Don't even understand what grounds Apple thought they had. Pay your taxes.
Remember, the USA is no longer part of the British Empire because we refused to pay the tea tax that was levied on us by the British. That was the spark that led to the Revolutionary War. Otherwise, if we had listened to the British telling us to ...... pay your taxes ........, we here would be driving on the wrong side of the road.
Remember, the revolutionary war was fought over the issue of “no taxation without representation.”
also remember, the whiskey rebellion also involved a bunch of dimwits who forgot the bold text and Alexander Hamilton put those clowns in their place.
Don't even understand what grounds Apple thought they had. Pay your taxes.
Remember, the USA is no longer part of the British Empire because we refused to pay the tea tax that was levied on us by the British. That was the spark that led to the Revolutionary War. Otherwise, if we had listened to the British telling us to ...... pay your taxes ........, we here would be driving on the wrong side of the road.
You're suggesting that Apple should revolt from Illinois?
Don't even understand what grounds Apple thought they had. Pay your taxes.
Remember, the USA is no longer part of the British Empire because we refused to pay the tea tax that was levied on us by the British. That was the spark that led to the Revolutionary War. Otherwise, if we had listened to the British telling us to ...... pay your taxes ........, we here would be driving on the wrong side of the road.
You're suggesting that Apple should revolt from Illinois?
Good luck with that.
No, I'm saying ...... "pay your taxes" ... and not complain about it, is not always the best thing to do. Otherwise we might end up with a 20% VAT tax.
You people in the UK, would still be paying a poll tax, if you didn't protest and just ... "pay your taxes".
Don't even understand what grounds Apple thought they had. Pay your taxes.
Remember, the USA is no longer part of the British Empire because we refused to pay the tea tax that was levied on us by the British. That was the spark that led to the Revolutionary War. Otherwise, if we had listened to the British telling us to ...... pay your taxes ........, we here would be driving on the wrong side of the road.
Actually, the issue was taxation without representation, not the taxation itself. If Britain had treated the colonists as citizens, we'd all be speaking English (OK, British English) today.
Don't even understand what grounds Apple thought they had. Pay your taxes.
Remember, the USA is no longer part of the British Empire because we refused to pay the tea tax that was levied on us by the British. That was the spark that led to the Revolutionary War. Otherwise, if we had listened to the British telling us to ...... pay your taxes ........, we here would be driving on the wrong side of the road.
Actually, the issue was taxation without representation, not the taxation itself. If Britain had treated the colonists as citizens, we'd all be speaking English (OK, British English) today.
The Tax will be payed by the pheasants, not Apple….
Even the IRS would have a hard time getting money from birds.
So are you saying that just because we have representation now, when our government taxes us, we should just ..... pay our taxes? Of course you're not.
Even if we have representation now, it doesn't mean that the taxes our elected government impose on us, are always fair or justified. We still have a right to protest any new or higher taxes our representative government impose on us. (Even if don't have the right protest it by not paying it.) We might not always win, so it's not always a losing battle. It's for sure a losing battle if we don't fight it. "Taxation without representation" was basically an unfair and unjust tax on the Colonist.
In CA we have Prop 13 because CA citizens got together and protest our representative government raising property taxes as high and often as they wanted. Our representative government was using property as their own personal ATM to extract money from. No one was protesting paying property tax. And CA property owners didn't listen to the people (who most of, didn't own property) when they cried .... pay your taxes. Prop 13 won by a landslide and would win by a landslide today. It's easy to cry ... pay your taxes ...... when you're not the one paying it or going to pay it.
In CA in 1990, CA government, in order to help balance the State budget, imposed a "Snack Tax". Our representatives wanted to place a sales tax on snacks. Which was defined as things like gum, candy bars, chips, breath mints, LifeSavers, etc.. It lasted for about 2 years as CA citizens got a State Proposition on the ballot and voted to ban our representative CA government from ever taxing snacks again. Though they have tried and failed.
Right now, CA government is trying to find a way to still tax wealthy citizens that moved out of the State, for ten years. It probably won't win, but it can if no one protest it. That's our representative government trying to impose such a tax. Even if you have no sympathy for the rich, you still must think that such a tax is worst than .... taxation without representation.
Just because we have representation now, it doesn't mean that we should just ..... "pay our taxes", without ever putting up a fight against the taxes we see as unfair and unjust. Just like what the Colonist did.
Shameful money grab by Chicago government. Doesn't seem much different than class action lawyer looking for a deep pocketed defendant to file a lawsuit against.
Not a lawyer, but it certainly seems bogus and discriminatory to single out streaming services. If the tax is valid everything going through the internet pipes should be taxable. I thought (could be wrong) that no state could tax interstate commerce and it seems moving data between states is interstate commerce.
The Judge was a Cook County Judge, not state or Federal. I would be surprised to see this hold up as it moves up the judicial ladder toward Federal courts.
Not advocating for or against the tax, just wanted to say that this isn’t a tax that the city picked an industry for randomly. This was intended to make up for the revenue shortfall created when a similar tax on video rentals disappeared due to the video rental market collapsing.
Also not really sure why you think this particular tax is discriminatory. Plenty of industries have taxes that apply just to them.
This is not a "similar" tax, it's the same tax, a sales tax. In IL at least, sales tax applied to movie rentals from a brick and mortar store. It's been so long, that I don't remember if there was a sales tax on movie rentals (here in CA), when I rented them from my local Blockbuster. But I'm nearly sure that there was no sales tax on my Netflix by-mail DVD rental subscription (here in CA at least).
Sales tax revenue in general, do not ever decease from year to year. Taxable items that get more expensive or consumers buying more taxable items, way more than make up for the taxable items that disappears or decrease in price. But here, they found a way to make up for the sale tax revenue loss from just movie rentals, by applying the same sales tax to all video streaming subscriptions. Thus the name, the "Netflix tax" as they are the most popular video streaming service.
But the sales tax also includes music streaming subscription. This to make up for the loss sales tax revenue from loss of CD sales (both physical and digital downloads in some cases.). Thus Spotify and Apple Music subscribers are subject to sales tax on the cost of their subscription.
NY, one of the handful of states with this "Netflix tax", also tax video streaming subscription cost. But NY take on this is that since NY also tax movie theater tickets, they can tax subscriptions to movies that are streamed. This to make up for less consumers going to the movies.
The problem with the "Netflix tax" is that it's a "non tangible" item, as defined by most States sales tax laws. With movie rentals, CD purchases and movie tickets, consumers had an item of value that they could hold in their hands, purchases that can be transferred to some one else and were purchased from places that rely on public services. There is none of this when consumers stream movies or music, in their own home, using their own equipment and from an internet service they pay for. When one watches a streamed movie, can they transfer the movie they streamed to some one else?
In CA, like in most States, sales tax only apply to tangible items. Items that can be transfer to another, once purchased. Which is why labor is not subject to sales tax. When one bring a car in for repair and the cost comes to $150 for labor and $50 for parts, only the $50 for parts is taxed. Same if you call a repairman to come to your home to repair your fridge, toilet, washing machine, electrical outlet, etc.. Only the parts replaced are taxed. Labor is a non tangible item that is not subject to sales tax. But if the repair service only charges a fixed price for the repair (like an oil change), then the whole cost of the repair is taxable. Same with shipping cost with items purchased over the internet. Providing the seller separate out the actual shipping cost, at time of purchase, only the item cost is subject to sales tax. Shipping is not taxed because it's a non tangible item.
So the question becomes, are video or music streaming subscriptions considered "tangible" items, that can be subject to sales tax? If they are "non tangible", then the "Netflix tax" might be questionable and should be fought.
This is not the same as "digital downloads", in which the consumer ends up with a tangible item, once downloaded, that can be transferred. But some State do not even tax "digital downloads".
Here's good article for those who think that video and music streaming subscribers should just .... pay the tax .... as though there's no reason what-so-ever, to protest such a tax. After all, it's taxation with representation.
>Illinois– Digital products are tax exempt in Illinois. (Source)
“Information or data that is downloaded electronically, such as downloaded books, musical recordings, newspapers or magazines, does not constitute the transfer of tangible personal property. These types of transactions represent the transfer of intangibles and are thus not subject to Retailer’s Occupation and Use Tax.<
Don't even understand what grounds Apple thought they had. Pay your taxes.
Remember, the USA is no longer part of the British Empire because we refused to pay the tea tax that was levied on us by the British. That was the spark that led to the Revolutionary War. Otherwise, if we had listened to the British telling us to ...... pay your taxes ........, we here would be driving on the wrong side of the road.
You're suggesting that Apple should revolt from Illinois?
Good luck with that.
No, I'm saying ...... "pay your taxes" ... and not complain about it, is not always the best thing to do. Otherwise we might end up with a 20% VAT tax.
You people in the UK, would still be paying a poll tax, if you didn't protest and just ... "pay your taxes".
Taking people ultra literally in order to build a straw man around a categorical imperative is a great way to start petty internet arguments. Well done.
I'm talking about Apple (a massive, super rich corporation) causing an unjustified stink about a modest tax on a modest part of their business. You're invoking the revolutionary war and ultra regressive taxes on poor people.
Congratulations, you win. Sometimes you shouldn't pay your taxes. This is not one of those times.
Don't even understand what grounds Apple thought they had. Pay your taxes.
Remember, the USA is no longer part of the British Empire because we refused to pay the tea tax that was levied on us by the British. That was the spark that led to the Revolutionary War. Otherwise, if we had listened to the British telling us to ...... pay your taxes ........, we here would be driving on the wrong side of the road.
Actually, the issue was taxation without representation, not the taxation itself. If Britain had treated the colonists as citizens, we'd all be speaking English (OK, British English) today.
The Tax will be payed by the pheasants, not Apple….
Even the IRS would have a hard time getting money from birds.
So are you saying that just because we have representation now, when our government taxes us, we should just ..... pay our taxes? Of course you're not.
Even if we have representation now, it doesn't mean that the taxes our elected government impose on us, are always fair or justified. We still have a right to protest any new or higher taxes our representative government impose on us. (Even if don't have the right protest it by not paying it.) We might not always win, so it's not always a losing battle. It's for sure a losing battle if we don't fight it. "Taxation without representation" was basically an unfair and unjust tax on the Colonist.
In CA we have Prop 13 because CA citizens got together and protest our representative government raising property taxes as high and often as they wanted. Our representative government was using property as their own personal ATM to extract money from. No one was protesting paying property tax. And CA property owners didn't listen to the people (who most of, didn't own property) when they cried .... pay your taxes. Prop 13 won by a landslide and would win by a landslide today. It's easy to cry ... pay your taxes ...... when you're not the one paying it or going to pay it.
In CA in 1990, CA government, in order to help balance the State budget, imposed a "Snack Tax". Our representatives wanted to place a sales tax on snacks. Which was defined as things like gum, candy bars, chips, breath mints, LifeSavers, etc.. It lasted for about 2 years as CA citizens got a State Proposition on the ballot and voted to ban our representative CA government from ever taxing snacks again. Though they have tried and failed.
Right now, CA government is trying to find a way to still tax wealthy citizens that moved out of the State, for ten years. It probably won't win, but it can if no one protest it. That's our representative government trying to impose such a tax. Even if you have no sympathy for the rich, you still must think that such a tax is worst than .... taxation without representation.
Just because we have representation now, it doesn't mean that we should just ..... "pay our taxes", without ever putting up a fight against the taxes we see as unfair and unjust. Just like what the Colonist did.
Not at all. I think the tax is stupid. I was just commenting that the underlying reason for the American Revolution was not about the taxes themselves, but about not being treated as citizens with representation.
Comments
also remember, the whiskey rebellion also involved a bunch of dimwits who forgot the bold text and Alexander Hamilton put those clowns in their place.
Good luck with that.
You people in the UK, would still be paying a poll tax, if you didn't protest and just ... "pay your taxes".
Even if we have representation now, it doesn't mean that the taxes our elected government impose on us, are always fair or justified. We still have a right to protest any new or higher taxes our representative government impose on us. (Even if don't have the right protest it by not paying it.) We might not always win, so it's not always a losing battle. It's for sure a losing battle if we don't fight it. "Taxation without representation" was basically an unfair and unjust tax on the Colonist.
In CA we have Prop 13 because CA citizens got together and protest our representative government raising property taxes as high and often as they wanted. Our representative government was using property as their own personal ATM to extract money from. No one was protesting paying property tax. And CA property owners didn't listen to the people (who most of, didn't own property) when they cried .... pay your taxes. Prop 13 won by a landslide and would win by a landslide today. It's easy to cry ... pay your taxes ...... when you're not the one paying it or going to pay it.
In CA in 1990, CA government, in order to help balance the State budget, imposed a "Snack Tax". Our representatives wanted to place a sales tax on snacks. Which was defined as things like gum, candy bars, chips, breath mints, LifeSavers, etc.. It lasted for about 2 years as CA citizens got a State Proposition on the ballot and voted to ban our representative CA government from ever taxing snacks again. Though they have tried and failed.
https://www.avalara.com/taxrates/en/blog/2016/03/california-attack-of-the-snack-tax.html
Right now, CA government is trying to find a way to still tax wealthy citizens that moved out of the State, for ten years. It probably won't win, but it can if no one protest it. That's our representative government trying to impose such a tax. Even if you have no sympathy for the rich, you still must think that such a tax is worst than .... taxation without representation.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-california-plan-to-chase-away-the-rich-then-keep-stalking-them-11608331448
Just because we have representation now, it doesn't mean that we should just ..... "pay our taxes", without ever putting up a fight against the taxes we see as unfair and unjust. Just like what the Colonist did.
Sales tax revenue in general, do not ever decease from year to year. Taxable items that get more expensive or consumers buying more taxable items, way more than make up for the taxable items that disappears or decrease in price. But here, they found a way to make up for the sale tax revenue loss from just movie rentals, by applying the same sales tax to all video streaming subscriptions. Thus the name, the "Netflix tax" as they are the most popular video streaming service.
But the sales tax also includes music streaming subscription. This to make up for the loss sales tax revenue from loss of CD sales (both physical and digital downloads in some cases.). Thus Spotify and Apple Music subscribers are subject to sales tax on the cost of their subscription.
NY, one of the handful of states with this "Netflix tax", also tax video streaming subscription cost. But NY take on this is that since NY also tax movie theater tickets, they can tax subscriptions to movies that are streamed. This to make up for less consumers going to the movies.
The problem with the "Netflix tax" is that it's a "non tangible" item, as defined by most States sales tax laws. With movie rentals, CD purchases and movie tickets, consumers had an item of value that they could hold in their hands, purchases that can be transferred to some one else and were purchased from places that rely on public services. There is none of this when consumers stream movies or music, in their own home, using their own equipment and from an internet service they pay for. When one watches a streamed movie, can they transfer the movie they streamed to some one else?
In CA, like in most States, sales tax only apply to tangible items. Items that can be transfer to another, once purchased. Which is why labor is not subject to sales tax. When one bring a car in for repair and the cost comes to $150 for labor and $50 for parts, only the $50 for parts is taxed. Same if you call a repairman to come to your home to repair your fridge, toilet, washing machine, electrical outlet, etc.. Only the parts replaced are taxed. Labor is a non tangible item that is not subject to sales tax. But if the repair service only charges a fixed price for the repair (like an oil change), then the whole cost of the repair is taxable. Same with shipping cost with items purchased over the internet. Providing the seller separate out the actual shipping cost, at time of purchase, only the item cost is subject to sales tax. Shipping is not taxed because it's a non tangible item.
So the question becomes, are video or music streaming subscriptions considered "tangible" items, that can be subject to sales tax? If they are "non tangible", then the "Netflix tax" might be questionable and should be fought.
This is not the same as "digital downloads", in which the consumer ends up with a tangible item, once downloaded, that can be transferred. But some State do not even tax "digital downloads".
Here's good article for those who think that video and music streaming subscribers should just .... pay the tax .... as though there's no reason what-so-ever, to protest such a tax. After all, it's taxation with representation.
https://www.taxjar.com/blog/sales-tax-digital-products
and here IL take on it ... from the link
>Illinois– Digital products are tax exempt in Illinois. (Source)
“Information or data that is downloaded electronically, such as downloaded books, musical recordings, newspapers or magazines, does not constitute the transfer of tangible personal property. These types of transactions represent the transfer of intangibles and are thus not subject to Retailer’s Occupation and Use Tax.<
I'm talking about Apple (a massive, super rich corporation) causing an unjustified stink about a modest tax on a modest part of their business. You're invoking the revolutionary war and ultra regressive taxes on poor people.
Congratulations, you win. Sometimes you shouldn't pay your taxes. This is not one of those times.
Not at all. I think the tax is stupid. I was just commenting that the underlying reason for the American Revolution was not about the taxes themselves, but about not being treated as citizens with representation.