323 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Fri Feb 09, 2018 3:27 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:IMO an employment contract is solely between the employer (who traded money) and the employee (who trades labor). It isn’t between one employee and the rest of the employees in any form.


Ultimately it will be seen through the Supreme Court ruling if other employees have a coercive right into the contract between individual laborer and owner

They already did and it went the way you'd expect.

I think the fact that he's a government employee is the twist here.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13733
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 642 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon Feb 26, 2018 9:12 am

Caught some of the judges opinions and questions about the the public union case on NPR this morning. It will definitely come down to Gorsuch...it's seems relatively clear that Kennedy (the typical swing vote) is going to side with the plaintiff

Both sides made some decent points, but in the end I'm hoping Gorsuch sides with the plaintiff as well.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6393
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 323 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:13 pm

Up next -- can states collect sales tax from on-line sales from out of state retailers?


http://thehill.com/policy/finance/37707 ... reme-court


The case before the Supreme Court now, South Dakota v. Wayfair, centers on a law that South Dakota passed in 2016.

The law requires out-of-state online retailers to collect sales taxes if the business has more than $100,000 in annual sales of products to South Dakota residents or more than 200 separate transactions involving state residents.

In a brief filed last month, the state argues that the Supreme Court should find that its law complies with the Constitution’s dormant Commerce Clause. South Dakota argued that an “economic presence” standard makes more sense than a physical presence standard.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6393
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 323 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:25 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:Up next -- can states collect sales tax from on-line sales from out of state retailers?


http://thehill.com/policy/finance/37707 ... reme-court


The case before the Supreme Court now, South Dakota v. Wayfair, centers on a law that South Dakota passed in 2016.

The law requires out-of-state online retailers to collect sales taxes if the business has more than $100,000 in annual sales of products to South Dakota residents or more than 200 separate transactions involving state residents.

In a brief filed last month, the state argues that the Supreme Court should find that its law complies with the Constitution’s dormant Commerce Clause. South Dakota argued that an “economic presence” standard makes more sense than a physical presence standard.

I'm in favor of South Dakota on this. It's a matter of switching the perspective that we normally use when sales tax is applied. In a brick and mortar business, the transaction takes place there and the tax is applied there and that is the end of it. In an online scenario, the tax should be paid to the state where the good or service is purchased from rather than sold from.

In short, I would rather my state benefit from the transaction rather than the state that gave the best shithouse deal to the retailer.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13733
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 642 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Rocker » Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:27 pm

Agreed
Image
User avatar
Rocker
 
Posts: 3926
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:23 am
Location: Upper deck of the Old Sombrero
Has thanked: 224 times
Been thanked: 214 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:34 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:I'm in favor of South Dakota on this. It's a matter of switching the perspective that we normally use when sales tax is applied. In a brick and mortar business, the transaction takes place there and the tax is applied there and that is the end of it. In an online scenario, the tax should be paid to the state where the good or service is purchased from rather than sold from.

In short, I would rather my state benefit from the transaction rather than the state that gave the best shithouse deal to the retailer.



I pretty much agree with you (but not you're reasoning :P )

However it seems like it might be a nightmare to implement as sales taxes can vary by city or county and not just by state. Even if states use a statewide average % to collect sales taxes, businesses are going to have to cut checks to 45 states (I think that is how many have sales tax). Think about if they will have to do this for every county or city in a state that has different tax rates. Think of maintaining and auditing all those accounts.

It will certainly help job security for folks like you and Buc2!!!!
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6393
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 323 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:39 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:I'm in favor of South Dakota on this. It's a matter of switching the perspective that we normally use when sales tax is applied. In a brick and mortar business, the transaction takes place there and the tax is applied there and that is the end of it. In an online scenario, the tax should be paid to the state where the good or service is purchased from rather than sold from.

In short, I would rather my state benefit from the transaction rather than the state that gave the best shithouse deal to the retailer.



I pretty much agree with you (but not you're reasoning :P )

However it seems like it might be a nightmare to implement as sales taxes can vary by city or county and not just by state. Even if states use a statewide average % to collect sales taxes, businesses are going to have to cut checks to 45 states (I think that is how many have sales tax). Think about if they will have to do this for every county or city in a state that has different tax rates. Think of maintaining and auditing all those accounts.

It will certainly help job security for folks like you and Buc2!!!!

Not as complicated as you think. the Zip code for either the card or the shipping address(best case when we consider gifts) can be used to determine the correct state the tax will be applied to. Database management of that info would not be all that difficult and automated rather quickly.( Sales tax payable, select state, run report) I file my Sales and Use tax to Florida with a grand total of 30 minutes of effort.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13733
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 642 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:42 pm

seems so simple even a robot could do it

:P



in all seriousness though....are zip codes aligned with local tax boundaries? I have never really looked into this.





-------------


Did you know there are 43,000 zips codes in the US? That's a lot of checks to cut

As such, I'm guessing they would go with the statewide average rate or something like that.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6393
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 323 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby bucfanclw » Wed Mar 07, 2018 12:51 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:seems so simple even a robot could do it

:P



in all seriousness though....are zip codes aligned with local tax boundaries? I have never really looked into this.





-------------


Did you know there are 43,000 zips codes in the US? That's a lot of checks to cut

As such, I'm guessing they would go with the statewide average rate or something like that.

There's plenty of instances of multiple tax rates within one zip code since zip codes don't always line up with city or township borders.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3833
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 162 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Wed Mar 07, 2018 1:20 pm

bucfanclw wrote:
Zarniwoop wrote:seems so simple even a robot could do it

:P



in all seriousness though....are zip codes aligned with local tax boundaries? I have never really looked into this.





-------------


Did you know there are 43,000 zips codes in the US? That's a lot of checks to cut

As such, I'm guessing they would go with the statewide average rate or something like that.

There's plenty of instances of multiple tax rates within one zip code since zip codes don't always line up with city or township borders.

That would be an obstacle for sure. At this point I'm fine with the tax revenue going to the state and letting the state sort out county and municipal distributions.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13733
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 642 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Buc2 » Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:14 pm

I deal with all these sales tax issues you guys mentioned every single month. Our system applies tax based on zip code. In some cases, zip codes do reside in more than one taxing jurisdiction (2 counties or towns, whatever). In those cases, we apply the zip+4 for those shipping addresses so they get grouped together with all the other sales to that jurisdiction with single jurisdiction zip codes. Sometimes you don't know unless the customer complains they were overcharged. These are rare cases though and not something to lose sleep over.

As for Zarni's 40 checks scenario. That doesn't happen. I send one lump sum payment and the state doles it out to all the different jurisdictions that need to be paid. And there are no checks. It's all filed and paid online.

The biggest pain in the ass I deal with is in my company's home state of Virginia. Virginia is a point-of-sale state when it's an in-state seller selling to an in-state buyer. Meaning the tax rate is based on the sellers location even if they ship their product to a customer in another taxing jurisdiction. That's no big deal if the customer walks into your store and buys something. But if they order it by phone or online and it has to be shipped to them, it because a whole other can of worms. All other states we collect and pay sales tax to (16 in total) are strictly point-of-delivery states. Our system can only do one or the other. Either POS or POD. We have it set to POD because that's the majority of our sales.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 11434
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 946 times
Been thanked: 397 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Pirate Life » Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:25 pm

Buc2 wrote:The biggest pain in the ass I deal with is in my company's home state of Virginia. Virginia is a point-of-sale state when it's an in-state seller selling to an in-state buyer. Meaning the tax rate is based on the sellers location even if they ship their product to a customer in another taxing jurisdiction. That's no big deal if the customer walks into your store and buys something. But if they order it by phone or online and it has to be shipped to them, it because a whole other can of worms. All other states we collect and pay sales tax to (16 in total) are strictly point-of-delivery states. Our system can only do one or the other. Either POS or POD. We have it set to POD because that's the majority of our sales.


I can speak to this. VA did this because of the high sales tax in Northern Virginia and the internet/tech corridor around Dulles. Made more revenue for the state when collecting based on the PoS rather than the PoD when most of the rest of the state is one to two percentage points lower on their sales tax outside of the Tidewater area.

I deal with this with some of my clients, it's easy to deal with in that it is one check like Buc2 says. Can be a pain to calculate if the client sells in multiple areas of the state, but not too many like that to deal with thankfully.

Not sure where I would fall on this particular case, I can see merits in the State's position and in the opposition to it. Sales tax is a bit of a sticky wicket with the ability of every level of gov't to get their hands into it other than the federal gov't. There are towns in Northern Virginia that have a local sales tax on top of the county and the state one. And one small town just outside of Quantico that charges two different rates - one for the incorporated part of town and another for the unincorporated part.
Pirate Life
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:44 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Buc2 » Wed Mar 07, 2018 7:48 pm

Pirate Life wrote:
Buc2 wrote:The biggest pain in the ass I deal with is in my company's home state of Virginia. Virginia is a point-of-sale state when it's an in-state seller selling to an in-state buyer. Meaning the tax rate is based on the sellers location even if they ship their product to a customer in another taxing jurisdiction. That's no big deal if the customer walks into your store and buys something. But if they order it by phone or online and it has to be shipped to them, it because a whole other can of worms. All other states we collect and pay sales tax to (16 in total) are strictly point-of-delivery states. Our system can only do one or the other. Either POS or POD. We have it set to POD because that's the majority of our sales.


I can speak to this. VA did this because of the high sales tax in Northern Virginia and the internet/tech corridor around Dulles. Made more revenue for the state when collecting based on the PoS rather than the PoD when most of the rest of the state is one to two percentage points lower on their sales tax outside of the Tidewater area.

I deal with this with some of my clients, it's easy to deal with in that it is one check like Buc2 says. Can be a pain to calculate if the client sells in multiple areas of the state, but not too many like that to deal with thankfully.

Not sure where I would fall on this particular case, I can see merits in the State's position and in the opposition to it. Sales tax is a bit of a sticky wicket with the ability of every level of gov't to get their hands into it other than the federal gov't. There are towns in Northern Virginia that have a local sales tax on top of the county and the state one. And one small town just outside of Quantico that charges two different rates - one for the incorporated part of town and another for the unincorporated part.


Actually, it was only a 0.7% increase in the NoVa/Tidewater corridors. There are only 2 rates for the entire state. 6% in the NoVA/Tidewater corridors and 5.3% everywhere else. Every jurisdiction gets the same exact 2%.

Now, I do have to pay sales taxes in states where there can be as many as 4 different rates just for one city. Birmingham, AL, for example, has 3 different rates depending on the zip code...county, city or police jurisdiction on top of the state rate. It can get crazy.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 11434
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 946 times
Been thanked: 397 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Pirate Life » Fri Mar 09, 2018 7:06 pm

Buc2 wrote:Actually, it was only a 0.7% increase in the NoVa/Tidewater corridors. There are only 2 rates for the entire state. 6% in the NoVA/Tidewater corridors and 5.3% everywhere else. Every jurisdiction gets the same exact 2%.

Now, I do have to pay sales taxes in states where there can be as many as 4 different rates just for one city. Birmingham, AL, for example, has 3 different rates depending on the zip code...county, city or police jurisdiction on top of the state rate. It can get crazy.


My bad, should have been more clear in my post. For general sales tax, you are correct. It's alcohol and food taxes I was thinking of, particularly the tax on food for immediate consumption. If an establishment has revenues/sales high enough for food served on premises, they have to pay a much higher food tax (there's an old joke in VA where a politician talks about going to lunch with a friend, he offers to pay the tax if the friend covers the food since it's about the same amount). Even if the food/alcohol isn't for immediate consumption, still get charged the higher tax rate for all food sold from your place of business rather than getting to charge less for the products you sell out of your store to take home or to have shipped to you. Northern VA (and to some degree the Tidewater area) have a lot of microbreweries, wineries and distilleries that ship their wares to consumers as well as sell product on site in restaurants. Some localities charge extra tax on food/alcohol sales as well. Town of Dumfries I alluded to in my post charges more food tax to restaurants in the unincorporated area of the town (mostly due to said restaurants predominantly being fast food places just off I-95), locals know to go to the McDonald's just down Route 1 rather than the one just off of 95 as you'll pay about 40-75 cents more for the same order for the one just off of 95.
Pirate Life
 
Posts: 216
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2016 3:44 pm
Has thanked: 4 times
Been thanked: 15 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Buc2 » Sun Mar 11, 2018 12:34 pm

Pirate Life wrote:
Buc2 wrote:Actually, it was only a 0.7% increase in the NoVa/Tidewater corridors. There are only 2 rates for the entire state. 6% in the NoVA/Tidewater corridors and 5.3% everywhere else. Every jurisdiction gets the same exact 2%.

Now, I do have to pay sales taxes in states where there can be as many as 4 different rates just for one city. Birmingham, AL, for example, has 3 different rates depending on the zip code...county, city or police jurisdiction on top of the state rate. It can get crazy.


My bad, should have been more clear in my post. For general sales tax, you are correct. It's alcohol and food taxes I was thinking of, particularly the tax on food for immediate consumption. If an establishment has revenues/sales high enough for food served on premises, they have to pay a much higher food tax (there's an old joke in VA where a politician talks about going to lunch with a friend, he offers to pay the tax if the friend covers the food since it's about the same amount). Even if the food/alcohol isn't for immediate consumption, still get charged the higher tax rate for all food sold from your place of business rather than getting to charge less for the products you sell out of your store to take home or to have shipped to you. Northern VA (and to some degree the Tidewater area) have a lot of microbreweries, wineries and distilleries that ship their wares to consumers as well as sell product on site in restaurants. Some localities charge extra tax on food/alcohol sales as well. Town of Dumfries I alluded to in my post charges more food tax to restaurants in the unincorporated area of the town (mostly due to said restaurants predominantly being fast food places just off I-95), locals know to go to the McDonald's just down Route 1 rather than the one just off of 95 as you'll pay about 40-75 cents more for the same order for the one just off of 95.

I don't have any experience with food/beverage taxes. But I'm pretty sure that's one of the reasons so many wineries, breweries and distilleries have moved into Nelson County south of Charlottesville...because of the favorable tax advantages there.
Image
Don't tread on me
User avatar
Buc2
 
Posts: 11434
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 2:16 pm
Location: America
Has thanked: 946 times
Been thanked: 397 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Mar 20, 2018 11:19 am

SC ruled Flint folks can file class action lawsuit


But who are they really going to be suing? Basically themselves I think. Any award they get comes from the city coffers right? Anyone have detail on this?
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6393
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 323 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby PanteraCanes » Tue Mar 20, 2018 12:13 pm

Mountaineer Buc wrote:I'm in favor of South Dakota on this. It's a matter of switching the perspective that we normally use when sales tax is applied. In a brick and mortar business, the transaction takes place there and the tax is applied there and that is the end of it. In an online scenario, the tax should be paid to the state where the good or service is purchased from rather than sold from.

In short, I would rather my state benefit from the transaction rather than the state that gave the best shithouse deal to the retailer.



I am a little late to the party on this and I skimmed a lot of the discussion so forgive me if this question or perspective was missed. Also not singling you out just quoting it to ask the thoughts and opinions in general on this.

What happens when you buy something online from a location that is different from where you live and/or are having it shipped to? I assume the sales tax is going to be put in against either your credit card home location or the destination of the package. Though I would imagine this is a disconnect from if you were on a trip somewhere and bought from some random local place and had it shipped to your house. The sales tax would probably be based on where you bought it from that local business and not where they are shipping it to. Would such laws that collect sales tax based on where things are shipped to rather than the location you were in when you bought it or the stores location start to impact brick and mortar businesses as well? What about business that are kind of both where they have a store but also a catalogue?

Which brings up another question. Catalogue sales have been going on for a very long time. How was the sales tax collected on those? Basically the internet is like a Sears and Roebuck but without the wasted paper.

If you go into a neighboring city, county, or even in some cases state to buy something which has sales tax could you then be excluded from having to pay that if you are going to have it shipped or delivered to your home location which has no tax?
User avatar
PanteraCanes
 
Posts: 1081
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 12:48 pm
Has thanked: 83 times
Been thanked: 40 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Mountaineer Buc » Tue Mar 20, 2018 12:25 pm

PanteraCanes wrote:
Mountaineer Buc wrote:I'm in favor of South Dakota on this. It's a matter of switching the perspective that we normally use when sales tax is applied. In a brick and mortar business, the transaction takes place there and the tax is applied there and that is the end of it. In an online scenario, the tax should be paid to the state where the good or service is purchased from rather than sold from.

In short, I would rather my state benefit from the transaction rather than the state that gave the best shithouse deal to the retailer.



I am a little late to the party on this and I skimmed a lot of the discussion so forgive me if this question or perspective was missed. Also not singling you out just quoting it to ask the thoughts and opinions in general on this.

What happens when you buy something online from a location that is different from where you live and/or are having it shipped to? I assume the sales tax is going to be put in against either your credit card home location or the destination of the package. Though I would imagine this is a disconnect from if you were on a trip somewhere and bought from some random local place and had it shipped to your house. The sales tax would probably be based on where you bought it from that local business and not where they are shipping it to. Would such laws that collect sales tax based on where things are shipped to rather than the location you were in when you bought it or the stores location start to impact brick and mortar businesses as well? What about business that are kind of both where they have a store but also a catalogue?

Which brings up another question. Catalogue sales have been going on for a very long time. How was the sales tax collected on those? Basically the internet is like a Sears and Roebuck but without the wasted paper.

If you go into a neighboring city, county, or even in some cases state to buy something which has sales tax could you then be excluded from having to pay that if you are going to have it shipped or delivered to your home location which has no tax?

I'd go with the person spending the money in a gift scenario. If I buy a gift in Florida online and have it shipped to Buc2 in Virginia, it should be sales tax revenue for Florida because I'm the one who made the purchase.

I want to say that catalogue companies have been able to bypass that for some time. Even many of the purchases my company makes on Amazon are not taxed and I have to file them every month as taxable purchases. I pay Florida sales tax on them regardless where they come from.

Every credit card has a billing address attached to it and the zip code is often used to verify the card holder. That zip code, IMO should be the basis for the tax.
Image
User avatar
Mountaineer Buc
 
Posts: 13733
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:15 pm
Location: Crestucky
Has thanked: 149 times
Been thanked: 642 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:22 am

This is why you have to love Gorsuch ... he sides with the four liberal judges in protecting the rights of legal immigrants from potentially vague laws requiring deportation


https://www.cnn.com/2018/04/17/politics ... index.html


From Gorsuch:

Before holding a lawful permanent resident alien like James Dimaya subject to removal for having committed a crime, the Immigration and Nationality Act requires a judge to determine that the ordinary case of the alien's crime of conviction involves a substantial risk that physical force may be used. But what does that mean? Just take the crime at issue in this case, California burglary, which applies to everyone from armed home intruders to door-to-door salesmen peddling shady products. How, on that vast spectrum, is anyone supposed to locate the ordinary case and say whether it includes a substantial risk of physical force? The truth is, no one knows. The law's silence leaves judges to their intuitions and the people to their fate. In my judgment, the Constitution demands more.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6393
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 323 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Apr 25, 2018 8:00 am

Supreme Court to hear oral arguments for Trump vs Hawaii (travel ban) beginning today.
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6393
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 323 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Wed Apr 25, 2018 2:38 pm

The SC already made the audio file available, I’ve been listening as I’m eating my sandwich

https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_argum ... 017/17-965


Some good questioning from all the judges


Ruling will happen this summer
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6393
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 323 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon May 14, 2018 9:31 am

Supreme Court removes federal laws against sports betting!

Always a fan of less fed intrusion


——-

It was a 6-3 vote. If someone can find who voted “no” please post the list

(ESPN has 7-2 right now, Fox and Yahoo have 6-3)
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6393
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 323 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby bucfanclw » Mon May 14, 2018 9:46 am

Zarniwoop wrote:Supreme Court removes federal laws against sports betting!

Always a fan of less fed intrusion


——-

It was a 7-2 vote. If someone can find who voted “no” please post the list

(ESPN has 7-2, right now Fox has 6-3)

Congress passed the 1992 law to preserve what lawmakers at the time felt was the integrity of the games. But New Jersey and its allies argued that it ran afoul of the 10th Amendment, which reserves for the states all powers not delegated to the federal government.

Alito and six colleagues agreed, though Justice Stephen Breyer said the whole federal law should not have been declared unconstitutional. Ginsburg agreed with that assessment in her dissent.

Sotomayor was the other dissenting vote.
User avatar
bucfanclw
 
Posts: 3833
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 4:09 pm
Location: I'm told Clewiston
Has thanked: 20 times
Been thanked: 162 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Zarniwoop » Mon May 14, 2018 10:11 am

Thanks I figured it had to be the big govt folks
Zarniwoop
 
Posts: 6393
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2015 12:23 pm
Has thanked: 323 times
Been thanked: 284 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby NYBF » Mon May 14, 2018 11:16 am

bucfanclw wrote:
Congress passed the 1992 law to preserve what lawmakers at the time felt was the integrity of the games. But New Jersey and its allies argued that it ran afoul of the 10th Amendment, which reserves for the states all powers not delegated to the federal government.

Alito and six colleagues agreed, though Justice Stephen Breyer said the whole federal law should not have been declared unconstitutional. Ginsburg agreed with that assessment in her dissent.



Is this not also applicable to marijuana legalization?
Image
User avatar
NYBF
 
Posts: 6081
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 11:46 am
Has thanked: 194 times
Been thanked: 501 times

Re: SCOTUS thread

Postby Phantom Phenom » Mon May 14, 2018 1:16 pm

Zarniwoop wrote:Supreme Court removes federal laws against sports betting!

Always a fan of less fed intrusion


——-

It was a 6-3 vote. If someone can find who voted “no” please post the list

(ESPN has 7-2 right now, Fox and Yahoo have 6-3)



It’s a good time to be a referee.

it will change the way we watch sports.
User avatar
Phantom Phenom
 
Posts: 4704
Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2015 1:48 pm
Has thanked: 51 times
Been thanked: 47 times

Next

post

Return to Politics and Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Mountaineer Buc and 12 guests