A more pertinent tax issue: iTunes Tax

vansmack wrote:
xneverwherex wrote:
i was meaning to imply, last i checked californians yet havent started taxing regular soda and also having to put calorie counts everywhere. and i somewhat believe schwarzenegger must be able to come up with a better plan than paterson.


We have not yet, as a state, taxed a soda more than we would tax any other food or non-alcoholic drink, although it has been brought up here in SF (hence Venerable's frustration in the other thread).


The best part of all of this is that you are likely double taxed on all your telecom stuff because you have a wireless phone too.  You will find similar taxes over there.


since we're on the topic of breaking down how we're taxed, any idea why my cell phone is taxed at d.c. rates instead of california rates?  i'd have thought that moving to california and having a california number would shift me into california tax territory, but, i'm paying taxes to d.c. for my cell phone. . .my wife's sister is charged illinois taxes but has a california number.  i suppose i should figure out if i'm coming out ahead or not.  also, i can't imagine that there's that many stranded costs. . .

yeah, food taxes based on supposed health claims, that are increasingly dubious, are something i don't care for.
vansmack wrote:
Clearly you have never read Quill v North Dakota.  Simply operating in interstate commerce is not enough to be exempt from Taxes.  Congress set the rules that said if a state could show a nexus between the Corp and the State in can force them to collect taxes on behalf of the state.  Even your boy Scalia agrees with this (that Congress has the power to alter the Commerce Clause)


And thus, Congress appears prepared to act:

Tax-Free Internet Shopping May be at an End