Chicago successfully taxes streaming services • Hacker News Board

Re: Chicago successfully taxes streaming services

#111

Post by thelasthuman » Sat, May 18, 2019, 11:30 PM UTC

czbond wrote: post #59

echelon wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could they raise more money by locally legalizing more "sins" and heavily taxing them? Something of a cross between Las Vegas and Colorado could pull in a lot of revenue.

I suspect they will. As a resident of Colorado, once the politicians realize they can MAKE money off it, rather than spending considerably more money ON it (eg: jails, etc)... the transition suddenly "makes sense".

It's so sad that undoing horrible laws and ineffective prohibitions must come down to dollars and cents, rather than the innate freedom we all should have.

Land of the fee, home of the slave.

Re: Chicago successfully taxes streaming services

#112

Post by paxys » Sat, May 18, 2019, 11:32 PM UTC

mindslight wrote: post #34

Maybe instead of putting on a show in court, Netflix et al should simply stop asking people for their physical addresses ? I mean, that is the underlying vulnerability that will allow this push to succeed. We were so excited for the promise of the Internet to overturn all this legacy bullshit. Then the legacy bullshitters got here, built a bunch of proprietary services on top of HTTP, marketed them as progress, and a…

You need to provide a physical address to pay with a credit card.

Re: Chicago successfully taxes streaming services

#113

Post by mindslight » Sat, May 18, 2019, 11:32 PM UTC

egypturnash wrote: post #107

mindslight wrote: post #34

Maybe instead of putting on a show in court, Netflix et al should simply stop asking people for their physical addresses ? I mean, that is the underlying vulnerability that will allow this push to succeed. We were so excited for the promise of the Internet to overturn all this legacy bullshit. Then the legacy bullshitters got here, built a bunch of proprietary services on top of HTTP, marketed them as progress, and a…

Netflix: We don't know where any of our customers are, sorry Chicago! Chicago: Okay fine we talked to all the local ISPs and you're no longer accessible in our city. Have a nice day. or Chicago: We didn't fall off the turnip truck yesterday guys, have you heard of this thing called GeoIP services? Besides, I'm sure Netflix is bound by all kinds of territory-based licensing to need people's addresses. Like if Foobar P…

To the extent that territory licensing forces Netflix's position, that still doesn't justify the customer-hostile behavior. I don't expect my comment to change Netflix's behavior, but rather to highlight the hypocrisy of casting themselves as a modern solution while dragging us backwards.

And yes, obviously the totalitarian matrix is interconnected. GeoIP is a symptom of that cancer - the legacy status quo attempting to make the Internet conform to its preconceived notions. Which is why I pointed the way towards the Internet-first solution.

Re: Chicago successfully taxes streaming services

#114

Post by x0x0 » Sat, May 18, 2019, 11:35 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #101

cljs-js-eval wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's archaic and should be changed, but the way the system works in the U.S. is pretty well known to its citizens, which makes it at least partially the fault of the pensioners. I live in Chicago and every retired schoolteacher and police officer I meet knows full well that they're making an exceptional amount of money in retirement. It's usually part of why they took the job.

IMO, it's no more the pensioners' fault than any other voter. If they're a resident eligible to vote, it's partly their fault. It's not their fault for accepting a job offer with certain terms broadly available.

I tend to agree, but there's a limit. Accepting a job where the payout promised requires an almost 50% property tax raise? You can't possibly claim surprise when those promises are reneged on.

Re: Chicago successfully taxes streaming services

#115

Post by sokoloff » Sat, May 18, 2019, 11:42 PM UTC

x0x0 wrote: post #114

sokoloff wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IMO, it's no more the pensioners' fault than any other voter. If they're a resident eligible to vote, it's partly their fault. It's not their fault for accepting a job offer with certain terms broadly available.

I tend to agree, but there's a limit. Accepting a job where the payout promised requires an almost 50% property tax raise ? You can't possibly claim surprise when those promises are reneged on.

The current pensioners didn’t recently accept their job. They accepted it decades ago and it’s on the municipality to manage the funding.

Re: Chicago successfully taxes streaming services

#116

Post by morpheuskafka » Sat, May 18, 2019, 11:47 PM UTC

Sales tax should be earned by a state, as a way to finance the services they provide to businesses that sell products within their state. I say earned, because if it's the tax is not worth the benefits, new businesses will locate elsewhere. It's reasonable that business pay for the emergency services, roads, infrastructure, etc. that they use. Streaming service sales do not in any way increase the costs faces by a locality, so they shouldn't be taxing it. If Chicago wants to tax companies like Netflix they should convince them to locate there.

Re: Chicago successfully taxes streaming services

#117

Post by x0x0 » Sat, May 18, 2019, 11:51 PM UTC

sokoloff wrote: post #115

x0x0 wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I tend to agree, but there's a limit. Accepting a job where the payout promised requires an almost 50% property tax raise ? You can't possibly claim surprise when those promises are reneged on.

The current pensioners didn’t recently accept their job. They accepted it decades ago and it’s on the municipality to manage the funding.

this so-called pension crisis has been clear for well over a decade, bare minimum. It was heavily discussed circa 2000.

Re: Chicago successfully taxes streaming services

#118

Post by tzs » Sun, May 19, 2019, 12:16 AM UTC

shittyadmin wrote: post #25

burlesona wrote: post #5

This stuff makes sense for cities, it’s just frustrating how much more difficult it makes it to operate a “mom and pop” software business. The complexity of potentially complying with hundreds of state and municipal governments - not where you are located but where online purchases originate - is a pretty significant deterrent to setting up a small side business. Imagine if every food truck had to pay taxes based not…

You don't reside there, you're not liable to abide by their laws. I run a small US company, I don't have to comply with GDPR for example. Same applies here. I don't see why any company would implement this, perhaps appeasing regulators at the federal level.

You would have been right up to June 21, 2018. After that, you are wrong. See South Dakota v. Wayfair, decided by the Supreme Court on that date [1]. If your business is in the US, and your customer is in the US, you can now be required to collect taxes for your customer's jurisdiction even if you have no connection with that jurisdiction other than online or mail order customers reside therein.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota_v._Wayfair,_Inc.

Re: Chicago successfully taxes streaming services

#119

Post by Camillo » Sun, May 19, 2019, 12:19 AM UTC

burlesona wrote: post #5

This stuff makes sense for cities, it’s just frustrating how much more difficult it makes it to operate a “mom and pop” software business. The complexity of potentially complying with hundreds of state and municipal governments - not where you are located but where online purchases originate - is a pretty significant deterrent to setting up a small side business. Imagine if every food truck had to pay taxes based not…

That sounds like a good reason for the federal government to regulate interstate commerce, such as by preventing local governments from establishing such obstacles. Constitutional jurisprudence has discovered the most amazing powers hidden in the emanations and penumbras of that clause, but sometimes it would also be useful to look at its plain meaning.

Re: Chicago successfully taxes streaming services

#120

Post by tzs » Sun, May 19, 2019, 12:33 AM UTC

paxys wrote: post #112

mindslight wrote: post #34

Maybe instead of putting on a show in court, Netflix et al should simply stop asking people for their physical addresses ? I mean, that is the underlying vulnerability that will allow this push to succeed. We were so excited for the promise of the Internet to overturn all this legacy bullshit. Then the legacy bullshitters got here, built a bunch of proprietary services on top of HTTP, marketed them as progress, and a…

You need to provide a physical address to pay with a credit card.

The credit card processors and banks actually do not require a physical address. All you need to charge a credit card is the cart number, and you need to provide an expiration date that is in the future.

You can provide a zip code, or a full address, or the card security code, or a name, and those will be checked and you will be told if they match the information on file with the card issuer, but it is up to you whether or not mismatches should block the transaction.

Transactions with mismatches generally have a higher risk of being fraudulent, so it is a good idea to not go through with transactions when the data doesn't match because if you put through too many fraudulent charges bad things can happen to you, ranging from higher fees to having your ability to accept cards revoked.