The difference between a typo and a glaring factual error is hard to tell. An article from eWeek's Steven Vaughan-Nichols, who really ought to proofread better, contains a number of subtle errors that end up totally contradicting and confusing the point of the entire piece. Some examples:
The Streamlined Sales Tax Project may sound to some like the states are getting ready to start charging state sales tax on all e-commerce purchases, but the reality is that simple.
That's the first sentence of the article. Was the author deliberately being funny? Or did he forget a "not"?
What the SSTA (Streamlined Sales Tax Project), a group of U.S. states united in trying to simplify state and local tax collection, is doing is setting up a system by which Internet e-commerce companies can voluntarily pay state taxes to the states in which their customers reside.
If you made it through that sentence, did you get the meaning? Basically, he says that this new project helps companies pay state taxes.
In addition, "the states that are in compliance with SSUTA (Member States) will offer advantages to those sellers who use a CSP.
No idea where the quote ends, and the article gives no clue who we're quoting anyway. Also, is the SSUTA related to the SSTA defined above? Again, no info provided. Maybe a typo.
More minor advantages are that such companies will receive free tax collection and remittance software.
Is that... even more minor than the other advantages? Or additional, minor advantages?
Since 1992, a still valid Supreme Court decision ruled that companies do not have to pay sales taxes in states where they do have a physical presence.
The linked Supreme Court decision (which I read, in surprise at this article) actually says pretty clearly that companies do not have to pay sales taxes in states where they do not have a physical presence. An important word to forget.
This is not say that state sales tax on Internet purchases is a done deal. "There's still a lot of opposition," said Logan.
This is not say that this article was machine translated from Japanese.
Thus, in the end while the current move is purely voluntarily, Logan said that "if a critical mass of retailers buy into this, a lot more will follow, and it will snowball into almost all Internet retailers."
Thus, in the end while I used to trust eWeek, I now feel that "if this is all the attention and care they give to their writing, I should be reading from other sources."
This is not say that anything on the Internet is really trustworthy.
Comments (1)
Oh, man. I don't think I would have even attempted reading through this article after being so confused by the first few sentences you posted. This may have been proofread, but it was probably done too quickly ... sometimes your brain inserts those words that are missing (like "not") when you skim over your own writing.
I think I am gullible when it comes to news articles on the Internet. When I read that sentence about sales tax being "waived" when there's a physical presence in the state, I first thought, "huh; I always thought it was the other way around ... guess I was wrong." I shouldn't believe everything I read. (And trust my instincts a little more). :-)
Posted by Beth | October 4, 2005 1:50 PM
Posted on October 4, 2005 13:50