# Internet sales tax? yea or nay?



## Dot Com (Feb 10, 2013)

I'm undecided right now because on the one hand you can get some good deals but on the other, I'm short-changing mom & pop. brick & mortar stores & not contributing to the public purse for firemen, police, state's rainy day funds, etc...

Some states have internet sales taxes tacked onto one's purchases but the majority of states do not recieve any sales tax for internet sales right?

Give me your position & the reason you support it other than the standard response of "its cheaper"


----------



## PaulS1950 (Feb 10, 2013)

The tax is charged at the point of sale - if any. That is as it should be. If a seller in a different state has to collect both his state's sales tax and yours and then deliver the taxes collected to every other state then how many jobs will be lost over that? How would you go about tracking each sale, the taxes owed and collected and the state the order is delivered to? What a friggin' nightmare!
I use the internet when there is no decent local dealer selling the merchandise I desire. Sometimes I pay sales tax and sometimes I don't but I never pay more than tax for one state and it is usually the state in which the sale originates.


----------



## Dot Com (Feb 10, 2013)

when one makes a purchase they have to include their mailing address (state). That simplifies how the company could jigger their program to compute the tax. I'm sure that some people wouldn't mind paying but they're not going to say so & just abide by existing law which leaves them exempt.

Eventually all intenet sales will boil down to one warehouse on a pier in Los Angeles & all brick & mortar stores will be gone, along w/ their tax revenue, is my fear.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 10, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> The tax is charged at the point of sale - if any. That is as it should be. If a seller in a different state has to collect both his state's sales tax and yours and then deliver the taxes collected to every other state then how many jobs will be lost over that? How would you go about tracking each sale, the taxes owed and collected and the state the order is delivered to? What a friggin' nightmare!
> I use the internet when there is no decent local dealer selling the merchandise I desire. Sometimes I pay sales tax and sometimes I don't but I never pay more than tax for one state and it is usually the state in which the sale originates.



Exactly, it's completely unworkable without an excessive, costly system in place to track and enforce it.  

The government gets enough money as it is.  They don't need anymore.


----------



## alan1 (Feb 10, 2013)

I'm curious as to why some people think that the mere act of me purchasing an item entitles some government entity proceeds from that sale.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 10, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



Seriously, it's a simple response to a ridiculous assertion.  You really think people are just going to stop leaving their homes and never set foot in a store again because they can buy it on the Internet?  How do you try on shoes over the Internet?  How do you try on that new pair of jeans you want to get over the Internet?  You think I'm going to buy that box of nails I need for this weekend's project and pay an extra $6 buck for shipping and wait a week for it to arrive?

Seriously, think before you ask questions and maybe you won't need to ask them.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 10, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> I'm undecided right now because on the one hand you can get some good deals but on the other, I'm short-changing mom & pop. brick & mortar stores & not contributing to the public purse for firemen, police, state's rainy day funds, etc...



I don't know how they do things in Virginia, but here in South Carolina those police and firemen, and all the other public employees are paid for with property taxes, income taxes, sales taxes on everything else, excise taxes, regulatory fees, licenses, etc.  I'm fairly certain you've contributed your due.

Of course, if you're that concerned about it then send your fire department a donation in your spare time.  I just gave $20 to the local paramedics when they came knocking at my door a month ago.  It's not hard.


----------



## Dot Com (Feb 10, 2013)

Curiously not one shred of evidence has been proffered up by the naysayers.  A LOT of "opinions". they count for..... oh..... nothing in a debate. Thanks for nearly killing my thread 5-posts in  And S.C.? bucs90 lives there and he has posted PLENTY on the Repubs down there killing gov't services  Thanks for wasting my time. 

Now where was I? Back to an "evidence- based" discussion. I will be returning, off and on, to supply evidence supporting both sides of the discussion. If you wish to "contribute" please bring evidence/links which back up whatever you are saying WHICH I POINTED OUT IN THE OP but, sadly, needs to be repeated.


----------



## Dot Com (Feb 10, 2013)

I just did a little research & it seems there was bipartisan support for S.1832. IN FACT, a Republican introduced it. Not a moderate state by any means as it rates a R+20 on the Cook PVI. 20 is pretty high. File:CookPVIbyState.PNG - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Toronado3800 (Feb 10, 2013)

alan1 said:


> I'm curious as to why some people think that the mere act of me purchasing an item entitles some government entity proceeds from that sale.



It doesn't.

Unless you want to live in a superpower country with first world services.

Long as you pick a level of services equal to what ya pay.  Seems most Americans want (states in this case) the government to be strong, schools first rate, emergency services.  That type of thing.

I am borderline.  Folks in England got tired of the military cost after wwii.  Perhaps you can start working on that with ppl if you want lower taxes.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Feb 10, 2013)

Oh, when I buy off Amazon the sale was made in my living room so my state should get the taxes.  Just seems simple and no different than calling the parts store down the road.  This internet thing is no big deal.


----------



## GWV5903 (Feb 10, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> I'm undecided right now because on the one hand you can get some good deals but on the other, I'm short-changing mom & pop. brick & mortar stores & not contributing to the public purse for firemen, police, state's rainy day funds, etc...
> 
> Some states have internet sales taxes tacked onto one's purchases but the majority of states do not recieve any sales tax for internet sales right?
> 
> Give me your position & the reason you support it other than the standard response of "its cheaper"



I am for it, we have state deficits based on Internet sales, huge revenue for ALL states that have evaporated...


----------



## Dot Com (Feb 10, 2013)

Toronado3800 said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious as to why some people think that the mere act of me purchasing an item entitles some government entity proceeds from that sale.
> ...



Correct. This is important. Some people want it both ways, strongest country in the world but they don't want to pay for it because it might add $20 to the cost of their communist made plasma tv.


----------



## alan1 (Feb 10, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Toronado3800 said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...



I'm pretty sure your state sales tax doesn't pay for the US Military.


----------



## Dot Com (Feb 10, 2013)

alan1 said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Toronado3800 said:
> ...



got to have infrastructure to transport those tanks now. 

Why do I get the impression that you're one-sided on this issue? Please make a comment w/ one credible link. ONE!!! This is how the CDZ works.  is that too much to ask? You're a maude for cryin out loud!!!


----------



## Montrovant (Feb 10, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



What kind of links are you looking for, exactly?  Your question seems to be based almost entirely in personal opinion rather than any particular data or facts.
Maybe if the question was something more like, "Do you think internet sales without sales tax are going to do away with physical stores" then links would be more appropriate.


----------



## Dot Com (Feb 10, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> What kind of links are you looking for, exactly?  Your question seems to be based almost entirely in personal opinion rather than any particular data or facts.
> Maybe if the question was something more like, "Do you think internet sales without sales tax are going to do away with physical stores" then links would be more appropriate.



Links that pertain to internet sales of goods. I cited a bill that was/is under consideration and a Republican who introduced it. Google is your friend. I'm going to be covering this for days so I don't want to have it settled by..... say..... tonight for instance. Its a work-in-progress.


----------



## RightNorLeft (Feb 10, 2013)

Most everyone does not want to pay sales tax on internet purchases, but its coming and they are using the need to give brick and mortar stores a chance. Nonesense, anything you can buy in a brick and mortar store is cheaper online by far even with added 6% or so sales tax and you dont have to wait in line. 
  They will be passing an internet sales tax and you can bet it will be bipartisan. When it comes to grabbing cash they both love it, they just want more from the bottom or the top depending on the R or D after their name.


----------



## S.J. (Feb 11, 2013)

Times change.  Let the brick and mortar stores join the 21st century and start selling online.  Why should the rest of the country cater to them?  They used to deliver ice to homes too, but then freezers were invented.  Should we have taxed them so the ice delivery people could compete?


----------



## JohnA (Feb 11, 2013)

alan1 said:


> I'm curious as to why some people think that the mere act of me purchasing an item entitles some government entity proceeds from that sale.


----------



## Blooper (Feb 11, 2013)

alan1 said:


> I'm curious as to why some people think that the mere act of me purchasing an item entitles some government entity proceeds from that sale.



I'm curious as to why corporations feel as though they should have the right to operate for private interests. You know bit that allows them to do so was originally meant to protect African Americans' property rights?


----------



## RightNorLeft (Feb 11, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Times change.  Let the brick and mortar stores join the 21st century and start selling online.  Why should the rest of the country cater to them?  They used to deliver ice to homes too, but then freezers were invented.  Should we have taxed them so the ice delivery people could compete?





    Thats a good point, business types and practices have always rolled over and changed and some have been made obsolete by technology and progress.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Feb 11, 2013)

IMO it's the same as me buying something in a no sales tax state and then driving it to my house.

No one is standing on the state border asking me to show receipts for what I bought out of state.


----------



## slackjawed (Feb 11, 2013)

While I am certainly no fan of paying sales tax, it is a legitimate revenue stream for state and municiple governments. 
I think it should be collected and distributed at the point of sale.
I use Amazon frequently, and did not have to pay sales tax until they moved their distribution to Arizona. Now I pay Arizona sales tax on anything I order from Amazon. 
I don't just support this if the tax is collected for my state, I think sales tax should be collected from online sales in whatever state the seller's facility is located in. 

There is no denying that every online seller must have a brick and mortar facility somewhere. That facility benefits from the infrastructure in which they are located, so why shouldn't that locality collect those sales taxes without regard as to where the customer orders from.


----------



## editec (Feb 11, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> I'm undecided right now because on the one hand you can get some good deals but on the other, I'm short-changing mom & pop. brick & mortar stores & not contributing to the public purse for firemen, police, state's rainy day funds, etc...
> 
> Some states have internet sales taxes tacked onto one's purchases but the majority of states do not recieve any sales tax for internet sales right?
> 
> Give me your position & the reason you support it other than the standard response of "its cheaper"



I think its inevitable.

As more and more brick and mortar businesses are driven out of business, as more and more people take advantage of the economy of scale that many internet retailers have over local businesses, STATES (that count on sales taxes) are going to have to find SOME WAY to capture enough revenue.

Today I am going to buy some perscription glasses.

Locally they would cost me about $400.

Buying them via the net?

I'll be getting TWO PAIR for aboutr $40.

PLUS, I won't be paying the State of Maine the $20 sales tax I'd have to pay to get my glasses locally.

Multiply my translation by millions per day, and you begin to see that the STATES and LOCAL businesses are in _serious trouble._


----------



## Sarah G (Feb 11, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> I'm undecided right now because on the one hand you can get some good deals but on the other, I'm short-changing mom & pop. brick & mortar stores & not contributing to the public purse for firemen, police, state's rainy day funds, etc...
> 
> Some states have internet sales taxes tacked onto one's purchases but the majority of states do not recieve any sales tax for internet sales right?
> 
> Give me your position & the reason you support it other than the standard response of "its cheaper"



I pay tax on some things, I don't want them to go too far on this one because we are also required to pay shipping and there goes any deal you may have gotten buying over the internet.

This comes up about every two years.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 11, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> The tax is charged at the point of sale - if any. That is as it should be. If a seller in a different state has to collect both his state's sales tax and yours and then deliver the taxes collected to every other state then how many jobs will be lost over that? How would you go about tracking each sale, the taxes owed and collected and the state the order is delivered to? What a friggin' nightmare!
> I use the internet when there is no decent local dealer selling the merchandise I desire. Sometimes I pay sales tax and sometimes I don't but I never pay more than tax for one state and it is usually the state in which the sale originates.



New York charges sales tax on internet purchases in state.    Why would it be so much more difficult to expand that to all customers?   If the shop is in NY anyone buying there pays NY taxes.   If in PA you pay PA taxes...

It would actually simplify things for businesses rather than having the dual tiered system we have now.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Feb 11, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Times change.  Let the brick and mortar stores join the 21st century and start selling online.  Why should the rest of the country cater to them?  They used to deliver ice to homes too, but then freezers were invented.  Should we have taxed them so the ice delivery people could compete?



Exactly.  When automobiles started becoming more mainstream politicians were clamoring for subsidies to the buggy industry so they could stay afloat.  It's nonsense.


----------



## Dot Com (Feb 11, 2013)

quite a few good constructive comments here but not much in the way of links. Come on people. 

 I came up w/ a compromise last night, how about taxing BUT at a lower rate for online sales. Maybe even 1/2 the rate or whatever rate will negate the shippping cost as a factor plus give them a margin to make up for the start-up costs of say building websites to advertise.. There's a few things that can be done here.


----------



## Underhill (Feb 11, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> quite a few good constructive comments here but not much in the way of links. Come on people.
> 
> I came up w/ a compromise last night, how about taxing BUT at a lower rate for online sales. Maybe even 1/2 the rate or whatever rate will negate the shippping cost as a factor plus give them a margin to make up for the start-up costs of say building websites to advertise.. There's a few things that can be done here.



Why undercut brick and mortar businesses?   You mention shipping cost.  But those online retailers are competing with companies who have to pay the cost of running an actual store, which are significantly higher than the cost of running an online business out of a warehouse. 

So I think they should all pay the same.


----------



## S.J. (Feb 11, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> quite a few good constructive comments here but not much in the way of links. Come on people.
> 
> I came up w/ a compromise last night, how about taxing BUT at a lower rate for online sales. Maybe even 1/2 the rate or whatever rate will negate the shippping cost as a factor plus give them a margin to make up for the start-up costs of say building websites to advertise.. There's a few things that can be done here.


How about lowering the tax on the brick and mortar businesses instead of taxing the online sales?  Why punish the consumer?


----------



## Dot Com (Feb 11, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > quite a few good constructive comments here but not much in the way of links. Come on people.
> ...



brick & mortar stores are "closing shop" because of cheap online competition is why. People are treating the b& M stores as "showrooms" then going home & purchasing online. 

Local Stores Become Showrooms for Online Buying | Street Fight


----------



## Underhill (Feb 12, 2013)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Times change.  Let the brick and mortar stores join the 21st century and start selling online.  Why should the rest of the country cater to them?  They used to deliver ice to homes too, but then freezers were invented.  Should we have taxed them so the ice delivery people could compete?
> ...



I have no problem with letting them fail if they can't compete on an even playing field.   

But as things stand right now, things are not equal.   And it is hurting business.   Why should online retailers get a pass on taxes when stores do not?


----------



## Toronado3800 (Feb 12, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > quite a few good constructive comments here but not much in the way of links. Come on people.
> ...



As stated abive, we just can't go all Ronald Reagan permanently and not pay for what we have our government do.

In this case it is state governments more directly with sales tax not the Fed but the same rules apply. 

One of the pains of a modern first world country.  If you want otherwise xonvince more folks of what parts of the government they can do without.

I for one question the corpse of engineers and these permanent obligations we get signed up for building levees around here to help businesses and neighborhoods be built in flood plains.  If we can cut that there goes a bit of our tax obligation.


----------



## Toronado3800 (Feb 12, 2013)

JohnA said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious as to why some people think that the mere act of me purchasing an item entitles some government entity proceeds from that sale.



John, I agree in principal.

However we have this rather fairly ran republic and have signed ourselves up for a few thinfs like being a super power and providing roads and levees and Eisenhower's era's fuarantee we can call 911 and get an ambulance w/o first reading our credit card number.

Those are some reasons the government gets our money.

I can think of a few programs to cut, but until the Reagan supporters who love that defecit die off it will be tough.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 22, 2013)

back in the news. I'm an amazon junky, as of late, so I'm following this. Everything you need to know

Everything you need to know about the Senate?s online sales-tax bill


----------



## whitehall (Apr 22, 2013)

Another ten thousand IRS agents hired to look over your shoulder for a $25.00 sale on Ebay? Say it ain't so.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 22, 2013)

senate debate video: U.S. Senate: Cloture Vote on the Motion to Proceed - Marketplace Fairness Act - C-SPAN Video Library


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 22, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> I'm undecided right now because on the one hand you can get some good deals but on the other, I'm short-changing mom & pop. brick & mortar stores & not contributing to the public purse for firemen, police, state's rainy day funds, etc...
> 
> Some states have internet sales taxes tacked onto one's purchases but the majority of states do not recieve any sales tax for internet sales right?
> 
> Give me your position & the reason you support it other than the standard response of "its cheaper"



No retailer should have a competitive edge like this. I hate it, but yes the Internet retailers should charge the buyer a sales tax for new product. Used, not so sure.


----------



## Trajan (Apr 22, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> I'm undecided right now because on the one hand you can get some good deals but on the other, I'm short-changing mom & pop. brick & mortar stores & not contributing to the public purse for firemen, police, state's rainy day funds, etc...
> 
> Some states have internet sales taxes tacked onto one's purchases but the majority of states do not recieve any sales tax for internet sales right?
> 
> Give me your position & the reason you support it other than the standard response of "its cheaper"



If I order an item from say Utah and they have zero presence here in cali., I don't see why I am being charged a sales tax on a simple  exchange for goods in that context. 

This may also push sales points off-shore. 


I also noticed amazon is now down with collecting it, they even sell their collection services to others......so they gave up and joined the money grab, for a crony capitalism gimme to be named later.


----------



## Dugdale_Jukes (Apr 22, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> I'm undecided right now because on the one hand you can get some good deals but on the other, I'm short-changing mom & pop. brick & mortar stores & not contributing to the public purse for firemen, police, state's rainy day funds, etc...
> 
> Some states have internet sales taxes tacked onto one's purchases but the majority of states do not recieve any sales tax for internet sales right?
> 
> Give me your position & the reason you support it other than the standard response of "its cheaper"



There should probably never be a state sales tax on internet sales. The cost of administering 50 state sales taxes probably starts around a thousand a month for a live database diverting proper pcts of monies to the proper offices in the several states, then goes up with volume of sales. 

The fairest tax would be a uniform internet sales tax with tax collections going to the state of residence of buyers. 

The reason that won't work is sales tax is owed in most or all states now. So that kind of database would open buyers up to coercion to pay existing taxes. 

The most reasonable internet sales tax system is for states to get together and agree to waive state sales taxes on internet purchases in return for taxes on purchases made by residents of each state.


----------



## Trajan (Apr 22, 2013)

and Wal-Mart will love this too....


----------



## chikenwing (Apr 22, 2013)

The state I live in has shown itself to be economically inept,giving them even more than what is taken now ,would be real stupid.

Once again,its not a revenue problem,its still spending,even at the state level. Fix that befor you get more,its not hard and its sensible.


----------



## auditor0007 (Apr 23, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> I'm undecided right now because on the one hand you can get some good deals but on the other, I'm short-changing mom & pop. brick & mortar stores & not contributing to the public purse for firemen, police, state's rainy day funds, etc...
> 
> Some states have internet sales taxes tacked onto one's purchases but the majority of states do not recieve any sales tax for internet sales right?
> 
> Give me your position & the reason you support it other than the standard response of "its cheaper"



This is a tough one.  While I support an Internet tax for goods sold via the Internet, it would be a nightmare for retailers to pay these taxes.  Even if they just decide to go with a state tax for each state, that would leave every single Internet retailer having to pay sales taxes to fifty states.  Can you imagine how big of a pain that could be?  If they would agree to allow retailers to just collect sales taxes for their own state, and everyone had to pay them, that would be much more simple.  The problem with that is a lot of people don't want to pay sales taxes to states they don't live in.  Of course, if you are on vacation you do pay out of state sales taxes, so I don't know.  

The bad thing is that Internet based companies are killing local retailers.  Best Buy is being destroyed in great part by companies like Amazon.com that do not charge sales tax.  Of course, the individual is supposed to pay the tax to the state at the end of the year, but we know that doesn't happen.


----------



## ScienceRocks (Apr 23, 2013)

No tax. Booo hisss!!!! One should always oppose the thief of our money.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 23, 2013)

Sales tax on internet purchases should be charged as if you bought the item in person.

For example, if I drive to New Hampshire to buy something I do not get charged a sales tax.  If I take that item home to CT I do not have to pay state tax on it.

If I sit at home and order an item from an internet retailer in NH and have it delivered to my home what's the difference?


----------



## editec (Apr 23, 2013)

I think taxation on the net is inevitable.

Its gonna be a mess until its merchants can pay a centralized authority though.

One of my customers from a foreign nation purchases a download originating in AZ and their money ends up in a bank in Maine.

What state or nation gets to collect the sales tax?


----------



## midcan5 (Apr 23, 2013)

Soon all companies will be located in Bumfluck Agypt because BA has no sales tax. Sorta like when all the Banks moved to Delaware. My un-researched thought is you pay your state's tax based on physical location. Of course then everyone will have a box number in Bumfluck. Humans are fickle and taxes are the source of much fickle. Cynic's hat off.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 23, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Sales tax on internet purchases should be charged as if you bought the item in person.
> 
> For example, if I drive to New Hampshire to buy something I do not get charged a sales tax.  If I take that item home to CT I do not have to pay state tax on it.
> 
> If I sit at home and order an item from an internet retailer in NH and have it delivered to my home what's the difference?



Technically you do.  Every state has a form to fill out so that you can pay tax on items you bought out of state if you bought it in a state with a lower tax than yours.   No one ever does this, but the tax is still there.


----------



## Katzndogz (Apr 23, 2013)

editec said:


> I think taxation on the net is inevitable.
> 
> Its gonna be a mess until its merchants can pay a centralized authority though.
> 
> ...



The state YOU file your income taxes in.  They will go by the shipping address for tangible merchandise.  How they will tax downloads might be a problem if someone downloads something and lies about their state of domicile.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 23, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> I'm undecided right now because on the one hand you can get some good deals but on the other, I'm short-changing mom & pop. brick & mortar stores & not contributing to the public purse for firemen, police, state's rainy day funds, etc...
> 
> Some states have internet sales taxes tacked onto one's purchases but the majority of states do not recieve any sales tax for internet sales right?
> 
> Give me your position & the reason you support it other than the standard response of "its cheaper"



MWF for it.
TThS against it.
Do not ask me on a Sunday.

On one hand, its the only way to protect the physical retailers through which we support our local governments.  On the other, where is it written that it is smart to base your budget on the spending whims of the public?

A modest, federal uniform tax on Internet purchases seems to be the winner.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 23, 2013)

senate is holding more discussions on it today.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 23, 2013)

editec said:


> I think taxation on the net is inevitable.
> 
> Its gonna be a mess until its merchants can pay a centralized authority though.
> 
> ...



A flat federal tax will be levied then, on top of that, purchaser based sales taxes will be levied. If NY State has the tax and you live in NY, you will have to pay the state tax on top of the federal one.  Across the State line in PA, you will have only the federal theorhetically.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 23, 2013)

heres the bill summary: Bill Summary & Status - 113th Congress (2013 - 2014) - S.743 - THOMAS (Library of Congress)


----------



## longknife (Apr 23, 2013)

I don't think internet shopping WILL EVER replace brick and mortar, mom and pop stores! I know many who want to touch, see, and even smell stuff before they buy it. There are also those who mistrust the quality of goods purchased online.

As to taxing, I agree it should be determined by the state in which the customer RESIDES.


----------



## Avorysuds (Apr 23, 2013)

Progressives talk about moving forward, yet they sure do as much as humanly possible to keep us in the stone ages.

Tax internet sales purely to make things "fair." So we have a better system that not only helps push prices down in stores, but allows for vastly more options on products in any area in the US... And Progressives want to kill this because the tiny revenue they MIGHT be able to bring in that wouldn't close even .001% of the growing deficit. Even on a state by state level, sales will drop, not by massive amounts but enough to destroy any gain by a meaningless.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 23, 2013)

Avorysuds said:


> Progressives talk about moving forward, yet they sure do as much as humanly possible to keep us in the stone ages.
> 
> Tax internet sales purely to make things "fair." So we have a better system that not only helps push prices down in stores, but allows for vastly more options on products in any area in the US... And Progressives want to kill this because the tiny revenue they MIGHT be able to bring in that wouldn't close even .001% of the growing deficit. Even on a state by state level, sales will drop, not by massive amounts but enough to destroy any gain by a meaningless.



Admittedly, I haven't thought about it too much but how can one accept a tax on physical locations and not accept a tax on virtual locations?


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 23, 2013)

longknife said:


> I don't think internet shopping WILL EVER replace brick and mortar, mom and pop stores! I know many who want to touch, see, and even smell stuff before they buy it. There are also those who mistrust the quality of goods purchased online.
> 
> As to taxing, I agree it should be determined by the state in which the customer RESIDES.



true. I HAVE TO buy shoes in a brick & mortar establishment if I want them to fit properly.


----------



## candycorn (Apr 23, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> longknife said:
> 
> 
> > I don't think internet shopping WILL EVER replace brick and mortar, mom and pop stores! I know many who want to touch, see, and even smell stuff before they buy it. There are also those who mistrust the quality of goods purchased online.
> ...



Heavy objects will usually costs too much to ship (thus making the price prohibitive) as well


----------



## hjmick (Apr 23, 2013)

Nay.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 23, 2013)

Trajan said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > I'm undecided right now because on the one hand you can get some good deals but on the other, I'm short-changing mom & pop. brick & mortar stores & not contributing to the public purse for firemen, police, state's rainy day funds, etc...
> ...





Trajan said:


> and Wal-Mart will love this too....



you are right. They are monoplies like Wall Street banks who have teams of lawyers & accountants to deal w/ the complexities involved.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...know-about-the-senates-online-sales-tax-bill/


> What does Amazon think? Amazon&#8217;s actually in favor of the bill. That may sound odd, but there are two reasons for that: For one, the company is big enough that collecting these sales taxes will be more of a burden to its smaller competitors. Second, Amazon has been moving to same-day shipping and is setting up physical warehouses in just about every state &#8212; so, increasingly, *it&#8217;s already required to collect sales tax under existing rules anyway.*


----------



## Trajan (Apr 23, 2013)

I think the $ 10 million threshold is cool, but in the end, this simppet here;

 "CBPP&#8217;s Michael Mazerov sums up the main case in favor here: The bill would flatten the playing field between online retailers and local stores. It would allow states to recoup a few billion in taxes that are currently owed and go uncollected. And it would make tax collections slightly more progressive, since poorer Americans are less likely to shop online."


the marketplace will settle this. We don't need congress to get involved in '"flattening" any playing field, all they do is make it more convoluted. 



And let me tell you straight up, Durbin says this has zero to do with federal taxes......NOW it may not, , but we all know thats BS, they will , not now not next year but in 3-5 years find a way to get in on the $$ grab.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 23, 2013)

Trajan said:


> I think the $ 10 million threshold is cool, but in the end, this simppet here;
> 
> "CBPP&#8217;s Michael Mazerov sums up the main case in favor here: The bill would flatten the playing field between online retailers and local stores. It would allow states to recoup a few billion in taxes that are currently owed and go uncollected. And it would make tax collections slightly more progressive, since poorer Americans are less likely to shop online."
> 
> ...



municipalities are being starved for revenue by hipster netizens who evade local taxes by buying their stuff out of a warehouse in Long Beach. I'm guilty as well. This is more about people who live in a municipality funding their local government rather than brick & mortar v. online store's survival.


----------



## jasonnfree (Apr 23, 2013)

I'm for paying the tax.  California now gets the sales tax on purchases by it's residents from online retailers.  It's supporting the state you live in.   I believe in the old saying "Taxes are the price we pay for civilization".


----------



## auditor0007 (Apr 24, 2013)

Underhill said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > The tax is charged at the point of sale - if any. That is as it should be. If a seller in a different state has to collect both his state's sales tax and yours and then deliver the taxes collected to every other state then how many jobs will be lost over that? How would you go about tracking each sale, the taxes owed and collected and the state the order is delivered to? What a friggin' nightmare!
> ...



The problem is that taxes must be collected from people who live out of state and paid back to the state in which they live.  It's not as simple as just saying Internet companies have to charge sales tax to everyone and pay it to their own state.  This would create an absolute nightmare for companies having to pay to hundreds of different taxing authorities and collecting different rates based on where the person lives.  In such a form it is unworkable.


----------



## auditor0007 (Apr 24, 2013)

editec said:


> I think taxation on the net is inevitable.
> 
> Its gonna be a mess until its merchants can pay a centralized authority though.
> 
> ...



Therein lies the biggest problem of all.  Even if they simplified it to the point that a company only had to collect one tax rate per state and only had to pay the state taxing authority, that still leaves businesses having to track and pay sales taxes to 51 taxing authorities.


----------



## auditor0007 (Apr 24, 2013)

candycorn said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > I'm undecided right now because on the one hand you can get some good deals but on the other, I'm short-changing mom & pop. brick & mortar stores & not contributing to the public purse for firemen, police, state's rainy day funds, etc...
> ...



Who gets the revenue?  These are state sales taxes, not federal taxes.


----------



## auditor0007 (Apr 24, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > quite a few good constructive comments here but not much in the way of links. Come on people.
> ...



Great idea.  Then they can just shut down all state government.


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 24, 2013)

alan1 said:


> I'm curious as to why some people think that the mere act of me purchasing an item entitles some government entity proceeds from that sale.



Because that's generally the law in most places.
Honestly this isn't a new tax.  It is a means to enforce taxes that already exist on the books but cannot be enforced.


----------



## editec (Apr 24, 2013)

candycorn said:


> editec said:
> 
> 
> > I think taxation on the net is inevitable.
> ...



the problem isn't who should pay?

The problem is _who should the merchant pay?_

Now a single tax collected from the buyer and then paid to ONLY one government is really no problem.

But taxes imposed by every state would be a major problem for many internet retailers.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 24, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious as to why some people think that the mere act of me purchasing an item entitles some government entity proceeds from that sale.
> ...



right. People are supposed to declare their purchases to their state at the end of the year but states know this is not being done

Heard on the radio this am that the senate ios basically for it. Didn't hear whether the President would sign it though.


----------



## Spoonman (Apr 24, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> I'm undecided right now because on the one hand you can get some good deals but on the other, I'm short-changing mom & pop. brick & mortar stores & not contributing to the public purse for firemen, police, state's rainy day funds, etc...
> 
> Some states have internet sales taxes tacked onto one's purchases but the majority of states do not recieve any sales tax for internet sales right?
> 
> Give me your position & the reason you support it other than the standard response of "its cheaper"



so think about it this way.  if i purchase clothes in NJ I am not charged sales tax.  if I buy clothes on the internet, why should I be charged a sales tax?


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 24, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > I'm undecided right now because on the one hand you can get some good deals but on the other, I'm short-changing mom & pop. brick & mortar stores & not contributing to the public purse for firemen, police, state's rainy day funds, etc...
> ...



If you purchase clothes in NY you will be charged tax.  If you buy them online you wont.  Why should you not pay a sales tax?


----------



## Spoonman (Apr 24, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Spoonman said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



because NY sucks and i wouldn't buy clothes, or gas or most anything there.


----------



## Trajan (Apr 24, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > I think the $ 10 million threshold is cool, but in the end, this simppet here;
> ...



I am a huge online purchaser....I was in fact  one of amazons first 1000 customers, they sent me some note 3-4 years ago during their anniversary....big whoop ...but I will say they have always been on the money with me, they have fantastic customer service. 

BUT after this latest move? I'll shop around more. 

as to hip netsters, I don't think at my age I am too hip anymore, BUT I am a Customer, in a free market,  capitalist economy and this how it works......its called creative destruction. 

If brick and mortar establishments are no longer needed or required to meet the shopping needs of society I don't see where and why gov. needs to get involved trying to circumvent reality and the future....do I need to whip out ( no pun intended ) the horse and buggy vs. car analogy?

We don't need the gov. getting int the way or trying to rescue us, example-

they have tried that crap with Green Tech. for a few decades now and if you have not noticed the cap and trade European program has now completely and absolutely fallen apart, and the Green religion apostles/acolytes etc. all petitioned the EU to save it by subsidization and taxes, but not even the professional bureaucrats in the EU would save it,  they said no...._because_ its unworkable....


Same here, if the brick and mortar model is no longer efficable, then, let it die, don't tax me for some guilt ridden Quixotic charge to save the superfluous and un-savable....


----------



## Spoonman (Apr 24, 2013)

Trajan said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



and brick and mortar establishments need to realize they need to change with the times.  many brick and mortar businesses also offer an internet option.   the internet is just that an option.  a practical one as well.  it gives you the ability to shop online for the best source and service as opposed to driving from location to location.  if the brick and mortar location is competitive, there is no reason they can not be competitive in an internet environ ment as well.   in fact, many have flourished and expanded as the result of the internet.


----------



## Meister (Apr 24, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



The tax will help pay for the public union pensions which are draining most states. 

Just another angle to get in everybodies pocket.


----------



## Meister (Apr 24, 2013)

Thinking about this a little more.....I'm wondering what else they're tacking on to this Bill?
Call me skeptical


----------



## Spoonman (Apr 24, 2013)

Meister said:


> Thinking about this a little more.....I'm wondering what else they're tacking on to this Bill?
> Call me skeptical



are you ready for the rain tax that is about to rear its ugly head?


----------



## Meister (Apr 24, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Thinking about this a little more.....I'm wondering what else they're tacking on to this Bill?
> ...



Yup, and we just never know until the Bill is passed.
Just like the Budget Bill with the Monsanto Act thown in.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 24, 2013)

Trajan said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



all that & you failed to address the revenue shortfalls generated by main street closing shop.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 24, 2013)

Meister said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...



link? you know this is the CDZ? Those sales would have previously been made in brick & mortar establishments and the corresponding sales tax paid.


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 24, 2013)

Trajan said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > Trajan said:
> ...



I do a lot of online shopping myself because I can get the exact item I want, plus often read reviews of it.  It's a time saver.
But that doesn't mean B&M is dead.
Each one has advantages and disadvantages.
But this isn't about society choosing one way and gov't dictating another.  It is about collecting taxes that are due anyway.


----------



## S.J. (Apr 24, 2013)

auditor0007 said:


> S.J. said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...


Don't have to shut them down but they could stand to be downsized a little.  Government is an inefficient money pit and should be limited as much as possible.


----------



## Meister (Apr 24, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



Yes, I know this is in the CDZ....I didn't post anything disrespectful
Just where do you think these taxes will end up?  
With politicians it's all about picking a persons pocket.....it's their job.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 24, 2013)

This bill is yet more rent-seeking to the benefit of Corporate Cronies of Big Government.

Big companies already have the infrastructure to comply with the thousands of state, county and local taxes.  Small ones don't and will be harmed to the point of being uncompetitive.

And that's the point.


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 24, 2013)

boedicca said:


> This bill is yet more rent-seeking to the benefit of Corporate Cronies of Big Government.
> 
> Big companies already have the infrastructure to comply with the thousands of state, county and local taxes.  Small ones don't and will be harmed to the point of being uncompetitive.
> 
> And that's the point.



Eh, not so much.
There wont be thousands of state county and local taxes.  In order to participate states have to sign on to a unified rate and some other conditions.  And they must provide free software for compliance.


----------



## Underhill (Apr 24, 2013)

What is the problem?   We pay taxes now on stuff we buy in stores.   We either should pay those taxes online, or not pay them to anyone.

It's that simple.   Why should we let internet stores have an advantage?   Because you get your shit cheaper?   

Suck it up.   Don't want to pay taxes?  Move to Antarctica.


----------



## Underhill (Apr 24, 2013)

boedicca said:


> This bill is yet more rent-seeking to the benefit of Corporate Cronies of Big Government.
> 
> Big companies already have the infrastructure to comply with the thousands of state, county and local taxes.  Small ones don't and will be harmed to the point of being uncompetitive.
> 
> And that's the point.



Sorry but that is silly. 

There is already software (some retailers already use it) that simply takes your zip code and calculates tax rates.   It is cheap and widely available.    There are already states that require taxes from internet sales.   So this could be easily implemented.


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 24, 2013)

Underhill said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > This bill is yet more rent-seeking to the benefit of Corporate Cronies of Big Government.
> ...


If they can calculate shipping to your zip code they can calculate taxes as well.  It's not rocket science.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 24, 2013)

Nay.

Against government forcing private businesses to do the job government is supposed to do, like collecting taxes.  If state #1 isn't getting it's citizens to fork over the sales tax they owe, that should not be the problem of a business in state #2.

Besides, a federal law requiring the collection of all state taxes will KILL smaller online businesses, leaving only those 'too big to fail' companies that can comply.  Another example of government meddling having the exact opposite effect from the goals they claim to strive for.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 24, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > This bill is yet more rent-seeking to the benefit of Corporate Cronies of Big Government.
> ...




Free software for tax compliance?  There is no such thing.

Also - good luck squashing all the State, county and local taxes into one size fits all rates.   For example, here in the Bay Area, some counties have an extra 1/4 cent sales tax to pay for BART.  So what's the solution?  Raising taxes for everyone.

One size fits all sales taxes are just as inane a DC idea as one size fits all health plans.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 24, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> Underhill said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...




I believe neither of you have ever dealt with this in real life.  I have.  It's not the trivial exercise you think it is.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 24, 2013)

Yes, this will be So Simple and So Free:

_For mammoth retailers like Amazon or Walmart, the prospect of juggling "a few thousand local tax rates" may not be an intolerable burden. For countless smaller online businesses, however, it could be the kiss of death. And what happens when the technology turns out not to be quite as cheap and easy as advertised? Writing in the Wall Street Journal last summer, *Overstock.com's chairman/CEO, Patrick Byrne, and president, Jonathan Johnson, warned against complacency:

"It took our team of 20-30 experienced IT professionals 9,412 hours over five months to install, test and integrate the software that let us properly calculate use tax in one additional state. The annual software license fees for the first year, the internal and external development and installation costs, and the cost of collateral hardware and software came to $1.3 million. And that's just for one state."*..._


http://www.jeffjacoby.com/13202/there-nothing-fair-about-the-marketplace-fairness


----------



## BillyV (Apr 24, 2013)

I am against the states levying sales tax against internet merchants; it just opens up a can of worms. States now are allowed to charge taxes on business based upon whether the business has nexus in the state; simply put, if you have a permanent establishment (usually a physical location), then the state is allowed to tax you. So of course Walmart is for it; they have nexus in every state, and are already required to collect sales tax on internet sales in virtually all states. 

What this would do is subvert those nexus rules so that the state can tax you despite the fact that you have no presence in the state. How long before California decides it should be able to charge income tax on those same sales, or on some other basis? No, it is not only unworkable in its implementation, it is a slippery slope. If fairness to brick and mortar retailers is the issue (and it is a reasonable complaint), I would suggest that a unified rate be applied to internet purchases, collected as a federal tax and then distributed by the feds to the states based upon delivery address. One form for the retailer, 50 monthly payments for the feds to the states and youre done. Compliance costs for such a system should be relatively low. And as has been said, the states already have the right to tax the consumer under the use tax rules, but the costs of other than voluntary compliance would be more than the tax that would be collected.


----------



## FireFly (Apr 24, 2013)

I am not for taxing previously taxed used stuff sold on eBay or Craigs List. No tax for small guy selling under ten thousand dollars a year.


----------



## Trajan (Apr 24, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Thinking about this a little more.....I'm wondering what else they're tacking on to this Bill?
> ...



yea, I read about that, just unreal....


----------



## Trajan (Apr 24, 2013)

boedicca said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



yup, heres one,  how states consider items- example, some states consider  snickers a candy but not twixt............ It matters cause one is taxed,  the other isn't.....


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 24, 2013)

boedicca said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



You didnt read the proposed bill.


----------



## boedicca (Apr 24, 2013)

The Rabbi said:


> boedicca said:
> 
> 
> > The Rabbi said:
> ...




Uh.  Dood.  Get with the program.  Nobody reads bills before they are passed anymore.   We have to pass them to find out what's in them.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Apr 24, 2013)

I don't do much buying on the net so I am responding at the level of an outsider with no axe and no grinder:
Taxing internet sales will be an impossible nightmare and raise prices dramatically. You don't just pay the tax that the business has to collect and pay, you have to pay the tax plus a markup to cover the cost of collection and tracking, the process by which it is transfered to the appropriate state while at the same time the business now has to charge for his own state taxes on top of it. 
That means that the price you pay will go up not just the amount of the tax (let's say 8%) but 8% plus the other state tax (say 8%) and the cost to collect, track and transfer the funds (say another 4%). Now instead of paying $10.00 for an item you will pay $12.00. Or instead of paying $100 you will pay $120.00 for the same item plus shipping which is already taxed and the taxes you pay for your internet connection each month.

Hey, we are only paying an average of 49% of our incomes in taxes openly and hidden taxes so why not another small tax just to make our interstate transaction fair. Then when you are on vacation why not charge you both the local and your home state taxes too! It is the same thing. You have to pay the taxes for the location you are in - not for the location in which you live. The same should be true of the internet. If they must tax the internet let the seller collect and pay their states taxes an dleave it at that.


----------



## Underhill (Apr 25, 2013)

boedicca said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > Underhill said:
> ...



Even if the software doesn't exist (and it does), give me a list of the tax rates and my computer and I could make a automated spreadsheet in a few hours.    Input the zip code and the sale price, hit a button and poof, it's magic. 

We do much more complicated things everyday in my engineering department.   Automated Excel spreadsheets that calculate wind loads on a large structure  as one example, or failure rates based upon thermal and structural loads over time...

This is extraordinarily simple by comparison.


----------



## Underhill (Apr 25, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> I don't do much buying on the net so I am responding at the level of an outsider with no axe and no grinder:
> Taxing internet sales will be an impossible nightmare and raise prices dramatically. You don't just pay the tax that the business has to collect and pay, you have to pay the tax plus a markup to cover the cost of collection and tracking, the process by which it is transfered to the appropriate state while at the same time the business now has to charge for his own state taxes on top of it.
> That means that the price you pay will go up not just the amount of the tax (let's say 8%) but 8% plus the other state tax (say 8%) and the cost to collect, track and transfer the funds (say another 4%). Now instead of paying $10.00 for an item you will pay $12.00. Or instead of paying $100 you will pay $120.00 for the same item plus shipping which is already taxed and the taxes you pay for your internet connection each month.
> 
> Hey, we are only paying an average of 49% of our incomes in taxes openly and hidden taxes so why not another small tax just to make our interstate transaction fair. Then when you are on vacation why not charge you both the local and your home state taxes too! It is the same thing. You have to pay the taxes for the location you are in - not for the location in which you live. The same should be true of the internet. If they must tax the internet let the seller collect and pay their states taxes an dleave it at that.



If you want to lower taxes I can understand that.   But charging sales tax on the web is no more difficult that I laid out.   It's very simple.

It might cause a bit of chaos up front as stores figure it out, but in the long run it won't change anything other than leveling the playing field.


----------



## LoudMcCloud (Apr 25, 2013)

I wonder if it will have an effect on small internet businesses.


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 25, 2013)

LoudMcCloud said:


> I wonder if it will have an effect on small internet businesses.



Not if they have under $1M in sales.


----------



## The Rabbi (Apr 25, 2013)

boedicca said:


> The Rabbi said:
> 
> 
> > boedicca said:
> ...



And we make fun of liberals for their willful ignorance....


----------



## Underhill (Apr 25, 2013)

LoudMcCloud said:


> I wonder if it will have an effect on small internet businesses.



So long as the government gave them enough time to implement the change I doubt it.  

The biggest problem is on the back end, but its easy enough with electronic banking to deal with that too.    Or you could simply deal with it the way truck drivers do with their fuel taxes.   You pay the tax rate where you buy the fuel.   Buy it in NY, pay ny taxes.   Buy it in PA, pay PA taxes. 

It would have the added benefit of forcing states to have competitive tax rates.


----------



## Desperado (Apr 25, 2013)

So lets say this Internet tax does go through.
Now you have to pay sales tax to a state you do not live in.
Since some cities have a local sales tax would that apply to that too.
Why should someone from a foreign country have to pay a state sales tax?
Lets reverse it, Should you have to pay a sales tax to Germany if you bought something on a German site?  Who would handle this the UN?
So I vote No internet sales tax


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 25, 2013)

^ how do you propose to fund your government since online sales will be doubling < 6-10 yrs (states/localities will be losing more tax revenue)?


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 25, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> ^ how do you propose to fund your government since online sales will be doubling < 6-10 yrs (states/localities will be losing more tax revenue)?



For one sales tax is state and local tax it has nothing to do with the federal government.

Secondly, if an on line retailer is located in say CT where the sales tax is 6.35% then everyone who buys something from that site pays the CT sales tax no matter where they live just as if they were buying it in person.

Easy right?

To force citizens into the employ of governments as tax collectors (for no compensation) in states they do not reside is ludicrous.


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 25, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> ^ how do you propose to fund your government since online sales will be doubling < 6-10 yrs (states/localities will be losing more tax revenue)?



That's easy, although not good.

State and local governments will raise property taxes, fees and occupation taxes. Taxes on gasoline and those sales taxes that can be collected from Brick and Morter will also increase.

I have to agree, I would rather see tax on internet purchases then the above. It would be messy, no doubt, but not sure I like the alternative either.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 25, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> ^ how do you propose to fund your government



Plenty of revenue to fund the enumerated powers.  Anything else should not be funded.  Free people making voluntary decisions in free markets always produce superior results compared to central planners and their bureaucrats that face no competition, no impetus to innovate or to be competitive.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 25, 2013)

Business' w/ < 1MILLION sales/yr would be exempt:

Tax-free Internet shopping jeopardized by bill


> *Businesses with less than $1 million a year in online sales would be exempt. *


software would be provided for free:

Tax-free Internet shopping jeopardized by bill


> But Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., said the bill requires participating states to make it relatively easy for Internet retailers to comply. *States must provide free computer software to help retailers calculate sales taxes, based on where shoppers live.* States must also establish a single entity to receive Internet sales tax revenue, so retailers don't have to send them to individual counties or cities.
> 
> "We're way beyond the quill pen and ledger days," Durbin said. "Thanks to computers and thanks to software it is not that complex."


----------



## Pop23 (Apr 25, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > ^ how do you propose to fund your government since online sales will be doubling < 6-10 yrs (states/localities will be losing more tax revenue)?
> ...



I hate the idea of citizens being used in this manner, but it is so common now that people take it for granted.

The poor stiffs that work at the 7-11 are used as Police, and retailers are used as tax collectors.

Somthing is indeed wrong with this picture, but it is what it is.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 25, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> software would be provided for free



No, it would be provided by taxpayer dollars.  Yet another tax.  Pass.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 25, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > software would be provided for free
> ...



someone could write the software for that in a weekend.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 25, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> software would be provided for free





Now get this.

Software from 50 different states with hundreds of different sales tax regulations all integrated into one package that will seamlessly integrate with every available POS system.

And you believe the fucking government could pull that off?

My god you are fucking stupid if you do.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 25, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



So you're saying this software is going to be written, distributed and maintained without any costs to the government?  How exactly does that work?


----------



## GHook93 (Apr 25, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> I'm undecided right now because on the one hand you can get some good deals but on the other, I'm short-changing mom & pop. brick & mortar stores & not contributing to the public purse for firemen, police, state's rainy day funds, etc...
> 
> Some states have internet sales taxes tacked onto one's purchases but the majority of states do not recieve any sales tax for internet sales right?
> 
> Give me your position & the reason you support it other than the standard response of "its cheaper"



Not how the Fed wants it. I like Kudlow's idea. Every business has to have a physical presence somewhere and in some state. If they sell to resident's where they maintain a presence or are incorporated then they pay that states sales tax. 

Brick and mortar seem disadvantaged, but remember brick and mortar allow people to test the product, take it home instantly, don't have instant competition checking (which internet retailers have) and don't pay shipping costs! Brick and mortar have advantages over internet retailers also.

And let's be honest, this has nothing to do with leveling the paying field, this is another taxing scheme by the tax loving Obama administration!!!

What the fed should tax at a 15% rate is internet sales from foreign countries and Indian tribes!


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 25, 2013)

the software would prolly be maintained on a centrally located website to be downloaded and updated to reflect any changes the legislature might make in the rates.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 25, 2013)

And since when does anything the fucking government does or provides free?


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 25, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



I "get it" You aren't concerned about lost revenue to municipalities & resultant degradation of services & infrastructure. This thread is a discussion about possibilities and solutions. You could at least try to offer an alternative You've made your point abundantly clear.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 25, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> the software would prolly be maintained on a centrally located website to be downloaded and updated to reflect any changes the legislature might make in the rates.



And how do you integrate it into all the different point of sale and accounting software systems and programs in use across the country?

It's a fucking stupid idea and it will never work unless crashing computer systems is your goal.

Tell me what on earth is ethical about forcing someone like me who lives in CT to collect, track, file and remit sales tax payments to say the government of CA with no compensation for my time and costs?


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 25, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



I get you didn't answer the question.  You said this software would be free.  How exactly will that be accomplished?  Who is going to write it for free?  Who is going to distribute it for free?  Who is going to maintain it for free?

And you have no evidence that I have no concern about tax revenue to municipalities.  You made that up as an ad hominem attack when you couldn't back up your statement that the software is free.  

Want to try again?


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 25, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> the software would prolly be maintained on a centrally located website to be downloaded and updated to reflect any changes the legislature might make in the rates.



And you think that doesn't cost anything?  Wow.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 25, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > the software would prolly be maintained on a centrally located website to be downloaded and updated to reflect any changes the legislature might make in the rates.
> ...



where you getting your information? :

Tax-free Internet shopping jeopardized by bill


> States must also establish a single entity to receive Internet sales tax revenue, so retailers don't have to send them to individual counties or cities.



*** Remember, this is the CDZ people. Make an acusation and you might want to have a verifiable source to back it up.


----------



## LoudMcCloud (Apr 25, 2013)

I say we start taxing "good ideas."


----------



## S.J. (Apr 25, 2013)

LoudMcCloud said:


> I say we start taxing "good ideas."


Great idea!  That'll be 17 cents, please.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 25, 2013)

Desperado said:


> So lets say this Internet tax does go through.
> Now you have to pay sales tax to a state you do not live in.
> Since some cities have a local sales tax would that apply to that too.
> Why should someone from a foreign country have to pay a state sales tax?
> ...




Incorrect, you wouldn't be paying sales tax to a state you don't live in.  The sales tax is remitted to the state you do live in.


This has nothing to do with foreign countries.



>>>>


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 25, 2013)

Some people seem to think the CDZ is like the rest of the forum. WRONG!!! This sub-forum was created for serious discussion and NOT humor, making assertions w/o evidence (see > 1/2 the posts on this thread), meltdowns, etc...

now where were we?


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 25, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> now where were we?



You were telling us about "free" stuff from the government...


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 25, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



A single entity?  That's meaningless.  A retailer would still have to track sales tax receipts for all 50 states and remit those taxes.

As I said if a state wants to collect sales taxes from purchases in other states they can set up their own customs stations at their borders. I am in no way responsible for collecting taxes for a state in which I do not reside and I certainly won't do it for free.

The solution to this problem is simple which is why you fucking sheep can't see it.

If the state where an internet retailer resides has sales tax then everyone who buys a product via that retailer pays the state sales tax where the retailer is located.

Done and at no additional cost to anyone and with no need rfor more fucking bureaucracy and red tape.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 25, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Desperado said:
> 
> 
> > So lets say this Internet tax does go through.
> ...



Then what do we do with people who physically cross the state border to buy something?

For example I buy a lot of stuff in MA but I live in CT so I should not pay the MA state sales tax and instead the retailer in MA should charge me the CT sales tax and then send it to CT?

That is what is being suggested for internet sales so why exclude brick and mortar stores from all the fun?


----------



## Meister (Apr 25, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Some people seem to think the CDZ is like the rest of the forum. WRONG!!! This sub-forum was created for serious discussion and NOT humor, making assertions w/o evidence (see > 1/2 the posts on this thread), meltdowns, etc...
> 
> now where were we?



Actually, the CDZ was set up for a respectful conversation, such as no flaming, no neg repping, etc., Dot Com.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 25, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Desperado said:
> ...




No it's not what is being suggested.  When you travel to MA you are physically present in that state and are purchasing goods or services in MA and pay their 6.25% Sales Tax.  When you are a resident of CT, you are physically present in that state and are purchasing goods or services in CT and pay their 6.35% Sales Tax.

However, because of the loophole in internet sales, when you are a resident of CT and make a purchase over the internet and it is delivered to your CT address from a seller that does not have a physical presence in CT - *then you pay 0% sales tax.*

The two situations are not similar (i.e. a fallacious analogy) since in one case you pay sales tax and in another you pay no sales tax.


MA Tax Rate
CT Tax Rate


>>>>


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 25, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> However, because of the loophole in internet sales, when you are a resident of CT and make a purchase over the internet and it is delivered to your CT address from a seller that does not have a physical presence in CT - *then you pay 0% sales tax.*



No "loophole" exists.  You're breaking the law by not paying that tax.  Just because you choose to ignore the law shouldn't mean an undue burden is placed on businesses in other states.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 25, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > However, because of the loophole in internet sales, when you are a resident of CT and make a purchase over the internet and it is delivered to your CT address from a seller that does not have a physical presence in CT - *then you pay 0% sales tax.*
> ...




The loophole exists because the collection mechanism requires the individual to remit the tax to the state based on submission of their own purchases instead of at the point of sale as is done with B&M stores.

This legislation allow for states, if they enact certain criteria about providing software and streamlining/simplifying the submission of taxes, to close that loophole and to then collect taxes due on the front end as is normally the case.

The transactions will be computer driven, software calculated, and electronically transferred - there is no more burden placed on the internet sales provider then there is now for B&M stores that have to track transactions, collect sales tax, and remit it to the state.



>>>>


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 25, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



That's the law.  If you don't remit the tax, you're breaking the rules.  Just because you choose to engage in criminal activity doesn't mean you get to call ignoring the law a 'loophole'.  It's not, it's a crime.  But you try telling the IRS you only took advantage of a 'loophole'...see how that works out...



> This legislation allow for states, if they enact certain criteria about providing software and streamlining/simplifying the submission of taxes, to close that loophole and to then collect taxes due on the front end as is normally the case.



From businesses in other states.  Pass.



> The transactions will be computer driven, software calculated, and electronically transferred - there is no more burden placed on the internet sales provider then there is now for B&M stores that have to track transactions, collect sales tax, and remit it to the state.



Incorrect.  It's a tremendous burden.  Dealing with one state is bad enough, but 50...plus the differences in county and city taxes?  It will kill small internet businesses ensuring more too-big-to-fail companies dominate.  Wonderful.  But frankly, even if it were not a burden, state A has no damn business demanding anything from businesses in state B.

Again, pass.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 25, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...




It will be software driven, remember we are talking about internet sales.  Every online retailer already uses marketing software that drives the web pages, identifies the items to be ordered, calculates the sum, determines if the shipping address is in the same state and if so calculates the sales tax (if out of state no sales tax).  The transaction is passed to the accounting ledger where the transaction is processed for payment (or billing as the case may be).

Amazon already has Tax Collection Services available right now for it's websellers.  You will see more of that and some enterprising programers and future internet guru's will implement a "clearinghouse" type of service that integrates with the Marketing/Accounting software packages used by online retailers.  Similar to what Vertax already does in the payroll tax area.  Every night the sellers computers will dump a file to the clearinghouse, the clearing house will then format the data and report it electronically to the required state and will remit the required tax via EFT.  The original seller will would have very little burden except to sign-up and pay for the clearing houses services.  Same type of thing that businesses are already doing with accountants, temp agencies, payroll agencies, ISP's, etc.

Remember, truly small businesses aren't going to have to worry about it unless their total sales for the preceding year exceeded a million dollars.

If an on-line retailer can have software that per-calculates the exact shipping charges needed for every address in the United States depending on which shipper is chosen and which method of shipment (1-day air, 2-day air, ground, slow-boat-to-China) is used, then calculating the sales tax applicable to that address will be a piece of cake based on tables that each state will be required to supply and that will be integrated into the look-up values.  The same way an address is looked up for calculating the shipping charges, then also the tax rate for that address can be easily determined.




>>>>


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 25, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Thereby ensuring no one competes with Amazon.  My goodness, you guys that always seem to hate giant corporations sure do advocate for laws that protect the big guys from competition.  

Again, pass.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 25, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



I have also already indicated that smaller businesses will be exempt as well WITH CITATIONS & that amazon already pays tax because it has many distribution centers but some people don't want to listen  

For the record: How many citations/links have the detractors like eflatminor & skullpilot provided thus far?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 25, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...




I see you may have missed the part about clearing houses other than Amazon.  It will be a competitive market, Amazon will compete for services, banks and other financial services will compete for services, credit card companies will compete for services, and even new internet startup companies (which can normally adapt and code faster then the big boys) will compete for services.

I'm not sure how a competitive market is "protecting the big guys from competition".



eflatminor said:


> Again, pass.




If you choose not to order stuff on-line in a market place where sale tax is collected at the point-of-sale, then fell free not to purchase things online.  I respect your right to do that.



>>>>


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 25, 2013)

for clarification 



Dot Com said:


> Business' w/ < 1MILLION sales/yr would be exempt:
> 
> Tax-free Internet shopping jeopardized by bill
> 
> ...


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 25, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



If the internet retailer is in say CT then no matter what state you purchase from you should pay the CT tax just as if you were in that store.

You cannot hold a CT resident responsible for tax collection for another state government.

WTF is so hard to understand about that?


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 25, 2013)

SOME Republicans understand that governments need revenue to operate (build roads, repair bridges, etc...) :

Internet sales tax embraced by no-tax Republicans


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 25, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> SOME Republicans understand that governments need revenue:
> 
> Internet sales tax embraced by no-tax Republicans



Sale tax is a state not a federal issue.

It matters not where a customer is if the retailer is in a particular state then that is the only sales tax that should be paid and it should be remitted to whatever state the retailer is located.

If an internet retailer is located in a no sales tax state then there would be no tax paid. Period.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 25, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> SOME Republicans understand that governments need revenue to operate (build roads, repair bridges, etc...) :
> 
> Internet sales tax embraced by no-tax Republicans



ALL the central planners think that.  So what?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 25, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



 Currently state imposes a sales tax on items purchased.  In a B&M store it is done at the point of sale (POS).  For internet purchases outside that state there is no mechanism in place to allow for POS, the only method is for individual to self report after the fact - a process that fails miserably.  Therefore the move is to change to charging sales tax at the POS for internet purchases on the front end (just like a B&M store).  A B&M store charges sales tax based on a location in a state, internet sellers will be charging sales tax based on a location in a state.  

It's not hard to understand that the way you want it to work.  But that is not reality.


>>>>


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 25, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



More government picking and choosing which laws apply to which companies?  Haven't we had enough of that crap?

Bottom line, state A has no business forcing a business in state B to do their work tax collection work for them.

Pass.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 25, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > SOME Republicans understand that governments need revenue:
> ...


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 25, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> SOME Republicans understand that governments need revenue to operate (build roads, repair bridges, etc...) :
> 
> Internet sales tax embraced by no-tax Republicans




That was what we said to do during the last election cycle.  That a part of any balancing of the budgets in this country must include cuts without raising tax rates, but that it would be possible to increase revenues by closing loopholes.

People not paying (and I'm one also) sales tax to States because internet purchasers (often) aren't paying *any* sales tax hitting cash strapped states.  Charging for online sales just like B&M sales is closing a loophole, raising revenue, but not changing tax rates.



>>>>


----------



## hortysir (Apr 25, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> I'm undecided right now because on the one hand you can get some good deals but on the other, I'm short-changing mom & pop. brick & mortar stores & not contributing to the public purse for firemen, police, state's rainy day funds, etc...
> 
> Some states have internet sales taxes tacked onto one's purchases but the majority of states do not recieve any sales tax for internet sales right?
> 
> Give me your position & the reason you support it other than the standard response of "its cheaper"



No opinion either way, really.

Just a couple questions.
Does the tax rate belong to the seller's area or the buyer's?

Then there's S&H.
If S&H is free, then yes to the tax.
If not, the S&H should be enough to cover the tax rate


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 25, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...



State A isn't forcing State B to do jack.

State A is choosing to participate in the program or not.  If State A chooses not to participate in having it's out of state sales tax collected by other states, then it doesn't have to collect the sales tax for them either.




eflatminor said:


> Pass.



Don't worry, no one will require you to make online purchases.

>>>>


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 25, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



It already is the reality.

If I take a telephone order from a guy in another state my POS system assesses CT sales tax on taxable purchases.  I tell him the price including tax and he gives me a credit card number. Then at the end of the month I have to print a report of all my sales (not just the taxable ones then that list is separated into taxable and non taxable sales from which the sales tax due is calculated.  I then remit payment on the thirtieth of every month for the previous month sales taxes.

It's the same fucking thing as an internet order.

So don't tell me the system doesn't already exist.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 25, 2013)

hortysir said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > I'm undecided right now because on the one hand you can get some good deals but on the other, I'm short-changing mom & pop. brick & mortar stores & not contributing to the public purse for firemen, police, state's rainy day funds, etc...
> ...




Typically the Sales Tax will be charged based on the deliver address (i.e. buyers area).

S&H and tax are two different things.  S&H covers the cost of moving the item from the seller to the buyer, it has nothing to do with the Sales Tax owed.

But OK, I guess if it could work.  The seller has their price for the item and a markup representing a small profit.  Now the reseller can either (a) keep the price low and charge for shipping, or (b) raise the price and then offer "free" shipping.  Bad thing is that if the items priced is raise for the "Free" shipping, then the item costs more meaning more in sales tax.



>>>>


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 25, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> hortysir said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...



Sales tax is imposed at the point of sale not the destination of a product.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 25, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...




I didn't say it couldn't be done based on the state of sale, I said that reality is that most state charge tax based on state of use.  I'm sorry to tell you something but I really don't care they way that CT does it.  (But your description seems to imply that your are charging CT sales tax on all transactions, then separating out taxable and non-taxable, and remitting only the taxable sales.  Does that mean you company just keeps the extra tax charged for the non-taxable sales?

The reality is that most states charge sales tax on out-of-state purchases and the system is moving to a POS collection method instead of the "honor" system where citizens are expected to just send a check to their State.

I'm sure that you through have been sending checks to CT for all those trips to MA and providing CT their sales tax for cumulative items over $25.


>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 25, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...




Most state charge a sales (or use) tax based on use of the product in the state.  The tax (in the past has been leaved at the POS) with B&M stores, however with internet sales the trend is to charge on-line sellers based on the destination.

Your own state (CT) for example charges Sales Tax for items over $25 purchased outside the state and brought into the state.  You've talked before about going to MA to make purchases and bringing it back to CT.  The POS of the product was MA, but your own state charges you sales tax (for purchases over $25) based on your residence in the state, not the POS.


Use tax on goods purchased out-of-state and brought back to CT
  	Question
  	Q. Do I owe Connecticut use tax on all my out-of-state purchases of taxable goods and services?
  	Answer
  	A. No. If all the items purchased and brought into Connecticut at one time total $25 or less, you do not have to pay Connecticut use tax.  The $25 exemption does not apply to items shipped or mailed to you.​

$25 is the exception level, which of course means you do owe tax on purchases over $25.

http://askdrs.ct.gov/Scripts/drsrig...?p_faqid=419&p_created=1153840234&p_topview=1



>>>>


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 25, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Sales tax is not charged on the destination of a product it is charged where the product is sold.  How many times have you been asked if the product you're buying is going to be used in the state in which you are buying it?  If you say you're going to use the item in  another state then do you get a pass on sales tax?





> I'm sorry to tell you something but I really don't care they way that CT does it.  (But your description seems to imply that your are charging CT sales tax on all transactions, then separating out taxable and non-taxable, and remitting only the taxable sales.  Does that mean you company just keeps the extra tax charged for the non-taxable sales?




No I charge CT sales tax on taxable transactions.  My POS system is programmed with taxable and nontaxable items and services as are most every business's POS systems.  The only tax I worry about is the CT sales tax.  It matters not if the customer lives in CT, MA, RI, TX CA or East Ass Fuck I charge CT sales tax on taxable items and remit that tax to the state of CT.



> The reality is that most states charge sales tax on out-of-state purchases and the system is moving to a POS collection method instead of the "honor" system where citizens are expected to just send a check to their State.


Technically it's called a use tax.

The state of MA or any other state has no right to ask me to collect tax for them at my expense and I have no obligation to do so.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 25, 2013)

hortysir said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > I'm undecided right now because on the one hand you can get some good deals but on the other, I'm short-changing mom & pop. brick & mortar stores & not contributing to the public purse for firemen, police, state's rainy day funds, etc...
> ...



Shipping and handling covers the cost of shipping and handling it has nothing whatsoever to do  with taxes.

If fact shipping and handling can be subject to sales taxes as a taxable service.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 25, 2013)

This is the Sales tax filing I have to do every month

http://www.ct.gov/drs/lib/drs/forms/tscbus/os-114.pdf

You expect businesses to do a similar filing for all 50 states every month for free?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 25, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



For B&M stores - never.

For online sales more and more every year.  For the last view years online retailers have had to determine the destination to determine if they have to charge sales tax for in state residents.

But to anwser your question, the first time I was asked about location of use v. location of purchase was 1984.



Skull Pilot said:


> > I'm sorry to tell you something but I really don't care they way that CT does it.  (But your description seems to imply that your are charging CT sales tax on all transactions, then separating out taxable and non-taxable, and remitting only the taxable sales.  Does that mean you company just keeps the extra tax charged for the non-taxable sales?
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Whew - glad to hear it.



Skull Pilot said:


> > The reality is that most states charge sales tax on out-of-state purchases and the system is moving to a POS collection method instead of the "honor" system where citizens are expected to just send a check to their State.
> 
> 
> Technically it's called a use tax.



"Sales Tax" or "Use Tax" is irrelevant, it's a tax on a purchase.



Skull Pilot said:


> The state of MA or any other state has no right to ask me to collect tax for them at my expense and I have no obligation to do so.



I agree, however the State of CT does have such a right and it's the State of CT that will be telling you that you have to process them so that the State of CT can in reciprocity receive the out-of-state sales tax due it from other states.

If CT chooses not to participate in the program, then the State of CT won't be telling you to collect other states sales tax.



>>>>


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 25, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> This is the Sales tax filing I have to do every month
> 
> http://www.ct.gov/drs/lib/drs/forms/tscbus/os-114.pdf
> 
> You expect businesses to do a similar filing for all 50 states every month for free?




Nope and that's not what the law will require.  Prior to a state participating in the program they will have to simplify their submission process which most likely will be an online submission with data being transmitted electronically from the marketing/accounting/bookkeeping systems used by the online resellers.

Same with us in HR.  In the old days people filled out paper applications, we put the proper deduction on their pay record and we sent the forms to the health insurance carrier and they hand typed it into their system.  Now new hires select their enrollment and options on a simplified online form and we electronically transmit them to the health care provider.  Much easier and much more efficient.

The new law requires simplification and standardization of the submission with will (most likely) be electronic, their software packages will do things automatically.  It will probably take a year or two to work out the bugs, but after that it will be just as easy.



>>>>


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 25, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> State A is choosing to participate in the program or not.  If State A chooses not to participate in having it's out of state sales tax collected by other states, then it doesn't have to collect the sales tax for them either.



If true, which is hard to believe that a state can choose to not participate in a federal law...but if true, then expect all internet companies to relocate to state A, thereby relieving their customers from having to pay a sales tax at the point of purchase.  Your scheme to increase tax revenues for states will not work.


----------



## JWBooth (Apr 25, 2013)

No
Nyet
Nada
Non
Nah
Nope
UhUh
Nem
Iie
Nein
Ochi
Nullus
Bu dui
Nae


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 25, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > State A is choosing to participate in the program or not.  If State A chooses not to participate in having it's out of state sales tax collected by other states, then it doesn't have to collect the sales tax for them either.
> ...



You first sentence indicates that your really haven't read the law.

It's not "my scheme", I'm simply discussing the law.  I'm not even sure I like it because as a tax payer it will mean more money out of my pocket.

I'm just discussing the issue.

Technically a state can have no sales tax (such as Deleware) and still choose to participate in the program for collections.  The two are not interdependent.



>>>>


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 25, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Didn't say they were interdependent.  But you said the program was optional.  If true, why would any internet-based business remain in a state that forced their customers to pay sales tax and forced the company to go through the hassle of doling out those taxes to the correct state/municipality?

They wouldn't!

They would simply move to the state that doesn't participate in the program, saving their customers money and saving the company the hassle of complying with the program.  If that state happens also to have no sale tax (or low sales tax), all the better for the company and its customers.

Again, the plan will not work.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 25, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > eflatminor said:
> ...




:Shrug:  - It don't claim to have all the answers, but then again I don't make absolute statements simply because of personal preference either.

A couple of items to consider:

1.  A state that has sale tax who does not choose to participate in the program will simply be cutting their own nose off.  So one would assume that any state that has a sales tax as a revenue stream will be opting into the program.

2.  There are only 5 states that don't have a sales tax (Alaska, Montana, Delaware, Oregon, and New Hampshire.  It cost money to run a state, that means those states have devised other revenue streams that the company might not like.  For example, Alaska gets a lot of revenue from the Alaskan pipeline so while there is no income tax and they might not participate in the program - shipping costs would wipe out any savings.  There there is Delaware, they don't have a Sales Tax, they have additional business taxes on gross receipts of a business.  Those gross receipt taxes while applied to the business and not the sale, are still going to be paid by the consumer in higher unit prices.  Then you have to look at cost of living which impacts salaries/wages paid for different geographical areas, weather (winters in the norther states and Montana can have a negative impact on distribution especially during the critical Christmas season), infrastructure (are there buildings currently available or will you have to build to suit which can take awhile).  Etc.

4.  There is a cost to distribution and overall costs in transportation and storage can be kept lower, while providing faster delivery times and better customer service.  As you establish these "nexuses" in other locations, they you become liable for the sales tax in those locations irregardless of the Marketplace Fairness Act, so I can see only having 4 states with no sales tax not being that big of a deal.

3.  So no, I don't claim to know absolutes as in "it will work" or "it won't work", I do have a high confidence level though that it will "work itself out" over the next couple of years.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 25, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



There is absolutely no difference between a traditional retailer and an internet retailer.

None. Zero. Zip. Nada.

If an item is bought via the internet, over the telephone or in person the transaction is exactly the same.  the sale originates in the same place the sales tax should be in accordance to whatever tax the state in which the transaction takes place.  The trans action takes place at the POS of the retailer not in the home of the buyer.





> Whew - glad to hear it.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The state of CT cannot force me to track sales of residents of all 50 states for free either.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 25, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > This is the Sales tax filing I have to do every month
> ...



Of course it will be required.  I do all of my CT tax on line but the form is the same.  And you can simplify and standardize the form all you want the fact is that each state has different tax rates and imposes those taxes on different things.  Not only will a retailer have to know what products and services are taxable in their state but those same products might not be taxable in another state and conversely some products and sevices might be taxable in another state but are not taxable in the business's home state.

There is no simplifying that with a form or an on line filing.  A separate filing must be done for each state unless you think that all states will suddenly adopt the exact same sales tax rates and laws.



> Same with us in HR.  In the old days people filled out paper applications, we put the proper deduction on their pay record and we sent the forms to the health insurance carrier and they hand typed it into their system.  Now new hires select their enrollment and options on a simplified online form and we electronically transmit them to the health care provider.  Much easier and much more efficient.



Not the same at all. You don't have to know every different tax law for all 50 states in order to take a job application on line.



> The new law requires simplification and standardization of the submission with will (most likely) be electronic, their software packages will do things automatically.  It will probably take a year or two to work out the bugs, but after that it will be just as easy.
> 
> 
> 
> >>>>



It will not work. filings will not be automatic as you believe.  Someone will have to remit the money monthly either on line or by check. There are too many variables to keep track of.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 25, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...




No they are not exactly the same.  In one case the customer pays a sales tax, currently when that same customer purchases online they have a means of tax evasion to not pay the tax.

When I'm sitting at my computer in Virginia and order a DVD from Amazon out of Washington, I click "Submit" in Virginia - therefore from my perspective as the consumer the transaction took place in Virginia.  Same as if I drive to North Carolina and buy gas, when I input my Debit Card into the pump the transaction is taking place where I paid for it.





Skull Pilot said:


> > Whew - glad to hear it.
> >
> >
> >
> ...




Never said they could.  The State of CT though can require you to track sales to residents in other states and to collect sales tax and provide remittance as a condition of doing business.  If you choose not to, that's your choice, the State of CT though can then revoke your license to conduct business.  You would still be free to relocate to another state that does not participate in the system (if it passes).  Currently there are only 5 states that don't charge sales tax (Alaska, Montana, Oregon, Delaware, and New Hampshire) - they might be good candidates, but be careful there might be other factors that you don't like.

You wouldn't be doing it for free though, you would have costs and you would have to pass those costs to your customers.  That's not doing it for free.



>>>>


----------



## FireFly (Apr 25, 2013)

Spoonman said:


> Meister said:
> 
> 
> > Thinking about this a little more.....I'm wondering what else they're tacking on to this Bill?
> ...



They already imposed that shit in my city. I get billed for each of my properties based on the amount of rain water they figure ran off each property. These assholes expect us to believe the streams & rivers were not created by natural runoff before. They gained real-estate by putting storm drains in the streams & covering them over. Now they expect to bill us for the water that runs through them.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 25, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> eflatminor said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Actually, you did.  



> 1.  A state that has sale tax who does not choose to participate in the program will simply be cutting their own nose off.  So one would assume that any state that has a sales tax as a revenue stream will be opting into the program.



From your big government point of view, perhaps.  But to 'assume' you speak for all states is well, making an 'absolute statement simply because of your personal preference'...again.  

Some states with a pro business attitude might see the increase number of employers that would come into their state by not participating in this scheme as a good thing.  It's the same reason some states have no corporate income tax, to attract business and jobs.  

Assume all you like, you're wrong.



> 2.  There are only 5 states that don't have a sales tax (Alaska, Montana, Delaware, Oregon, and New Hampshire.  It cost money to run a state, that means those states have devised other revenue streams that the company might not like.  For example, Alaska gets a lot of revenue from the Alaskan pipeline so while there is no income tax and they might not participate in the program - shipping costs would wipe out any savings.  There there is Delaware, they don't have a Sales Tax, they have additional business taxes on gross receipts of a business.  Those gross receipt taxes while applied to the business and not the sale, are still going to be paid by the consumer in higher unit prices.  Then you have to look at cost of living which impacts salaries/wages paid for different geographical areas, weather (winters in the norther states and Montana can have a negative impact on distribution especially during the critical Christmas season), infrastructure (are there buildings currently available or will you have to build to suit which can take awhile).  Etc.



Which has nothing to do with the point at hand.  Wasn't it you that tried to criticize me for suggesting this program and sales tax were 'interdependent'?  Why, yes it was!



> 4.  There is a cost to distribution and overall costs in transportation and storage can be kept lower, while providing faster delivery times and better customer service.  As you establish these "nexuses" in other locations, they you become liable for the sales tax in those locations irregardless of the Marketplace Fairness Act, so I can see only having 4 states with no sales tax not being that big of a deal.



You're overlooking any state that chooses not to participate in the scheme, regardless of their sales tax.  Those states will continue to collect taxes from in-state customers, just as they do today, but will maintain a HUGE advantage by not burdening their internet based businesses with the hassle of collecting/distributing the tax...not to mention their customers that will not have to pay the tax.  Internet businesses would flock to those states, thereby eliminating gains in state tax coffers.

And if one of those 4 states with no sales tax takes that stance, the other 46 are out of luck entirely.  Every internet business would relocate there, meaning, once again, your plan will not work.



> 3.  So no, I don't claim to know absolutes as in "it will work" or "it won't work", I do have a high confidence level though that it will "work itself out" over the next couple of years.



Sounds like the plan for Obamacare.  We don't know crap about this, but we hope it will work.  Pass.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 25, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



A transaction subject to sales tax takes place at the entity that holds the state sales tax number and permit.  You do not hold that permit.  The money lands in the till of the store from which you bought the product therefore that is the point of sale.

You credit card number is being processed not in your home but at the store from which you are purchasing the product.  it is no different than you mailing a check to that same store.

Your gas purchase is no different.

The idea of making a simple retail sale more complex so as to squeeze every last tax dollar out of the consumer and to hamstring businesses with more ridiculous time wasting paperwork is ludicrous.







Skull Pilot said:


> > Whew - glad to hear it.
> >
> >
> >
> ...






> Never said they could.  The State of CT though can require you to track sales to residents in other states and to collect sales tax and provide remittance as a condition of doing business.  If you choose not to, that's your choice, the State of CT though can then revoke your license to conduct business.
> 
> You wouldn't be doing it for free though, you would have costs and you would have to pass those costs to your customers.  That's not doing it for free.
> 
> ...



Yeah we'll all just jack up our prices to comply with more government control then people like you will say we're raping the consumer.

The simple solution is for each state to collect sale taxes on all transactions subject to tax in their state.

treat a retail store, an on line store, a mail order catalog etc exactly the same within the borders of each state.

But that makes sense and doesn't require ridiculous pie in the sky computer integration and massive government expense so it will be dismissed.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 25, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Of course each state will receive it's own filing. Not what I said.

Online services are already available that manage tax collections based on the tax rules, they already exists because online retailers already have to manage those items because they are are required to charge sales tax when the destination is in a state where the seller has a "nexus".



Skull Pilot said:


> > Same with us in HR.  In the old days people filled out paper applications, we put the proper deduction on their pay record and we sent the forms to the health insurance carrier and they hand typed it into their system.  Now new hires select their enrollment and options on a simplified online form and we electronically transmit them to the health care provider.  Much easier and much more efficient.
> 
> 
> 
> Not the same at all. You don't have to know every different tax law for all 50 states in order to take a job application on line.




Seems like you missed the point, the point was a previously complex form was simplified, the data captured once manually, and then electronically tracked and transferred.



Skull Pilot said:


> > The new law requires simplification and standardization of the submission with will (most likely) be electronic, their software packages will do things automatically.  It will probably take a year or two to work out the bugs, but after that it will be just as easy.
> >
> >
> >
> ...




I know, there are so many variables to keep track of that I doubt Amazon will ever be able to create a Tax Collection Service and offer it, there are so many variables and so many different people they'll never have the ability to create a national distribution system.


............. Oh wait, they've done both those things.



>>>>


----------



## hortysir (Apr 25, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > hortysir said:
> ...



"Residents of FL and CA please include Sales Tax"


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 25, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



The amazon web retailers so called tax collection service is intrastate not interstate. Just like sales taxes are intrastate not interstate.

Only one variable, the single state sales tax where the web retailer resides is used.

Add to that tracking individual purchases by state and then integrating all the tax laws of all 50 states not to mention local sales taxes into the mix and you have a system that will hobble business.

As I said there is a simple way to solve the problem but you are hell bent on red tape bureaucracy, complexity and high costs.


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 25, 2013)

hortysir said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



Is the business selling them the products based in FL and CA?  The answer is probably yes.


----------



## realinvestment (Apr 25, 2013)

We are a midmarket manufacturer that occasionally sells parts to customers when they can't find local supply.  

While I don't mind collecting sales tax, I do not want the burden of filing tax reports to 50 different states.  It would be unmanageable.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 25, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



From their website: "Registration. If you are a Marketplace Professional seller or Webstore seller, you may register for tax collection services by providing to Amazon, in the format and manner we require, *collection settings for the jurisdictions* for which you wish to collect taxes or other transaction-based charges that we support for your Marketplace Professional or Webstore transactions, and any related information we request"

Their service covers multiple jurisdictions, note the plural.

Then of course if Amazon Tax Collection Services provides collections individually for NY, MA, CT, VA, GA, NC, SC, AL, FL, MS, LA, TX, CA, OR, AL, AK, MN, MT, MO, IW, IA, OH, etc, etc. what would prevent them from applying the same rules they are already using to transactions based on States to which they are already supplying services?



Skull Pilot said:


> Only one variable, the single state sales tax where the web retailer resides is used.



They already supply services across multiple jurisdictions and in multiple states.  Eventually it wouldn't matter what state the seller is in, it will matter what state the delivery is.



Skull Pilot said:


> Add to that tracking individual purchases by state and then integrating all the tax laws of all 50 states not to mention local sales taxes into the mix and you have a system that will hobble business.



They already do it.



Skull Pilot said:


> As I said there is a simple way to solve the problem but you are hell bent on red tape bureaucracy, complexity and high costs.




I don't necessarily disagree that it wouldn't be a simpler solution (understanding that just because something is complex doesn't mean it can't be done), however the States aren't going to buy into it.  The reason?  The states who are the consumers of the purchase will not get the revenue stream form the sale/use taxes for sales in their state.  And yes you can piss and moan that the sale is in the state where the seller is, but that is not the construction of the law.  The sale is in the state of the purchaser.


*******************************

BTW - The last I head while driving, there was some amendment issues and so the Senate vote has been delayed.  Possibly later tonight.


>>>>


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 25, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



So your answer is that all retailers either have to sell via amazon or create their own ridiculously expensive software to do the same thing?

It's ridiculous.

It's needlessly complex, expensive and labor intensive.

Just treat internet and catalog sales as an in state purchase and let business owners do what they do best; take care of their customers.


Problem solved with no bureaucracy no extra expense.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 25, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...




Your right it is ridiculous and a perfect example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

I've specifically NOT said what you claim in your attempt at reduction to absurdity.

On one hand the argument is that the concept of online retailers being able to calculate the tax for different states, Amazon as a large retailer that ALREADY calculates the tax for different states shows that is untrue.

On the other hand you then present an absurdity that each and every internet seller would have to program independent software specifically for their business, which is not what I've said.

Read back in the thread, I've oft posited that large retailers such as Amazon and Overstocked.com are examples that the concept can be achieved.  Now since they've proved the concept, smaller independent developers will be able to take the tax tables provided by the states and will develop 3rd party applications.  Those applications will be integrated into existing marketing/accounting/bookkeeping applications or they may supply a service similar to companies that act as clearing houses for credit card transactions.



Skull Pilot said:


> It's needlessly complex, expensive and labor intensive.



2012 internet sales were over $220 Billion Dollars and with a growing market share, at 5% Sales/User Tax (just to say on average) that would be $11 Billion dollars in revenue.  Take Virginia for example, as a percentage of US population, that would be about $284,664,536.74 ($284.7 Million) in additional revenue recovering taxes that are already owed.

If you think states are not going to move to tap that revenue stream - well - all I can say is that in my opinion you are in error.



Skull Pilot said:


> Just treat internet and catalog sales as an in state purchase and let business owners do what they do best; take care of their customers.



States already treat them as in-state purchases, the state were the customer is.  The problem is that the current method of recovery requires the individual tax payer to keep track of their liability and to then remit that individually to the state.  Of course that doesn't occur.  So instead of collecting the tax on the honor system at the back-end, the movement will be to implement a system concept similar to that already used by Brick & Mortar stores - collect it at the time of sale.


You have mentioned shopping trips to MA, when the purchases on such a trip exceed $25 - let me ask you, how often have you contacted the CT department of taxation and paid the tax that you owed under current CT law?




Skull Pilot said:


> Problem solved with no bureaucracy no extra expense.



And no revenue to that states where taxes are owed.


>>>>


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 26, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



States do not treat ALL internet sales as in state sales.

The simple fact is that the transaction actually takes place at the POS of the retailer not in the home of the buyer therefore any sale initiated from a buyer out of state should be subject to the state sales tax of the home state of the retailer.

I fail to see what it is you don't understand about this.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 26, 2013)

Skull Pilot said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > Skull Pilot said:
> ...



Not ALL States do ALL things the same.

However a State that taxes online sales treats all sales as instate sales, or more accurately put, subject to that states tax laws.  Now some states may exempt some types of items (for example not taxing food items), that doesn't mean they don't consider the transaction as falling under the law.



Skull Pilot said:


> The simple fact is that the transaction actually takes place at the POS of the retailer not in the home of the buyer therefore any sale initiated from a buyer out of state should be subject to the state sales tax of the home state of the retailer.



No, that is not a fact, that is your opinion.  An equally valid argument is that the transaction takes place where the customer pays for and/or takes delivery of the item(s).

The fact remains it is up to the State legislature to define, for tax purposes how that is viewed and whether it's called a "Sales Tax" or "Use Tax" is pretty irrelevant, it's still the collection of a tax.

You have mentioned that you are in CT and have traveled to MA and while there shopped and purchased goods.  I've previously supplied the link showing CT law requires that if you buy $25 or more in goods from out-of-state, they charge you a Use Tax and you are supposed to remit that tax to CT.  Irregardless of the location, under those conditions you still owe CT the tax.



Skull Pilot said:


> I fail to see what it is you don't understand about this.



Having a difference of opinion about a point does not mean I don't understand your point.

Opinion = tax should be charged at the location of the seller.

Fact = Many states charge tax based on location of use.​

Recognizing the difference is not the same as not understanding the difference.



>>>>


----------



## Skull Pilot (Apr 26, 2013)

People who have never run a business and dealt with the strangling entanglement of government red tape always seem to think that more red tape is the answer.

I'm done here.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 26, 2013)

>

During the Presidential race last year the Democrat solution to government spending was to increase tax rates to increase revenues and increase spending.  Our plan (Republican) called for keeping rates the same (or reducing them) and closing loopholes that allowed for tax avoidance - along with budget cuts.

States for years have had Sales Tax/User Tax provisions in the law, but these taxes were routinely avoided because there was no means of collecting the taxes due.  The law (if it passes) provides a framework where states will have a vehicle to collect the taxes already due.

Have a nice day.


>>>>


----------



## JWBooth (Apr 26, 2013)

Feed the leviathan, that's the ticket.
Maintain the growth of the state and damn the private sector.
All hail the tax collectors for the welfare state.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 26, 2013)

the taxes were payed pre- amazon so whats the BFD if they are paid post- amazon? Just like returning the top tax-rate to where it was previously under Clinton is not an increase, it is merely returning it to where it was. 

Many here just seem to want to continually starve government YET continue using all the services & infrastructure provided by said government.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 26, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> the taxes were payed pre- amazon so whats the BFD if they are paid post- amazon? Just like returning the top tax-rate to where it was previously under Clinton is not an increase, it is merely returning it to where it was.



So, by your own reasoning, if we took the top tax rate to where it was previously under Wilson (7%), it's not an decrease, it is merely returning it to where it was.  

What's the BFD, right?

I'm on board with that.



> Many here just seem to want to continually starve government YET continue using all the services & infrastructure provided by said government.



Some government programs we have NO CHOICE but to use because of laws requiring usage or because the government has a monopoly.  Try not contributing to Social Security and see how that works out.  Try finding private AFFORDABLE education and see how far you get.  Try opting out of Obamacare!

The point is we don't want these damn services, we want the federal government to live within its means and within the limitations of the Constitution.


----------



## peach174 (Apr 26, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> the taxes were payed pre- amazon so whats the BFD if they are paid post- amazon? Just like returning the top tax-rate to where it was previously under Clinton is not an increase, it is merely returning it to where it was.
> 
> Many here just seem to want to continually starve government YET continue using all the services & infrastructure provided by said government.



Starve Government?
You can't have high unemployment, almost half of the nation on government assistance, slow growth and continued higher taxes at Fed or State level and expect it to work.
Trying to get more taxes will never work, until we get economic growth back and get less on government assistance.
More jobs and businesses is what brings in government revenue.
I'm a very against taxing the internet.
Everything that the Dems are doing, prohibits growth in our private sector of business.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 26, 2013)

its already the law of the land (like Boehner (R) said in re: Obamacare). We're just quibbling over the particulars.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 26, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> the taxes were payed pre- amazon so whats the BFD if they are paid post- amazon? *Just like returning the top tax-rate to where it was previously under Clinton is not an increase, it is merely returning it to where it was.*
> 
> Many here just seem to want to continually starve government YET continue using all the services & infrastructure provided by said government.



Sorry, that's nothing but political BS.  Using that logic we'd need to go back to the tax rates at the founding of the country, not arbitrarily stop at the Clinton administration.

Besides, if returning to previous levels raises taxes, then it still is an increase.  The reason for the increase doesn't change the fact of an increase.

When you say silly things like that, it's hard to take anything else in the post seriously.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 26, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> its already the law of the land



Uh, no, it's not.  An internet tax is not law, not yet, and hopefully not ever.



> We're just quibbling over the particulars.



No, we're showing just how ridiculous your arguments are.  

But please, tell us again how returning to higher tax rates is not an increase...but returning to lower tax rates IS a decrease.


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 26, 2013)

Montrovant said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > the taxes were payed pre- amazon so whats the BFD if they are paid post- amazon? *Just like returning the top tax-rate to where it was previously under Clinton is not an increase, it is merely returning it to where it was.*
> ...



you got me. I just wanted to get one of the President's 2nd-term economic accomplishments into the thread.

As to the OP- no wonder Main St., Mom & Pop shops are shutting down w/ all the conservative views posted on this thread. Sheesh.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 26, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Dot Com said:
> ...





Ok, that's funny.


----------



## eflatminor (Apr 26, 2013)

eflatminor said:


> But please, tell us again how returning to higher tax rates is not an increase...but returning to lower tax rates IS a decrease.



Crickets.

Shocking, to be sure...


----------



## S.J. (Apr 26, 2013)

Taxes should not be imposed on the internet merchants for the purpose of helping mom & pop b&m businesses.  Those who prefer to walk into a store are free to do so.  Drop the romantic notion of making things "fair".  The government is not considering a tax for the purpose of helping anyone but themselves.


----------



## BillyV (Apr 26, 2013)

A business in one state should not be subject to the laws of other states any more than Gibson Guitars should be subject to the laws of India. It's really the same concept. You may recall the Justice Department raided Gibson for that very reason last year.

From a statement by Henry Juszkiewicz, Chairman and CEO of Gibson Guitar Corp.:

The Federal Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. has suggested that the use of wood from India that is not finished by Indian workers is illegal, not because of U.S. law, but because it is the Justice Departments interpretation of a law in India. (If the same wood from the same tree was finished by Indian workers, the material would be legal.)

The only way you can make a case for internet sales taxes is by making it a Federal tax.


----------



## Montrovant (Apr 26, 2013)

S.J. said:


> Taxes should not be imposed on the internet merchants for the purpose of helping mom & pop b&m businesses.  Those who prefer to walk into a store are free to do so.  Drop the romantic notion of making things "fair".  The government is not considering a tax for the purpose of helping anyone but themselves.



While I agree completely that those in government are unlikely, to say the least, to impose any tax for altruistic reasons, is this really a new tax?  It sounds as though it's more finding a way to collect a tax that currently isn't paid.

Not that politicians are likely to be trying to find a way to collect it because they are worried about the mom & pop businesses, either.


----------



## shikaki (Apr 26, 2013)

I'm a little confused, I thought the federal government taxed based on Income, not on day to day purchases.  I agree this is a ridiculous proposition.  If businesses are selling products they will be taxed already as a business. If individuals are selling, they have probably already paid tax on the item they are selling, the first time when they purchased it.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 26, 2013)

shikaki said:


> I'm a little confused,



I'll see if I can help.



shikaki said:


> I thought the federal government taxed based on Income, not on day to day purchases.



Correct, this is no federal sales tax.  That law is about states collecting sales tax they are owed under state law.



shikaki said:


> I agree this is a ridiculous proposition.



Since your premise was wrong, this sentence isn't valid anymore.



shikaki said:


> If businesses are selling products they will be taxed already as a business.



In most states (I say most but I'm not familiar with every state, but I'd bet it's every state) businesses **don't** pay sales tax on items they purchase (i.e. inventory) they buy for resale.  Businesses only pay sales tax (called a use tax) on items they consume.  For example, lets say a business sells computers and they by 200 computers for resale - they pay no sales tax on those computers.  Now if that business pulls two computers from inventory and uses the computers for the business - then they owe the state the sales (or use) tax.



shikaki said:


> If individuals are selling, they have probably already paid tax on the item they are selling, the first time when they purchased it.



If an individual sells an item, they are not a business, they are not subject to this law.


*****************

Hope that was helpful.



>>>>


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 26, 2013)

The votes are there & the President will sign it. Whats the hold up?


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 26, 2013)

Dot Com said:


> The votes are there & the President will sign it. Whats the hold up?



I know it passed the Cloture vote in the Senate and will probably pass.

However I was understanding the House was not so sure of a vote.



>>>>


----------



## shikaki (Apr 27, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> shikaki said:
> 
> 
> > I'm a little confused,
> ...


That was helpful, but the reality is with interstate trade, there is no way for this to become a reality without it becoming a federal tax.  The cost to administrate this as a state sales tax would be to much.  Even though I agree with much of what you have said, I have been on this world long enough to know however, that not every decision is based on sound knowledge or sound reasoning especially when it comes to the government, so yes my initial reaction was one of skepticism .  I still believe that taxing internet sales is ridiculous.  This country does not have a deficiency in income, it has a logic deficiency in knowing what to properly do with the income it has,

I'm not sure that small business people would agree, that they aren't already heavily taxed.

The IRS has put EBAY in the middle on the last issue.  EBAY is now requesting SSN if you sell over a certain amount in a given year, for tax reasons.  Again fuzzy logic, just because someone sells a certain amount in a given year does not mean that they are a business or that they haven't already paid tax on the item before they tried to resell it.  

Too much fuzzy logic is what got us where we are today!!


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 27, 2013)

shikaki said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > shikaki said:
> ...




Just a couple of things...




shikaki said:


> That was helpful, but the reality is with interstate trade, there is no way for this to become a reality without it becoming a federal tax.



You are free of course to have any opinion you want, but the reality is that this is not a federal tax, it is a collection vehicle for tax by states.  Tax laws that are already on the books which people are illegally evading.




shikaki said:


> The cost to administrate this as a state sales tax would be to much.



We'll see if the legislation passes, but consider.  E-commerce sales in 2012 exceeded 220 *B*illion dollars, at an average 5% tax that is 11 *B*illion dollars in revenue for the states.  Using Virginia as an example that is 285 *M*illion dollars in tax revenue that is currently owed but only a fraction is collected.  The cost to administrate this will be through the increased revenue.  If Virginia can't administer their tax revenue out of the 285 Million dollar increase then my state has serious problems.

From a business perspective, small mom & pop shops are exempt already.  Only business with 1 Million dollars in sales can be required to collect the taxes already due.  My neighbor, runs a e-commerce business out of her garage.  She sells jewlery/hobbie supplies on the net. She won't be required to change her business practices at all.

Now the reality is there will be some growing pains, but we're talking e-commerce.  By it's very nature the business is run through marketing software for the website on the front end which connects to database software for accounting, bookkeeping, inventory, billing, and collections. E-commerce businesses ALREADY are required to collect and remit sales tax when the delivery address is in the same state as the seller.  Amazon ALREADY provide a Tax Collections Service for e-commerce providers that provides tax collections across multiple jurisdictions.

What will probably happen is you will see an expansion of such services by major online retailers (like Amazon) for tax collections services.  The suppliers of the software used by sellers that drives e-commerce will include the sales/use tax as normal functionality.  Then you will see 3rd party providers, Banks, etc. that will collect the tax information from the sellers and will act as a clearing house that will interface with the individual states.

If the USPS, FedEx, UPS, etc. can provide software that calculates various shipping charges for any address in the United States, you can rest assured that programmers will be able to write the software that, based on tables the states will be required to supply for free, that they will be able to calculate the applicable tax based on delivery address.



shikaki said:


> Even though I agree with much of what you have said, I have been on this world long enough to know however, that not every decision is based on sound knowledge or sound reasoning especially when it comes to the government, so yes my initial reaction was one of skepticism .  I still believe that taxing internet sales is ridiculous.  This country does not have a deficiency in income, it has a logic deficiency in knowing what to properly do with the income it has,



I don't disagree with the fundamental concept.  We do have a spending problem and that does need to be addressed.  In the 2012 elections the Democrat position was we don't have a spending problem, they wanted to increase revenue by increasing taxes to fund increased spending.  We (I'm a Republican) supported maintaining current tax rates and increasing revenue by closing loopholes and then cutting spending to shrink the deficit.  The taxes exist, they are being evaded - this is closing a loophole which increases revenue without increasing rates.



shikaki said:


> I'm not sure that small business people would agree, that they aren't already heavily taxed.



Small business are exempt.



shikaki said:


> The IRS has put EBAY in the middle on the last issue.  EBAY is now requesting SSN if you sell over a certain amount in a given year, for tax reasons.  Again fuzzy logic, just because someone sells a certain amount in a given year does not mean that they are a business or that they haven't already paid tax on the item before they tried to resell it.



Here is an experiment for you.  Buy yourself a hot dog cart, buy your products (on which you will pay sales tax) then go to any busy street corner and begin selling hot dogs on buns, sodas, and chips.  When the policeman asks to see your business license - tell him you aren't really a business.  Sure you are selling hot dogs in a commercial manner, but you aren't a business.  Let us know if that works.

Now that's not saying that if you have an XBox that you don't need anymore and you sell it online that you are a business.  However if you sell a million dollars in XBox's online (the threshold in this law), then ya - your state of residence will be considering that a business.



shikaki said:


> Too much fuzzy logic is what got us where we are today!!



What is "fuzzy" about the logic that States have sales/use tax on the books, collection methods in the past have required consumers to be honest and report themselves to the cognizant state and that consumers don't do so and thereby illegal commit tax evasion.  Therefore the paradigm is shifting from backend collection after sale to front end collection at the time of sale.

Do you think states should end the practice of charging sales tax at the time of purchase for B&M stores and just require that consumers track their purchases and then send the state a check?

The collection method is being changed so that it is the same for e-commerce and B&M sellers.



>>>>


----------



## shikaki (Apr 27, 2013)

I think you make good points, but a business should be taxed for being a business.  A B&M business requires many fundamental prerequisites that makes it easy to ascertain it is a business. It seems that no matter whether a business is online or B&M it is a business and in order to make money typically they purchase at wholesale, in order to purchase at wholesale they need a Tax ID.  Do we really have the need to tax individuals that don't have Tax IDs and that aren't purchasing at wholesale, providing them the opportunity to make a decent margin.  All businesses already pay taxes, so I not sure of what problem we are trying to fix.  My assumption is that this will only open a door to tax people that really should not be getting taxed, and we all know it is much harder to close the gate once it has been opened.

The EBAY issue I mentioned before was no where close to a million, only like 7M a year.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 27, 2013)

shikaki said:


> I think you make good points, but a business should be taxed for being a business.



OK.  That's fine.  You may want to contact your state legislature and tell them to eliminate sales tax in general and then just come up with a "Business Tax" and suggest what that tax will be based on.  I doubt it will succeed, but you can try.

The reality is that 45 of 50 states charge Sales/Use Taxes.  The exceptions are Alaska, Montana, Delaware, New Hampshire, and Oregon.  IIRC Delaware does exactly what you suggest, then don't charge a sales tax - they charge a business tax.  Of course the businesses include this in their pricing calculations, to the effect is the same.




shikaki said:


> A B&M business requires many fundamental prerequisites that makes it easy to ascertain it is a business. It seems that no matter whether a business is online or B&M it is a business and in order to make money typically they purchase at wholesale, in order to purchase at wholesale they need a Tax ID.



And the businesses conducting e-commerce have business licenses and Tax ID from the State where they are conducting sales.  E-commerce businesses have licenses, tax id's, and purchase wholesale.

You seem to be trying to make a point that isn't relative to the situation, this law applies ONLY to businesses with over one million dollars in sale.  I don't think anyone would argue that someone with a business license, someone with a tax ID, and with over $1,000,000 in sales isn't a business.




shikaki said:


> Do we really have the need to tax individuals that don't have Tax IDs and that aren't purchasing at wholesale, providing them the opportunity to make a decent margin.



Individuals are not subject to this law, unless that individual is acting as a business with over $1,000,000 in sales in the previous tax year.

In any state in the union if you are conducting a business with over $1,000,000 in sales and you DON'T get a business license and Tax ID they you will be prosecuted for criminal activity for tax avoidance (at the least).




shikaki said:


> All businesses already pay taxes, so I not sure of what problem we are trying to fix.



Consumers are not paying legally required taxes on out-of-state purchases when no sales tax at all is charged.  The are committing illegal activity though tax evasion by then failing to report such purchases and remitting the tax to the state.

Therefore the paradigm is shifting to the same one used for B&M stores.



shikaki said:


> My assumption is that this will only open a door to tax people that really should not be getting taxed, and we all know it is much harder to close the gate once it has been opened.



When states have sales taxes, don't all people in the states pay taxes on taxable items at the time of purchase?  Is there any states the exempts "groups" (age?, race?, ethincity? Income level?) from sales tax outside of the normal tax exempt ID's supplied to government and non-profit entities?




shikaki said:


> The EBAY issue I mentioned before was no where close to a million, only like 7M a year.



7 Million a year is no where close to 1 million a year?  I agree.  

Now you have mentioned Ebay a couple of times.  However you have provided no evidence or links to show that what is happening on Ebay has anything to do with Sales/User Tax collections for businesses that operate though Ebay so that a determination can be made regarding the 1 million dollar threshold.

Just off the top of my head I can think of an alternative.  Federal law requires banking and other financial institutions to report cash transfers and withdrawls of $10,000 or more to authorities as a means of identifying possible money laundering for terrorist and other criminal activities (such as drug sales).  Is it driven by Ebay as a sales entity?  Or might it be driven by Credit Card, Banking, and Paypal type entities (who provide the financial payments through Ebay) because of their requirement to report under federal law transactions that exceed certain thresholds which have nothing to do with sales?



>>>>


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 27, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> Dot Com said:
> 
> 
> > The votes are there & the President will sign it. Whats the hold up?
> ...



Thats right. I heard something about that on CSpan news update. Thanks.


----------



## shikaki (Apr 27, 2013)

>>>>[/QUOTE]


shikaki said:


> The EBAY issue I mentioned before was no where close to a million, only like 7M a year.



7 Million a year is no where close to 1 million a year?  I agree.  

7M is 7 thousand in accounting....  I enjoy your thoughts and appreciate your facts!!!  You bring some good points!!


----------



## nitroz (Apr 27, 2013)

Nay.

I'm completely against it.


----------



## PaulS1950 (Apr 27, 2013)

The problem with internet sales tax is this:
I live in washington and they want to charge sales tax of 10% on my internet purchases, ok but when I buy from a dealer in another state, I have to pay their sales tax too. That is paying the same tax on a single item twice. I have no problem with paying taxes on a purchase - just like the fuel tax the truckers pay. They pay the tax at the point of sale. They don't get home and have to pay the taxes again.

That is the bad part of "internet" sales tax. You are paying the tax twice on the same sale to two different states.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 27, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> The problem with internet sales tax is this:
> I live in washington and they want to charge sales tax of 10% on my internet purchases, ok but when I buy from a dealer in another state, I have to pay their sales tax too. That is paying the same tax on a single item twice. I have no problem with paying taxes on a purchase - just like the fuel tax the truckers pay. They pay the tax at the point of sale. They don't get home and have to pay the taxes again.
> 
> That is the bad part of "internet" sales tax. You are paying the tax twice on the same sale to two different states.




You pay one sales tax.  That of the delivery address.

Right now people are using online purchases to pay no sales/user taxes.


>>>>


----------



## FireFly (Apr 28, 2013)

PaulS1950 said:


> I have no problem with paying taxes on a purchase - just like the fuel tax the truckers pay. They pay the tax at the point of sale. They don't get home and have to pay the taxes again.



That is not true. Truckers pay International Fuel Tax Agreement (IFTA).


----------



## BillyV (Apr 28, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> You pay one sales tax.  That of the delivery address.
> 
> Right now people are using online purchases to pay no sales/user taxes.
> 
> ...



I dont care so much about the tax itself; the consumer should be paying the tax under current law, and while it is an imposition on the business to collect on the states behalf at a time when compliance costs are already sky high (and going higher, see Obamacare), it is not insurmountable. But no one is looking ahead to the enforcement issues. The problem is with giving 50 new jurisdictions each representing hundreds or thousands of taxing units authority to audit your books and records to a.) see if you have exceeded the $1 million threshold, and b.) force you to prove the sales (or lack thereof) made in their jurisdiction. Anyone who thinks this is a good idea has never run a business or suffered through a state sales tax audit and is unaware of the costs involved. The only ones other than the states who will benefit from this legislation are the accountants and attorneys who will make a cottage industry from this, both on the side of the businesses and on the side of the states. I can see particularly hard hit jurisdictions like California using this new power for sales tax fishing expeditions which will end up costing businesses tens (and hundreds) of thousands of dollars to defend against. Once you are over the $1 million threshold you will be a target for every state and will have to prove to their satisfaction that you have not sold anything to their residents. And the beauty of it from the states perspective is that those businesses dont vote in their state and are not represented, so there will be no incentive not to spread the net as widely as possible. Its a horrible idea.

As I said, one federal taxing authority (which already has audit authority) to charge a uniform tax for all internet sellers and distribute those funds to the states on the basis of delivery address is workable; anything else will be insanity.



FireFly said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > I have no problem with paying taxes on a purchase - just like the fuel tax the truckers pay. They pay the tax at the point of sale. They don't get home and have to pay the taxes again.
> ...



I would note that even with the IFTA commercial vehicle fuel tax that they specify that Audits are conducted only by the base state.


----------



## FA_Q2 (Apr 28, 2013)

I am late to this thread but I have some points to make here.  First, I support a tax on internet sales.  I find the idea that internet sales should get a pass where local businesses do not as rather inane.  It is the same thing as the state deciding that they want to tax car sales and not clothing sales or jewelry but not pencils.  It is favoring one business over another and I am inherently against anything of that nature.  I am aware that states do actually do this but that does not mean that I agree with the premise.

Reading through the tread, some disagreed with this based on the fact that brick and mortars should simply adjust to the changing times and that this tax is leveling the playing field artificially or that shipping costs adjust for this.  All of those points are wrong IMHO.  It has nothing to do with leveling the playing field.  It has everything to do with the fact that one business is being subjected to one law while others are not.  I disagree with the government picking winners and losers.  That is exactly what selective taxing does.  Shipping is meaningless in this context.  The only thing that matters in that context is the government selecting who is subject to the law.  A law should be uniform to all.

I personally would prefer the abolition of all sales tax anyway and go to a flat tax on income.  That is the only thing that makes any sense to me but bearing in mind that is simply not going to happen, this is better than the current system.


As far as the collection and the problems that skull was talking about, that is less clear.  I agree with the laws premise and like the idea of the buyers location being the determining factor.  State taxes are collected to support the state that you live in, not some other random state that has the lowest tax rate and therefore all the ware houses move there.  That is not helpful.  In that regard, the buyer should be the determining factor.  However, his complaint is very real.  No business should have to navigate 50 different tax laws.  Case in point, if they had a system that actually was simple and did not pick winners and losers like they should the tax law would be irrelevant as anyone would be able to pay out 50 different tax bills easily but I digress.  The seller as the point of taxation I dont really think is workable.

Lastly, those equating this to traveling to another state are not using a logical argument.  Such a system STILL exists in that you can simply mail it to another state and pick it up as well.  IOW, going to another state and making the purchase there is not the same as doing it at home.  It is the same as making that purchase at home and then mailing it to the other state.  Essentially, it has nothing to do with the argument at hand.


To sum it up, I back this law because I want to see the B&M stores defeated through healthy competition and NOT through selective laws that have not caught up with the times.  The one stipulation that I would have is that the filing MUST be streamlined.  I realize that most do not trust that concept and tbh I dont as well but I really do not see any other options here.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 28, 2013)

BillyV said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > You pay one sales tax.  That of the delivery address.
> ...




RE EMPHASIZED: Not an accurate description of the law, 50 (actually 51 counting DC) states will not have the authority to audit anyone's books.  The audit responsibility will reset with the state of location of the seller and their compliance with the law will reset with that state.

If an e-commerce provider is located in Florida, audits will continue to be done just as they are now, the Florida Department of Taxation and Revenue will perform the audit of the business.  If the e-commerce provider is in Florida, then say Virginia, will have no jurisdiction to audit the books of the Florida seller.

If Florida chooses to participate in the program to receive tax revenues based on the buyers location in that state, then it will be Florida charged with ensuring the businesses in their state comply with Florida law.



>>>>


----------



## Dot Com (Apr 28, 2013)

latest update I've seen: Recap: Senate takes a key step toward an Internet sales tax - The Washington Post


> The days of tax-free online shopping could be numbered. A bill that would give states the authority to collect sales taxes on all Internet purchases passed a major procedural hurdle in the Senate. It would hand local governments as much as $11 billion per year in added revenue that they are legally owed &#8212; but that hasn&#8217;t been paid to them for years.



$11 billion is the estimate of lost revenue.


----------



## BillyV (Apr 28, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> > WorldWatcher said:
> ...



And I will take your word for that as soon as you can point it out in the pending "Marketplace Fairness Act" legislation. Here's a link to that bill for your perusal.

Marketplace Fairness Act (S.336/S.743/H.R.684) Complete Bill Text

The only reference to state audits I can find in that document talks about states that are not members of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement ("SSUTA"); it says, in part (Section 2 (b)):

2.implements each of the following minimum simplification requirements: A.Provide* i.a single entity within the State responsible for all State and local sales and use tax administration, return processing, and audits for remote sales sourced to the State.

In other words, the taxing state will have the power to audit the returns of the business from another state.

While I'm certainly no expert on the SSUTA, Section 301 of that agreement indicates that "Each member state shall provide state level administration of sales and use taxes subject to 5 the Agreement....The state level authority shall conduct...all audits of the sellers and purchasers for that states tax and the tax 12 of its local jurisdictions."

http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/Archive/SSUTA/SSUTA%20As%20Amended%205-24-12.pdf

So it would appear that each state is only required to have a single state-level entity perform audits on behalf of the state and all of its local jurisdictions, not that the business' home state is required to perform that function.

Please further educate us if the information you have provided above is correct. I will certainly be glad to admit if I'm wrong and happy to find out that there are not 50 state audits in my near future, but I'm just not seeing it.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 28, 2013)

BillyV said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > BillyV said:
> ...



Pertaining the the current Congressional legislation, your own quote provides the answer you seek.

In the case where a Virginia resident orders a product via e-commerce from Florida, Florida is the source of the product.  As the source, Florida then has responsibility for administration of Florida's sales and use taxes.




BillyV said:


> In other words, the taxing state will have the power to audit the returns of the business from another state.



False, auditing is conducted under the authority of the State where the seller is located.




BillyV said:


> While I'm certainly no expert on the SSUTA, Section 301 of that agreement indicates that "Each member state shall provide state level administration of sales and use taxes subject to 5 the Agreement....The state level authority shall conduct...all audits of the sellers and purchasers for that states tax and the tax 12 of its local jurisdictions."
> 
> http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/Archive/SSUTA/SSUTA%20As%20Amended%205-24-12.pdf
> 
> ...




If we review Section 301 in it's entirety, it clearly shows that the administration, collection, distribution, and - yes - auditing are done under the authority of the sellers states - not under the authority of the purchasers state.  In the Virginia/Florida example, Virginia could not just show up in Florida and demand to audit a businesses records, they have no authority to do so.  Florida would have to responsibility and authority to audit Florida businesses.

Section 301: STATE LEVEL ADMINISTRATION

A. Each member state shall provide state level administration of sales and use taxes
subject to the Agreement. *The state level administration may be performed by a member state's Tax Commission, Department of Revenue, or any other single entity designated by state law.* Sellers and purchasers are only required to register with, file returns with, and remit funds to the state level authority.  The state level authority of a member state shall provide for collection of any local taxes and distribution of them to the appropriate taxing jurisdictions.  *The state level authority shall conduct, or others may be authorized to conduct on its behalf,* subject to the provisions of subsection B, all audits of the sellers and purchasers for that states tax and the tax of its local jurisdictions. Except as provided herein, local jurisdictions shall not conduct independent sales or use tax audits of sellers and purchasers.​
The inability for out-of-state auditors is also obvious from the next paragraph which is "B".  In that paragraph, it clearly points out that when an auditor is authorized by the Sellers State Tax Collection/Administrative authority they *CANNOT* selectively audit the businesses records.  The agreement stipulates (emphasis mine) that the taxing administrator (i.e. the sellers state) or their designated representative when "conducting the audit for *all taxes* due and not just for taxes due to a specific local taxing jurisdiction,..."  When the Florida taxing authority audits Florida businesses they must audit all tax collections of the business, they cannot do it selectively.  The state of Virginia cannot compel an audit on an out-of-state business to begin with, but the idea that Virginia will audit taxes for Florida local jurisdictions does not make sense.


>>>>


----------



## BillyV (Apr 29, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> > And I will take your word for that as soon as you can point it out in the pending "Marketplace Fairness Act" legislation. Here's a link to that bill for your perusal.
> ...


So much condescension in a post which contains so much misinformation. Lets take it point by point:


> In the case where a Virginia resident orders a product via e-commerce from Florida, Florida is the source of the product.  As the source, Florida then has responsibility for administration of Florida's sales and use taxes.


Youve made a common error in assuming that words used in connection with a tax law have the same meaning as they do in normal speech. In this case the bill defines the word sourced in Section 4:
_7.SOURCED.-For purposes of a State granted authority under section 2(b),* the location to which a remote sale is sourced refers to the location where the item sold is received by the purchaser*, based on the location indicated by instructions for delivery that the purchaser furnishes to the seller. When no delivery location is specified, the remote sale is sourced to the customer's address that is either known to the seller or, if not known, obtained by the seller during the consummation of the transaction, including the address of the customer's payment instrument if no other address is available. If an address is unknown and a billing address cannot be obtained, the remote sale is sourced to the address of the seller from which the remote sale was made. A State granted authority under section 2(a) shall comply with the sourcing provisions of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement._

So no, sorry, the source is not the source of the product, but the jurisdiction where the product is delivered. So your next point, False, auditing is conducted under the authority of the State where the seller is located fails on this point as well. If you think about it, why would Florida agree to be involved at all in auditing returns from another state? State audits are not free for the state; Florida is not going to pay to chase its citizens in order to collect money for Virginia.

As far as your analysis of Section 301, you jump to the conclusion that the state level administration is referring to the sellers home state without any support whatsoever. In fact, that section simply requires the state collecting the tax (Virginia in your example) to provide one central authority to administer the tax collection and audits for all of its (Virginias) state, city and county taxing units, to avoid having an internet retailer dealing with both the state and each local Virginia taxing jurisdiction (county, city, town). It has nothing to do with the sellers state. And when it refers to conducting the audit for all taxes due and not just for taxes due to a specific local taxing jurisdiction, it is limiting the audit to the one, state level jurisdiction of the collecting state (Virginia), and not one audit for the state and separate audits for, say, the city of Richmond, Va. It isnt implying that the seller is only subject to one audit for all states by its state of incorporation; you might like to infer that, but it simply isnt the case.

There isnt a lot of discussion in news about this bill related to the audit problem; however, an eBay spokesman had this to say:



> We dont want to make it harder for small businesses to grow, said Brian Bieron, senior director of federal government relations at eBay.
> 
> Hes also concerned with the administrative capability of small businesses to comply with out-of-state tax authorities.
> 
> ...


And then theres this:


> Under the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act, online retailers would become tax collectors for faraway governments thirsty for more revenue.  But because complying with Americas 9,646 different taxing jurisdictions is no easy task, the threat of audits would become a stark reality.  In an attempt to streamline the inevitable avalanche of audits, the bill  sets up:
> a single audit of a remote seller for all State and local taxing jurisdictions within that State;
> 
> In practical terms, that means online businesses will face the threat of 46* out-of-state audits.  And while the bill attempts to limit the liability of inevitable software errors, the risk of a multiple audits cannot be ignored.  Even the New York Times Andrew Ross Sorkin who favors the bill shudders about the prospect of an out-of-state tax audit.
> 46 Tax Audits from Hell


----------



## JWBooth (Apr 29, 2013)

To reiterate....
Nay


----------



## Underhill (Apr 29, 2013)

FireFly said:


> PaulS1950 said:
> 
> 
> > I have no problem with paying taxes on a purchase - just like the fuel tax the truckers pay. They pay the tax at the point of sale. They don't get home and have to pay the taxes again.
> ...



Yes, it is.    The only exception I know of is the indians.   If you stop at a reservation and get tax free gas you are supposed to send in the taxes.   But otherwise, you pay the tax wherever you get fuel.


----------



## MeadHallPirate (Apr 29, 2013)

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Exactly, it's completely unworkable without an excessive, costly system in place to track and enforce it.
> 
> The government gets enough money as it is.  *They don't need anymore*.



ahoy and well met Dont Taz Me Bro,

as it relates to state and local governments, the bolded be untrue, matey.

many be starvin' fer monies.

- MeadHallPirate


----------



## MeadHallPirate (Apr 29, 2013)

alan1 said:


> I'm curious as to why some people think that the mere act of me purchasing an item entitles some government entity proceeds from that sale.



ahoy Alan1,

i'll try me hearty.

yer state that ye reside in needs monies fer things.  stuffs like takin' care 'o old people...or fixin' roads...or payin' fer yer municipal courts (which we need, since we be a country 'o laws)...or to pay fer state police that keep yer highways free 'o mischief.

a state can't do these things with no monies.

part 'o the way this monies be raised be through sales tax.  thar also be things like property tax, or state income tax.

one way or the other, though, the monies has to be raised, because State Government's can't function on just goodwill alone.

aye?

aye.

- MeadHallPirate


----------



## Meister (Apr 29, 2013)

MeadHallPirate said:


> alan1 said:
> 
> 
> > I'm curious as to why some people think that the mere act of me purchasing an item entitles some government entity proceeds from that sale.
> ...



Yo-Mead....you forgot about paying those public union pensions.


----------



## Meister (Apr 29, 2013)

MeadHallPirate said:


> Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly, it's completely unworkable without an excessive, costly system in place to track and enforce it.
> ...



Yo-Mead.....starving to pay for the public union pentions


----------



## MeadHallPirate (Apr 29, 2013)

Meister said:


> MeadHallPirate said:
> 
> 
> > alan1 said:
> ...



ahoy Meister,

aye, thar be that too.

all them promises made decades ago?  well, the bill be due and absent efforts such as Governor Christie's in NJ, ayup....ye need monies fer that too.

i actually find it wierd that folks can enjoy all the services a state provides, from parks to schools to snowplowed streets in the wintertime, etc, etc, etc, and feel outraged that folks don't provide these services fer free.

_*scratches his noggin'*_

well met, matey.

- MeadHallPirate


----------



## MeadHallPirate (Apr 29, 2013)

Meister said:


> MeadHallPirate said:
> 
> 
> > Dont Taz Me Bro said:
> ...



ahoy Meister,

yer preachin' to the choir, matey.  i find some 'o the pension packages (particularly fer police officers, them heroic first responders) that were doled out o'er the decades positively bizarre.

still, what can be done, Meister?  either we be a nation 'o laws or we aren't, and them deeds were contracts - a future promise legislators made to our public servants.

the bill be due, and i don't see whats to be done, 'cept fer them municipalities to go bankrupt (which is whats goin' on in Stockton, California).

_*bows*_

- MeadHallPirate


----------



## FA_Q2 (Apr 30, 2013)

One worthy point here is that there is no difference in an internet business under this law selling items to other states than there is Wal-Mart in needing to pay the different taxes to varying states.  If you are selling products there you are inherently doing business there.


----------



## BillyV (Apr 30, 2013)

FA_Q2 said:


> One worthy point here is that there is no difference in an internet business under this law selling items to other states than there is Wal-Mart in needing to pay the different taxes to varying states.  If you are selling products there you are inherently doing business there.



Neither the internet business nor Walmart "pay" sales tax; they merely collect it on behalf of the government. The consumer pays the sales tax, and is the one who benefits from it in state services. The question here is whether one state should be allowed to compel a business in another state to bear the burden of collecting its sales tax. The answer is, of course, they can't; that's why they need a federal law to implement it, under the interstate commerce powers.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 30, 2013)

BillyV said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > One worthy point here is that there is no difference in an internet business under this law selling items to other states than there is Wal-Mart in needing to pay the different taxes to varying states.  If you are selling products there you are inherently doing business there.
> ...




One state will not be compelling a business in another state to collect another states sales tax, the state that the business is located in will be the one to require collection of sales/use tax.  If a business is located in FL and the purchaser is in VA, it is VA that will be the one requiring participation of business entities located in VA.

If VA chooses not to participate, then they are free to let businesses continue to operate as they already are.  (Of course estimates are that VA will continue to loose out on an estimated $285 Million dollars in revenue, but that is VA's choice.)


>>>>


----------



## BillyV (Apr 30, 2013)

WorldWatcher said:


> BillyV said:
> 
> 
> > FA_Q2 said:
> ...



From the text of the Marketplace Fairness Act:

SECTION 2. AUTHORIZATION TO REQUIRE COLLECTION OF SALES AND USE TAXES.
Each Member State under the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement is *authorized to require all sellers* not qualifying for the small seller exception described in subsection (c) *to collect and remit sales and use taxes with respect to remote sales sourced to that Member State*

So the _*Member State*_ is authorized to force businesses who have sales "sourced" to *that* member state to collect sales taxes. It has absolutely nothing to do with the home state of the business.

Remember, "sourced" is defined in the Act as "the location to which a remote sale is sourced refers to the location where the item sold is received by the purchaser."


----------



## WorldWatcher (Apr 30, 2013)

BillyV said:


> WorldWatcher said:
> 
> 
> > BillyV said:
> ...




I see what you are saying, I will have to think on this some more, I just don't see how FL is going to enforce the provisions unless it is the state of VA that makes such compliance a requirement under VA law.



>>>>


----------



## Desperado (Apr 30, 2013)

BillyV said:


> FA_Q2 said:
> 
> 
> > One worthy point here is that there is no difference in an internet business under this law selling items to other states than there is Wal-Mart in needing to pay the different taxes to varying states.  If you are selling products there you are inherently doing business there.
> ...



Absolutely not.  The internet sales tax is a bad idea from the start.


----------



## Dot Com (May 6, 2013)

Wonder what'll happen in the House?

Senate passes Internet tax bill; VA one step closer to securing transportation funding « Watchdog.org


> ALEXANDRIAThe U.S. Senate on Monday night overwhelmingly passed a bill requiring online retailers to collect sales taxes in the states where their customers live, putting Virginia one step closer to securing the transportation funding for this years General Assembly transportation package.


----------

