3 ms·

What’s the alternative? This seems like a non-issue as both Apple and Cupertino are just following the law as written. A better article would be “big companies

What’s the alternative? This seems like a non-issue as both Apple and Cupertino are just following the law as written. A better article would be “big companies bring in more sales tax to the cities where they are located” and that seems as expected. While imperfect, tax based on the location of purchase is most likely to be accurate. Would you tax where the person was physically located when they purchased, so vendors have to get customer geolocations at time of purchase? Where the data center is located so it depends what portion of the cloud was processing the db write? The residence of the customer so vendors have to know home address and non-california residents would pay no taxes? This seems like the author is finally growing up and learning that taxes exist. I remember a friend called me when they got their first paycheck and said something like “hey, there’s like 45% missing” and they got to realize that taxes are substantial.

dragonwriter 4y ago
> This seems like a non-issue as both Apple and Cupertino are just following the law as written. If they were following the law as written, they probably wouldn’t have been found out of compliance by a state audit based on compliance with the law as written. I mean, its not impossible, state auditors aren’t infallible, but...
- crazygringo 4y ago
  State officials disagree with each other all the time, they get corrected by courts all the time, etc. A state audit is always going to be heavily biased toward state interests as opposed to corporate or local interests. Laws aren't black and white and auditors make arbitary distinctions over gray areas all the time. Being found out of compliance by a state auditor isn't even remotely a sign that Apple and Cupertino weren't following the law -- especially when it's not like Apple cheaps out on its lawyers. It's simply that the auditor is challenging their interpretation of the law. Ultimately, a court would decide. And states lose in court all the time.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > A state audit is always going to be heavily biased toward state interests The state gets the same share no matter where in the state the transaction is assigned. > Laws aren't black and white Some are quite black and white, some are less so.
    - crazygringo 4y ago
      The state is mainly composed of all the other municipalities that aren't Cupertino, and they're the ones losing out financially.
- eep_social 4y ago
  > The department has been auditing whether companies participate enough in online sales to assign them to cities with warehouses or offices. This isn’t cut and dry the way you make it seem. This agreement is a common tactic and William’s Sonoma is apparently having the same issue with the state and is appealing. [1] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-tax-report-state/apples-local-tax-arrangement-with-hometown-comes-under-fire https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-tax-report-state/apples-...
Tiktaalik 4y ago
> What’s the alternative? 100% of corporate revenue goes to the state and federal government. 0% to cities, and cities generate revenue to fund their budgets by levying property taxes on land owners.
- no_wizard 4y ago
  Unless you live in Oregon, in multnomah county (Portland), in which case the city and county will tax your income too.
  - rootusrootus 4y ago
    2.5% on taxable income above $125K (individual; $200K joint). Even software engineers, on average, will barely notice that.
    - no_wizard 4y ago
      This is on top of Oregon's already large income tax. Just hop over 30 minutes to Vancouver and its all gone though, if you're lucky enough to WFH or can otherwise situate yourself there. Then you can double dip your tax savings by avoiding sales tax by crossing over the bridge to shop :) It's alot of tax. It was a shock to me when I moved here, though overall I don't regret.
      - rootusrootus 4y ago
        I've thought about it. Though you have to pay use tax, technically. I know many people just don't.
        no_wizard 4y ago
        I have discussed it at length as well. I haven't visited Vancouver proper yet though, and now that I guess I'm used to being taxed like this i've adjusted myself accordingly. I'm honestly more worried about Oregon (and the Portland area specifically) becoming even more regressive with taxation. I think I'm kinda at my acceptable limit before I just move to Vancouver out of sheer protest. The amount of money we pay to the state is mind boggling, and yet you see lack of investment everywhere you turn around. I was hoping, perhaps naively, that Portland would be like a better kept San Fransisco, but I was very wrong.
crazygringo 4y ago
> Would you tax where the person was physically located when they purchased, so vendors have to get customer geolocations at time of purchase? Huh? These are online purchases that have a delivery address for physical deliveries, and a billing address as well in case it's digital goods or services. Nobody needs to geolocate anything. And yes, most online sales tax across the country is precisely determined by the customer's address. California appears to be an exception here. There's nothing meaningfully less accurate about the customer's location. If anything, it's far more meaningful and consistent, since I might make a purchase from a company based in Delaware, using their website hosted in Virginia, and half the order is shipped from a warehouse in Pennsylvania, while the other half is shipped from a warehouse in New Jersey. Consumers are much more "locatable" than corporations.
- ribosometronome 4y ago
  >Huh? These are online purchases that have a delivery address for physical deliveries, and a billing address as well in case it's digital goods or services. Huh? So if I live and work in Buffalo and go into New York City to buy a sweater, the sales tax on my sweater goes to Buffalo? That's where it's going to be taken to and my billing address for the card I used to purchase the sweater. Or would the sales tax go to where the sale is made?
  - crazygringo 4y ago
    That's not an online purchase, that's a physical purchase. Those have always been taxed at the single location of the transaction, because buyer and seller are in the same place. My point was that there's nothing inaccurate about a delivery address or billing address. The parent was writing as if this were something confusing to determine.

dragonwriter 4y ago

> This seems like a non-issue as both Apple and Cupertino are just following the law as written. If they were following the law as written, they probably wouldn’t have been found out of compliance by a state audit based on compliance with the law as written. I mean, its not impossible, state auditors aren’t infallible, but...

crazygringo 4y ago
State officials disagree with each other all the time, they get corrected by courts all the time, etc. A state audit is always going to be heavily biased toward state interests as opposed to corporate or local interests. Laws aren't black and white and auditors make arbitary distinctions over gray areas all the time. Being found out of compliance by a state auditor isn't even remotely a sign that Apple and Cupertino weren't following the law -- especially when it's not like Apple cheaps out on its lawyers. It's simply that the auditor is challenging their interpretation of the law. Ultimately, a court would decide. And states lose in court all the time.
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > A state audit is always going to be heavily biased toward state interests The state gets the same share no matter where in the state the transaction is assigned. > Laws aren't black and white Some are quite black and white, some are less so.
  - crazygringo 4y ago
    The state is mainly composed of all the other municipalities that aren't Cupertino, and they're the ones losing out financially.
eep_social 4y ago
> The department has been auditing whether companies participate enough in online sales to assign them to cities with warehouses or offices. This isn’t cut and dry the way you make it seem. This agreement is a common tactic and William’s Sonoma is apparently having the same issue with the state and is appealing. [1] https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-tax-report-state/apples-local-tax-arrangement-with-hometown-comes-under-fire https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-tax-report-state/apples-...

Tiktaalik 4y ago

> What’s the alternative? 100% of corporate revenue goes to the state and federal government. 0% to cities, and cities generate revenue to fund their budgets by levying property taxes on land owners.

no_wizard 4y ago
Unless you live in Oregon, in multnomah county (Portland), in which case the city and county will tax your income too.
- rootusrootus 4y ago
  2.5% on taxable income above $125K (individual; $200K joint). Even software engineers, on average, will barely notice that.
  - no_wizard 4y ago
    This is on top of Oregon's already large income tax. Just hop over 30 minutes to Vancouver and its all gone though, if you're lucky enough to WFH or can otherwise situate yourself there. Then you can double dip your tax savings by avoiding sales tax by crossing over the bridge to shop :) It's alot of tax. It was a shock to me when I moved here, though overall I don't regret.
    - rootusrootus 4y ago
      I've thought about it. Though you have to pay use tax, technically. I know many people just don't.
      - no_wizard 4y ago
        I have discussed it at length as well. I haven't visited Vancouver proper yet though, and now that I guess I'm used to being taxed like this i've adjusted myself accordingly. I'm honestly more worried about Oregon (and the Portland area specifically) becoming even more regressive with taxation. I think I'm kinda at my acceptable limit before I just move to Vancouver out of sheer protest. The amount of money we pay to the state is mind boggling, and yet you see lack of investment everywhere you turn around. I was hoping, perhaps naively, that Portland would be like a better kept San Fransisco, but I was very wrong.

crazygringo 4y ago

> Would you tax where the person was physically located when they purchased, so vendors have to get customer geolocations at time of purchase? Huh? These are online purchases that have a delivery address for physical deliveries, and a billing address as well in case it's digital goods or services. Nobody needs to geolocate anything. And yes, most online sales tax across the country is precisely determined by the customer's address. California appears to be an exception here. There's nothing meaningfully less accurate about the customer's location. If anything, it's far more meaningful and consistent, since I might make a purchase from a company based in Delaware, using their website hosted in Virginia, and half the order is shipped from a warehouse in Pennsylvania, while the other half is shipped from a warehouse in New Jersey. Consumers are much more "locatable" than corporations.

ribosometronome 4y ago
>Huh? These are online purchases that have a delivery address for physical deliveries, and a billing address as well in case it's digital goods or services. Huh? So if I live and work in Buffalo and go into New York City to buy a sweater, the sales tax on my sweater goes to Buffalo? That's where it's going to be taken to and my billing address for the card I used to purchase the sweater. Or would the sales tax go to where the sale is made?
- crazygringo 4y ago
  That's not an online purchase, that's a physical purchase. Those have always been taxed at the single location of the transaction, because buyer and seller are in the same place. My point was that there's nothing inaccurate about a delivery address or billing address. The parent was writing as if this were something confusing to determine.