Internet sales tax?

[normiss 893]

Of course they do, as does wally world.
They want their lost revenue back.

Walmart lobbying

Still shopping there?

[JerryBaumchen 1,466]

Hi chedlin,

Quote

They still won't be paying this tax then, right?

I do not know. I do know I won't pay it.

JerryBaumchen

[kallend 2,147]

normiss

Of course they do, as does wally world.
They want their lost revenue back.

Walmart lobbying

Still shopping there?

Amazon (yes) or wallyworld (no)?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[normiss 893]

Stooopid English.

Walmart was my intent. Hence the link to their lobbying efforts.
There are millions of reasons to to dislike wally world.

[jgoose71 0]

Andy9o8

***I'm still trying to figure out if this whole tax thing is even constitutional.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this bill being proposed in the Senate? Isn't most sales tax state taxes? When did the Federal Government get the power to tell states how to tax?

Or are these new taxes going to be Federal Sales taxes?

It's arguably constitutional because it simply allows the states to collect the tax, it doesn't require it. Without the legislation, the states wouldn't have been authorized to collect the tax because the transaction usually wouldn't have been deemed to have taken place inside the collecting state.

That doesn't make sense to me.

There are already states that are charging sales tax to out of state customers. I thought the intent of this bill was to require all states to charge a sales tax to "level the playing field".

And what if your state (like Oregon) doesn't have a sales tax? do they have to implement one?

To me this is almost a "If it's not broken, fix it till it is" typical government scenario....

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[Southern_Man 0]

jgoose71

That doesn't make sense to me.

There are already states that are charging sales tax to out of state customers. I thought the intent of this bill was to require all states to charge a sales tax to "level the playing field".


To me this is almost a "If it's not broken, fix it till it is" typical government scenario....

No, the intent of this bill is to provide a mechanism of collection for those states which do charge a sales tax. It would not require any changes in state tax rates or policy.

It is broken now. Customers buy all sorts of things over the internet that they theoretically owe tax for but there is no practical way for the state to collect that tax.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[CygnusX-1 43]

Broken is a relative term.

To me, the consumer, it is not broken. I actually buy most of my stuff (besides food, household items, gas, etc) on line because there is no tax. The tax just increases the cost of those items.

To the state legislators it may be broken because they feel like they are being cheated out of more free money.

To the brick & mortar store, it is broken because this puts them at a disadvantage to internet retailers.

For me personally, I think the problem isn't that there is no tax on internet purchases, but that the sales tax is too high. It costs internet companies money to ship an item. So if we made taxes relatively in line (not literally) with that cost then the B&M stores could compete. For me I'll wait a few days to have an item if it saves me money vs going to the store and buying that item right now. I'm also more willing to buy at a store if they have items that I can touch and feel vs buying on-line. To me that means something on certain items. So I think each type of store has it's purpose.

Of course, I'm a big Darwinism person. This is the evolution of shopping. If you can't compete, you must die out and be replaced by the better species.

[rehmwa 2]

CygnusX-1

Of course, I'm a big Darwinism person. This is the evolution of shopping. If you can't compete, you must die out and be replaced by the better species.

people like you are the reason I can't get a good value on buggy whips nowadays

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Southern_Man 0]

rehmwa

***Of course, I'm a big Darwinism person. This is the evolution of shopping. If you can't compete, you must die out and be replaced by the better species.

people like you are the reason I can't get a good value on buggy whips nowadays

What do you consider a good value? They are only $10: http://www.amazon.com/Abetta-Buggy-Whip-Black-66/dp/B002HIX7P8. At least for now there is no sales tax. You can find riding crops even cheaper.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[SkyDekker 1,465]

Quote

Broken is a relative term.

To me, the consumer, it is not broken. I actually buy most of my stuff (besides food, household items, gas, etc) on line because there is no tax. The tax just increases the cost of those items.

To the state legislators it may be broken because they feel like they are being cheated out of more free money.

To the brick & mortar store, it is broken because this puts them at a disadvantage to internet retailers.

Broken is indeed a relative term.

Companies who have strong internet sales have actually been expanding their bricks and mortar presence (Apple, Microsoft, etc).

On the tax implications, they will get you anyways. There is a cost to running the country. How high that cost is per level (Municipal, County, State and Federal) is open for debate, but a cost there is.

Hence, if one revenue source drops off, there will quickly be a new source opened. Just like there is an evolution in shopping, there will also be an evolution in taxation.

[JerryBaumchen 1,466]

Hi Sky,

Quote

On the tax implications, they will get you anyways.

My mother lives in Portland, OR ( I grew up there and live in a suburb of Portland ).

Last year they passed an Arts Tax of $35 for each resident, unless your total income was less than $10,000 per year; my mother gets ~$1200 month from Soc. Sec.

When she received her bill a month or so ago, she called me about it ( I pay all of her bills for her as she is 90 yrs old ).

I called the city about the tax and they said that she had to pay it. So I filled out the form & sent them a check.

On the news last night, the city announced that anyone living on Soc. Sec. income only, does not have to pay the $35 Arts Tax. It seems as though the State of Oregon, years ago passed some law that Soc. Sec. income cannot be taxed; therefore the City of Portland has no legal standing to tax anyone who only has income from Soc. Sec.

So, this morning, the city sent me ( via email ) the form to get the $35 refunded.

1. The City of Portland has to be losing money on a tax at $35. I am sure that it must cost more than the $35 just to process it, 'it' being the form & the check.

2. Now they have to process a 2nd form & cut a refund check.

Anyone think that the city is actually making money on this tax? I sure do not.



JerryBaumchen

[chedlin 0]

So you are a tax cheat. So am I and I have yet to meet an individual who paid use taxes (It's sales tax if the merchant collects it, use tax if the consumer pays it) on their Internet purchases. But thanks to Amazon prime and a distribution center in my state I'm paying sales tax on most of my Internet purchases.

This isn't a new tax, but merely empowering the states to collect it. Perhaps keeping sales tax exempt is a good thing, but perhaps we should abolish the use tax at the same time? Nothing good can happen when we have laws EVERYONE breaks, because it could quickly become an excuse to imprison someone who hadn't committed any other crimes (perhaps said something the local police chief disagreed with?)

[jgoose71 0]

Quote

No, the intent of this bill is to provide a mechanism of collection for those states which do charge a sales tax. It would not require any changes in state tax rates or policy.

It is broken now. Customers buy all sorts of things over the internet that they theoretically owe tax for but there is no practical way for the state to collect that tax.

Can you explain this a little better? If a state wants to charge sales tax, it does. There are already states that charge sales tax for internet sales (9 total). If other states want to charge a sales tax for internet purchases, what is stopping them? Why is the federal government getting involved again?

"There is an art, it says, or, rather, a knack to flying. The knack lies in learning how to throw yourself at the ground and miss."
Life, the Universe, and Everything

[okalb 104]

Quote

Can you explain this a little better? If a state wants to charge sales tax, it does. There are already states that charge sales tax for internet sales (9 total). If other states want to charge a sales tax for internet purchases, what is stopping them? Why is the federal government getting involved again?

The problem is that states that do charge sales tax do not get paid on internet purchases from out of state. For example: I live in FL, if I purchase something in a store I pay sales tax, if I purchase something online from a FL store, I pay sales tax, if I purchase something online from a store that has no presence in FL, I don't get charged sales tax. Technically, I am supposed to pay the FL sales tax on it myself but there is no mechanism to enforce that. What this is doing, is making the seller collect the sales tax for each state that someone buys their products in and they are supposed to pay that to the state. For an Amazon, that is no big deal, but if you own a small online business based in lets say CA and I buy your product in FL, according to this, you will have to charge me the FL tax and then you will have to file that and pay it to FL. Technically I have always been responsible for paying FL but nobody does, this way FL gets their money.

Time flies like an arrow....fruit flies like a banana

[Southern_Man 0]

jgoose71

Quote

No, the intent of this bill is to provide a mechanism of collection for those states which do charge a sales tax. It would not require any changes in state tax rates or policy.

It is broken now. Customers buy all sorts of things over the internet that they theoretically owe tax for but there is no practical way for the state to collect that tax.

Can you explain this a little better? If a state wants to charge sales tax, it does. There are already states that charge sales tax for internet sales (9 total). If other states want to charge a sales tax for internet purchases, what is stopping them? Why is the federal government getting involved again?

If a retailer is located out-of-state and does not have a physical location or other type of physical representation in the state, the state cannot require the retailer to collect their sales tax.

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"