Slashdot Mirror
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.
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?
"as plurdled gabbleblotchits on a lurgid bee" - Prostetnic Vogon Jeltz. (One man's humorous is another mans flamebait)
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
Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?
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.
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.
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
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)
go get it
Remember: every time you buy over the internet, an angel gets his wings.
Attaboy Clarence!
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.
Easy does it!
This comment has been submitted already, 276865 hours , 59 minutes ago. No need to try again.
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.
Helping with organizational effectiveness is our job.
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.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
...your credit card number gets stored in yet another insecure database and your email address gets sold to spammers.
No, thanks.
Liberty in your lifetime
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.
Where are we going and why am I in this handbasket?
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.
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.
Support Texas Troops use TXGoogle
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.
Article X: The powers not delegated... by the Constitution...are reserved...to the people
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.
>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
--- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
...and every time you make fun of a khaki-wearing dot-commer on a scooter, an angel bursts into flames.
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.
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.
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 :-)
President Bush actually wanted to extend it longer than two years. You can read more about the tax extentsion at Yahoo!
--
FearLinux.com
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.
Watch "It's a Wonderful Life" and you would know that it is everytime a *bell* rings an angel gets its wings.
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.)
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.
/. 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.
So many of the problems that we hear being complained about everyday on
Globalization is the problem, not the solution.
lysergically yours
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.
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?
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.
"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?
Moon Macrosystems. Sun's biggest competitor.
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.
If guns kill people, then CmdrTaco's keyboard misspells words.
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.
In illa quae ultra sunt
there are 2 kinds of people. those who divide people into 2 kinds, and those who don't.
C'mon Commando Taco, get over it. Dubya's been a decent president.
+1 Taco Bait
No more, no less; no sooner, no later.
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.
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!
"Sometimes, I think Trent just needs a cup of hot chocolate and a blankie." -Tori Amos on Nine Inch Nails
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.
Eloi are stupid, throw morlocks at them!
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...
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?)
Translation... [now that they're all for-profit] every internet sale helps pay for the VC's learjet.
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.
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.
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.
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
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.
In case of fire, do not use elevator. Use water!
I thought it was a Dotcommer cries out in joy and a ray of sunshine lands on his face?
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 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.)
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
No, the internet is nothing more than a bunch of people communicating with each other.
--
"What do you want me to do? Whack a guy? Off a guy? Whack off a guy? Cause I'm married."
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.
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.
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).
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.
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."
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..
You are legaly obligated to report purchases, and pay taxes on them, to the stae franchise board.
unless you have no state tax.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
...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?
Bush Lies Watch
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.
Since they don't get pregnant, don't get PMS, and never ask "does this halo make my butt look big?"
Practice random senselessness and act kind of beautiful.
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."
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.
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.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
"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.
-
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
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.
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!
Seastead this.
Bah, I earned my wings!
Ahh yes, too true.
But how many jobs have you created as compared to Microsloth?
**>>BELCH
----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.