Is this post intended as ogged-bait?
I swear to god I was about to throttle them.
I feel that way dozens of times a week. When it happens, I take a deep breath and relax. I go deep into my own mind and find my happy place. That kind of inner calm really keeps your arm steady as you run your key down somebody's car.
"Do girls like attention? A lot of attention?"
Something something feminist blogs something.
"Do her a favor and break up with her," Heebie said, in my imagination, "you little troll."
Okay, I guess the last bit would have been crossing the line.
Is "attention" how the kids today say "fortified wine?"
Our partners, even our casual ones, reflect on our public appearance as surely as do clothes or purebred pets. When both individuals in a partnership are economically and socially autonomous, the incentive to consider each others' inner life drops very sharply.
Of course, when people really need each other in a practical way, that's not so great for inner life either.
6: So, if you want someone to pay attention to you, you should date somebody who is kind of clingy but not too rich or too poor?
Also, what kind of college kid flags down random adults to ask about relationship issues? They were probably really crappy muggers or something.
This charming accessory seems apropos.
The nice thing about not living in the polite South is that you can just tell people that something is the stupidest fucking thing you've ever heard.
That may be why young people in New York don't ask random strangers for an opinion.
(Of course, in California, you're supposed to have a long conversation about like your feelings and how you see the world, man.)
For chrissakes, they're 20. They're supposed to be stupid. 20-year old girls are equally inane. Look back to when you were 20, I guarantee you'll recall some cringe-worth statements.
Californians are sweet. Even a superficial acknowledgement of feelings is nice.
11.1: I've never had any problem using that reply during my 40+ years in the South, ma'am.
The actual problem is that I lack the skill of telling someone off. Instead my heart races and my head goes blank.
On the opposite end, I'm very good at finding some lame common grounds to bond over with even the most irritating or extreme of people.
15: With people that young, you can just stare at them blank-eyed and they'll go away.
Of course, in California, you're supposed to have a long conversation about like your feelings and how you see the world, man.
And, of course, whether you want children.
Yeah, after talking with the cute checkout girl who works at the whole foods near where I live for the second time I felt like I had to inform her that I don't want to have kids, because otherwise I'd be leading her on.
You think she wanted you to adopt her?
18: "But, I was sure you were the one! And, now that I know how thoughtful you are, I'm even more sure! And, yet...I want children...." And, then she broke down and wept into the organic mangoes.
14.--I am exposed as someone who doesn't actually know anything about the South.
Look back to when you were 20, I guarantee you'll recall some cringe-worth statements.
I had the pleasure of attending a reunion at Very Small College recently. Our Friday night student body meetings had detailed minutes recorded, and I reread some of them. At first it was funny. Then it was horrible. My favorite, from the "evaluations" section after a tense, emotional meeting:
K-sky: Nobody better evaluate me.
Secretary: [There's nothing to evaluate. He's ranting.]
I was actually referred to as "k-sky" in the minutes then.
22: Well bless your heart, Miss Jackmormon. I should state for the record that some of my neighbors may consider me more eccentric asshole than Southern gentleman.
23 is really fantastic.
Have I mentioned how glad I am that blogs didn't much yet exist when I was in college?
I swear to god I was about to throttle them.
Hot.
max
['What?']
I've never understood why it's supposed to be so irritating for people to talk with other people about who they find attractive. I can get finding someone's standards or style of expression annoying, but the subject itself is ubiquitous for pretty glaringly obvious reasons, right? And is likely to remain so at least until we start reproducing by cloning.
For some reason my husband is never that interested when I try to talk to him about whom I find attractive.
Anyway, if it will annoy heebie, last week I was mostly watching the Tour of Britain and lusting after this man.
I just walked past two high schoolers (girls) and one was saying something about, "Really he just needs to get a JOB!" to which the other immediately responded, "Bitch, practice what you preach!"
12 gets it right.
20 is funny.
27: The 20-year-olds sound like they weren't just talking about who they find attractive, but were asking one another for validation of their respective judgments as to hotness, a thing I'm sure many of us have done (when we were young and stupid(er), man), and which can lead to silly things like deciding you can't continue to date so-and-so because s/he's not considered attractive enough by your friends. That's dumb, right?
Parsi, I sent you an email. I'm looking for some 1906 National Geographics.
21 makes me want to quote Allen Ginsberg but I did that here before and then I would be revealed as someone who only really knows, like, 2 poems.
Speaking of lawns, my neighbors caught a ground hog in a live trap.
I've never understood why it's supposed to be so irritating for people to talk with other people about who they find attractive.
Perhaps I'm being a HUMORLESS FEMINIST, but my take on their comments is that they're assessing the very worth of the person. How much is X worth exactly? Is she Hot Without Makeup? or merely Hot With Makeup? Pity the poor Uglyface With Hot Body; what a dismal existence.
If these kids weren't doing that, it is certainly done a lot. That might be why this conversation was irritating.
As a fellow HUMORLESS FEMINIST, I grok you, heebie, but in the end: they're 20. They're just barely figuring things out.
Not to say I wouldn't have been rolling my eyes to a nearly debilitating degree myself.
Pity the poor Uglyface With Hot Body; what a dismal existence.
I AM DOING JUST FINE THANKS.
Better a HUMORLESS FEMINIST than a FEMURLESS HUMORIST. Am I right, Callahan?
Callahan?
"Well, when an adult male is assessing the very worth of a female with intent to cruelly rate, I shoot the bastard. That's my policy."
The 'eew she looked so gross when she reached in that awkward way' kind of summed up their attitudes for me. They sound like the kind of guy found in an Onion article who breaks up with a girl for having fat armpits.
Huh, I guess I'm in the minority here, but I'm totally willing to hold 20-year-olds responsible for not discussing other human beings with contempt.
Yes, they're still figuring out the world and who they're attracted to. They'll be doing that when they're 90, if they're lucky. That's not an excuse for how they did it in this instance. I know five-year-olds who have internalized a better code of decency.
I think there's an extra "not" in 44.
Also.
I have a greasemonkey script that puts a button next to the "post" button which inserts that link.
Actually, I meant it as written, but it stands both ways. I'm willing to hold them responsible for what they did, and for their duty NOT to do what they did.
I dunno, I guess I'm kinda agnostic on this question. To paraphrase the Beastie Boys' response to later criticism of License to Ill -- "Most people would not like to have all the stupid shit they said when they were 20 published."
So yeah, I mean, obviously as a newly-unethical feminist, I do not think that the direction this hot-or-not conversation was taking was very productive. Partly what's wrong is that it isn't simply "hot-or-not" but rather "socially-acceptable-hotness-or-notness". Which is bullshit, and has certainly harmed me in many ways.
I think heebie would have been well within her rights to castigate them at that juncture. I would hope that they both advance a bit, and get to have some experiences that shed doubt on their current sexual politics. We'll see, I suppose.
"Most people would not like to have all the stupid shit they said when they were 20 published."
I lose this game.
At what age does one become comfortable having all the stupid shit they say published?
51: I think the implication is not so much that it is awful to have stupid shit you say published, but rather that, at 20, one tends to say a lot* of stupid shit.
*Note that this is not an Alot made of stupid shit. That would be very sad for the Alot.
I would hope that they both advance a bit
The other friend's nodding about how both girls and boys like to receive attention from someone they're dating seems promising, no? Maybe. I've never been a 20 year old boy.
Heebie would have been well within her rights to castigate the cads, if rights are even the question here, but I have to say that if we hauled off and did that every time we witnessed caddish behavior, we'd probably just end up being repeatedly sneered at, to the point that we'd feel like idiots for ever thinking there was any point to it. If people are immersed in their own narrative, they're not going to hear you, especially if you have fat armpits.
At what age does one become comfortable having all the stupid shit they say published?
I started hanging out here in my mid-30s.
And I still don't say all the stupid shit I think!
OT: you wanna know why it doesn't make any sense for everyone on the freeway to slam on the fucking breaks when they see the cop's pulled that one dude over? he's busy writing motherfucker a ticket! he's not looking at you!! sure, you shouldn't blaze past at 110 while leaning on your general-lee-style dixie horn, but FUCK people, he's not fooled when he sees brake lights all around.
At what age does one become comfortable having all the stupid shit they say published?
The great ones edit. McCartney wrote most of Love Me Do when he was 16 (Lennon helped; he was 18). Not Ticket to Ride, but not bad.
OT: you wanna know why it doesn't make any sense for everyone on the freeway to slam on the fucking breaks when they see the cop's pulled that one dude over? he's busy writing motherfucker a ticket! he's not looking at you!! sure, you shouldn't blaze past at 110 while leaning on your general-lee-style dixie horn, but FUCK people, he's not fooled when he sees brake lights all around.
Vaguely related: why don't people who live in former confederate states understand how passing lanes work? IT'S NOT OKAY TO DRIVE FOR MILE AFTER GODDAMN MILE AT EXACTLY THE SPEED LIMIT IN THE LEFT LANE. THOSE DOZEN CARS ARE PILED UP ON YOUR BUMPER FOR A REASON. I mean, this happens everywhere from time to time, old senile people and shit, but it happens with about 20x the frequency in the former confederacy. I refuse to believe this is total obliviousness and think it must be some sort of deliberately stubborn obnoxiousness.* What I'd like to read is a dissertation tracing the routes of this behavior and analyzing what it may be able to teach us about why the confederacy lost the war.
*This view was reinforced significantly by an evangelical christian I once knew who frequently engaged in this behavior, and when confronted adopted an extremely self-righteous tone and explained how wonderful it was that, in this way, merely by refraining from sin himself, he was able to prevent others from sinning as well. Where sin=breaking the law=speeding. And then he went on about how he wished all sin worked that way, and that wouldn't it be wonderful if he could stop murders just by not murdering, and rapes by not raping, and on and on and I think at that point I walked away because otherwise I might have punched him. I'm pretty sure in the Northeast a speech like that would get you shot, deservedly.
I was taught that people in the South traditionally don't pass because of the risk of the passee having a gun handy.
The great ones edit. McCartney
Paul McCartney was 28 when he recorded "The Lovely Linda".
And he kept improving until he was good enough for Wings.
59 -- We see it pretty often in Idaho. I assume it's the same self-righteous mindset.
37: It's more that I'm being a HUMORLESS-I'M-FEMINIST-POSITIVE-BUT... But it's really pretty hard to tell whether someone is evaluating the total worth of the person in evaluating their Hotness or Notness, isn't it? This goes to the whole question of "objectification;" if you're discussing someone as a sex object, doesn't that mean that's the only role you're willing to grant them? Well, no. It just doesn't. One generally has to read that in (even in conversations where the participants are making a concerted effort to sound boasty and above-the-whole-romance-thing, as so many dudes are often wont to do).
Getting into minutiae like fat armpits sounds obnoxious, but I dunno... that weird, minute stuff is kind of unavoidably part of the whole complex of attraction. My mom is fond of telling a story about how she once sent her co-workers up in arms by saying she thought Elvis was handsome and all but that he had a bit of a weak chin. Was she wrong and obnoxious to say this? I don't think so. That just happened to be her taste.
Granted that kind of this stuff can lead to obnoxiousness and weird forms of shunning and shaming. But it doesn't seem to me that it constitutes such, in and of itself.
11: you can just tell people that something is the stupidest fucking thing you've ever heard.
14: I've never had any problem using that reply during my 40+ years in the South, ma'am.
Except for that one time on the altar.
Except for that one time on the altar.
Writing your own vows can be risky.
About a year ago I was driving down 101 toward southern California when I saw a policeman at the far end of a long straightaway leaning over the hood of his police car, parked just off the shoulder. He was obviously using a radar gun on the traffic ahead of me. I took my foot off the gas and by the time I caught even with him, he'd turned and jumped into his car. Everyone slowed down.
Right before seeing the cop, I'd just been in a large group held up by slow cars ahead driving in both lanes. When one of the cars finally moved aside, the car in front of me immediately started speeding. I was speeding too, but not as much, and the car was way ahead of me when I passed the police. That car slowed down a lot, so much that I actually passed it, and then pulled into the right lane behind me. And then got pulled over by the police car.
And then I found a five mile an hour jump in the speed limit.
67: "For richer or for poorer? That's the stupidest goddamned thing I've ever heard! I ain't sayin' I'm a golddigger, but..."
This goes to the whole question of "objectification;" if you're discussing someone as a sex object, doesn't that mean that's the only role you're willing to grant them? Well, no. It just doesn't. One generally has to read that in (even in conversations where the participants are making a concerted effort to sound boasty and above-the-whole-romance-thing, as so many dudes are often wont to do).
Indeed. This article does a nice job of making the closely-connected point that, in general, it's good to feel that one is seen by others as a sexual object, so long as one also has the experience (in a reasonably balanced way) of being perceived as a sexual subject, too; the problem comes when one is purely seen as an object, etc.
Naturally, I slept with the author.
he's busy writing motherfucker a ticket! he's not looking at you!!
Word. My focus is on the stop at hand and the occasional prayer that some idiot doesn't run me over while I'm on that stop. Not that I'm writing traffic tickets except for the occasional totally egregious putting others in danger kind of stuff. The city hasn't given us merit increases for two years and yet manages tax increases for new libraries and other stuff. I'm not raising a penny for those fuckers.
Oh, and "bitches be tripping" week continues. Tonight another officer gets flagged down like a block from where I'm at on a fire so I roll over there. We're looking at this fire that's just started on the side of the garage and we can totally see that someone stuffed some paper or something into the space between the jam and the door on the side of the garage and lit it. Holy arson batman! Fire dudes get there quick and put it out and as they're finishing the owner comes home. As it just so happens his crazy ex has been texting him about burning all of his stuff. And we find a witness who just happens to have seen a woman who looks just like the ex going into the back of the house. Now you're all thinking this nutty ex is fucked, but there's more!
It turns out she's been doing shit like stealing stuff out of his truck and keying his new girl's car so unbeknownst to her he installed some surveillance cameras. Oh shit, there you are on tape burglarizing the house and then setting it on fire. Letting someone spin some ridiculous yarn and then rolling the tape is pretty high on the awesome scale, I tell you what.
ah, teddy, that's beautiful. I love that you let her go on and on with her bullshit story. the more details the better! "let's cut to the tape, shall we?" dag.
did she even have the sense to ask for a court-appointed lawyer? I just imagine that woman burying her face in her hands. worst. client. ever.
'... (family members not included)'
"...offer not valid outside the 48 contiguous states and the District of Columbia..."
on the forsaking all others front, my mercenary has officially declared ("jokingly" but many a true word etc.) that he's in love with me, on the grounds that I "swear like a cop and am loaded." (I am floating him a loan till 30/09 in the sense that I'm buying some things he hasn't given me enough cash for, yet.) and that he's building a shrine to me. jokingly, naturally.
when he texted that he was in love with me I texted back "I noticed." not sure if that was the thing to say. it was true. but I was also being superior and irritating. if I hadn't been mildly flirting with him for the past 5 years it would be easier to ignore this kind of thing now. then I told him what date the the painters were starting! and changed the subject to the fact that I was doing something sad (sitting with a sponsee while she put her terminally ill dog to sleep. jesus what a bummer.)
he is in afghanistan now but coming back way sooner than I thought, beginning october. I wanted him to be gone the whole time so I could present the house as a fait accompli, partly to keep him out of the way but also just for fun reasons. because it's a cool thing to do! you leave an empty, shitty-looking house and you come back to an awesomely painted and furnished house! the project itself is just really fun and exciting, setting him aside. I would have happily taken it on from a boring friend who wasn't in love with me! I don't want him to be around having opinions. he's bringing back a lot of amazing rugs, including some for me. that will be good. otherwise his return is all negative.
I have offered to pay for my share of the rugs. but my general feeling is that while it's definitely not on to accept expensive jewels from men you don't ever intend to have sex with, valuable antique rugs are OK? what's the heuristic at work here, it seems mildly faulty.
I suggested at one point purposefully dressing in an unflattering way to my friend and she just totally laughed at me. she said I could out a paper bag on my head and the effect would be the same. increase the focus on my fat armpits? I still feel like things can be fine if I just never give him the opportunity to make such a pass at me (I mean, like physically) that I can't see him again at all. but chances of actual heartbreak for him seem high. also, I hear people who play with fire get burned.
I was speeding too, but not as much, and the car was way ahead of me when I passed the police.
This pretty much sums up my highway driving strategy. Always be evidently second fastest for any particular chunk of road.
what's the heuristic at work here, it seems mildly faulty.
Not that it's not faulty, but jewels are a standard romantic gift, rugs aren't. Applying the same rule would let you accept cheese but not chocolate, non-flowering plants but not flowers, and so on. But yeah, taking anything from him is probably a bad idea, and chaperonage and talking about your adorable children and beloved husband is good.
I wonder if jokingly threatening to take financial advantage of him would be useful: "Heh. You keep on telling me you're in love with me, I'm going to think I can overcharge you for the furniture." Telling him that flirting with you makes him a chump who's going to get taken might cool things down.
I noticed a van with speed cameras on the M40 this morning. Too late, I think. I was well over the speed-limit. I just have to hope they were tracking the traffic coming the opposite way. Never had a ticket, and would rather not get one now.
At what age does one become comfortable having all the stupid shit they say published?
Whenever they complete their MFA.
69: The not-as-tacky-as-expected lesbian wedding this weekend featured both "or better or for better" and "for richer or for richer" but managed to retain "in sickness and in health," to which the bridier bride (who'd limped down the aisle with one working eye thanks to the impact of her diabetes in the past year) said, "Nah, we had too much of that already!"
And that's how I found out that apparently I like the traditional vows better than some of the alternatives. I didn't find 5 dollars, but Mara slept through the service, which is probably worth more.
Applying the same rule would let you accept cheese but not chocolate, non-flowering plants but not flowers, and so on.
I believe, from a 7th-grade reading of Gone with the Wind, that accepting "a small bottle of Florida water" would also be permissible.
77: Me too. 1. Find stalking horse. 2. Stay stalking.
I believe, from a 7th-grade reading of Gone with the Wind, that accepting "a small bottle of Florida water" would also be permissible.
But a hat is right out.
I'm just reading GWTW at the moment myself. Surprising how much more horrifying it is to read casual references to people buying people than to read impassioned condemnations of the practice. I am also by this point pretty annoyed with every character except Rhett, who at present comes over as a less rapey version of Flashman, and is at least a) not killing anyone and b) undermining the South by profiteering and hoarding, rather than trying to preserve it.
what modesty conceals from sight such, I think and imagine, as rational reflection can only extol, not compare
"or better or for better" and "for richer or for richer"
The kids today seem a bit spoiled.
I read that fairly recently, last ten years sometime, and yeah it's creepy as anything. The things that Mitchell drifts past as picturesque background material are horrifying.
annoyed with every character except Rhett
Oh, you just like him because he was on your side, helping you run the blockade!
57: It certainly does make a lot of sense to not slow way down (to below a prudent above the speed limit level) when someone else has gotten pulled over. However, I have noticed on some interstates that where one state trooper is sitting / pulled a car over, there's another trooper close by further down the road. (And this makes sense, as one might want a trooper colleague near-by if any trouble occurs.)
88: Well, that too.
Plus, I've always been a Sherman fan - a cunning general like Wellington and Patton, not a meatgrinder like Grant. So I'm rather looking forward to getting to the capture of Atlanta and the March.
I love the movie (in its own weird way) but I imagine the book is more disturbing. there's one scene early in the film where the debutantes struggling to nap during the heat of the day are all being fanned by slaves. shudder.
"for richer or for richer? that's just unacceptably awful. way worse than self-written vows about dolphins and rainbows. as you all no doubt already guessed, I went straight-up episcopalian, old school.
there is one upside to my mercenary friend, potentially. the people building my house in java (to be knocked down and re-assembled elsewhere) are trying to fuck me over. naturally this is the last resort/nuclear option, but should they try to just walk away with my USD100,000 cash and not produce a house on the site planned I have an entire array of corrupt generals I could send to scare the shit out of them. actual general known to be corrupt, with 5-SUV retinue, all the windows tinted black? one visit would probably straighten things right out. but then I'd owe him a favor so my husband says we should really regard it as a last resort.
91.1: not sure that's in the book, but there is a really disturbing bit in the first chapter: "Jeems was [the Tarleton twins'] body servant and, like the dogs, accompanied them everywhere. He had been their childhood playmate and had been given to the twins for their own on their tenth birthday."
86 & 91: What's extra weird about it is that in the past two years they've dealt with not only the diabetes-related problems but a potential cancer resurgence, probably some substance abuse, various family members (substance abusers and otherwise) living in their houses, infidelity that kept them in separate households for a few months, multiple parental illnesses and deaths, and probably lots more stuff I haven't even heard about because I'm not particularly close to them. And they're by no means likely to be "richer" by any normal standards of the thing. I don't get it.
hoping for sympathetic magic? still strikes me as deeply weird, but whatever, I am a traditionalist in these respects
Who can deal with all that and still manage to be unfaithful?
93: Sounds like black humor to me.
(I think I'll just go ahead and call myself a racist, since M/tch hasn't been around much lately).
I remember reading a description of the Frank Sinatra-Mia Farrow wedding -- when they got to that part - "for richer or for poorer", Frank interjected, "Richer! Richer!" which in that case was merely being accurate.
96.2: like the joke about the man who, when confronted at JFK airport by the question "Do you intend to overthrow the government of the United States by subversion, violence or insurrection", thought for a moment and then wrote "Violence".
(I think I'll just go ahead and call myself a racist, since M/tch hasn't been around much lately).
If it's any consolation, he calls me a racist a lot.
98: Thanks! It does make me feel a little better.
Mostly because she clings to her abhorrent stereotypes about people of color.
That was pretty good, peep! We make a lot of jokes like that when out of toddler earshot.
I think we should bring nosflow back to list us by subversion, violence, or insurrection since he did so well with the baby goals.
Oh, now I think I understand it. But I'm still not sure what the new list is supposed to be.
As in: Bob intends to bring the government down by violence; Natilo by insurrection; LB by subversion.
nEb, you've met me in person. I think I should be overthrowing the state via subversion--but I'd hate to think I've missed my true revolutionary career path. What do you think?
What about those of us committed to bringing the system down by an ongoing "go slow" strike at work?
I totally misread "subversion" (in the sense of saying it aloud in my head incorrectly) and couldn't figure out why a version control system would bring down the government. It made a tiny bit of sense, because you could probably paralyze a government in excessively detailed record keeping. And indeed LB as a litigator would be a good choice for that method of attack. But yeah, subversion, not SVN.
That's subversion, Halford. Don't make this more complicated than it needs to be.
JM, are you kidding me? Insurrection.
Insurrection sounds like more fun, actually.
Entirely off-topic, the Colorado state tax people have my respect. I just found out about an extremely crafty and sly law they wrote for out-of-state internet merchants: constitutionally, CO can't make out-of-state merchants collect sales tax on sales into the state unless they're doing something that gives them a physical presence within CO. But what they can do, and have done, is require that out-of-state merchants track sales to CO, and for each customer send them an end of year statement of how much the customer has bought from the merchant, and so how much use tax the customer owes, with a further notification that the merchant has sent the same notification to the state tax department. It's been challenged, but if it stands up that's a sweet way of getting the consumers to pay the sales tax on their purchases. Respect.
with a further notification that the merchant has sent the same notification to the state tax department.
And has the merchant in fact done so?
I don't get it. Under what authority can they require that? I mean, how is it possible that they would have an ability to require that, but not to require collection of sales taxes? And if they have that power, why don't they require that of all out of state merchants, rather than just online ones?
Or, restated (sort of): what can the state do to an online merchant that ignores this requirement?
Those visa forms are clearly in need of attention from a philosopher anyway, because I can't frankly see how you could bring down the government of the United States by insurrection without having it be either subversive or violent or both.
I mean, I already pay sales tax on my online purchases, so whatevrs. But it seems weird.
If Alameida has corrupt Narnian generals available, I'm rather less worried about her love life. Dodgy Narnian general > random free lance.
The trick is that the contact you need to have with the state for due process purposes (you know, what you'd need to get long-arm jurisdiction over a defendant) is merely placing products into the stream of commerce in such a way that you can expect they will make their way to the state. The contact you need to have with the state for the purpose of permitting the state to require you to collect sales tax is, due to a particularly nitwitted line of USSC precedent, significantly greater -- someone or thing associated with you has to be physically present within the state, creating a 'nexus' with the state.
But if what you're requiring the merchant to do isn't the collection of sales taxes, you don't need nexus, you just need due-process type contacts. Like I said, sweet.
119: Keep worrying -- she only has the dodgy general through the scary guy, not without him.
someone or thing associated with you has to be physically present within the state, creating a 'nexus' with the state.
I would guess that your products are a thing associated with you.
Even your branded cardboard boxes are a thing associated with you.
122 -- even more so than most of law, the cases dealing with personal jurisdiction are like the Carnival of the Sophistries.
I was being vague there, because the exact borders of what has to be physically present within the state are controversial. Products delivered into the state by common carrier don't qualify, while employees in the state for more than a casual visit do (like, going to a convention in NY wouldn't create nexus, but going into the state for almost any other professional purpose would). Other possibilities are the subject of debate. And litigation.
Indeed. Something that probably holds me back in my career is my tendency, when learning something about a new area of law, to roll my eyes in disbelief at the pointless hairsplitting. It revolts me, but I do it.
I can't frankly see how you could bring down the government of the United States by insurrection without having it be either subversive or violent or both.
Easy if you do it from the right: the left goes on trying to compromise with the insurrectionists until it's a fait accompli, thereby obviating the need for violence, and then the Supreme Court then declares it hunky dory and thereby not subversive ex post facto. From the progressive standpoint, not so straightforward.
(Treason doth never prosper. What's the reason? For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.)
But what happens to the internet company that sends a letter to the Secretary of State saying "Fuck you, Colorado. Collect your own taxes."? That's what I don't understand.
The big new tax issue here is roll-your-own cigarettes. They have stores where you buy loose tobacco and the papers and they let you use a machine that rolls them for you in a few seconds. The state was arguing that you should still pay the higher tax rate for cigarettes instead of the lower rate on loose leaf. I forget how the fight came out, but I'd bet nobody did the easy thing and just raised the tax on loose tobacco.
I don't get it either: how does the state ensure compliance by out-of-state merchants? How does it know if/when a CO resident has bought something online, such that the online merchant is now required to send said resident an end-of-year statement? Sounds like a bunch of hooey to me.
128, 130: I think, and the conversation where this came up didn't focus on enforcement so I'm not dead sure, the state subpoenas the information, and if the vendor doesn't come across, finds them in contempt of court and fines them for contempt. It's a neatly done law.
How does it know if/when a CO resident has bought something online, such that the online merchant is now required to send said resident an end-of-year statement?
It can make a pretty good guess that any online merchant above a certain size has sold something to someone in CO in the last year. If the merchant doesn't comply with the notifications, the state, as said above, slaps them with a subpoena and finds them in contempt. (I could have the mechanism crossed up -- after dinner I'll see if I can confirm that I've got it straight.)
with a further notification that the merchant has sent the same notification to the state tax department
And if they really expect this law to be effective, is the state tax department really prepared for the absolute inundation of annual out-of-state purchase notifications they'll receive for, oh, say, 50% of their residents in any given year?
I must be missing something.
129-131: A little quick Googling suggests that there are statutory penalties, including serious fines, for retailers that do not comply with the reporting requirements. Which can be enforced by obtaining a judgment against the retailers and then enforcing that judgment in the state where the retailer exists. Or, by the subpoena/contempt mechanism LB outlines above.
The quick Googling also suggests that these reporting requirements were enjoined by a federal judge in Denver as violating the dormant commerce clause. So (maybe, it's not like I'm going to do research on this right now) it may be that retailers don't need to comply at the moment, and may never have to.
the state subpoenas the information
Subpoenas what information? The sales to in-state residents? In my hypo, the company say "We didn't track that information for you; go fuck yourself."
Contempt of court seems like it would only come into play after the state has succesfully obtained an injuction against the merchant requiring them to obey the law. Or am I missing something?
any online merchant above a certain size
It would make a hell of a lot more sense to write (or have written) into the law some provision that only annual cumulative purchases/sales above some set amount to a given CO resident need be subject to this requirement.
There is just no way in hell that the state tax department wants to be receiving annual notifications that Citizen X bought $8.99 worth of stuff from Merchant A, $24.50 worth of stuff from Merchant B, and so on ... and now Citizen Y bought $43.72 from Merchant C, also $2.50 from that Merchant A, and $103.49 from Merchant D ... and on down the line. It is completely silly.
134 -- it looks to me, based on my 2 minutes of looking this up on the internet, like the real meat is the statutory penalties.
That is, Colorado says, "hey, out of state retailer, you've violated the statute, so we're going to impose a $500/per violation fine. Oh and guess what we have jurisdiction over you on a stream of commerce theory. And now, guess what, our Colorado judgment is enforceable against you in your home state, and we've hired collections lawyers to get the cash you owe us."
Right, I understand 137, what I don't understand is how that wouldn't be obviously unconstitutional under Quill. Unless I'm mixed up about something, no one argues that states don't have jurisdiction to collect sales taxes from out-of-state online merchants. Quill says that doing so is a commerce clause violation. I'm not seeing the wrinkle that supposedly makes this cleverly different.
Never mind issues about who exactly made a given online purchase. We not infrequently receive an order from some organization located in, say, NY, with a shipping address in, say, CO. Or simply a parent in DE having us ship to their child in CO. Or a student ordering with a credit card registered in IA, having us ship to their college address in CO in time for the start of school. Or a person in one state shipping a gift to a friend in another state.
Who owes the sales tax there, and to which state? Does the CO recipient owe it? That's the real issue, and has been for a while where internet commerce is concerned.
138 -- Apparently, a federal district court agrees with you.
I mean, it's not obviously covered, of course I can come up with ways in which this situation is distinguishable from Quill, basically that the burdens of imposing a tax collection are different than providing notification/reporting about in-state citizens who are supposed to pay taxes. But yeah, it seems like the provisions will not be enforced.
136: State tax departments already manage a record for every taxpayer in the state -- this isn't an absurd burden for the state.
138: Because, as Halford says, Quill is limited to the obligation to collect sales taxes.
139: The tax is owed in the state where the purchase ends up being used.
140: It's a completely new idea, and it's not clearly governed by existing law -- that is, I'd argue that it's clearly not covered by Quill unless you extend the holding of Quill quite a bit (and the dormant commerce clause argument in the opinion seems totally bogus to me. Out of state retailers are burdened less than instate retailers who have to actually collect the taxes). I'd say there's no telling either what the district court will do when it actually makes a judgment, or what an appellate court will do.
But of course it may not be upheld. It's still awfully clever.
141: The tax is owed in the state where the purchase ends up being used.
You mean the state to which the purchase is shipped, I take it? That had been my understanding, but it strikes me as absurd in any number of cases. If I buy a gift for a friend to be shipped to him in Florida, I (or he?) owes the Florida sales tax, whatever it may be, to the state of Florida?
It's completely unworkable. Three words: national sales tax.
In doing genealogical research, I happened upon a law case involving my great-grandfather that revolved around state court jurisdiction and which was cited in an Annotations to Restatement twenty years or so later (I have access tot he original decision but not Annotations which is paywalled at HeinOnline):
...We are unable to determine at the time that the Globe Iron Works was in fact "doing business" at Malone, giving that term its proper legal construction; that it was transacting business at Malone, New York, there is no doubt; but as between doing business and transacting business there is a wide difference.My grandfather was the an officer of the company and served a summons while in Malone, but the company was located in Dayton, Ohio. (Malone was his birthplace, so I suppose the sale was made via some family connection.)
So suck on that New York. Although I am a bit mystified that the case is Dickey v. Globe Iron Works when Dickey was also an officer of Globe with the power company in Malone (the customer that felt wronged and I guess was given judgment in New York) was an intervening petitioner.
143: Yep, that's how it works. It's not unworkable at all for large online retailers to collect taxes for the states they ship to -- there are plenty who have nexus with all fifty states, so they have to collect sales tax everywhere, and it's not a problem. For small online retailers, you'd probably need some kind of lookup service.
If it's left to the consumer to keep track and pay, of course they mostly don't, which is the beauty of this law if it's allowed to work -- it turns the consumer's problem of keeping track of every single goddamn online purchase into a much simpler matter of putting the notifications in the shoebox with the rest of the tax forms, and adding up five or six numbers at the end of the year.
Who owes the sales tax there, and to which state? Does the CO recipient owe it? That's the real issue, and has been for a while where internet commerce is concerned.
Since when is the real issue not money? These things could be hammered out with an interstate compact or something, and some arbitrary but workable rule like 141, if there weren't lobbying dollars protecting the status quo.
143: PA has no sales tax on clothes* and everybody knew that if you were buying clothes in other states, you should have them shipped to your home. I think the whole internet thing resulted in rules that made it harder to dodge taxes that way, because it used to be more common.
*there are exclusions.
145: But if I send my mother in CO flowers via some online service, she owes the taxes to the state of CO? My poor mother, she will be so confused by this end-of-year statement she receives!
Obviously it is best to compel online retailers to collect state taxes from the purchaser at time of sale (taxes for the state to which the item is to be shipped, I guess), but in the absence of that, I don't see this as anything remotely approaching a solution, however legally clever it may be.
On review, I think I've been repeating myself for at least my last three comments, so I should probably give it a rest.
148: Suppose tax bills are only sent to the buyer - how many of them are likely to be disputable on grounds that it was being sent to a different state? I'd guess less than 1%, and if there were a standard mechanism for disputing the tax bills for them, a whole lot of them would be gifts (few would want to get the tax bill sent to the giftee), and a lot of the rest would be between different locations of the same business entity (who would only get an arbitrage benefit of the few percent at most difference in sales tax between locations, and who's to say that's more than the cost of pursuing the matter).
If the Colorado system got firm legal support, and were adopted by nationwide, it would be a bit messy, but it wouldn't be unworkable at all. A mistake in sales tax tends not to get people fired up.
A mistake in sales tax tends not to get people fired up.
I bet it would if it happened often.
Am I misreading, or did Urple claim above that he really does self-report self-reports his sales tax for online purchases? That is totally insane.
I mean, who does that? (yes, state, here are the books I bought on Amazon this year and here's your 8%?)
Suppose tax bills are only sent to the buyer
That doesn't make sense as I understand the situation. If I in MD order a book via Amazon to be sent to CO, Amazon has to send me (in MD) a tax statement for the state of Colorado, at whatever its tax rate is. No? Or are you supposing that Amazon sends me a tax notification (for MD, for the MD tax rate) for everything I order, regardless of where it it actually went ...? But if that's the case, then the tax is allegedly owed -- though not officially, it's just a notification -- *not*, as LB said in 141.3 upthread, in the state where the purchase ends up being used, but in the state in which the purchase originated.
152: I assumed he meant he was buying from retailers who had to collect sales tax because they had a store in his state.
Maybe I'll just stop buying stuff and live off the grid in a yurt.
According to this, I could buy a yurt from Colorado without paying sales tax if I shipped it here.
In New York, you have to either report your actual total out-of-state purchases and pay use tax on them or pay an amount based on your income that gets you a safe harbor. I don't know what happens if you claim that you bought absolutely nothing from out of state, but I wouldn't be surprised if it increases your likelihood of audit.
We do that now, too. Urple may be mad but he is not alone.
160: If you want to buy a yurt and have it shipped to my house to save taxes, you'd have to be sure to get it out of my garage in week. I need the space.
I wouldn't be surprised if it increases your likelihood of audit.
I shouldn't be talking out of school, but I really wouldn't lose sleep over this.
After a couple of years of talking about this sort of thing at parties (if I keep the conversation about sales tax, it usually means there are fewer people crowding me around the dip), I have found out that the people who report the use tax on their out-of-state purchases are people who use TurboTax. Apparently it asks, and so people are honest about it. People with an accountant, or who use pen and paper, blow it off.
And the real solution to the sales tax problem is for the Supreme Court to admit that Quill was a dumbass decision, and let the states require that out of state sellers collect sales tax without worrying about 'nexus'. Given modern computers, it's just not that much of a burden.
My accountants have been advising that I pay the safe harbor amount (which is definitely less than I would owe under an exact use tax calculation). Perhaps I need new accountants.
So, if I got a yurt with a composting toilet, a cistern, and a small solar/wind array, I think I'd be set. Obviously, I'm not getting through the winter without burning something for heat, but wood is free if you run around the streets about a week after Christmas.
Yes, you should, because it's the law and you're honest. Worrying that NYSDTF is going to audit you for not doing it, on the other hand, is overcautious.
167: Have you ever burned a dried-out Christmas tree? It's awesome. Doesn't take long, admittedly.
168 is obviously certified legal advice in reply to 167. I'm ordering now.
Next you worrywart do-gooders are going to tell me I should pay taxes on my graduate stipend.
169: It's probably slow enough burning if you only burn the trunk.
171: I can't believe they don't withhold from it already. That's the feds and they may get you.
172: boring. Dried pine needles and tinsel or bust!
The obvious implication of an arsonist LB had completely passed me by.
165: and let the states require that out of state sellers collect sales tax without worrying about 'nexus'. Given modern computers, it's just not that much of a burden.
The calculation itself wouldn't be a horrible burden (assuming it's worked out whether the tax is owed to the state of the originating buyer or the state to which the item is shipped), but honestly, call me querulous, cutting 50 individual sales tax checks to 50 states each year is a burden for anything less than an Amazon-level company. Really. So I say again: national sales tax for e-commerce. I haven't read a thing about how that would work in practice: what, the merchant pays the national sales tax to the feds, who then distribute it among the states ... how? I don't know.
Not that I have anything against a national sales tax, if you could pass one that didn't deprive the states of revenue.
How would a national sales tax deal with different rates across the states? Plus, many local governments have their own sales tax.
Yeah, that's the problem. My solution is to abolish states as separate entities rather than administrative regions entirely, but I understand there are those who disagree.
States, maybe, but nobody can touch a commonwealth.
I like ordering stuff and not paying taxes on it. It makes me feel like I have a lobbyist working just for me.
That commonwealth thing annoys me. So uppity.
179: The national sales tax would be a fixed sales tax rate for the entire country for e-commerce sales only, and wouldn't have to account for the non-e-commerce rates already in existence in each state. How you distribute the proceeds to each state is unclear: by population?
I'm in favor of LB's solution in 180.
As it stands, I look forward to cutting the state of Alaska an annual sales tax check for $4.82. Maybe they'll get 5,000 of those each year!
You're querulous.
Querulous, Hebetudinous, Vivacious, Fatuous, Timorous, Sternutatory, and Doc
I pay the Massachusetts use tax safe harbor, and I'm an all-paper taxpayer[1]. Every year I've checked, the safe harbor is less than the actual use tax I can come up with - I usually quit when I get through enough of my purchasing history to demonstrate that point, so I'm not sure how much more it would be. Massachusetts made it a line item on the main tax form a few years ago, so it's a lot harder to just overlook it and claim you had no idea.
[1] I've developed a paranoia that, should I be audited or otherwise investigated, I'd be considered the sort of person with the skills to forge electronic records, so I try to do all of my critical financial recordkeeping and reporting on paper.
You could have, constitutionally I think, a national sales tax that preempted state sales taxes and remitted back to the states, on a per-purchase or maybe just population basis. I can't think of any obvious federalism problem with that idea, though maybe there is one.
It's certain that the national rate would be lower than that of NY or CA however, and a bill like that is pretty dang unlikely to pass.
I'm a fan of a lot of our state government, including our courts and agencies, and would probably support a California secessionist movement. But the fiscal crisis really shows how crazy it is to have entities that are partially in charge of governing but not in charge of fiscal policy.
187.last: The received wisdom is that it's pretty unlikely to pass, but as the number of states trying every sort of maneuver they can think up to pry sales taxes out of online vendors increases, there may eventually be some momentum for it. Is there a reason it couldn't be dedicated just to e-commerce sales?
Yes, it would be lower than the CA or NY in-state sales tax rate -- maybe it would be, say, 6% -- but 6% is better than the nothing most states currently get. (There are of course other benefits that we commie pinko types like, like leveling the playing field just a bit between e-commerce and local brick-and-mortar stores, reducing transportation/shipping and the environmental impact of that, etc.)
Yes, I think a national Ecommerce only sales tax would be constitutional and is probably a very good idea.
160
In New York, you have to either report your actual total out-of-state purchases and pay use tax on them or pay an amount based on your income that gets you a safe harbor. ...
This is a line on your income tax return. Since I don't care to lie on my return I also pay use tax. It isn't that hard to keep track of since I don't buy a lot online and always pay by credit card.
I have never heard of this use tax or safe haven... Is this the sort of thing you only see if you own a home?
It's certain that the national rate would be lower than that of NY or CA however
NY state sales tax at 4% is modest. Some of the tax hatin' red states are far worse, e.g. Texas at 6.25%, Mississippi and Tennessee at 7%, Kansas at 6.3% (with no exemptions for necessities like groceries). Of course, sales taxes disproportionately burden poor people, so they're cool with that.
159: The yurt that Chaco bought to serve as a temporary visitor center while the old one is being rebuilt is from that company. It's quite nice.
119: we don't have any corrupt narnian generals, that's what makes us narnia! we have highly-motivated generals who receive generous pay in line with their counterparts in the private sector, so that talent isn't lost.
in indonesia, by contrast, only the stupid generals use quicken, because it has a "declare income from corrupt business dealings" line that only a moron would fill out.
194: (with no exemptions for necessities like groceries)
That's harsh.
Okay, national e-commerce sales tax at 5%, then. Split the difference. I'd hazard a guess that poor people aren't ordering a lot of stuff online in the first place, so hopefully this wouldn't burden them too much.
195: What did one investigator say to the other when they uncovered a cache of Chacoan chipped-stone tools in the shop of a Finnish antiquities dealer?
"Look, there's the chert that Jaakko bought."
165
... Given modern computers, it's just not that much of a burden.
I think this is untrue. Strictly interpreted the laws appear very burdensome. For example if you live in New York but get a haircut in New Jersey I think you are supposed to allocate part of the value of the haircut to New York and pay use tax. Which of course nobody does.
The smart Indonesian generals use H&R Block. As soon as they type in their occupation of "General", the tax rate plummets.
We don't have a sales tax, and don't want yours.
Charley, my friend, then you can stop buying anything from our states. That's what it comes down to.
Sales tax is about where the item is used. I can have stuff shipped to me w/out taxes where it originates.
Use tax became a line item on the California short forms about five years ago, I think. I never saw anything about safe harbors.
I don't know about other states, but the California use tax dates back to the Depression, I think.
Right. I'm thinking in terms of incentives for a given state: if there's no distribution of sales tax income for e-commerce, a state would rather its merchants sell in-state than out of state. You guys lose our states money. It's a slow money drain, which is why various states are casting about for ways to recoup said money. I think it's ultimately unsustainable.
194
NY state sales tax at 4% is modest ...
That's just the state portion. There's also a (variable) local portion. It is about 3.5% where I live for a total of 7.5%. Incidentally if you live in a (for example) 8% area and buy something in a 7.5% area you are supposed to pay the difference as use tax which of course no one does.
Some of the tax hatin' red states are far worse, e.g. Texas at 6.25%, Mississippi and Tennessee at 7%, Kansas at 6.3% (with no exemptions for necessities like groceries). Of course, sales taxes disproportionately burden poor people, so they're cool with that.
True, but unlike the others you name, we don't have an income tax, so TX's anti-tax cred stands. And since state services are basically nil, I think we have a greater claim on hostility to poor people. (Suck it, Mississippi!)
I am sort of barred from voting due to tax issues. I lived in CA before moving to narnia, and if I were to move back, the state might make the case that I was a resident all along, but just on a long stay away from home, as it were. they might then try to get back state income tax on all my income earned overseas in the interim. (they do this alone among states AFAIK, tax overseas residents on income, just as the US alone among nations taxes my overseas income. europeans are all horrified, and can't believe I comply. your sympathy is likely to be limited by the fact that it only applies over $80K.)
voting from my previous address would indicate intention to continue as a californian, so my tax attorney has advised against it. I weirdly can't register to vote merely as a narnian resident; my vote must be tied to some particular previous location. thus when I did vote I was invited also to vote on local issues and statewide ballot measures; this seems unfair to the residents. the fact that my voting precinct will always go democrat without any doubt makes me feel less guilty, but I would still rather be able to vote. I may try to register with my mom's or in-laws' address despite that not being my previous address. I get bills there...
211 is why Mrs y essentially gave up her American citizenship. So she can visit the place without being harassed by the IRS.
As I understand it, Canada also taxes overseas income.
If I ever have an income again, I'll have to learn about these things. Unless the ideal case, me having a job in California, happens and everything will go back to how it was.
I don't think they tax you while you're in another state, just overseas. america is so sure of itself that it's willing to say, I know you're coming back, don't play. california is similarly confident, it seems.
I was called for jury duty right after I moved here and said I'd moved out of the country (which is true). But then I renewed my California license a year later, and a year after that got called for jury duty again and told them I lived in Canada (still true). I don't have to register the car here (which would mean getting a license here and switching insurance) as long as I'm a student and intend to go back, but in other ways I'm officially a resident here (health care and customs duties, for instance). I still get the California voting stuff, but haven't voted partly because of the residency issue.
193: Nope, you've been skipping a line on your tax form. Look for it and pay the safe harbor next year, but I wouldn't worry about getting audited over it.
That's just the state portion. There's also a
(variable) local portion.
Also true of the red states I cited (maybe not Kansas, I don't know). The max combined state and local sales tax is higher in TN and MS than NY.
That's just the state portion. There's also a (variable) local portion. It is about 3.5% where I live for a total of 7.5%.
It remains an unsolvable mystery of modern economic life that people and businesses stay in New York, when they could move to Mississippi and enjoy the prosperity that necessarily results when the oppressive burden of government is lifted.
218
Nope, you've been skipping a line on your tax form. Look for it and pay the safe harbor next year, but I wouldn't worry about getting audited over it.
Use tax is tax on items which you buy without paying sales tax and bring into a sales tax jusrisdiction like New York state. The laws have been around for years but are widely ignored. A line was added to the NY state income tax form within the last few years on which you are supposed to declare (and pay) what you owe (making ignoring the law more difficult). This may not be universal. The safe harbor is an amount you can pay without keeping track. In my case if I recall correctly it was hundreds of dollars more than I actually owed.
220
It remains an unsolvable mystery of modern economic life that people and businesses stay in New York, when they could move to Mississippi and enjoy the prosperity that necessarily results when the oppressive burden of government is lifted.
People and businesses have of course been moving out of New York state for years (down another 2 House seats after the 2010 census). My former employer, IBM, has moved lots of jobs out of New York. I will be moving myself (if I can get my act together) although New Jersey doesn't appear to be a low tax haven.
102: Thanks, M/tch! I was away yesterday afternoon, but I didn't want you to think your effort was unnoticed or unappreciated!
The James B. Shearer edition of Jersey Shore is going to be so rad.
224: I'd watch it. "Snooki pukes on JBS's puzzle leading to a fight and a touching reconciliation."
In my case if I recall correctly it was hundreds of dollars more than I actually owed.
It's 0.041% of income up to a maximum of $225, so no, you don't recall correctly.
I suppose it's possible that he makes a whole lot of money and buys nothing at all on line.
226: could he not well have purchased only $100 worth of schwag out of state, thus owing only $4. $4 is hundreds of bucks less than $225?
It's possible I've paid it. In NY I've used turbo-tax and so most of the state forms fill automatically. I don't remember this from CA though, where I did fill out by hand.