Internet Tax Ban Extended

GiorgioG sent in news that the ban on internet taxes will be extended for two years. Not that that will make the recession go away, but it's a start. Remember: every time you buy over the internet, an angel gets his wings.

Comments

when was it supposed to be taxed?

[nilsey]

besides the "tax" Bill Gates collects? on transactions?

State Taxes.

[SuperguyA1]

This doesn't affect the ability of States to tax internet sales does it? I know Michigan keeps telling me I am required to pay taxes no matter where I buy from. Is this correct?

Re:State Taxes.

[wnknisely]

I know that in PA we're expected (on the honor system) to calculate the appropriate state sales tax on items bought outside the state, and send the amount onto the state office in Harrisburg.

I'm not aware that there is a large active office for collecting those revenues. (Disclaimer - I only know this in principle - since I'm not aware of anyone actually doing this.)

I'm pretty sure that I read somewhere that this was true for other states that have a state sales tax. (Some states like Delaware do not.)

Re:State Taxes.

[ThymePuns]

Ohio is one of them. I'm pretty sure I'm the only person in the state that does though... It's 5.5% and it applies to internet and catelogs too.

Re:State Taxes.

[Trekologer]

This doesn't affect the ability of States to tax internet sales does it? I know Michigan keeps telling me I am required to pay taxes no matter where I buy from. Is this correct?

You're supposed to pay sales tax. In my state, the grand old New Jersey, the back of my state income tax return has a form for "Use Tax". I'm supposed to declare purchases I've made out of the state or though the mail where New Jersey sales tax was not collected* and pay the 6% on those purchases. I am not telling you to break the law, but... its very simple to avoid that tax... just don't pay it.

Sales tax is not a tax on the sale (or seller), its a tax on the purcahse (or purchaser). So, your state wants to collect tax on all purchases you've made, even if they were from out of the state.

It should be noted that this "tax ban" prevents the Federal government from taxing Internet purchases, not the state governments. It is highly unlikely that the Federal government would tax internet purchases since they do not tax cross-state mail order purchases anyway. This is more to make Internet purchasers "feel good" than anything else.

* If I purchased online or mail order from a merchant in N.J. they are required to collect the tax.

Re:State Taxes.

[KarmaBlackballed]

The state has jurisdiction over you if you are there. They also have jurisdiction over the shipper, but likely only go after the big fish. Have you noticed how the large online retailers charge state tax for those states that tax such transactions?

I remember hearing a few years back that there is a significant enforcement problem for the states because they don't have access to the records of a company if it is out of state.

Re:State Taxes.

[lynx_user_abroad]

That's why I route all of my one-click purchases through
a router in Delaware; it's not me making the purchase,
the computer is making it on my behalf from a state
which would not require me to pay a sales tax if I were
doing it myself.

Kinda like Bush Senior claimimg to be a Resident of Texas
(no state Income tax) for the duration of the 12 years he was
in Washington working in the Oval Office.

Re:State Taxes.

[kingpin2k]

Many states had sales tax provisions on dotcoms before Congress inacted the moratorium. It's my understanding that those were not eliminated. Rather, new taxes were forbidden.

Re:State Taxes.

[Anonymous Coward]

If your homestate has no sales tax, you pay no sales tax.

If your homestate has sales tax, you are supposed to pay sales tax on mail-order goods, unless they were sold from a sales tax-free state or you payed another state's sales-tax on them already, or the goods aren't taxable in your state (ie food).

It's largely an honor system, though.

Re:State Taxes.

[zulux]

I'm not aware that there is a large active office for collecting those revenues.

Here in Washington state (with our ~ 8.6% rate) - businesess have their books audited once in a while to see of we've been sending off the apprpriate excise/use tax to the state from our out of state purchases.

Aside: Most businesses here in WA have to pay 2% Business and Occupation taxes - but if you are an airplane manufacturere (Boeing) or software manufacturer (Microsoft) it just so happens that your rate is close to zero. Funny how a little clout bends the laws...

Re:State Taxes.

[skyhawker]

Or Gore Junior claiming to be a resident of Tennessee.

Although I suspect that the critical difference is that the Bush and Gore claims are actually LEGAL, while the legality of your router rationale is highly doubtful. Still, I do like the concept. It's OK by me.

Re:State Taxes.

[zeno_2]

Well, here is an intereting tidbit of info about that..

I live in Idaho, and I work in Washington. The taxes on cigarettes in Washington is extremely high, its about four and a half bucks a pack.
In Idaho, its much lower, less then 3 bucks usually.

Well, about a year ago or so, they passed a law or something that raised the taxes on cigarettes in Washington. If you live around this area (spokane/coeurd'alene) then you'll know that a lot of people come to Idaho to buy their cigarettes. After that last tax was put in place, they had put state patrol cars at the smoke shops near the washington/idaho border (on the idaho side). Anyone with a Washington plate, they would write down the plate number, call it in to the Washington State Patrol, and the car would be pulled over, and the person would get warned/ticketed for tax evasion. It was on the front page of the paper even.

This did not last for long, maybe a week or so, now they really don't do it anymore as far as I know. It seemed to me as a way to just scare people. I guess now they just carry this little sheet of paper that they can declare what they bought in a different state, and when they do their taxes for the year, they have to pay the extra money to the state.

So ya, I would say that states have some good power over 'state tax'. Problem is, how do they enforce it on the internet?

Re:State Taxes.

[tshak]

In King County (WA) I believe it's 8.8% now.

Re:State Taxes.

[Fluid Truth]

This is the case with California, too. However, I don't know of anyone in California who does that, either.

(I guess Oregon residents get off scott free on this one. No sales tax, no obligation to pay any on purchases.)

Re:State Taxes.

[Mirus Nex]

In Minnesota, and surrounding states it's pretty rediculous if you actually follow the law. For instance, we (MN) don't tax clothing but it is taxed in Wisconsin (5% I think). If you buy clothes in Minnesota yet live in Wisconsin you need to pay Wisconsin 5% tax on those clothes. It gets even worse, Minnesota's sales tax is 6.5%. If I travel out of state and pay, say, 5% tax on a DVD I'm *supposed* to pay Minnesota the difference (1.5%). This fact alone would be worth an audit on everyone's state tax, fortunately they don't enforce this much because people don't hang on to receipts fore very little thing they buy. I've heard a few stories on businesses getting fried on use tax because of this but not general consumers.

The Internet has spawned thousands of "e-tailers" and this is what frightens states. Before the commercialization of the Internet mail order wasn't a HUGE business so states weren't really "losing" much money on sales taxes, but now...

Re:State Taxes.

[pruss]

But you then pay that computer in Delaware for
making your purchases. Alex

This is so stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

There already is a sales tax for mail order catalogs, which is what the Internet is, that people simply don't pay because it's too difficult for the state governments to track down every purchase.

It's clear why they want another tax: to grab more money for gov't spending.

Re:This is so stupid

[bribecka]

There already is a sales tax for mail order catalogs, which is what the Internet is, that people simply don't pay because it's too difficult for the state governments to track down every purchase.

I don't think so--most mail order purchases say something like "CA residents add X % sales tax." or a few other states. That's because the company that you're ordering from operates from CA (or whatever). IANAL, but I beleive that you only have to pay sales taxes if you're buying from a company that operates from the state you currently are in.

That's why if you order something from, say, Sears over the internet or from the web, you have to pay sales tax, because they operate in every state. As another example, I once went to a store, bought something, and had them ship it to another state. Because i was shipping it elsewhere, there was no sales tax. *This* doesn't seem quite correct, but it was the case.

Re:This is so stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope. You have to declare the amount of out-of-state purchases on your annual state income tax forms. It's just a tax that's not too zealously prosecuted.

Re:This is so stupid

[pricedl]

I don't think so--most mail order purchases say something like "CA residents add X % sales tax." or a few other states. That's because the company that you're ordering from operates from CA (or whatever). IANAL, but I beleive that you only have to pay sales taxes if you're buying from a company that operates from the state you currently are in.

AFAIK, most states require the tax to be paid on anything consumed within their state. So, technically, your order from a CA merchant to, say, NY, should have NY tax paid on it.

The problem comes in that NY has no power to enforce their laws on a "foreign" retailer. They can come after you, the buyer, but that's very hard. The retailer could collect that tax, and present it to NY, but that would only drive you away to another vendor, so they don't.

Basically, all these internet stores and mail-order catalogs are aiding and abetting you in your quest to deprive your state of revenue it has declared it is allowed to collect.

How do you propose NY (or any other state) can find out about all those transactions that end with merchandise shipped into their state, and collect taxes on it?

Re:This is so stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you propose NY (or any other state) can find out about all those transactions that end with merchandise shipped into their state, and collect taxes on it?

I'm not proposing it, but this is the only viable solution: Work with credit card companies and the post office to track monies spent outside the home state and correlate those monies spent to packages arriving into the state.

Not just Big Brother, but Big, Mean, Bully Down the Block.

Internet Taxes

[bribecka]

Of course, there's still the matter of that other "tax" -- shipping costs. And many times those can be significantly larger than a regular sales tax.

Think about it, a $100 purchase in a store with 5% tax is $5. What can you buy for $100 and ship for only $5? Of course, I saw that Amazon is waiving shipping costs for orders over $100...so maybe the point is moot for now :)

Re:Internet Taxes

[Junks Jerzey]

People should have access to the Internet and its products anyway, taxing it would only put another stumbling block between the public and the Internet.

All great in principle, but then when you think about the huge amount of networking resources yo use when you download gigabytes of porn a month from a $19.95 AOL account, then maybe, just maybe, you're use much more of the "public" network than you should be. That network is shared by all, and its resources are both finite and expensive. Have you ever seen the amount of hardware required for a single telephone exchange (i.e. digital switching center)?

Re:Internet Taxes

[BenTheDewpendent]

ah yes the days of dialing up to a single computer with a couple cdroms and a hardrive full full of shareware and sometimes sounds and pictures free for the taking. As long as you had the time to wait for the 1meg file to download on your 2400 baud modem. i personaly used zmodem. but those were the days of cga 8088s and a lil bit of soul and a form of comunity networking. Granted the internet has turned the world in to a community but with the bbs in most cases they lived in your town or the next one over.

Re:Internet Taxes

[dhamsaic]

software. ~5 dvds that i paid about $5 to have shipped ground. ram from crucial, which is dirt cheap and has free 2nd day air shipping... lots of things you can buy at all sorts of places where shipping is less than tax... and most places have things online cheaper than you can find in the store... win-win situation...

Re:Internet Taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they should ship it free and make a loss for the priviledge of selling you something.

Re:Internet Taxes

[Grishnakh]

That really depends. For instance, if you're looking at a $2000 digital camera, it'll cost you $100 in sales tax. But shipping is probably far less for a small item like that, maybe $20-30 with insurance. Coupled with the typically lower prices of internet stores, you can save a lot of money.

However, for heavy items, or inexpensive items, it's probably not worth it unless you simply don't have easy availability of that item in your locality.

I Hate Tacks

[ReidMaynard]

oooooh....tax

never mind

no shocker here, move on.....

[Anonymous Coward]

This is not really a big news story. Back a few weeks ago /. posted a story on the tax ban NOT being passed, only in the chaos from the events of Sept 11. Now the senate has gotten to business and passed the ban on internet taxes. Yay. Tax free for two more years. And the next. And probably the next.

May help stem further collapse

[KarmaBlackballed]

This is important. Many online retailers have been hurting since before the stock market collapse. The tax exemption helps offset the shipping costs associated with their business model.

Re:May help stem further collapse

[Anonymous Coward]

Those companies that are impacted by this are so mismanaged anyway, this move wouldn't move them one step towards profitability.

Re:May help stem further collapse

[the_great_cornholio]

Good idea: we as taxpayers should subsidize companies with a shaky business model at the expense of those which have already seen some measure of success. That's our free market at work!

Re:May help stem further collapse

[the_great_cornholio]

I thought it was the lack of a costly 'brick-and-mortar' presence that was to offset the shipping costs associated with their business model. They would then change lower per item, both to compensate the consumer for her extra wait for the item and to offset the shipping costs. Of course, this presupposes these people have a business model that was anything more than let's take other people's money, spend it, and hope for the best.

Re:May help stem further collapse

[eander315]

The online retailers have always been operating with the tax exemption in place. This merely extends the rule. Any online retailers who are having problems won't really be helped by this (although they also won't be harmed, obviously). Basically, the online retail world is still headed in the same direction it was before this announcement.

Re:May help stem further collapse

[acceleriter]

The way I read the article, the Congressman is trying to facilitate the collection of sales (a.k.a. "use") taxes on mail-order (a.k.a. "e-commerce") purchases, not eliminate them.

The original poster is dead on, though--if mail order companies have to charge sales taxes, then they're dead--because it ends up cheaper to buy locally. So the states get what they're drooling over, a "level playing field" for the retailers. What they will then start bitching about is the loss of tax revenue from mail-order companies that happen to be located in their states.

Re:May help stem further collapse

[tswinzig]

How exactly are you SUBSIDIZING internet companies as a taxpayer when you are not paying any taxes on your purchases?

Re:May help stem further collapse

[isaac_akira]

The tax revenue has to come from somewhere (or the gocernment could just spend less -- heh, right!), so that lost sales tax revenue will come from increased income or property taxes.

Re:May help stem further collapse

[scottysocialist]

Looking at the ban on internet taxes from an abstract point of view, rather than a specific internet tax proposal.....

The consumer isn't subsidizing the internet company. The government is subsidizing the internet companies by making it cheaper to
buy from the internet company than a brick-and-mortar company.

And the irony comes in when people use "free-market" rhetoric to defend this government
intervention to subsidize online business.

Re:May help stem further collapse

[junkgrep]

It's worse than that: think about the effect this has on the markets for various technologies.
Someone at Lucent pointed out to me that technologically, the main advantage that the internet network has over the phone network is that the phone network is bogged down by insane burdens of taxation and crazy legislation (some of it which FORCES companies to charge you more than they otherwise would).

If you think about the phone network and the internet being two networks in competition, the tax free status of the internet is an artificial butress that distorts market incentives to choose the most efficient technology for a given job. And, as many people would argue, the phone network is actually based on far better technology and theoretical framework, from the "circuit" idea to the actual equipment itself. So, due to policies like a taxless internet, the phone network, with many superior qualities to recommend it, gets underused and underinvested in. This is bad for society as whole.

Re:May help stem further collapse

[ez76]

A merchant's business model is a more immediate concern for its investors, not its patrons.

When Webvan went bust, did its customers rejoice or lament?

So long as a company delivers the goods and services it promises, why should the average customer care about its balance sheet?

And what "expense" are brick-and-mortar businesses paying? If their business models are so sound, why would they be so threatened by these "shaky" companies?

Are you a bookstore owner?

a relief, but...

[macsox]

now we have to worry about the post office's plan to charge us for email.

what's that? you haven't heard about it? i'll send you the email... (COD)

Re:a relief, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

in linux-dominated parallel world, all children's names begin with g, k or x

What, no Linus?

Arrghhhh : Paradox Alert!!

Re:a relief, but...

[Anonymous Coward]

We do and we don't. The post office wants taxable e-mail. I think the whole concept is flawed and it will never work. It gets shot down every time the issue comes up. I for one am not concerned.

Re:a relief, but...

[turd191]

I hope that you realize that the Post Office charging for emails was a joke. Do you realize the hardware that would have to be deployed in order to track the emails sent would be severely cost-ineffective and pretty much impossible. I know my company sends out several thousand emails an hour and it is a small company.

Re:a relief, but...

[acceleriter]

I know my company sends out several thousand emails an hour and it is a small company.

Your company doesn't by any chance sell toner cartridges, does it?

It's a Wonderful Internet

[kzinti]

Remember: every time you buy over the internet, an angel gets his wings.

Attaboy Clarence!

Re:It's a Wonderful Internet

[Anonymous Coward]

... and often enough some demon gets your credit card number.

--ThisCowardHeadsToTheMallWithaPocketFullaCash

Well, duh.

[dave-fu]

I've got a sneaking suspicion that the folks in Congress have slightly more important things to work out than how taxes should work for Internet sites as opposed to mail-order purchases... especially so in a recession.

WTO, IMF, GATT, UN etc.

[under_score]

I think this is a really interesting aspect of the Internet. It is an international system in that there is no notion of physical location (directly) associated with the data used day-to-day on the Internet. To me, that makes it a very good candidate for part of the mandate of the United Nations. Why not make internet taxes (sales tax primarily) be what goes to fund the UN? It is in desperate need of funding, the US is still behind on dues (I think), and it would make the whole issue of multiple tax laws moot. Yes, I think the UN should evolve to become a world government - it is now actually, just not very effective and with a pretty pathetic mandate. All of these global talks going on would be a good place to bring this up. The UN might also have the responsibility to take internet tax income to use for equalization payments to poorer nations.

Re:WTO, IMF, GATT, UN etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the idea commie boy.

Re:WTO, IMF, GATT, UN etc.

[emc]

Screw the poorer nations. They are poor because they lack motivation and/or intelligence. Let them be, leave them to their gruel, flies, and drought. God is punishing them for their misdeeds.

The UN needs to relax. It is not, nor should it ever be a government. The UN is a forum for international discussion, nothing more.

A day will come soon when our military will refuse to fight under the UN banner. Bill Clinton is gone, and his lending of the US forces to the UN is over.

We have a real man in the whitehouse now.

Re:WTO, IMF, GATT, UN etc.

[EisPick]

What have you been smoking? It's the United NATIONs, not the United PEOPLE. It's a forum for nations to hammer out disagreements and provide aid to one another, not a world government. And there are a lot of us who are glad its not.

Are you sure you want to be taxed by an organization whose executive committee gives China a veto? I know I don't.

Re:WTO, IMF, GATT, UN etc.

[Syberghost]

Yeah, that's a great idea; every time I purchase something from someone who is also in the US, but happens to communicate with me via Internet links owned by US corporations instead of by telephone or snailmail, part of my money should be confiscated under force of arms and given to other countries' governmental officials, including those in military dictatorships such as Pakistan.

While you're at it, let's make the mouse give you a little shock every time you buy something, to discourage use of the Internet for commercial sales even more.

Re:WTO, IMF, GATT, UN etc.

[arty3]

You're a moron !

Re:WTO, IMF, GATT, UN etc.

[Kamel Jockey]

Thank you... if poorer nations did what the US does, then they would not be poor anymore. The US built itself up from nothing, sure we aren't complete angels and we have some dirty laundry of our own, but for the most part, we succeed because we allow our people to become the best they can be on their own.

Its like the bum on the street who spends his money on drugs instead of food, why pity him?

And yes... we DO have a real man in the whitehouse now!

Re:WTO, IMF, GATT, UN etc.

[Anonymous Coward]

are you a communist?

Internet Taxes

[Renraku]

The Internet SHOULDN'T be taxed anyway..nothing about the Internet should be taxed..including Internet access, Internet services, nor anything purchased from the Internet. People should have access to the Internet and its products anyway, taxing it would only put another stumbling block between the public and the Internet.

Excuse me?

[Anonymous Coward]

"An angel gets his wings"

Since when are all angels male?

Re:Excuse me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps all female angels have wings already?

Re:Excuse me?

[Anonymous Coward]

Welcome to the English language.

Re:Excuse me?

[donutz]

"An angel gets his wings"

Since when are all angels male?

Apparently since at least 1946. But who knows for how long they were all male before that....grab your Bible or check with your local religious authority for more details.

Re:Excuse me?

[cburley]

Since when are all angels male?

Since they don't get pregnant, don't get PMS, and never ask "does this halo make my butt look big?"

And, everytime you buy over the internet...

[J'raxis]

...your credit card number gets stored in yet another insecure database and your email address gets sold to spammers.

No, thanks.

Re:in the words of homer simpson...

[Shitsack Comments]

What a fantastic use of a +2 posting bonus! Thank you for enlightening us all with your thoughtful post!

Is it really hurting traditional retailers?

[meckardt]

I buy stuff on the Internet, and I buy stuff in brick and morter stores. Unless you don't look very hard, there isn't THAT much of a difference in price, and as anotehr poster pointed out, buying local doesn't result in shipping charges. Unless its something that isn't available locally (or is inconvenient), I would just as well go and check it out personally.

Re:Is it really hurting traditional retailers?

[AdmiralMustapha]

That is very true;
The statements of "traditional" businesses saying that online stores are a significant threat to their success is far exaggerated in my opinion.

If you consider the recent (past 2-3 years) events, how many e-commerce or online stores out there, that actually started some kind of business, are successful? Just a mere handful!
And how many of these are not drowned in debts? Almost none!

Also consider that there still is a very low percentage of customers willing to buy online - especially in europe -, and most of the "online stores" are mere extensions to existing retailers; their "online stock" is just an advertisement to lure more customers into their shops.

The next thing to consider is taxes;
Do we not pay taxes when we pay our ISP to access the internet?
Does the owner of an online shop not pay the ISP? And does the ISP not pay taxes to the government when it runs its business?

To me personally the whole idea sounds just like another sorry excuse for governments to bring in more revenue - so hopefully for the US (or the rest of the world) the idea will be abandoned in 2 years

-- just my two pence

Re:Is it really hurting traditional retailers?

[chris_7d0h]

True, and here I think you came upon something interesting (I choose to comment instead of modding it).

Why are the Internet prices so similar to the ones in the retail stores?

One might guess that not having large buildings in attractive and central areas along with a bundle of employees to fill the stores out would some how cost less money. One might also imagine that a new start-up Internet company does not have the financial leverage to get as good deals with their distributors as the large giants have.

So, what conclusions can be drawn from this (if any)?
As I see it, either one of the following might explain the situation.

* The price difference between a large and local retailer and an internet start-up is almost non-existing, since the distributors take a higher cut of the pie for the small firm than for the larger one. (The fat distributors get a higher fat/order ratio from a small firm than from a large one :)

* The small Internet company does indeed have high margins and earn a lot on each sale. If that money turns into profit is probably depending on a lot of other factors (such as the cost of the jet-set life of the employees in the internet start-up *grin*)

* The large companies are so financially strong that they can afford to do a Microsoft.
(That is sell at a loss and thus provide more value-add for each sale until the weaker competition has starved to death).

Regardless, I don't see why Internet based companies should have any special benefits. Especially as consumers are not seeing the benefits in the form of reduced prices.

If the companies can not turn a profit, then they have an invalid business model or a wrong company structure. This is a question of ordinary company management and is not unique to the Internet.

Re:Is it really hurting traditional retailers?

[krlynch]

Actually, there are "shipping charges" associated with buying locally; you just don't think about them. The most prominent are the incremental charges associated with getting yourself to and from the store, and the additional charge tacked on to items to pay for shipping from the central warehouse to the end point store. But the former charges (on the order of $0.10-0.20/mile if you drive, and averaging somewhere around $4.00-5.00 round trip including subsidies in cities with public transit systems) and the latter (already figured into the price) are invisible, and so we don't think of them as shipping charges. The "shipping charges" are nearly identical in both cases, but are explicit in one, and implicit in the other.

Taxing Internet Service

[SolidCore]

This does not apply to taxing Internet Services. I know in Texas the first $25.00 of your internet service cannot be taxed. Im not sure if this a Texas tax break or National.

Taxing disparity

[gerardrj]

I don't understand this facination of the politicians with NOT taxing the Internet, or conversely, trying to tax sales over the internet.

If they start charging me a tax to purchase items on the 'net, then they had better also start a national tax for purchasing items over the phone or via mail order.

As for the taxing Internet access, I ALREADY pay taxes for that. My phone and cable bills hanve many federal, state, and local taxes for line access, univeral number portability, exise taxes, etc. How could they start taxing me based on the content of what I do with that circuit I'm already taxed for.

SO.. YEA!! But I don't unsterstand why they need to specifically state that Internet sales should be treated like all other "on-site" sales.

Tax breaks all over

[vulgarDPS]

There are also ALOT of new tax breaks for small buisnesses. During a recession the smartest thing to do is help out small buisnesses through tax breaks, and online retailers are just a whole lot of small buisnesses, with the exeption of amazon and a few others.

heh...

[tcc]

>every time you buy over the internet, an angel gets his wings

As long as you don't buy from a united states dealer and live in canada, and ship thru UPS.

Shipping cost
15% duty tax,
7% federal tax
7% Provencial tax
profit on the exchange rate on CC or paypal,

God... when you think about it, it's depressing from a production point of view, you're doing hardware, you must do everything to keep cost super low to get to that 300% mark to recuperate the r&d cost, normally you end up doing maybe what, 20% overall profit!?... in the end, the gov makes almost more profit with your stuff than you... no wonder we got so many people on wealthfare, maybe I've underestimated them and they are the genious :)

Re:heh...

[Anonymous Coward]

Add to that the Canadian dollar is only worth 62 American cents.

On the other hand, remember you save a couple thousand by not having to pay for healthcare.

What's messed up the 7% federal tax was introduced in 91 by the right-wing conservatives. Thanks Mulroney. The left wing NDP want it reduced, go figure. Canadian politics suck.

Re:heh...

[2names]

Canada should be annexed and proclaimed the 51st state. Then we can kick out all the Froggies and make it one big wildlife preserve with strip clubs right next to the lakes. Oh yeah, I almost forgot: Celine Dion is an ignorant, money grubbing, non-singing, cock smoking stick-bitch.

Divine Retribution

[pHalec]

...and every time you make fun of a khaki-wearing dot-commer on a scooter, an angel bursts into flames.

This ban more important

[mupi]

The US government as banned sex for young girls because of recent terrorist acts. Young girls must black and blue wool tassles to symbolise that they cannot have sex. It is said the tradition of preserving maidens' chastity would be policed by traditional police who still preside over much of american society.

Re:This ban more important

[Jaysyn]

WTF?

Re:This ban more important

[Anonymous Coward]

Huh?
if (!(Speaks_English)) {
Comment.aboutAmerica(false);
}

Re:This ban more important

[Anonymous Coward]

And now on a planet far, far away..

Internet taxes should go for internet improvements

[Warp!]

The internet, in a way, is somewhat like a new nation. No existing government should be collecting taxes on the internet.

If taxes are collected for internet transactions, those taxes should be put to use to improve internet infrastructure, not existing government infrastructure.

Personally, I don't want to see any taxes on internet transactions, ever. But I would be much more willing to pay a small tax if I had a say in what the tax was used for.

O.T: What's this story about angels with wings?

[haggar]

Now, I know that 99,99% of Slashdot readers couldn't care less about the Bible or other sacred writings, but being an intelligent and informed crowd, it would be nice if they got informed about these things, as well: nowhere in the Bible has ever been mentioned that angels have wings. Neither is this the case in the Kur'an. So what's the idea of winged angels? Just because some renaissance painter decided to add wings to angels doesn't mean he was right.

(BTW, cherubs are supposed to have wings, but that's a different story..)

As I said, O.T.

Re:O.T: What's this story about angels with wings?

[Anonymous Coward]

It is borrowed from the movie "It's a Wonderful Life."

Re:O.T: What's this story about angels with wings?

[NineNine]

Look. The Bible is a fairy tale. Any intelligent person can tell you this. So what's the point of saying that THIS fairly tale is "correct" and this one isn't? Since you have no real fact to base any of it on, you can really say whatever you want about it. It's really a moot point.

Personally, I think that angels look like the Victoria's Secret models in the catalogs and in the TV ads. And yes, some of them do have wings.

Re:O.T: What's this story about angels with wings?

[pipeb0mb]

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=an+angel+gets +it%27s+wings+it%27s+a+wonderful+life

December 9th,1998
Frank Capra's "It's a Wonderful Life"

What would the Christmas season be without the proverbial film about that holiday? You know the one I am referring to, where we all learn "every time a bell rings, an angel gets it's wings". Of course you know the one I am referring to.

It is called "It's a Wonderful Life", and over that past years has come to represent, on the whole, the meaning and spirit of the Christmas holidays. People coming together to help a friend, coming home for the holidays, and the comfort of having a warm and safe place to call home. Today's FamSite is one that celebrates the film, and the persona around it. Here you can find out little known details about it, as well as biographies of the cast and crew. You can check out links to other sites, as well as collectibles. There is even a contest, and you can catch up on reading the Bedford Falls Chronicles.

Enjoy this site. It is a fine tribute to a film that helps us all remember that "no man is a failure, as long as he has friends". It isn't on television as much as it used to be (for various reasons), but be sure to watch it when you can. Enjoy your stop here.

Re:O.T: What's this story about angels with wings?

[Anonymous Coward]

So what exactly did michael mean by that comment?

Impling that angel getting wings -> christmas -> gift giving, and therefore buying over the internet = gift giving (supporting dot-commers?)

Sorry, that was just a little too obscure...

Re:O.T: What's this story about angels with wings?

[Anonymous Coward]

it's much older than that. Some old (couple o hundred yrs.) paintings already have angels with wings in them.

Rock on.

[SirDrinksAlot]

now if only the canadian government didnt charge me GST when i imported something. Still cheaper to import tho :-) Im just trying to ballance out the trade between the US/CDN since canada sells more to the US then Canada Buys :-)

Bush...

[nll8802]

President Bush actually wanted to extend it longer than two years. You can read more about the tax extentsion at Yahoo!

Sears and Roebuck all over again...

[DaoudaW]

Not sure this makes any sense economically, but it sure is good politically. But why single out Internet commerce...which is essentially mail-order with an online catalog. Not all that much different than Sears and Roebuck pioneered over 100 years ago.

Michael, Michael

[PineHall]

Watch "It's a Wonderful Life" and you would know that it is everytime a *bell* rings an angel gets its wings.

The Party Line

[Asahi Super Dry]

It's never a suprise to me when a Republican administration takes an anti-tax position or a Democratic one a pro tax position. Bush may not know a damn thing about the internet but when he sees that word "tax" well gooool-dang it he's gonn say "NO!" It kind of reminds me of Pavlov and his dogs. (just for the record I agree internet taxation is a bad idea.)

Re:The Party Line

[TheShadow]

Taxation is a bad idea.

sorry, this is off-topic

[Transient0]

I'm sure other people will be more than happy to point this out, but world government is the exact opposite of the direction that we should headed.

So many of the problems that we hear being complained about everyday on /. either directly or indirectly result from government centralization. It is the sheer size and power of the U.S. government that allows it to hand over so much power to corporations. I'll tell you one thing, world government certainly means no more data havens and no more numbered swiss bank accounts.

Globalization is the problem, not the solution.

Re:sorry, this is off-topic

[Grishnakh]

I have to disagree about this. Look at China: there's another huge, centralized government that's far more authoritarian than the U.S.'s, but they're not handing any power to corporations at all. Sure, it's probably not a great government to live under either, but I think the idea that big government == big corporations taking over everyone's lives is totally wrong. It's just the U.S. that has somehow set up such a system.

However, if there were a global government, the U.S. would probably play the largest role in it, which would of course lead to huge corporations taking over our lives, so I'm certainly against that. When AOL/TW/MicroSoftDisney Corporation passes laws forbidding us to read books without paying per-use licenses, I want the option of moving somewhere more sane.

Re:sorry, this is off-topic

[SquierStrat]

I disagree...I think the US would have a minor role in it, and our freedoms would be stripped away by everyone else...world government = scary thing. A world government means that if you don't like the laws where you live...tough, there is no refuge, you're just fucked. Actually, the big government is a result of the depression in my opinion...the government began to grow at an exponential rate as of the "New Deal." The big corporations are a result of capitolism and it's methods. Personally, I see nothing wrong with it, if people buy their products, no one holds a gun to their heads. I do not like campaign contributions from big businesses, which is a good reason for term limits: if a congress person (as opposed to congressman) knows they only have 8 years or what have you to do their thing, we less likely to have career politicians who make their money off of big corporations.

Off my soapbox though...remember, the US and other countries with nice liberties like freedom of speech are in the minority. A global government would not help matters.

Re:sorry, this is off-topic

[Anonymous Coward]

big government doesn't come from big corporations, it comes from an uninformed or lazy populace that asks Uncle Sugar to do things for them that they should be doing for themselves.

I'm not sure what all the nonsense about big corporations controlling poeple's lives comes from. It seems popular on slashdot, but like pork-flavored popsicles, it's just plain wrong.

corporations are just owners, employees, and shareholders, trying to make a profit. Electricity, phone service, US Mail, etc are all subsidized by higher rates charged to businesses.

An angel? Hardly!

[Anonymous Coward]

Internet shopping = UPS/FedEx

An angel, you say?

"Disingenuine mountebanks with their subliminal chicanery, a pox on you!" - Homer J. Simpson

Re:An angel? Hardly!

[Anonymous Coward]

That's 'disingenuous', nimrod, and your punctuation skills need work.

affecting purchases

[Anonymous Coward]

Recently I purchased over $3000 in goods in a month, all online: a Sony 32" HD-Ready set, Sony DTC-HD100 Sat/Terrestrial HD receiver, Sat dish, etc.; mostly from Crutchfield and American Satellite [O.K., so a plug, but I liked their service, and don't benefit from praising them -- just a satisfied customer].

I will say that buying an expensive TV on-line and having it shipped was a bit of a scary thing, but it all worked out. Mote: insist on inside delivery on anything over 150 pounds -- some etailers charge big $$ for this, but Crutchfield had a $9.95 special. Otherwise expect it to be dropped off at the curb. You have to shop around -- shipping on something like that (heavy, big, and fragile), can easily be $200, and some etailers jack up the price to drop shipping costs (or ship using some no-name shipper).

But, basically, it came down to "buy it here and pay sales tax" or "buy it online and pay shipping". If all things were equal, I'd probably buy it locally (but order on-line if possible). Often the shipping equals the tax on large, expensive items. Still, sometimes you can find a deal.

The bottom line is that, with protections built into credit-card purchases and credit card fraud, and the use of secure sites, buying on-line is starting to take off in my household.

What about Pr0n?

[laserjet]

"Sen. Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, who favored the simple extension, said Americans don't want to be taxed when they log on the Internet for their news, weather and sports."

That may be, but I really think that most Americans don't want to be taxed when they "log on" the Internet for their pornography.

On a side note, does "Internet" really need to be capatilized anymore?

Re:What about Pr0n?

[Anonymous Coward]

On a side note, does "Internet" really need to be capatilized anymore?

OT, but since you asked:

Yes. The word "internet" means 2 or more networks connected. So, the Internet is a specific internet.

Re:What about Pr0n?

[Planesdragon]

On a side note, does "Internet" really need to be capatilized anymore?

Yes. But it no longer has to be in quotes.

Re:What about Pr0n?

[laserjet]

Thank god. My quotation mark button has nearly warn off. Thank you for letting me know!

How?

[Exmet Paff Daxx]

Isn't this just their way of saying they still have no clue how to implement a tax on Internet sales and make it enforcable? The state of Maryland, for example, imposes a %10 use tax on any goods purchased via the Internet or mail order from out of state in order to "level the playing field" with local Maryland businesses. I know quite a few people in Maryland who owe thousands in "use tax", which requires you to police yourself and send it in at the end of the year, because they have never paid it and don't know it exists. The state picks a few hundred people each year to "audit" for use tax, and they usually get hit with so much back use tax fines that they collapse under the financial load and declare personal bankruptcy. Imagine owing 10% on anything you've ever ordered from out of state, for as far back as the state can get ahold of financial records, plus interest and fines. Ya.

If this is how the states are taxing the Internet, you can imagine how well the Feds would do. They're probably looking at the dismal failures of the states and waiting for a successful model to emerge.

Re:How?

[Thing 1]

Isn't this just their way of saying they still have no clue how to implement a tax on Internet sales and make it enforcable?

So let's fight back at them using their own laws. If "Internet transactions" in different states are tax-free, then just set up the cash register as a web application, and have the customer click "Purchase" (or Enter or whatever) and have that fire off two things:

1. The store you're in initiates an Internet transaction for the total price with store B, in a different state, selling the goods to store B.

2. Store B sells the goods to the customer, and the store the customer is in provides them. (They were in front of the customer the whole time, but the ownership changed twice, rather than the usual once.)

Any holes?

Taxing the Internet would be too complicated.

[wnknisely]

Sen. Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, who favored the simple extension, said Americans don't want to be taxed when they log on the Internet for their news, weather and sports.

He said there was danger in a "crazy quilt" tax system that would "chew up a vast amount of time for compliance."

It seems to me that the real issue would be trying to figure out a way to equitably structure the tax rates on the internet - and then decide who gets to charge the tax.

For instance: Delaware has no sales tax. If I buy something over the net using a server located in Delaware from a company with a branch in PA and headquarters in NY and I live in NJ, who's tax rate applies? The lowest (DE)? The highest (NY)? Should everyone get a cut?

I wonder how taxes on telephone lines are handled. Are they simply taxed by the locale of the consumer - or is there some complicated relationship that allows states distance from the consumer to charge an "access" fee for information that crosses the state's borders?

I generally don't like sales tax anyhow as a revenue producer for goverment. Sure it taxes spending and not saving, but it's a flat rate and hit's the lower economic rungs harder than the upper rungs.

Re:Taxing the Internet would be too complicated.

[Estimator]

I am going against the grain here, but I strongly disagree with the tax breaks on Internet sales.

I dislike sales taxes generally, because as you point out sales taxes are regressive taxes, hitting poorer consumers harder than wealthier consumers. The lack of an Internet sales tax further compounds the problem. Wealthier consumers who can afford to shop over the Internet get a tax break. Why do they need a tax break? For that matter, why do the Internet companies need what amounts to a subsidy to keep them in business?

The net effect of the sales tax break is for a lot of money to go into shipping companies' pockets. I want to subsidize UPS even less than I want to give money to the govt.

Re:Taxing the Internet would be too complicated.

[bedmison]

Really, though. How hard would it be? You know where the buyer is, and finding the sales tax rate where the customer is would be no big deal. They don't change anywhere close to as often as zip codes do, and many vendors update that list every month. Most sales tax rates are the same for years. Also, most states require a quarterly filing, so it is not like Amazon is going to be sending a check for each order they ship. Finally, many states accept, and some are requiring electronic reporting, so the vendor doesn't even need a stamp...

Look, I don't like paying taxes at all. But it would not take much to handle sales tax on all transactions. The tax moratorium was originally passed because they were looking for a fairly cheap way to promote buying on line...as soon as on-line resellers begin to approach the volume of sales as their brick and mortar counter parts, the feds will have to mandate sales tax collection for web vendors.

BTW, many net vendors have to collect taxes for states where they have a physical presence. Apple is one of those. They charge me 4.5% every time because they had an office in VA, and this was before they had a retail store in the state.

Re:Taxing the Internet would be too complicated.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you're describing a crazy quilt tax system to a 'T' :)

Check your phone bill. The feds (and FCC) take a chunk, the state takes a chunk, and your municipality may take a chunk.

Most (I'd hope all) don't tax food, and some don't tax necesseties like clothes, so the lower income class warfare doesn't apply. Except, of course for alcohol, cigarettes, and state lottery tickets (which are "a tax on people with bad math skills"), which are more heavily taxed, and more likely to be bought by poor people...

Re:Taxing the Internet would be too complicated.

[Cy Guy]

Really, though. How hard would it be? You know where the buyer is, and finding the sales tax rate where the customer is would be no big deal. They don't change anywhere close to as often as zip codes do,

Um, Wrong. It would be very hard. Since sales tax juridications don't map to zip codes (maybe they do to zip+4, though) you would have to keep a seperate database of every household in the US of which there are some 110,000,000 which you would have to bounce every transaction against to determine the amount of aplicable tax - and if any tax is applicable as not all jurisdictions tax the same things - clothes and junk food are good examples of things taxed in one state but not another. (You could maybe simplify the jurisdiction tracking if you mapped all the zip codes that were entirely within a single jurisdiction, then you would just have to check on the zips that fell in multiple jurisdictions.)

Then once you collected the taxes, you would have to withhold the taxes for each of any of the 10,000 different taxing jurisdictions, with many transactions requireing that x% be withheld for the state, y% withheld for the county/city, & z% be withheld for the school/water/fire district.

Then at some point (at least quarterly if you're a corporation) you would have to distribute to each of the jurisdictions the amount of taxes you have withheld on their behalf during that period. For really efficient companies they typically can get a check written, approved, signed, and mailed for about a $1 a piece - that's upto $40,000/year just to write the checks. Using electronic transfer might save them money, but likely not much. (you also have to remember that there is an expense at the receiving end, which might make it more expensive for jurisdiction to cash a check than the value of the check itself.)

Then at any time, any one of the taxing jurisdictions has the right to come in and audit your books to determine if you really have been accurately recording the transactions and remitting the taxes withheld. One has to assume that there would be an incredible incentive for many struggling e-commerce sites to just hold on to (i.e. embezzle) taxes owed to small and/or distant jurisdictions who they don't think will ever audit them. I mean it's not like the customer is going to check with their school district to ensure that the $1.25 in sales tax they had withheld on an e-purchase actually made its way to them.

So until the States and local juridictions can come up with a method of simplified nationwide tax collection, it will be up to the buyers not the sellers to pay any sales/use/excise taxes on their own purchases for any purchases made by mail/phone/internet (at least when the seller has no physical presence in the buyer's state).

Re:Taxing the Internet would be too complicated.

[bedmison]

Then once you collected the taxes, you would have to withhold the taxes for each of any of the 10,000 different taxing jurisdictions, with many transactions requireing that x% be withheld for the state, y% withheld for the county/city, & z% be withheld for the school/water/fire district.

I wasn't saying anything about collecting locality sales tax. If you were to wrap that into the scenario, you're right, the details start to get hairy quickly. But the bulk of sales taxes are not collected for localities, they are collected for the states. If you only have to deal with 50 tax authorities, it is definitely possible.

My view may be slightly distorted, since VA limits what localities can charge as "sales" taxes. One of the main issues the governor's race turned on was whether Northern VA voters would have the right to establish, by referendum, an additional 1% sales tax to pay for transportation. About the only other thing is a tax on meals, which are not very common.

Eventually, we will get to the point where the federal gov't is going to mandate each state set an "internet tax" rate, which will probably be extended to catalog/ mail order sales as well, which makes sense. They are not going to be able to restrain themselves for ever. If the system eventually requires tax collection for towns and cities, the next internet tax ban will be one imposed by the courts in the form of a restraining order, because there would be a strong possibility that the court would rule that imposing / enforcing the tax collection would be an undue burden on the vendor.

Re:Taxing the Internet would be too complicated.

[Cy Guy]

If the system eventually requires tax collection for towns and cities, the next internet tax ban will be one imposed by the courts in the form of a restraining order, because there would be a strong possibility that the court would rule that imposing / enforcing the tax collection would be an undue burden on the vendor.

That is the current situation. The US Supreme Court ruled that there are just too many taxing jurisdication for internet/mail order/catalog companies to keep track of, so the vendor doesn't have to collect the tax. Of course, that ruling didn't deter the states/localities from legislating that no such burden is applicable to the buyer t=since they only live in one place. So most of the taxing jurisdiction shifted the burden for paying the taces on such sales to them.

How taxes really work.

[ers81239]

I was the programmer elected to serve on a tax compliance comittee for an online retailer. Here are some things most people don't realize about taxes and the internet.

• There are 2 kinds of tax that can apply to a sale. They are sales tax and excise tax. Both of these taxes are paid to the juristiction where the goods were sold (not where they were received).
• In a face to face transaction, the SELLER is responsible for collected the tax due to the jurisdiction where the sale is taking place. This is called a sales tax.
• In a non-face to face transaction, the BUYER is responsible for paying all applicable taxes to the proper jurisdiction (as well as any taxes that could be incurred from the transport of the goods). This is called an EXCISE tax.
• Sellers are required to collect SALES tax to facilitate commerce (imagine if you had to file paperwork for every purchase you ever made).
• The internet ban restricts states from requiring the companies in their jurisdiction to collect sales taxes on internet sales. There aren't any proposals in congress that deal with some kind of special 'internet' tax. They are talking about they ways that sales and excise taxes are handled.
• What does it all mean? When you buy $1000 worth of hardware online, you actually owe taxes on it. The deal is that states can't afford to come track you down to collect it.

Re:How taxes really work.

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot use taxes. These are owed to the state in which the buyer lives. Not all states mandate use taxes. Of those that do, some are more strict than others.

The deal is that states can't afford to come track you down to collect it.

I wouldn't your life or mine on that. Texas, for example, has started auditing various sales records for people who choose not to voluntarily pay a use tax. Big-ticket items, such as boats, planes, and autos, are, in fact, audited on a regular basis. I got stuck with a $3000 tax bill after I bought an airplane and conveniently forgot to pay the use tax.

Not that I'm running to the state auditor every time I make an Internet purchase. But your suggestion that states can't afford to track you down isn't entirely true. In Texas, the office is called the Office of Revenue Opportunity, and their job is to simply track down use tax violators.

Re:How taxes really work.

[mangu]

Remember something called the "Boston Tea Party", which happened in 1773? The English government tried to impose an excise on tea sold in America, and that was one of the origins of the American revolution.

As a consequence, there is a legal principle in the US known as "no taxation without representation", by which no one can be made to pay taxes for a government where the payer doesn't have elected representatives. Since this principle is stated in the Declaration of Independence, it takes priority over the US Constitution; not even a constitutional ammendment can rescind it.

And here is the problem: a state cannot collect an excise from a buyer in another state. It's the buyer's duty to pay the excise to the state where he receives the goods, not to the state where the seller resides.

Re:How taxes really work.

[Rupert]

You may be correct on the DoI trumping the Constitution, but as I understand it the DoI has no legal or constitutional standing. Nonetheless, taxation without representation happens all the time.

I am a resident alien. I pay income taxes and social security taxes and sales taxes and property taxes and get no vote whatsoever. They don't even let me vote for the local school board who run my childrens (who are US citizens) schools. Oh, and despite paying in to Social Security for 35 years, I will not be able to collect Social Security when I retire.

Case 2: my mother-in-law (a US citizen) owns a lake cabin. The city of Battle Lake, MN, has a huge disparity in its taxes on homesteaded versus non-homesteaded properties. Only people homesteaded in the city limits are permitted to vote. Hence taxation without representation.

Re:How taxes really work.

[mangu]

If you live in the US you receive benefits from the taxation. It's the same thing with the lake cabin. It has access to roads and public services maintained by those taxes. The revolt against the 1773 Tea Act was because it was an excise levied on the people of the American colonies, paid in England, where the American people had no representatives and from which they wouldn't get any benefit.

Re:How taxes really work.

[Rupert]

So why is the slogan "no taxation without representation" and not "no taxation without benefit"?

Oh, and who do you think was paying for the redcoats that protected the pre-revolutionary colonists from the French, Spanish, Dutch and Native Americans?

Re:How taxes really work.

[VA Software]

And why don't non-Americans who live in the USA and pay (a lot) of taxes get a vote?

Re:How taxes really work.

[krlynch]

Although I am not a lawyer, I do remember by U.S. Constitutional studies courses, and in fact, the Declaration of Independence does not take priority over the Constitution. As far as the government of the United States is concerned, there is NOTHING that takes precedence over the Constitution:

from Article VI

This Constitution, and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof; and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land; and the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.

And the Declaration is not a law of the United States.

The reason that a State cannot collect taxes from a citizen of another state is that the Constitution allows Congress to forbid it:

Article I, Section 8

The Congress shall have power ... To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;

Which is known as the Interstate Commerce Clause.

Re:How taxes really work.

[Pinky3]

California has a sales and use tax. If you buy an item out of state, you owe the use tax. Quoting the Board of Equalization FAQ, "The most common example of a purchase subject to the use tax is a purchase of an item for use in California from an out-of-state retailer. Out-of-state retailers who are engaged in business in this state are required to collect the use tax, whenever applicable, from the consumer at the time of making the sale."

In addition, if the business from whom you make the purchase does not collect the tax, you are obligated to pay the tax yourself. This is most common when you purchase a car out of state and then go to register the car. The DMV will collect both the registration fees and the use tax for the Board of Equalization. The use tax applies to all purchases subject to the use tax, not just cars. (Regulation 1685(a)(2))

Re:How taxes really work.

[the_great_cornholio]

Thanks for the facile examples of taxation without representation.

The point of objecting to taxation without representation, with reference to the Declaration of Independence and associated events, it was that the colonists were nominally English citizens, without the full benefit of citizenship.

1. As a resident alien, in contrast to the colonists, you are not a citizen of the US, although presumably welcome to attempt to become one.

2. Let her homestead, then, in Battle Lake.

This is really ridiculous.

Re:How taxes really work.

[junkgrep]

Actually, most historians will tell you that the colonists didn't really care so much about the representation thing, because they knew that it wouldn't make a lick of difference: they were way too few to make any difference, and England wasn't the sort of representative democracy it is today were even a ton of representatives could make much of a difference in policy. Colonists didn't want to get taxed period, and they resented having to pay for a war that they felt England had picked with the Indians via France.

There were also some more sinister motives. The tea revolt itself (and the Boston Tea Party) wasn't headed by patriots against tea taxes: it was largely headed by smugglers who's bottom line was being cut off by the much cheaper tea of the British monopolies. That still doesn't make Britian the good guy, but it certainly casts a more realistic light on people's motivations.

People still don't seem realize that only a third of Americans at the time even supported the revolution. About a third were loyalists, and another third didn't real;y give a damn. When we look back in history, we tend to simplify things to the point where we think the nation acted as one, or even that most people cared about politics.

Re:How taxes really work.

[Rasta Prefect]

Since this principle is stated in the Declaration of Independence, it takes priority over the US Constitution; not even a constitutional ammendment can rescind it.

Not particularly sure where you got this idea, but you need to go back to an american government class. The Declaration of Independance is not law. It's just a bunch of guys saying "wouldn't it be nice if....". It has no legal weight whatsoever. The Consitution is the basis of our government, nothing overrides it.

Re:How taxes really work.

[julesd]

What does it all mean? When you buy $1000 worth of hardware online, you actually owe taxes on it.

You may owe taxes, depending entirely on state and local laws.

The Supreme Court has found that states may not levy sales tax on interstate purchases, as this would constitute regulation of interstate commerce, a power granted specifically by the Constitution to Congress. Congress has yet to delegate this power.

Do you owe taxes? That depends on state and local laws. It also depends on the courts, as some states have already attempted, unconstitutionally as it turned out, to collect sales taxes on interstate purchases.

Re:How taxes really work.

[Anonymous Coward]

As a consequence, there is a legal principle in the US known as "no taxation without representation"

Or if you donate to the campaign fund..

Thank you George Bush!

[Anonymous Coward]

Notice how the Slashdotnicks carefully avoid mentioned the fact that this was Dubya's doing?

C'mon Commando Taco, get over it. Dubya's been a decent president.

+1 Taco Bait

Re:Thank you George Bush!

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to vote Republican.

Re:Thank you George Bush!

[phajek]

Actually, historians tend to vote republican and Political Scientist vote democrat (the idealist).

so, if you have a clue, you would be a republican :-)

Re:Thank you George Bush!

[gamgee5273]

Excuse me, but Clinton heavily supported the ban. To be fair, Gore was wavering on it, but to say that this is Bush's doing is like saying Alien Ant Farm's "Smooth Criminal" is wholly original.

Re:Thank you George Bush!

[Anonymous Coward]

No, all you point out is that both historians and political scientists are fools. :)

Re:Thank you George Bush!

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you implying that us Anonymous Cowards tend to vote LaRouche, Buchanan, Nader, or any other sort of raving lunatic?

I've said it before

[frankie]

...and I'll say it every time an Internet Tax story shows up. Please tell your Congressperson: Internet commerce should be taxed exactly the same as phone sales and mail orders, because they're the same damn thing.

No more, no less; no sooner, no later.

Re:I've said it before

[Anonymous Coward]

As i've said it before, you are a LOOSER!

|_
0
\|/
|
/|\

Re:I've said it before

[tswinzig]

Internet commerce should be taxed exactly the same as phone sales and mail orders, because they're the same damn thing.

How about they remove sales tax from all three?

They can start taxing internet sales as soon as they stop taxing me to pay for someone else's laziness and ineptitude.

You forgot the price advantage.

[Anonymous Coward]

>Think about it, a $100 purchase in a store with 5% tax is $5. What can you buy for $100 and ship for only $5?

Except that I shop online because I can often get that $100 item for say $92 online, probably less. $8 shipping is $100. Now sales tax makes the difference.

It's a farce

[kingpin2k]

So, internet companies continue being able to not absorb their shipping costs into the price of their products like every "brick-and-mortar" business does. Great. Whoopee. Not only that, but states get to continue finding new ways to "extract" money from their local economies that would normally come from their sales tax bases. Let's all celebrate. Thank you Congress.

dialect issues?

[GungaDan]

Don't you mean "woohoo?"

Oh - you're talking about the Homer Simpson from Charlottesville...

Re:dialect issues?

[jeffy124]

Not quite. Depends on how you read it. To me, "woohoo" makes it sound like the "woo" part lasts too long, while "wahoo" makes the "wa" sound nice and quick.

Re:dialect issues?

[Shitsack Comments]

Don't forget the first posting tip!

• Please try to keep posts on topic.

I understand you're doing your best, but I think most people would agree that this is a little, well, not relevant to the discussion at hand (Internet Taxing, you know).

Re:dialect issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck you

Re:dialect issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck you

Re:dialect issues?

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck you

I'd rather pay shipping

[Anonymous Coward]

I bought a 450lb 65" TV last year and gladly paid the shipping. If they're even close in price, I'd rather pay a business the money than a parasitic government.

Today in Macroeconomics...

[MarcQuadra]

We learned that when the economy grows, the government grows proportional to it (by taxation) and when the economy (aggregate demand, at least) shrinks, the government tries to pick up the slack by expandinga bit (to increase demand). It seems like tax-free Internet sales will stagnate the Man's willingness to grow with the economy, maybe our government:corporate consumption ratio (currently about 1:3 in America) will decrease over time with these tax exemptions. Sounds good to me! Now all they need to do is incite more competition in the OS market!

Grammatical Money Laundering

[GungaDan]

"Think about it, a $100 purchase in a store with 5% tax is $5."

Hrmmm... wonder if a $100 purchase with a 5% rebate is also only $5? Folks, this is why the mean old English teacher made you diagram sentences.

What kind of angel gets wings?

[f00zbll]

Are these angels good or bad? and if they get wings, does this mean it counts as a good deed towards heaven? Or does it depend on your religion? If I buy pr0n, does it create another hell spawn? Taxes and angels confusing...

Cyber Government

[MindStalker]

I believe that the time has come from an Internet government. Any person or entity with an online presence can VOLUNTARILY join this government. By joining the Internet government you promise you pay a small tax on any income you earn from an Internet transaction (wither it be sales or service. This government shall declare its sovernity as a nation, and will defend (using the tax money) that soverity from governments that wish to take it away (by laws or otherwise) It will also use the money to promote commerce by adding to the existing infrastructure by creating public "roads" not owned by any corporations and free to use by citizens and non citizens alike. (sorry my spell checker didn't know how to spell word sovernity?)

Re:Cyber Government

[aardvarkjoe]

Hey, guess what? It already exists, and Bill Gates has elected himself president!

Re:Cyber Government

[MindStalker]

Time to create an elected, by the people, cyber government. Sorry I wasn't clear on that part :)

Re:Cyber Government

[maxpublic]

Fuck that. It's bad enough belonging to one government, espeically the way it's been behaving lately. No bloody way I'll voluntarily join another.

Max

... or not, depending on the translation.

[DJerman]

Remember: every time you buy over the internet, an angel gets his wings.

Translation... [now that they're all for-profit] every internet sale helps pay for the VC's learjet.

Has anybody

[Anonymous Coward]

from the Congress or academia thought about adopting value-added tax like that in the Europe? VAT may solve the problem of interstate trade in the US. It basically works by taxing everytime, say a desktop, each of its components is assembled. So tax is also collected thru stages of production instead of just distribution like retail tax. A whole lot different but might be useful in this case.

Re:Has anybody

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you stupid?

Re:Has anybody

[Anonymous Coward]

The question arises, how does a foreign supplier, e.g. Sony, fit in if the U.S. VAT's? Seems they would have a considerable advantage selling Viao's for example, only the processor would be taxed as opposed to Dell being taxed on every component made in the USA. (Wonder what the % of a Dell is USA components anyway?) Case in point, What can you think of that is manufactured in Europe that is sold the U.S. beside cars. Darn near nothing compared to the rest of the globe.

Re:in the words of homer simpson...

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck you

Slackware.com - where'd the forums go?

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, i was looking to get a question answered in the slackware forums, but I looked today and they're gone! They were there yesterday....anyone know what happened?

Re:in the words of homer simpson...

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck you

Here is the law on sales tax for online purchases

[Kamel Jockey]

If you buy something online or through mail order from a company which has an actual physical presence in your state (e.g., you order from BestBuy.com and there is a Best Buy store somewhere in your state), then the vendor must collect state sales tax for your state.

If you buy something online or through mail order from a company which does not have an actual physical presence in your state, the vendor is not obligated to collect the sales tax for your state, but you are obligated to pay the sales tax yourself (which no one does). Incidentally, the same thing is true if you drive to a state which has no tax, buy something there, and bring it back to your own state. Additionally, some states enter into agreements with individual vendors to collect sales tax for purchases being shipped there.

If there is a local sales tax, most vendors don't collect that unless they are located in and shipping within the jurisdiction in which the tax applies. Again, its up to the consumer to pay the tax themselves.

The reason the internet tax ban is good is because there are literally tens of thousands of state, county, municipal, school district and other governments within the USA alone that can collect varying amounts of tax on purchases. And this changes every year with changes to the tax code. Imagine the complexity of a program that would have to keep track of all of that.

And if people think it can be done with a few lines of Perl and MySQL, then they've never programmed.

Gotta love the People's Republic of Maryland!

[Kamel Jockey]

I really wish states would outlaw stupid "use tax" laws. They really serve no purpose whatsoever. Unless the state actually takes part in the transaction (e.g., when you buy a car out of state and register it in your state), they should not be in this business.

Dot Coms, not angels

[clandaith]

Remember: every time you buy over the internet, an angel gets his wings.

I thought it was a Dotcommer cries out in joy and a ray of sunshine lands on his face?

It's not just politics...or is it?

[DaoudaW]

However it has been marketed, the moratorium is less a ban in Internet sales tax and more an extension of a long-standing Federal policy to not require mail-order companies to collect taxes for every state and city in the country. Companies are required to collect these taxes from purchasers who live in jurisdictions in which the company has brick and mortar stores whether or not the the transaction was over the Internet.

The problem is what to do with pure Internet retailers. Which jurisdictions do they collect taxes from? Does it matter where their servers are? Where their distribution centers are? The confusion surrounding these issues has so far made collecting sales tax on impractical. So the politicians have decided to make hay while the sunshines; taking credit for suspending taxes that have never existed.

What's really happening

[Brett Glass]

At http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/comment/0,5859,2 825260,00.html, Senator Mike Enzi, in a carefully scripted political message, tries to convince citizens that this is not a new tax. But it is. Enzi conveniently neglects to tell you that while many states' laws authorize the collection of "use taxes," they have never actually been imposed. The US Supreme Court, in Quill v. North Dakota, ruled that such taxes were unconstitutional unless they were imposed or authorized by Congress -- not the states.

What Senator Enzi's bill does is impose the taxes which the states were justifiably blocked from imposing. The result: the imposition of new taxes -- ones that will cripple e-commerce and new high tech businesses -- in the midst of an economic recession.

The $5 million minimum in Enzi's legislation is a red herring, too. Any e-commerce business that does not achieve at least $10 million in sales per year cannot compete due to a lack of volume purchasing power and economies of scale.

Why did Senator Enzi advance the legislation? To find out, we need look no farther than his own state -- Wyoming -- which has a sales tax but no income tax. Wyoming's Governor Jim Geringer, and his state revenue director Johnnie Burton, have decided that rather than putting a tax increase to the voters (which might allow a fair debate on the issue and give citizens some control of the outcome), or creating a state tax regime that is fairer and less regressive, they would aggressively pursue this new tax, which could be imposed without such "inconveniences."

The fact that this tax would appear to be imposed from without (by Congress), and that it could be implemented without a vote of the people or debate in the state legislature, makes it just the ticket for Mr. Geringer, who has failed to confront tough issues and has bowed in the past to the influence of large, out-of-state coporations at the expense of his citizens' best interests. For example, the mineral industry, which is the single largest campaign contributor in Wyoming, favors measures which will make Wyoming a less desirable place to live, because this makes it easier to carve up Wyoming's vast, unpopulated open spaces in their relentless quest for minerals. This industry also favors every measure which raises taxes on residents rather than upon itself.

It is also telling that Mr. Geringer, during the Microsoft antitrust case, favored Microsoft (see http://www.state.wy.us/governor/press_releases/199 8/june_1998/micro.html) -- even though Microsoft had just been proven to have fabricated evidence and lied to the judge during the trial. "In a time when most of us are striving for excellence, [the Department of] Justice and the 20 states want only to assure mediocrity," wrote Geringer, conveniently failing to note that Microsoft was using Internet Explorer -- a "knock-off" product that showed no innovation whatsoever -- to crush the innovative Netscape. In Wyoming, whatever large corporations want, they get... and the shameless greasing of palms is barely concealed.

Michael Enzi's legislation would do nothing good for anyone -- except large corporate interests (Wal-Mart and other "big box" retailers favor the tax because they have retail stores everywhere and want to have an edge over e-commerce) and cowardly state politicians. It should -- no, must -- be defeated. And so should Enzi. (Geringer, now a "lame duck" due to term limits laws, is -- no joke! -- reputed to be considering a position with Microsoft.)

maybe Raster

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey good news...I can finally buy that free software that I always wanted

Nexus of operations

[alexhmit01]

Most states with sales taxes also have use taxes (alluded to elsewhere). You aren't exempt from the tax by paying out of state.

HOWEVER, the SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States) ruled that states can only force a company to collect the taxes for them if they maintain a nexus of operations in the state.

If the company doesn't have a presence in the state, they don't need to act on behalf of the state and collect taxes.

This is why companies can't (legally) set up subsidiaries in two states to avoid taxes. Otherwise, locals could order from another state.

The enforcement problem is that they CAN'T enforce it. They can't cross state lines with their taxes.

The Congress and Governors were trying to come up with a solution for a simplified tax system. The idea would be to at least standardize to the point where given a zipcode, a simple lookup would determine the tax base.

Keep in mind, not only do states collect sales tax, some counties and cities add them as well. This creates a mess. It is one thing to have to do a lookup on 50 states, it is another to have to deal with localities.

Companies with solutions have tried to find beta testers, but who will volunteer to collect sales tax just to beta test software that will make it mandatory.

Interestingly, New Hampshire doesn't charge sales tax on liquor (or anything, if I recall), so Mass got annoyed that residents would cross state lines to purchase things, including liquor at the New Hampshire State liquor stores (can only buy booze in New Hampshire at state run liquor stores, right along the highway... isn't that entrampment?). Mass sent staties into New Hampshire, calling back license plates, and arresting people crossing the line (or something similar)... so New Hampshire deployed their troopers to arrest the Mass employees on silly charges, and the situation went away.

States' Rights matter outside the northeast, because the states are huge and do their own thing. States' Rights don't matter in the northeast because the states like to squabble with each other and would like to have more central control because people cross the lines regularly.

Alex

Re:Nexus of operations

[Anonymous Coward]

Using an acronym and defining it right after is only useful if you intend to use it again repeatedly. If you don't, it just wastes space. Either your intended audience already knows what it stands for, in which case you don't need to define it, or some of they may not know, in which case you're just being a pretentious dick by showing off that you know the acronym.

Re:Nexus of operations

[Rupert]

Houston (IIRC) used to have an extra .5% sales tax if there was a bus stop on the block where the purchaser lived. Quite how the retailer was supposed to know this was never satisfactorially explained.

Re:Nexus of operations

[alexhmit01]

And getting Amazon.com to understand this would be quite a trick!

Yeah, the states need to get their act together if they want to start collecting sales tax on interstate commerce that don't involve a local retailler.

Alex

Re:Nexus of operations

[Anonymous Coward]

The states in the Northeast squabble a lot because they are so close and so packed together, that many people live in one state and work in another. People in NH get annoyed at having to pay sales and income taxes when the work/ play in another state (and Maine even taxes family income, so they screw ya twice!) Besides, the liquor stores are there to a) pay for schools and b) extract the money from the Massholes. Also, it wasn't the Mass staties, it was the Maine ones.

Re:in the words of homer simpson...

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck your party

Re:Internet taxes should go for internet improveme

[TheShadow]

No, the internet is nothing more than a bunch of people communicating with each other.

More on how taxes really work.

[Snar Bloot]

When a government entity which relies on something like a sales tax to make ends meet has a continued reduction in their revenue, they will either A) cut services; or B) replace that source of revenue with another.

We don't really need to pay dues.

[El Camino SS]

Pay up America, or you can't walk into the building. RIIIIGHT.

What are they going to do? Kick us out of New York? Tell us that we can't get to have a seat next to all of the Gov'ts we prop up by giving free grain and huge, enourmous, fat foreign aid checks to?

The biggest fiasco in the UN in the last twenty years was the fact that Butros got up and said, "You are a despicable bunch of deadbeats. Pay your bill." They were BEGGIN' for it. We almost had all of our senators pass a resolution to make the US diplomatic corps walk out on the UN. That is the equivalent of a sales department publicly attacking its biggest client. Sheer suicide. It was something to say the UN is larger than the US or the nations that pay into it... when it is simply the diplomatic corps THAT WE SET UP to keep the peace.

The UN needs to shut up. It is simply a forum for bitching, and definitely not there to really solve anything... except let spoiled leaders feel important so they don't have to take it out on their people.

And your idea about the UN getting an international tax is horrible. I am not paying a UN tax. They will have to beat me into the ground and pull my wallet out first. NO WAY. Have you seen where the money goes on most foreign aid? To the rich. None of the money gets to the poor. It buys big air conditioned buildings for the international aid groups, and no one notices.

Question. Where have you ever seen a shitty, run-down RED CROSS building? Those people are farting through silk. Give them time, not money, remember, labor can't be spent on promotional pen and pencil sets.

A tax for the UN lets all of the Emirs, Kings, Politcal Poobahs, and all of the other less reputable world leaders spend more of our money on their hobbies... you know, polo ponies, big boats, lavish vacations, and chasing international supertail. NO FUCKING WAY AM I GIVING THEM MONEY.

THEY WILL NOT GOVERN ME. The USA has enough problems in its system keeping up with the common man. I if I want input, I'll be taking it from a fucking democracy. If they let me personally VOTE in the UN, then I might cough up. Otherwise it is taxation without representation.
Everyone knows how Americans feel about that. The UN is not the great democracy that they speak of.

The UN should stay as a diplomatic service. The Earth's Big Club. I am not going to be listening to any speech on a bill from the "Distinguished Gentleman from Pakistan." Not when they allow psychotic schools in their borders designed for dirty tactics against my nation, or any other nation. FUCK THAT ONE WORLD GOV'T IDEA. Its no good. Most nations can't treat their own people fairly. I am not being governed by them.

Re:Internet taxes should go for internet improveme

[Anonymous Coward]

Nice concept but it is flawed. It would create a nightmare of who gets what of the tax money. You will have the big giants wanting their fair share, and the smaller mom pop isp's with their share.

So in a sense, what it boils down to, is you are actually paying tax for more companies to profit upon, not nessecarily used for enhancing the internet infrastructure.

text of the bill

[kingdon]

I suppose many /. readers already know this, but thomas has the details on bills. In this case it is the "Internet Tax Nondiscrimination Act", HR 1552. If you follow that link and click on "bill status" you will see that the Senate passed the House version without amendments, so it doesn't need to go to conference committee. Looking at the Congressional Record for 15 Nov 2001 shows you what the Senators had to say on the bill. (linking to Thomas is a bit tricky, so in case I got it wrong, just start at the thomas home page and use the bill number or the date for the congressional record text).

Also remember...

[doorbot.com]

Remember: every time you buy over the internet, an angel gets his wings.

And, at the same time, the devil gets your credit card number.

Amazon needs more tax breaks than anyone

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because they "appear" large doesn't mean they are. Go look at their losses.

Fuck Bush...

[Anonymous Coward]

Republicans are the root of "Corporate America". So when you're in the 28% tax bracket paying for the roads, national security, ... go look how much big corporations like MS pay. FUCK REPUBLICANS.

On a side note I hope to be rich enough to be a republican some day...

Re:Fuck Bush...

[MrHyd3]

Isn't that what America is all about?!?! The American dream, to come from nothing and make it?! I did and I started in the ghetto and never received a dime from any Democrat faggot. You keep forgetting the Republicans are the ones for small Gov. I am in the 28% tax bracket and I get pissed off everytime I see my check...why do I have to pay for some lazy ass or a punkass college kid learning how not to appreciate anything?!!? Being taught by LIBERAL Profs who are not teaching facts but their little feelings?! Grow up.

Re:Fuck Bush...

[junkgrep]

Republicans in general aren't for small government in anything more than a rhetorical sense. It's a nice yelling point, but I've never seen any serious attempts to put a libertarian structure onto the doings of government except for an occasional Publican maverick like pork-hunter McCain.
As it is, cutting taxes today ultimately only means higher taxes tommorow.

Re:Fuck Bush...

[MrHyd3]

Republicans are in general for smaller gov. This is a known fact. Seeing that they are federalizing the airports now will make it bigger. I would call myself a Libertarian more than Republican, but no one will dare vote a Libertarian in fear of being called a racist and an unsocial hermit, so I have to go to the next best thing. McCain can kiss my ass he's a traitor to his own party...He was voted under Republican and should stick to the line. I don't mind flexibility but he's a TV mongor now like Clinton was....Like I said before last week...Reveolutions have started for much less taxation.....

Re:Fuck Bush...

[Skip666Kent]

Ahh yes, too true.

But how many jobs have you created as compared to Microsloth?

Re:Fuck Bush...

[junkgrep]

----Republicans are in general for smaller gov. This is a known fact. ----

This is a known CLAIM. But it's mostly rhetoric. Republicans like to cut taxes, but that's not the same thing as cutting government. Lest you forget: the entire Senate voted to federalize airport security, and the House has now gone that way as well.

---McCain can kiss my ass he's a traitor to his own party...He was voted under Republican and should stick to the line.---

Oh yes, what a great political system we have where everyone must tow a party line, and not vote the consciences of their constituents. Fuck party loyalty: it makes for a sicker, more corrupt America with the most puerile and tribal of debate.

---Like I said before last week...Reveolutions have started for much less taxation.....---

Oh, whatever. Revolutions over taxes happen in countries where the taxation is spent on coronating kings, not where they're voted into office. Despite all the whining about inefficiency, most of our tax dollars are spent on things people actually want. They just don't want to have to pay for them.

So get the hell out of that shit hole of a state

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't you know "Mary"land sucks anyway?

oh no, what about the 'brick and mortar'?

[Anonymous Coward]

him: "Tax free internet creates an unfair advantage over brick and mortar stores"

me: "How so?"

him: "well, brick and mortar must charge taxes, internet does not"

me: "So, you are saying therefore that it is a matter of price discrepancy?"

him: [smiling] "Yes, exactly!"

me: "What about the fact that internet stores generally charge less than brick and mortar?"

him: "Ah, thats true... that means that the reduced cause is 'unfair' regardless of cause, I get your point now"

me: "Well, not exactly. However, you are correct in your observation that in the end it is all about cost. My point is about seeing the forest, not just a couple of extra trees"

him: "What is your view?"

me: "Besides the fact that mail/phone order has existed for quite some time... Regardless of the fact that the 'dot.bomb' was largely a result of market saturation coupled with no (or bad) business PLANS, it has been showed that brick and mortar shops are now being relied upon more and more as a means of gathering information from knowledgeable staff, as well as the added visual and tactile analysis that can only be performed (at this point) in real life."

him: "hmmmm"

me: "besides, most often, the consumer gets raked over the coals on many sites unless he is lucky or careful... or so I've heard :) If someone wants some game, speakers, etc and they need or want it now, they are best off buying it at a brick and mortar store instead of waiting... or paying much more for overnight delivery (which is still waiting). There are many issues with ordering online that have yet to be resolved, and therefore it is my opinion that brick and mortar will survive. After all, the mom and pop stores suffered primarily from large chains and corporations, but that is still fair competition. Now you see that many are fed up with the crap from these 'cattle through the gates' chains and are going to more consumer oriented places... re-enter the Mom and Pop store."

Questions about the tax

[zeno_2]

I have listened to a little bit of this on the news, I know what its about, the state and federal governements want some money from the purchases made over the internet..

I am just wondering how they want to go about this. What if I live in England, and buy something from an online store based in California?

What happens if I live in, lets say, Oregon, I connect to a machine in England, then have that machine connect to the online store and buy something, how would they know about that. Could they look at the shipping info, and base it off of that?

Im just glad to hear they put another ban on starting the tax, I don't feel we are ready for something like that yet, as the only way I can really see them basing who gets taxed and how much, is by a shipping address or billing address. If its a shipping address, what if I am buying something as a gift to someone else..

Just to let you know I know very little about taxes, the whole system needs to be overhauled..

Itd already taxed!

[geekoid]

You are legaly obligated to report purchases, and pay taxes on them, to the stae franchise board.
unless you have no state tax.

I am a little confused...

[Ivan Raikov]

...by Section I, Article 9 of the US Constitution, which says:

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

but then it goes on to

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

Anyone knowledgable care to explain?

Re: DC - taxation without representation

[mapmaker]

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by a "legal principal", but there certainly isn't any LAW in the US that says no one can be made to pay taxes to a government in which the payer is not represented.

Here in Washington DC we pay all the same federal income and payroll taxes as other US citizens, but we have no representatives in the US Senate and only a non-voting (ie useless) representative in the House of Representatives. We get to vote in Presidential elections, but that's it.

We are a literal example of taxation without representation.

Re: DC - taxation without representation

[Anonymous Coward]

And we get a crackhead mayor every now and again! Yay DC.

This is welfare for the rich

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it's kinda funny that a most of the comments on this articles are in favour of this ban. It's always suspect when people are in against taxes only for themselves.

Internet users are disproprortionately wealthly and white compared to the general population. This means that the general population will have to pay taxes on purchases that the more privlidged internet users won't pay. I don't think that's fair.

There are obvious practical problems with taxing internet sales, but that doesn't mean that this issue shouldn't be seriously investigated. I can't think of a single reason that internet users should be exempt from taxation just because they buy things with their computers.

I'm far from wealthy, but I'm a lot better off than most people are, so I don't see why I should have to pay less taxes on my purchases than most.

The computer and communications industries have been subsidized for the last 50 years by massive R&D spending by the American military (IBM is and has been a major defence contractor). I don't see why the government should further subsidize a group of people who really don't need it.

why should we be forced to treat them the same

[blonde rser]

just because they are the same. Taxes aren't a form of justice so tax law doesn't need to be restricted to equality. Taxes a simply a solution to problem; or more specifically the effects of tax collection has more benefits to society than detrements. But if we can modify tax law such that society benefits even more there is no reason to hesitate. At the moment a large percentage of American dollars is invested in internet commerce but a relitively small percentage of sales tax is collected off of internet purchases. So it is reasonable to assume that there are more positives than negitives to society. If this were a justice case one would have to weigh the social benifits against indiviual rights. But this isn't a justice case; nor is it a distinction made based upon ethnicity or wealth. Will this law injure phone sales and mail order companies? Probably. Do these companies have an innate or constitutional right to suceed? I would say no but you might say yes. Clearly this issue isn't as simple as "all same things should be treated the same, end of argument."

Re:in the words of homer simpson...

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck you

Actually, this will compound the recession

[WillSeattle]

One of the problems with non-economists trying to decipher analyses of economic impacts of tax policy is that frequently you are looking at a very narrow viewpoint of the economic impacts.

Furthering the Internet tax ban merely delays the imposition of state sales tax on Net transactions.

The delay actually increases local instabilities, lowers the tax base, and thus drives up the local sales tax rates to recapture the income.

When you cheat taxes by not paying them (which is what this is), you force the local governments which have to meet those service needs to increase the rates on the bricks-and-mortar employers in the area, increase unemployment, and only the Net industries get a tax break.

What made sense in the 90s no longer makes sense in the 21st century.

There is no free lunch. When you drop taxes but expect the same net outflow, you either borrow the money or you raise taxes on all other participants. This is merely a shift of tax costs from the owners of Net-based shops onto the backs of people who actually create more jobs and have to pay higher property taxes to start with.

Be careful what you ask for, you may get it.

-

Why Sen Wyden of OR supports the Net tax ban

[WillSeattle]

"Sen. Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, who favored the simple extension, said Americans don't want to be taxed when they log on the Internet for their news, weather and sports."

Or, perhaps it's because Sen. Wyden represents a state with no sales tax. In other words, his state gains nothing from a Net sales tax, and thus it is in his state's favor to act in this manner.

Whereas I live in a state (Washington) with no Income tax, but a high Sales tax. So it is to my advantage to have a Net sales tax be imposed, so that my state captures the revenues it is entitled to, and does not subsidize his state.

For every stock transaction or purchase there is a buyer and a seller.

-

Re:Why Sen Wyden of OR supports the Net tax ban

[maxpublic]

By no stretch of logic could you support the claim that Washington in any way subsidizes Oregon. How we tax ourselves is our business; if you were brain-dead enough to vote in a sales tax, then *you* deal with it. Your tax woes aren't our problem.

Max

Re:Why Sen Wyden of OR supports the Net tax ban

[WillSeattle]

By no stretch of logic could you support the claim that Washington in any way subsidizes Oregon. How we tax ourselves is our business; if you were brain-dead enough to vote in a sales tax, then *you* deal with it. Your tax woes aren't our problem.

Wrong. I claim it because it's true. Just as we have a problem here with RV buyers who drive to Portland to buy their RV to avoid the sales tax.

My point is that the Senator (who I like, by the way) has his state's interests at heart, and one must view his opinions about a Net sales tax compact with that knowledge.

This is also why many software firms choose to have businesses in Washington - then their high-paid employees can avoid income tax. Washington has a very large number of very high income earners, more than our fair share, partially for that reason. It makes more sense if you are someone who doesn't spend a lot but has a high salary, to live in our state.

One would expect /. to have more people whose jobs depend on Net firms, and thus more posters who are opposed to a uniform Net sales compact, of course.

There's nothing wrong with having a bias, it's just when you deny that you may be acting in your own self-interest.

[caveat - I own shares in firms which make money in the Net sphere, so I may be biased]

Re:Why Sen Wyden of OR supports the Net tax ban

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong. I claim it because it's true. Just as we have a problem here with RV buyers who drive to Portland to buy their RV to avoid the sales tax.

If your tax is costing you so much, would not the prudent thing be to dump it? Are you not depriving OR of much-needed income tax by providing a haven for those who prefer not to pay it?

Notice that tax _evasion_ is illegal, whereas tax _avoidance_ is not.

Re:Why Sen Wyden of OR supports the Net tax ban

[maxpublic]

You weren't speaking of bias; you claimed that because Oregon lacked a sales tax Washington, in some mystical fashion, subsidizes Oregon.

This is a ridiculous claim to make. Simply because your sales tax encourages Washington residents to buy in Oregon doesn't mean that Oregon is in any way, shape, or form responsible for the system *you've* put into place. If it causes your state difficulties that's *your* problem, not ours. It would be equally idiotic for me to claim that Washington causes problems for Oregon by encouraging high wage-earners to move across the border.

Either state could rectify the perceived 'problem' by changing it's tax scheme. Washington could, for example, eliminate the sales tax and implement an income tax - end of RV buyers crossing the border. But again, that's up to Washington to correct its own problems; Oregon has nothing to do with that.

Max

Re: UN and one world government.

[Doppler00]

The United States should completely get out of the UN. We should not have to pay any money to any other outside organization. The United States is a SOVERIEGN NATION. We don't owe money to anyone. I'm sick of hearing this repeated socialist/communist nonsense. It is not our responsibility to take care of the rest of the world. Each country should be able to solve its own problems they create.

Re:in the words of homer simpson...

[Anonymous Coward]

No no no no no no no.

Fuck you, silly.

Why should we expect a free ride?

[dfetter]

Oops. "return" shouldn't default to "submit."

Anyhoo,

Aren't internet companies' offices and servers located in one or more municipalities located here in the Land of the Pretty-Much-Free? Don't they benefit from that? It seems to me that they get all kinds of cool stuff like roads, publicly educated employees, clean water, safe streets, redress of grievances, law enforcement, et expensive tax-funded cetera. Is there some reason that a company based in Palo Alto should be exempt from taxes because it sells through web servers when the one next door that has customers walk in or order by mail isn't?

Please help me out here 'cause I'm really confused.

Oh ya!

[mupi]

if (!(Speaks_English)) {
insPenis.intoHole(girl);
}

far far away from geek land

[mupi]

Far, far away from slashdot geeks, we find this!

Re:Internet taxes should go for internet improveme

[Anonymous Coward]

Personally, I don't want to see any taxes on internet transactions, ever. But I would be much more willing to pay a small tax if I had a say in what the tax was used for.

Which of the taxes you pay do you believe you have a say in? I really can't remember the election where I agreed to have some of my tax bux go to subsidize CA winegrowers' advertising in Europe.

Thank You United States Congress

[Baldrson]

Oh, thank you, thank you, United States Congress, for not threatening (at least for a couple more years) to throw me in one of your HIV-infected ethnic-gang-rape-infested prisons for failing to pay yet _another_ of your goddamned taxes!

Angels...

[Winged Elf]

Remember: every time you buy over the internet, an angel gets his wings.

Bah, I earned my wings!