Slashdot Mirror
Evolution Of The Online Tax Debate
rhwalker22 writes "Last November, the Streamlined Sales Tax Project drafted a plan to make it easier for states to cooperate in collecting sales taxes on products sold over the Internet. That plan is now headed to governors and state legislatures for debate.
While that debate begins, the sales tax group is moving into new territory, debating how to apply sales taxes to digital services, like music and software downloads, and IP telephony. Most states participating in the sales tax project have sent representatives to Tampa, Fla., this week to take up this subject, according to a report by washingtonpost.com."
When I went over to London I got told about VAT refunds. If you are a tourist in Britain you can get back most sales tax (Value added tax) if you save the recipts and it is over some base cost. The reason I heard for this is that a visiter recives no benefit for the tax and therefor has no logical reason to pay it. This seems to be the case with internet shopping... I don't live in North Dakota so why should I pay for kids to go to school there while not contributing to my state... now if the tax was being proposed from the originating state it makes a little more sense, but is still a streach. The long and short seems to be that the states are strapped for cash and trying to collect more taxes without making new taxes.
Remove *your pants* to send me email.
Why even tax the internet? After about 5 years of e-commerce being popular, we have seen the market take off. It started off with some bumps, but after the bubble burst, and all of the stupid dot-com companies died out, we were left with many legitimate e-commerce sites that were pulling in a large profit. Rather than law-makers seeing this as a sign that maybe low taxes are good, they see this as an opportunity to tax further. If law-makers truly believe that internet commerce is hindering their states because it is so cheap, then they should lower taxes in their state rather than trying to levy taxes on the internet.
It's kind of like two kids. One is very gifted and one is just regular intelligence. If you want to help the regular kid, you should spend extra time with him and help him. You should not try to force the gifted kid to act dumb.
Ridiculous! What about the US Consititution!?
When state Governors are sworn in they USUALLY take an oathe to uphold the US Constitution and to defend it.
They are not if they keep trying to fight it with ridiculous crap like this. Some states have no sales tax for example like the wonderful state of Washington.
As everyone knows it is unconstitutional to tax interstate commerce or subject levies and tariffs.
The only exception to taxing telephone purchases or internet prurchases between two states is when the company collecting the sales tax HAS PHYSICAL BUSINESS PRESENCE in both states.
I hope people see this at 4:49am EST and put his thread to rest.
The whole idea is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. And ammednig the constitution is a dangerous action, once it starts the constitution is open for modification until closed and ANYTHING can happen during the debate.
This stuff makes me sick. California and New York should be ashamed for their socialist spending practices.
To keep governments honest in delivering value to their constituents, states should be forced to compete in offering low cost of doing business. If taxes climb too high, then the goverment isn't doing it's job well, businesses leave, the economy suffers, and the people vote the government out of office. This is the best mechanism we have for keeping governments accountable to the people -- just as companies have to offer value to their customers, and to their shareholders.
Taxing across state borders is unjust and just plain stupid. We have enough barriers to trade around the world. Let's not start *within* our own country.
Run that one by me again, will you?
You SAW Episode 1 for free. Having found this a displeasing experience (didn't we all) you then went and PAID to see it AGAIN? What kind of masochist are you?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
...about this whole thing is the government, especially most of the States, dont spend the money they get wisely in the first place, so we are going to give them MORE money?
For the last 10 years in Oklahoma the population grew at about 6%, government spending grew at about 70%, now there is a budget shortfall and the want to raise taxes!
Thanks to file sharing, I purchase more CDs
Thanks to the RIAA, I buy them used...
ANTYTHING that increases the tax burden on the average person has a harm associated with it. It may also have a good, but there IS a harm to it as well. Remember, taxes are moneys taken from you by force if necessary and spent on items that you did not choose to spend it on.
Back when government did as little as possible the harm taxes caused were less than the good they did. That is no longer the case, as government grows larger and starts doing things that are not in the common interest.
It is therefor the duty of every citizen to see to it that the government gets as little tax money as legally possible.
Giving more money to the government because they are having a budget shortfall is like buying an achoholic a drink because his glass is empty - it might seem like a charitable thing to do, but it really is harmful.
NOTA BENE - I am not a "Business is Good/Goverment is Stupid" sort of person. I don't like big business any more than I like big government - I like small businesses and local government, because they tend to be more responsive to the individual. That is why taxing interstate commerce, be it done via the Internet, via the mail, via the telephone, or via carrier pideons is a BAD THING - it discourages local government and benefits larger governmental bodies.
www.eFax.com are spammers
Sales tax, on the other hand, just happens when the end-consumer purchases the product. So the product on the shelf for 99 cents ends up costing like $1.07 when you checkout.
Sales taxes vary by state too. Like, Pennsylvania doesn't tax clothing, but some other places do. Delaware charges NO sales tax. Arizona charges a sales tax, but some cities tack on a percent or two so you have differing sales taxes just by driving around in one metro area like Phoenix.
It's a complicated mess, so the real problem is, how does a net business know what tax to charge each user. It's not just a simple case of doing a table lookup of 50 elements and multiplying the sale value by it. There are thousands of different rates, and just as many rules about certain products which are exempt. Then you have the hassle of knowing what locality to remit the revenue to. Whereas a physical store just has one sales tax rate to worry about and one place to submit their receipts.
The answer being floated about is to have online tax clearing houses for the states so when you make an e-commerce purchase, the site connects to the tax site, gets the amount to charge, then submits that value to the tax site. That site (a private company) would keep a portion, and remit the rest each month to all appropriate localities.
A complicated mess, and some companies have noticed the huge potential to score a percent or two off of every net sale, and are eager to provide the service. The states and localities will accept a lower rate after fees because it's better than nothing.
Meanwhile, ailing dot-com online companies will suffer even more. You already have to pay shipping (usually). If you tack on sales tax and the hassle of waiting for the goods to arrive, most people will just as soon run down the street to buy the stuff where it will end up cheaper.
And that is why bricks-and-mortar stores are all for this idea...