Slashdot Mirror
Ban On Internet Sales Tax Ends Saturday
donnyspi writes "As reported in the Rocky Mountain News, among other places, the 5 year ban on collecting sales tax on purchases over the internet is scheduled to end Saturday. 'The original moratorium was established in 1998, renewed in 2001 and is set to expire Saturday. The U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill in September that would expand the ban and make it permanent. Similar legislation hasn't yet been voted on in the Senate.'
I bought it over the internet, obviously, and they still added $80-odd to my bill for sales tax. If the ban wasn't over yet, how come sales tax applied to my purchase?
Insightful: 76, Off-Topic: 379, Flamebait: 24, Funny: 152, Interesting: 201, Underrated: 55, Troll: 9, Total: 896
Luckily city and state governments don't normally read /. nor do they ever catch onto new trends. So I dont think we have to worry about massive sales taxes on the Internet starting at 12:01 Saturday.
The Slant
Can we ban charging for shipping too?
Quid festinatio swallonis est aetherfuga inonusti?
Africus aut Europaeus?
The ban that is about to expire is the one on taxing online services (such as ISP access). The "ban" on collecting sales tax over the internet is because of a law, but is the result of a court decision (which originally concerned catalog sales).
If Congress wants to allow taxing of internet access by the states, they will now have the ability, though they probably won't. If they want to allow taxing of internet sales, they'll have to get around Supreme Court decisions that say states can't collect taxes on residents in other states. But the issues are NOT related, despite the frequency with which people screw this up.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
When mail order business was getting started, the traditional businesses and the government moaned and groaned about the lack of tax return... However, today nobody is looking to tax mail order. Why not?
Mail order is been around far longer than the internet.
The internet is a wonderful business model and vector. Let us not soil it with taxes just yet.
Davak
"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."
-Gov. Bill Owens especially has been vocal in his opposition to Internet taxation in general, arguing in part that it would dampen the enthusiasm for the Internet...
The only thing that will "dampen the enthusiasm for the Internet" is if the government started cracking down on internet porn sites.
.. I just wishh it'd be a flat tax. I really don't want to deal with purchasing from different states with different taxes.
"Derp de derp."
I want to resurrect the discussion about a Canada icon, and to throw in my own vote.
How about Celine Dion's head in the flipping Southpark style?
~~~~~
Pet Peeve: Perscription drug advertising to the general public.
I see no reason why Internet sales should be treated any differently than catalog or telephone sales.
If I buy a widget from Company X via a catalog when I live in a different state than Company X, I'm not charged Company X's state's sales tax. But when this moratorium expires, I could be charged state sales tax if the purchase were over the Internet. And then, which state's sales tax would I have to pay?
Why should the medium of the purchase dictate the taxation rules? I, for one, would like to see sales tax laws universally applied for interstate commerce.
Technically states can and do tax out of state purchases. If you buy something in another state and bring it back home youre expected to pay the sales tax. Same if you order something through the mails. If you buy from a large enough company that has a presence in your state you will pay the appropriate sales tax. Funny thing is many years ago I bought a 20 meg bernoulli drive for my Mac. The drive was made by a company called berring and about a year later they called trying to collect the new york sales tax because they had been informed they had to.
Anyhow this probably won't be a big deal for most internet businesses except for the paperwork. It might not hurt them at all if there is a provision made for the expense of collection. It will hurt those that were only in business because they were a tax dodge.
It bans "use tax". It prevents states from taxing ISPs based on people simply connecting to the internet, like they do now for phone lines.
State sales taxes on internet purchases have been, and are still legal, and congress is doing nothing to stop them.
In fact, right now it is only possible for a state to successfully collect sales taxes if the e-commerce provider has a presence in their state, but the states are banding together to try to rectify this "problem", by creating a uniform sales taxation scheme that will force an e-comerce dealer in, say, New Hampshire, to collect and forward California state sales taxes from anyone residing in California.
Give me a freaking break. I never buy anything on the internet based on *price*. I never have and never will.
I buy stuff on the internet because it cannot be found locally, or cannot be found easily locally. Like obscure music, or obscure books. I used to buy the old school Vans shoes online until they started carrying them at the mall. Now I go to the mall to get them - its easier and less risky, less hassel.
Why do I say less risky? Well, I have bought things online, paid for them, and they never show up before. In one case, the company was an auction house that had been around for a while and I bought a keyboard from them and eventually got a note from them saying they were out of the keyboard, they were going out of business, and would not return my money because they'd rather keep it.
This doesn't happen often, but it has happened. You have to be real careful buying online. If I buy my shoes at the mall, I at least have them when I leave the store and if I pay cash, there is no risk.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
I don't think that the lack of a sales tax is a very big reason that people buy online. Look at any online store. What you gain in not having a sales tax, you lose in paing $ for shipping (especially if you expedite shipping), and paying your time for shipping (i.e. you have to wait for the item to be shipped to you).
The main thing about online shopping is convenience, and perceived cost savings. You can get in your car, go out to your local Barnes and Noble, and fork over twenty bucks for a book, OR you can sit in front of your CRT, click a few buttons, and pay $15 for the same book.
(Nevermind that you pay $5 for shipping, and the book doesn't arrive until the next day).
Moreover, if we're lucky, governmental officials will not impose a tax.
Consider:
If they're really smart, they'll realize that the Net benefits greatly from having no sales taxes.
If they're just of mediocre intelligence, then they'll either not notice that they can start taxing online sales, or they'll be too confused about who to tax (buyer or seller, what rates, etc.) to actually implement any taxes.
And if they're just dumb, then we'll have net sales taxes.
But even then, the online stores will have to compete on their own merit. Remember from your econ classes? Competition is good, and it improves efficiency!
Americans like to think that the rest of the world is irrelevant. Little do they know that they are becoming more and more irrelevant to the rest of the world. The better solution is to start a Slashdot.ca or something; We're usually ahead of the US technologically anyway so why not start our own slashdot and get it over with?
Sucks to be people selling the deodorant "Ban" over the Internet.
See, your joke just doesn't work. Nobody here uses deoderant, so you have to guess that you were making some sort of joke about how everyone here smells.
Just a few ideas rolling - I'm sure /.'ers will come up with more, and comment on this specific case. Not being an american, I lack the general "feeling" on the workings of the american economy.
0) Both empirical data and theoretical elaboration seem to concurr on that an Added Value tax would be the most efficient kind of taxation. Sales taxes don't quite distribute tax burden efficiently along the production chain. But how complex is really the production chain in a high added value internet reseller?
1) In countries with a high unemployed capacity, sales taxes will be very hurtful, as they will reduce consumption. But in a mature economy like the US, a carefully planned combination of consumption taxes and investment exemptions could encourage savings - and americans save four to five times less than their european counterparts.
2) The deadweight burden (the loss in welfare that doesn't become govt revenue) of a tax depends (among other supply-related factors) on demand elasticity - how much will demand react to a change in prices. If internet buyers are more price-sensitive than, say, buyers at the Walmart station in Dullsboro/OH, this could be hurtful to profitability perspectives as a whole.
3) How will this affect e-commerce with other countries? Foreigners are never happy to pay US taxes.
4) From a general equilibrium viewpoint, how large is the internet retail market in comparison to the large scheme of things? If not large enough, could it be the proverbial butterfly in south america causing a month-long storm in India?
5) I don't know if product-factor (Leontieff) matrixes are done by US bureaus of statistics regularly, but it would be interesting to take a peek if they did. Leontieff matrixes attempt to capture the interdependence of sectors in the economy - and while not being theoretically strict from a general equilibrium viewpoint, they're a very practical statistical tool. Anyone knows something about this?
6) Are they just trying to alleviate the govt. deficit? It doesn't seem to me the administration really cares about govt deficit.
7) Are they trying to impose stricter regulations on the internet on the grounds of tax evasions?
8) etc. etc.
UR Gettin a Dell
buying^h^h^h^h donating to a politician at any level is exempt from sales tax.
I suppose they'll enforce sales tax on us by claiming that having membership (a userID) with a website you purchased from constitutes being in the same STATE/State/state as you make the purchase?
:-)
Everyone should go buy the book Cracking the Code or read it online from SupremeLaw.Org, or read information on your Straw Man and howto validate the alleged "Sales Tax."
More taxation may actualy cause more freemen (and freewomen) to appear out of the wood-work. I'm one of them.
Secured Party, Without Prejudice, UCC 1-207: Creditor
I metamodded the off-topic moderation as unfair.
I'm *really* sick of how off-topic is abused around here.
As the subject says. At least that way I have a choice in paying it. Taxes are one of the two sure things in life, I'd rather have a choice in paying for it.
God I wish they would. Then you'd see anon encryted stuff like Freenet actually start working.
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle...
If this bill banned taxing internet access I think we should be lobbying to get them to expand it to cover taxing telephone access. My phone bill would probably be cut in half if I didn't have to pay all the different taxes they sneak in.
"Trying is only the first step towards failure." - Homer
What about the possibility of forming a Non-Profit organization that one could be part of and through which one could bypass sales tax? Would there be any advantage to making it religous based? Political party?
In this neck of the woods, 10% of businesses avoid taxes this way, but we still need to extend this privlege to the common man. Any suggestions on how to achieve this?
Each member runs there own division?
What did you do, mail them an envelope of cash?
Contest that with your credit card company.
Help prevent the slashdot effect; stop reading the articles.
Nope. I did a debate case on this in '98 or '99. The "discriminatory" bit means a tax that is applied to something on the internet that wouldn't be to the same thing not on the internet. For example, if someone made a 3% blanket tax on internet transactions IN ADDITION TO sales tax, that would be illegal. Or, if I made a 2% tax on internet flight reservations, in addition to any other tax, that would be illegal. Or, if I taxed internet access, that would be illegal (under the other part of the law).
In other words, if you specifically have to say "on the internet" in a law, that fee/tax would be illegal. If it were covered under a blanket law, that would be legal.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
I'm quite ambivilant on the internet sales tax issue. I've worked with a number of mid-sized, non-chain retailers who are loosing a significant number of sales to the internet because of sales tax. A lot of times people will shop in the store and then buy online. They try to sell their customer service, physical presence, etc, but the bottom line is that even when they can compete with an online price they always get burned by sales tax. The internet sales tax morotorium is likely to put quite a few small businesses under, and it's not because they can't compete fairly against the online retail business model, but because online store have a unfor advantage. That being said, sales tax is regressive and should be eliminated. It puts a disproportionate burden on lower income families who spend a higher percentage of their income on taxable goods. Eleminating sales tax would obviously be the easiest way to deal with the complications of implementing a 50 state tax system.
This whole thing appears to be false, as they're claiming to run Safari on a machine that doesn't even supported MacOS X (10.2 being required for Safari). I can't even be bothered reading the rest of it.
Oh, admittedly the last time I used MacOS X it was sort of slow, but I haven't used it enough to say either way if it's that slow. I somehow doubt it.
Warning: This is slightly offtopic but applicable to internet taxation nonetheless.
One of the biggest complaints about sales tax is that (in brick and mortar outlets) you never know exactly how much you're going to pay for something. For example, I run over to Walmart and I want to buy a can of Spaghetti O's. The label reads $0.79/can. If I have $5.00 in my pocket, I can buy 6 cans... or can I?
If I'm in an area with a different sales tax as the one I'm familiar with (in Louisiana sales tax varies from parish to parish where parish is the rough equivalent of a county), I may miscalculate the tax and I might not have enough at checkout.
I REALLY wish the government would pass a law that all taxes must be included in the labeled sale price. The seller should take into account the appropriate sales tax when deciding how much to sell an item for and the state should just take a percentage out of the seller's gross sales. It would take an unneccessary burden of the consumer.
If they did this and got rid of the penny, think of how much easier shopping would be. Keeping track of $0.50 for this, $0.35 for that, $20.50 for something else would be a lot easier than $0.39 for this, $1.99 for that, $19.99 for something else plus tax.
They should do the same thing for the internet if they levy an interstate sales tax on items bought on the internet. Granted, it's a lot easier to hit "cancel" on a web checkout form than to put things back at a grocery but it would set a nice precident.
P.S. -- VERY OT, has anyone else been getting lots of Server 500 errors when browsing Slashdot over the past week? I used to never get any and now I'm getting them in roughly one out every five page views... weird.
Wow. This troll got fp!
The different states are going to impose their own sales taxes on internet purchases and some cities are going to impose their own taxes.
What does this mean?
a) some states will try to tax internet purchasing out of existence in order to protect brick and mortars
b) some states will selectively tax to protect some local industry.
c) some states will overtax in order to advance social agendas.
d) companies that facilitate online purchasing will probably offer state sales tax collection services. For software, I think SWREG already does this.
e) a small handful of people will complain about getting sales taxes on the internet. an even smaller number of people will move from state to state to avoid the tax.
f) republicans will tout the internet sales tax as implemented in some states as a replacement for the income tax.
g) all of the above.
This is my sig.
If only there was a "WRONG" moderation and it applied to the blurbs!
The fact that Internet and catalog retailers don't have to collect sales tax for states they don't have a business presence in is a result of a Supreme Court decision and the Interstate Commerce Clause of the US Constitution (which reserves regulation of interstate commerce to the federal government). That doesn't expire. The states have been trying, since before the Internet was a big thing, to get Congress to change that. So far they've failed, but they are still trying.
What does expire is a moratorium on a tax on Internet services themselves -- e.g. a tax on your ISP's services.
The bonehead that started all this is Utah Governor Micheal Leavitt. He was the one that made the push for "state sales tax on internet purchases".
My question is why isn't Leavitt facing charges over Olympic Committee Bribery this week along with Tom Welch and David Johnson?
And to think Bush wants to appoint this idiot to the EPA!
In good old ohio we are sopost to pay tax on all mag and internet out of state sales. I dont have a problem paying taxes. What I dont get is why i have to pay ohio. I mean i consider a mag or internet sale as the same as getting into my car and driving there. I think I should have to pay right then and there, at the place of purchase. Why should ohio get money when they dont support the business nor do they promote new businesses to come.
I say have all internet sales tax tax right there as if i was there in person. You wanta buy from ca instead of your own state, fine, but pay ca taxes. This would make states WANT to have internet business instate, or else loose money to other states that are supporting the business.
I agree with you. On a recent trip to California, I was really peeved at the way prices are never what they seemed.
In certain places, like McDonald's, you paid what you saw. $1.99 for a McWhatever.. you paid $1.99. But at In'N'Out (oh I miss that place), for a $2.99 burger, you ended up paying like $3.23 or some similarly bizarre amount. Shopping at Ralph's was as interesting, which certain trips resulting in no tax, and others resulting in a few dollars (I believe this is because food is exempt from CA sales tax?).
In the UK, however, almost everywhere includes the VAT (like a 17.5% sales tax). So much so, that most people don't realise that most items have 17.5% tax.
The only places that predominantly list prices without VAT are trade magazines, parts catalogs, and so on.. because most businesses can 'claim the VAT back' from the taxman on purchases for business use.
The one BENEFIT I see of not including taxes on the display price is that people learn that their government is taxing them heavily. As I said before, most British people just pay the sticker price, and go on their way.. Americans, however, have that tax burden in their face everytime they go to In'N'Out. This might make a difference when it comes to voting on taxes in the future.
I live in Delaware you insensitive clod!
Other than some kinds of clothes there is very little I haven't bought on the internet. Parts for my computer, photo gear, clothes, scuba gear, stuff for my dogs, presents, and yes even toilet paper. Other than perishable food items I buy every thing online that I can.
Mostly because of convience and savings, but at the same time it's on principle since I live in the People's Republic of California, the third largest communist country after China and the EU, where the politicians have a nasty way of pissing away our tax money like there is no tomorrow.
A good example is the fuel tax, at $.18 a gallon, they collect over $16 billion a year with this tax. You know how much of it they actually spend on roads? Less than 1/4 of it, California by the way has some of the worse roads in the country.
I make it a point not to buy from any company that charges CA sales tax, even if it mean it will take an extra few days to get it shipped in from New Jersey. Funny though, even with the extra shipping charge the prices still usually manage to come in under those based in CA.
P.S. -- VERY OT, has anyone else been getting lots of Server 500 errors when browsing Slashdot over the past week? I used to never get any and now I'm getting them in roughly one out every five page views... weird.
Yes, I have. Also I noticed that http://www.slashdot.org started redirecting to http://slashdot.org:80, instead of just http://slashdot.org, at about the same time I started seeing the 500 errors occasionally. It must mean they've changed something (in the Matrix.)
Hey, I'm not bringing this up to insense canadians... just wanted to bring up an older question that's been floating in the discussions for a while. Feel free to suggest some strange US icon rather than the flag if you like. Mr. Neutron suggested a mountie hat, but that got mixed reviews.
This is a standard troll. Please don't feed. It is like a form letter. Fill in the OS, and you're all ready to go.
====
Crudely Drawn Games
I don't have any money to buy things locally, much less over the internet I don't think changes to the tax laws are going to affect me very much.
TT
No Senater will change this one..., not a single one will want to bear the change. This law will pass.
Daniel Connor
I feel that a sales tax should be paid by the retailer in their home location.
You should pay the tax of wherever you buy a product from.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
"Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases:
If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it."
-- Ronald Reagan
We need to put an end to this aweful cycle.
It's funny you mentioned this item. I heard on the radio this morning that the new car registration fees went into effect in California at the beginning of October. The first week, new car sales were down 30%. The second week the sales were down another 30%. I guess getting newer low emissions vehicles off California highways is working well. Oh this agenda was sold to the public as a way to raise state income. The bad news is the lower sales has resulted in less revenue from the higher registration fees. Good job geting the citizens to think twice before buying the 2nd or 3rd car that isn't realy neeeded. I know before Washington state canned the high registration based on vehicle value, I always bought 8-10 year old cars. It saved a bundle on insurance, taxes, registration etc. I would always insure just the minimum. The car was so low value, I didn't insure for damage to my car. I just took the savings and stuck in the bank. If the car got totaled, the insurance saving already paid for it's replacement. With low registration fees, I now own a low milage car that is worth insuring. It's also low emission and high milage. It's much better for the environment. I get to drive a nicer car. While doing so, I do pay more in insurance and taxes then when I drove clunkers. Too bad California has taken a big step backward.
The truth shall set you free!
You are required by law to pay any applicable sales taxes on any purchased you make in the state you live in.
So if you live in california and buy $100 worth of stuff from another state, you are required by law to pay your home state the applicable tax on your tax return.
The odds of getting caught not paying the sales tax are minimal, but so are general income tax fraud 'catches'. However, if audited and the auditor decides to dig deep, the records are there.
The 'law' as written excludes 'internet companies' from collecting the 'tax' required in advance, whether a business presence exists or not. That law expires per the article, and after that some companies MAY choose to withhold and pay the tax.
Aside from the legalese, i've made many purchases because (and for no other reason) that I escaped paying 8.25% sales tax on the item. With the tax in mind, I may not have bought tens of thousands of dollars worth of major purchases. Wouldnt THAT be nice for the economy...?
Hopefully, they will keep the ban on sales tax. It will help boost internet sales, and hopefully boost the economy. I like buying on the internet because of no sales tax. It keeps the prices competitive with stores. If you order online you have to pay S&H. Having no sales tax helps these companies keep their S&H prices and stay competitive with stores. Hopefully, the internet is the store of the future.
Revenue Canada reps last summer also attended a world government conference to deal with the growing 'problem' of lost tax revenues due to internet sales. The bureaucrats were quite literally getting hysterical with the fear that money was moving without being bled off to pay for their comfy suburban houses and four door family cars, big screen televisions and private school bills.
In Canada, at any rate, the party is ending, the vultures are landing.
I'm always amazed that people only re-install the gallows when it's far, far too late.
I have known personally many government bureacrats and civil servants. They were ALL either grown in nerd-tanks and fed to bursing with feel-no-guilt dogma, or they were genuinely smart people who have given up trying to act in a moral fashion. They can all fucking hang, I say.
Mob rules.
(So how long until the white vans come to visit my house, do you think?)
-FL
Many African countries have turned to VATs with terrible repurcussions. Where did this abomination come from? Yep. France in the mid-1950s was the first state to implement it.
So weigh it: France's economic record for the last 50 years of the USA's?
What are they teaching you? A VAT distributes the full load of the tax burder on the consumer. What is this ramblings of distributing the "tax burden efficiently along the production chain"?
It was designed because Europe doesn't realize when they are over taxing their economies and people were dodging sales taxes. So instead of properly dropping their tax burders, they just found a more complex method of collecting them that was also more difficult to cheat on.
With a sales tax, you want to apply the tax on the last sale only. Sales of raw materials or commercials sales are untaxed. However, when the tax rates start getting too high, everybody tries to start buying as a producers to avoid the tax.
The VAT was created to stop this. Now, everbody along the chain always pays the VAT on the difference between the inputs and the product. On a 10% VAT, if it cost $1.00 of materials and sold for $1.30, the producers would pay $1.10 for the materials, sell the product for $1.43, a difference of $0.33, hand over $0.03 to the government, and still pocket $0.30. The next step in the process does the same thing, but since the consumer doesn't produce anything, they have no way to recoup the tax.
This doesn't distribute the tax load, it still entirely falls on the consumer, just it removes a loophole at the expense of making this stuff hard to do.
And Americans don't save as much because of the substitution effect. That whole having a steady stream of good revenue causes less savings as people anticipate they contually getting it.
This is basic economics shit that my first year students learn. Come on people.
The US constitution states:
Section. 9. Clause 5: No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
If I buy a computer in Michigan and have it sent to my home in California, how is California's attempt to tax my computer not violative of the US Constitution?!
You're right, states do have so called "use taxes" but they are unconstitutional.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Friends, Congress is debating a bill to permanently extend the federal ban on taxing Internet access -- like DSL, cable ISP etc. Several states can actually tax these services under a grandfather clause in the original moratorium. The new bill would ban access taxes everywhere.
This is NOT about sales taxes. That's a whole other debate. If you want to know more about it, go here.
It is like a form letter. Fill in the OS, and you're all ready to go.
Except that it is just a cut and past. I have seen this exact post at least in one other thread last week. It just seems people would have better things to do with their time.
Not everything is analogous to cars. Car analogies rarely work.
I think just by reading your post, I actually became dumber.
That's covered by the Interstate Commerce Act and is illegal anyway. Now if they tried to tax internet without also doing catalog sales, maybe...but presumably, if they have a system for one, it will work for the other.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
If the act lapses, starting next week, all internet access will be taxable by multiple jurisdictions. The senators proposing "holds" or otherwise opposing this legislation are: Maria Cantwell, WA (www.cantwell.senate.gov, Legislative Director Dan Sakura 202-224-3441, FAX 202-228-0514) Tom Daschle, SD (www.daschle.senate.gov, Legislative Director Laura Petrou, 202-224-2321, FAX 202-224-6603) Lamar Alexander, WV (www.alexander.senate.gov, Legislative Director Richard Hertling, 202-224-4944, FAX 202-228-3398) Tom Harkin, IA (tom_harkin@harkin.senate.gov, Legislative Director Brian Ahlberg, 202-224-3254, FAX 202-224-9369) George Voinovich, OH (www.voinovich.senate.gov, Legislative Director Aric Newhouse, 202-224-3353, FAX 202-228-1382) Ernest Hollings, SC (www.hollings.senate.gov, Legislative Director Ashley Cooper, 202-224-6121, FAX 202-224-4293) Frank Lautenberg, NJ (frank_lautenberg@lautenberg.senate.gov, Legislative Director Gray Maxwell, 202-224-3224, FAX 202-228-4054) Kent Conrad, ND (www.conrad.senate.gov, Legislative Director Tom Mahr, 202-224-2043, FAX 202-224-7776) Call, write and whatever else you can do. The "per e-mail tax" internet hoax is now no longer a hoax, according to Senator Rockefeller of WV - it is a distinct possibility. According to some Seante staffers: "What's so special about the Internet?"
they'll have to get around Supreme Court decisions that say states can't collect taxes on residents in other states
If I drive across the border into the next state, can I pick up a plasma TV at Circuit City and not pay sales tax on it, if I show them my out-of-state driver's license?
What if I buy something but don't use it? (For example something you might want on hand like a fire extinguisher.) Since I haven't used it I shouldnt have to pay use tax.
Naturally. I'm even granting that they'll find a way around that, but it's a stretch. Perhaps the Feds will do the collecting, taking an amount from each purchase that is coincidentally what is required from the locality of the purchaser, then reimbursing the states?
Of course, the Court's not obtuse, so the question is how much latitude they'll grant the Feds in doing something like that.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
Hi and my 0.02 on this issue: We all depend on the Internet for communication. Your help is needed to keep the moratorium in place that expires on November 1, 2003. If the ban ends, state and local governments will be able to tax you for access. Take ACTION now: The Internet Tax Non-Discrimination Act (S.150), ensures that states may not tax consumers for access to the Internet. This bill also (permanently)extends the existing moratorium against multiple taxes on e-commerce. As many as 140 million Americans could have a new tax to pay if the Internet Tax Moratorium expires October 31st. Tell the Senate to Pass the Internet Tax Moratorium. Take ACTION now! Txs, Mitch Arnowitz
Hi all-
I posted yesterday on legislation that would prevent local & state governments from taxing your Internet access but... forgot to provide a link. To take action now (the ban expires 10.31), please visit:
http://tinyurl.com/sw31