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 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.
Remember: every time you buy over the internet, an angel gets his wings.
Attaboy Clarence!
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.
>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.
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.
President Bush actually wanted to extend it longer than two years. You can read more about the tax extentsion at Yahoo!
--
FearLinux.com
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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?
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
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
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.
Ahh yes, too true.
But how many jobs have you created as compared to Microsloth?
**>>BELCH