Oh I see what you're talking about. the two train stations that are just connected to two different sides of the block. both were residential areas. I think those first set of train station are to connect with outside cities. i used name but someone said that it was hacked. i used NAM mostly for the gravel and dirt roads for the farming areas. the dirt roads look a lot more natural for agricultural areas.
The video begins right after I spent some time trying to develop a technology industrial base for my city. The high standards required in terms of amenities and education requirements resulted in huge deficits for the City of Hasford. I had to float two massive municipal bond issues, and expand the manufacturing sector of Hasford with the intention of outgrowing the budget deficit, and eventually paying down the municipal bonds. After balancing the City budget, I decided to borrow a ton of a lot more money just to precipitate another budget deficit and force another growth spurt in the City of Hasford, and yet again, the City became a gigantic manufacturing center, and still there is only a small and nascent technology sector in the city. Between the different manufacturing centers in Hasford I thought it would be nice to zone several tracts of low-density residential housing; not because I think that it's a good idea for people to live in highly polluted areas of a city, but because the land is cheap, and if you want a starter home, what cheaper place to buy one than next to the smoke stacks and concrete monoliths of the Hasford Manufacturing Industrial Complex!
Sim City 4: Dealing with Deficits
After founding the city of Marlborough I began on working on a low-income housing district next to the industrial zone where many of the low-income sims tend to work, but before I knew it, I ran out of money. I had to float a massive bond issue to keep the city from being placed in receivership. Beggars cannot be choosers, so I had to quickly build a profitable commercial district and several luxury housing communities around town. Marlborough was eventually returned to solvency and posting record budget surpluses.
SimCity 4: Insurmountable Budget Deficits and Massive Municipal Debt
It would be better to keep the dissenting opinions in section 5. Dissenting opinions have the potential to impact subsequent case history, but for an analysis section, you should focus on the majority opinion.
It's important to discuss Bellas Hess because it's the precedent for the Quill case. The history of the Wayfair case should cover at least two cases prior to it, so that would be Quill, the first case before it, and Bellas Hess, the case before Quill.
The National Geographic offices in California were unrelated to magazine sales and subscriptions, meaning they weren't telemarketing offices, in this case, the offices in California were related to selling advertising space within the magazine, but they were not related to selling the magazines themselves.
Cultural Significance of South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018)
The collection of justices in the Majority Opinion and the Dissenting Opinion in the South Dakota v. Wayfair (2018) appear to be two sets of odd alliances to a casual observer of Supreme Court Cases.
The Majority Opinion includes: : Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, and Gorsuch. (p.13)
The Dissenting Opinion includes: Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan (p.13)
A casual observer would more likely be exposed to civil rights and civil liberties cases, in which case it’s less likely that Ginsburg and Alito, or Roberts and Sotomayor would both be on the same side of an opinion.
● The Physical Presence requirement established in National Bellas Hess v. Department of Revenue, 386 U.S. 753 87 S. Ct. 1389 18 L. Ed. 2d 505 (1967) and Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298, 112 S. Ct. 1904, 119 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1992) was overruled.
○ Quill Corp. v. North Dakota required that a business have a physical presence in a state in order to determine whether or not a business had a substantial nexus in a state for state sales taxation purposes, even though the Court in Quill accepted that a physical presence in a state was not required to establish a substantial nexus in a state for due process purposes.
○ The Majority Opinion in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., 585 U.S. 162, 138 S. Ct. 2080, 201 L. Ed. 2d 403 (2018) pointed out that in Quill the majority opinion expressed concern that it would be difficult for a business to collect the correct sales tax amounts, the Court in South Dakota v. Wayfair suggested that modern technology would make this problem less of an issue.
■ The Dissenting Opinion in South Dakota v. Wayfair argues that sale tax collection could still be problematic in modern times, pointing out that there are over 10,000 different sale tax jurisdictions in the United States with different policies for taxable and tax-exempt goods and services, different product categories, and different substantial nexus requirements.
■ The Dissenting Opinion in South Dakota v. Wayfair points out that in New Jersey, yarn for art projects is taxable, but yarn for sweaters is not taxable. Texas levies tax on plain deodorants, but not on deodorants with antiperspirants. In Illinois Twix and Snickers candy bars are subject to different tax rates, given that Twix contains flour and Snickers does not.
○ The Majority Opinion pointed out that modern technology also provided more of an advantage to businesses seeking to capitalize on the Physical Presence requirement for the purposes of avoiding state sales tax collection.
■ The Court argued that the physical presence requirement resulted in market distortions that incentivized companies to avoid building out their businesses in a way that might be more operationally efficient because doing so would result in a physical presence in a greater number of tax jurisdictions.
■ As a hypothetical example: a business might set up all their operations in Alaska. Shipping everything out of Alaska wouldn’t be operationally efficient, but the tax efficiencies of avoiding a physical presence in multiple tax jurisdictions might incentivize this type of operation anyway.
5. Business, economic and social significance of the Court’s decision - Kenneth
The business significance of the South Dakota v. Wayfair case is the elimination of the Physical Presence requirement established in prior case history.
Operating locations for remote businesses such as catalog companies and e-commerce companies become less influenced by tax efficiencies, and more by logistical efficiencies.
Businesses can disperse operating locations throughout the United States rather than concentrating them in a particular location since the tax regime post Wayfair made the previous tax efficiencies irrelevant
Businesses operating in a local tax jurisdiction would not be placed at a price disadvantage relative to businesses operating remotely as a result of sales and use tax collection policies.
South Dakota v. Wayfair leveled the playing field between businesses that operate locally and businesses that operate nationally, and also leveled the playing field between brick and mortar merchants and remote merchants.
Economic Significance of South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018)
Cultural Significance of South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018)
The collection of justices in the Majority Opinion and the Dissenting Opinion in the South Dakota v. Wayfair (2018) appear to be two sets of odd alliances to a casual observer of Supreme Court Cases.
The Majority Opinion includes: : Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, and Gorsuch. (p.13)
The Dissenting Opinion includes: Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan (p.13)
A casual observer would more likely be exposed to civil rights and civil liberties cases, in which case it’s less likely that Ginsburg and Alito, or Roberts and Sotomayor would both be on the same side of an opinion.
Business Significance of South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018)
The business significance of the South Dakota v. Wayfair case is the elimination of the Physical Presence requirement established in prior case history.
Operating locations for remote businesses such as catalog companies and e-commerce companies would become less influenced by tax efficiencies, and more by logistical efficiencies.
Businesses can disperse operating locations throughout the United States rather than concentrating them in a particular location since the tax regime post Wayfair made the previous tax efficiencies irrelevant. If you are going to pay the same taxes either way, you might as well save money on gas.
Businesses operating in a local tax jurisdiction would not be placed at a price disadvantage relative to businesses operating remotely as a result of sales and use tax collection policies.
South Dakota v. Wayfair leveled the playing field between businesses that operate locally and businesses that operate nationally, and also leveled the playing field between brick and mortar merchants and remote merchants.
Economic Significance of South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018)
Tax Collection Results in the aftermath of the South Dakota v. Wayfair decision.
Build out of distribution networks, rather than concentration of distribution networks in the aftermath of the South Dakota V. Wayfair decision.
Cultural Significance of South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. (2018)
The composition of Justices in the Majority Opinion and the Dissenting Opinion in the South Dakota v. Wayfair (2018) appear to be two sets of odd alliances to a casual observer of Supreme Court Cases.
The Majority Opinion includes: Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, and Gorsuch. (p.13)
The Dissenting Opinion includes: Roberts, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan (p.13)
A casual observer would more likely be exposed to civil rights and civil liberties cases, in which case it’s less likely that Ginsburg and Alito, or Roberts and Sotomayor would both be on the same side of an opinion.
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298, 112 S. Ct. 1904, 119 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1992)Quill Corp. v. North Dakota is the primary case that South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. takes issue with, and from where the departure from Stare Decisis begins.
The Syllabus points out that “Forty-one States, two Territories, and the District of Columbia have asked the Court to reject Quill's test.” (p. 12); the Quill test being a set of criteria that determines when it’s appropriate for a state to enforce sales and use taxes upon a merchant.
South Dakota v. Wayfair case demonstrates the delicate balancing act the Supreme Court has to manage when satisfying the interest of the various parties involved, the Legislature via the Commerce Clause, the authority of State Governments to enforce and collect sales and use taxes, and the legitimacy of the Judiciary by upholding Stare Decisis or departing from precedent when appropriate.
○ The tests of the Quill case involve: a due process Minimum Contacts test, a interstate commerce clause Substantial Nexus test, a Physical Presence test established in National Bellas Hess, and a Fairly Apportioned test, meaning the taxes levied upon a business are commensurate with the services that the state provides to the business.
● National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill., 386 U.S. 753, 87 S. Ct. 1389, 18 L. Ed. 2d 505 (1967)
○ National Bellas Hess is the main case that the Quill case takes as precedent for its decision. Quill upholds the decision made in Bellas Hess on the basis of Stare Decisis, suggesting that if Congress disagrees with Bellas Hess it is more than welcome to legislate against it, the Supreme Court, however, is required to respect Stare Decisis and uphold National Bellas Hess.
○ The Supreme Court in the Wayfair case breaks with Stare Decisis on the grounds that Stare Decisis is not an inexorable command and that the Legislature is not responsible for fixing a flawed precedent set by the Supreme Court, rather the Supreme Court is responsible for fixing flawed precedent even if it means breaking with Stare Decisis.
● Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U. S. 274, 279, 97 S. Ct. 1076, 51 L. Ed. 2d 326 (1977)
○ Complete Auto Transit v. Brady established four requirements to determine if a state tax imposition is valid on an out of state business; the four requirements are: the business must have a Substantial Nexus within the taxing state, the taxes must be Fairly Apportioned, the taxes must not discriminate against Interstate Commerce, the taxes must be Fairly Related to the services the taxing state provides.
● National Geographic Soc. v. California Bd. of Equalization, 430 U. S. 551, 555, 97 S. Ct. 1386, 51 L. Ed. 2d 631 (1977)
○ National Geographic v. California established that National Geographic had a Sufficient Nexus within California to be subject to sales and use tax collection requirements for magazine subscription sales within California even if the sufficient nexus in question, two offices for National Geographic, were unrelated to magazine subscription sales subject to sales and use taxes within California; in this case the offices were related to selling advertising space within the magazine, and not the actual magazines; the Physical Presence doctrine was not discussed in this case.1. Case history and background - Kenneth
Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, 504 U.S. 298, 112 S. Ct. 1904, 119 L. Ed. 2d 91 (1992)Quill Corp. v. North Dakota is the primary case that South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. takes issue with, and from where the departure from Stare Decisis begins.
The Syllabus points out that “Forty-one States, two Territories, and the District of Columbia have asked the Court to reject Quill's test.” (p. 12); the Quill test being a set of criteria that determines when it’s appropriate for a state to enforce sales and use taxes upon a merchant.
South Dakota v. Wayfair case demonstrates the delicate balancing act the Supreme Court has to manage when satisfying the interest of the various parties involved, the Legislature via the Commerce Clause, the authority of State Governments to enforce and collect sales and use taxes, and the legitimacy of the Judiciary by upholding Stare Decisis or departing from precedent when appropriate.
○ The tests of the Quill case involve: a due process Minimum Contacts test, a interstate commerce clause Substantial Nexus test, a Physical Presence test established in National Bellas Hess, and a Fairly Apportioned test, meaning the taxes levied upon a business are commensurate with the services that the state provides to the business.
● National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue of Ill., 386 U.S. 753, 87 S. Ct. 1389, 18 L. Ed. 2d 505 (1967)
○ National Bellas Hess is the main case that the Quill case takes as precedent for its decision. Quill upholds the decision made in Bellas Hess on the basis of Stare Decisis, suggesting that if Congress disagrees with Bellas Hess it is more than welcome to legislate against it, the Supreme Court, however, is required to respect Stare Decisis and uphold National Bellas Hess.
○ The Supreme Court in the Wayfair case breaks with Stare Decisis on the grounds that Stare Decisis is not an inexorable command and that the Legislature is not responsible for fixing a flawed precedent set by the Supreme Court, rather the Supreme Court is responsible for fixing flawed precedent even if it means breaking with Stare Decisis.
● Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U. S. 274, 279, 97 S. Ct. 1076, 51 L. Ed. 2d 326 (1977)
○ Complete Auto Transit v. Brady established four requirements to determine if a state tax imposition is valid on an out of state business; the four requirements are: the business must have a Substantial Nexus within the taxing state, the taxes must be Fairly Apportioned, the taxes must not discriminate against Interstate Commerce, the taxes must be Fairly Related to the services the taxing state provides.
● National Geographic Soc. v. California Bd. of Equalization, 430 U. S. 551, 555, 97 S. Ct. 1386, 51 L. Ed. 2d 631 (1977)
○ National Geographic v. California established that National Geographic had a Sufficient Nexus within California to be subject to sales and use tax collection requirements for magazine subscription sales within California even if the sufficient nexus in question, two offices for National Geographic, were unrelated to magazine subscription sales subject to sales and use taxes within California; in this case the offices were related to selling advertising space within the magazine, and not the actual magazines; the Physical Presence doctrine was not discussed in this case.
No comments:
Post a Comment