State targets Net tax evaders (Massachusetts vs smokers)

The Boston Globe ^ | 2-22-05 | bruce mohl

[Mears]

Now the state of Massachusetts is going to try to prevent credit card companies to refuse to take orders from internet cigarette companies

http://www.boston.com/business/articles/2005/02/22/state_targets_net_tax_evaders/

[Mears]

The Revenue Department also reported that it hasn't had much luck tracking down cigarette tax scofflaws through the shipping records of companies like Federal Express and United Parcel Service, an approach that once seemed promising. The agency said it is now looking at other ways of tracking shipments. New York, for example, is pressuring credit card companies to disallow online cigarette purchases.

[HMFIC]

Dear State of NY, and MASS.

POUND SAND.

Credit Card Companies.

[Mears]

My link didn't work but you get the point.The above is an excerpt from the Boston Globe.

I wonder if the credit card companies will be preassured to refuse companies that trade in kiddie porn?

Probably not,the smokers are the demons today.

[o_zarkman44]

This is the new Boston Tea Party. Draw the line smokers!

[CSM]

Some interesting and troublesome excerpts:

"State officials say they don't know how much cigarette tax revenue the state is losing, but it's probably tens of millions of dollars each year. New York City officials estimate Internet cigarette sales are costing the municipality more than $75 million a year in lost tax revenues."

"When Massachusetts tracks down a smoker who is evading taxes by purchasing cigarettes on the Internet, the Revenue Department often threatens the individual with harsh action unless he pays up. In the past, the agency has sent letters to those who owe cigarette excise taxes, threatening them with liens on their assets, property seizures, or garnishment of their income."

"More customer names should be forthcoming this month from a settlement Attorney General Thomas F. Reilly reached with eSmokes.com for violating the state's age-verification regulation."

---

The first two indicate the mindset that the state owns your money and you are lucky to get to keep any of it. The final excerpt is especially troubling, instead of penalizing the company for violating the law and potentially selling to minors, the state doesn't care as long as they can get the list of names to make sure they get their cash!

[Madame Dufarge]

The link worked fine for me, Mears.

The jihad is going to enrich the Mob beyond their wildest dreams, once all the legitimate internet vendors and credit card companies have been sufficiently intimidated.

Prohibition, deja vu all over again.

[Mears]

It's never been about the "children",it's never been about health,it's always been about the money.

Massachusetts has become a sink.

[ewin]

While the Supreme Court easily found sexual privacy in "emanations" of the Constituion, it has yet to uphold the concept of financial privacy. The Orwellian-named "Bank Secrecy Act" officially destroyed privacy of financial records, leaving them open to anyone with a badge to order massive scale trawling for credit card transactions.

Worse, as implied by this article, the State takes the next move towards Big Government by "pressuring" credit card companies to give it a veto over what a citizen can buy with his card. This is dangerous in the extreme to liberty, as it portends a government willing to attempt control of the details of everyday private life.

You can reclaim a large measure of your privacy by simply using a totally legal credit card from a non-US bank. In the case of HSBC in Jersey, there are no fees for the account, and the bank has complete internet access that is just as thorough and safe as any US bank.

see:
http://www.offshore.hsbc.com/hsbc

If you never exceed $10,000 in this account at any one time, you don't have to disclose it to the feds.

If anyone knows of a better non-US bank to use for this purpose, I would appreciate the feedback.

[The Great RJ]

The Massachusetts Revenue Department should read the old fable "The Goose That Laid the Golden Eggs". By pushing cigarette taxes so high they may actually be succeeding in getting some smokers to quit and others to cut down as well as driving others to seek lower cost sources. This all results in lower not higher tax revenue. Add to this the cost of these enforcement actions and the goal of raising cigarette taxes to add revenue evaporates.

[Mears]

You've got that right----more enforcement action will cost the states a lot of money,then they will raise the taxes again,more people will evade the taxes,then more enforcement action etc.,etc.,etc.

I sometimes wonder if any state workers and politicians can THINK.

[Mears]

Very,very interesting !! I've bookmarked the site for more intense perusal.

Thanks!

[hobbes1]

"When Massachusetts tracks down a smoker who is evading taxes by purchasing cigarettes on the Internet, the Revenue Department often threatens the individual with harsh action unless he pays up. In the past, the agency has sent letters to those who owe cigarette excise taxes, threatening them with liens on their assets, property seizures, or garnishment of their income."

Mass..... "All your dollars are belong to us"