Slashdot Mirror
California Balks At Internet Sales Tax
bob_calder writes "California has walked away from $2 billion a year in revenue by declining to get on board with a group working to standardize tax rates so a national tax on Internet sales could eventually be implemented by Congress. Supporters of the tax think they still have a chance in New York, Texas, and Florida. At the moment the largest states pursuing the Streamlined Sales Tax Initiative are New Jersey, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio. California didn't want to give up its autonomy in setting taxes to a coalition of smaller states."
I searched around and wasn't able to come up with the name of the group pushing for this Internet tax. Does anyone have more information on them? What are their politics? Who is funding them?
California already taxes internet purchases via a Use Tax law which is imposed on all goods purchased and then brought into the state by residents. You have to calculate the tax yourself when you file your state income tax return.
"The debate over the taxation of the Internet isn't about feeding the already well-lined coffers of government. It's about the fundamentally American idea that there should be no taxation without representation.
"While there is no evidence that Main Street firms have lost business due to tax differentials, that is beside the point. The answer to these concerns should not be to raise taxes on the Internet, but to lower taxes on Main Street businesses."
Colorado Governor Bill Owens
In a letter to Congress urging the extension of the Internet tax moratorium, and opposing his fellow governors' plea for Congressional approval to force collection of sales and use taxes from remote businesses.
August 20, 2001
That is a strange tax law, this is from TFA
"The state also requires its residents to report purchases made over the Internet and pay taxes on them"
How can they enforce that? Our tax laws are pretty uniform across the country, but I buy something from overseas, I don't have to pay our local GST (Goods & Services Tax) of 10% on the item. I may or may not have to pay the import tax to get it through customs, depending on what it is and how it is sent over.
I see buying something over the internet as the same as actually traveling to the state / country where the item is and buying it. As long as the seller obeys local tax laws, who cares what the buyer does?
I may have an overy simplistic view of things though.
- paul
http://www.paulpichugin.com.au/
Pmp @ DeviantArt
Sales tax is just another way to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich. It is always a scam based on a will for the rich to avoid any responsibility for their greater consumption of natural resources that they would otherwise be paying for. I recommend always avoiding it whenever possible.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
Congress should instead just focus on implementing a 1% national sales tax on everything (brick-and-mortar stores, internet sales, the whole 9 yards). Don't discriminate. Then, they could wipe out the income tax and seriously downsize the IRS (sorry, can't completely eliminate 'em ... they still need to handle the national sales tax).
Many of the servers reside in CA. In addition, so many sales. As such, CA gets to collect the sales tax on those sales. Once an internet tax comes through, then you can bet that many of the servers will change location basically to asia. Now California loses not just the tax base, but all those lucrative jobs.
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
I direct you to FairTax.org where the dream lives on, although I believe its more like 23% to be revenue neutral.
When will states realize that they do not have to tax their citizens to death to implement progressive policies and programs? I live 10 minutes from the California border, I spent almost 10k a year more when I lived in California for the same level of living. They will implement a tax, you can bet your sweet zombie jesus they will. It was the only state I have lived in where I was paying ~9% sales tax. Look at the fucking metrics on taxes and where your state stands.
An Education is the Font of All Liberty
Somehow I feel like they'd be more than happy to accomplish Step 1.
Step 2, I'm not so sure about.
Wizard Needs Food, Badly
And an income tax isn't? With all of the loopholes, our 'progressive' income tax is actually quite regressive for all but the wealthiest of individuals.
If you really think about it, slavery and 100% taxation are the same thing. The individual works, and the master enjoys the fruits of that work.
It follows that under our current system, where the average person is taxed in the range of 45% of their income (income tax + payroll deductions + sales tax + property tax + capital gains tax + estate tax), we're 45% enslaved.
Wizard Needs Food, Badly
In the last story, California wanted to be a bland featureless part of the Federation letting someone else manage the citizen identification issues. Now in this story, California wants to retain full sovereignty over taxation. I know there's more than one person, and therefore more than one opinion on the whole statehood thing here, but come on, fellas.
[
I'm curious as to why this organization is attempting to get the states to standardize on tax rates. While it might be somewhat convenient in calculating things, it would only be slightly different than having a table of tax rates in the calculation process to send out taxes due to various states. I don't get why that detail would be so important to the people trying to make this happen. Would they rather dictate rates to the states, or would they rather have states "with the program" at whatever rate the state chooses for itself?
In theory I thought that it would be a good thing. They brought in a 10% Sales Tax (called GST, Goods & Services Tax) on everything, with some obvious things taxed more (alcohol, tobacco and fuel). The only thing is that they barely lowered any of the income taxes.
= /content/12333.htm&mnu=5053&mfp=001
They tax us for everything here in Australia. Anything you buy attracts a 10% GST, I get taxed roughly 40% of my income as well.
here's how our income tax works:
http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.asp?doc
I think a fairer way would be to just tax people on things they buy. The only way you could really avoid tax (other than becoming a non-profit organisation) is to just save your money and not buy anything. But that won't happen here in Australia.
- paul
http://www.paulpichugin.com.au/
Pmp @ DeviantArt
And while we're at it, let's also overhaul the tax system [linking to the "fair tax" {a national sales tax proposal} wikipedia page].
Federal sales taxes have a number of problems.
The biggest, IMHO, is that switching to them ends up taxing people's savings - especially retirement savings - twice. It was taxed once, at various rates, while it was was being squirreled away. Then it gets taxed again, at confiscatory rates, when it is spent.
Right now is especially nasty, since you've got the entire baby boom just reaching retirement age. They've already been massively soaked by the Social Security pyramid scheme to give bread and circuses to previous generations - amid constant predictions that it would collapse when THEY retired. So they had to build their own retirement nest-eggs on top of it, while paying the ever-climbing interest on the national debt (which first became intractable when their parents ran the Vietnam War on credit, back when the bulk of the boomers were opposing it). Now, as they're about to retire and have to live on what little they were able to save: And people talk about "replacing" the income tax (which they already paid on much of that money) with a similar percentage of sales tax.
That's one big voting block that will oppose such a measure until they die - by which time additional generations will be in a similar situation.
Next: Like all taxes, once imposed it will never go away and will always go up. Sales taxes, being largely hidden, make it much easier for the government to jack the rates. (See the "value added tax" debacle on the other side of the Atlantic pond for details.)
And: Sales taxes zap the lower income earners harder than the upper (since the lower-income people are working hand-to-mouth and need to spend pretty much all of it, while the upper can avoid spending much of it - investing it to make more, moving it to places and situations where the tax can be avoided before spending it, etc.). This scheme attempts to avoid the effect by "rebating" a certain amount of tax to each individual - approximating a flat-tax plus dole scheme. What a massive opportunity for cheating (by creating multiple fake identities to get multiple "rebates".) What a massive excuse for the government to impose a national ID / registration / citizen tracking system.
I could go on...
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"Savings and investment are things only the rich can afford to do"
And we come to why no one should ever take financial advice from someone titled "Marxist Hacker 42". I could save and invest and I'm certainly NOT rich. I just had the discipline to do it, instead of playing the "blame game".
If they want to make more tax money magically appear in California budget, they just need to repeal Proposition 13. This is the ridiculous measure from decades ago, wherein property tax is decided at time of purchase. So if you bought your house in 1979 well you never have to pay higher property taxes. This measure has also been called "Screw The Newcomers!" as anyone buying a house now, will not only get to enjoy the outrageous mortgages, but disproportionately high taxes. Unfortunately, much like Social Security, it's one of those FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED ideas that nobody wants to do anything about.
> California didn't want to give up its autonomy in setting taxes to a coalition of smaller states.
Let's restate that. CA didn't want to give up it's opportunity to score some political points. Autonomy and tax bashing sell extremely well in politics. Voters pay much less attention to issue like the efficiency of a harmonized tax system.
If this is done on a state by state basis it will be an inefficient mess with many more ways to get around paying. The result will be much less revenue for the states (and therefor no opportunities to reduce other taxes) and the honest citizens will get screwed because they will be the only ones paying this tax.
The Congress shall have power ...
To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes;
Main Entry: regulate-
Function: transitive verb
1 a : to govern or direct according to rule b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning
2 : to bring order, method, or uniformity to
3 : to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of
Also:
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
In other words, they'd at least need federal enabling legislation before allowing tax on interstate commerce. .
You'd think the privilege and immunities clause would mean you couldn't require merchants and businesses in your state to collect taxes for another state, or another state requiring you collective taxes for them.
Then theres:
No tax or duty shall be laid on articles exported from any state.
Main Entry: duty
Function: noun
1 : conduct due to parents and superiors : RESPECT
2 a : obligatory tasks, conduct, service, or functions that arise from one's position (as in life or in a group) b (1) : assigned service or business (2) : active military service (3) : a period of being on duty
3 a : a moral or legal obligation b : the force of moral obligation
4 : TAX; especially : a tax on imports
5 a : WORK 1a b (1) : the service required (as of an electric machine) under specified conditions (2) : functional application : USE (3) : use as a substitute
In other words it should not be possible to be obligated to collect taxes on goods exported from any state. (pesky things, Constitutions)
Anything else is unfair, but necessary simply because not everyone can afford their fair share.
All the shenanigans of modern tax code boils down to the politics of extracting unfair amounts of money from whomever will pay.
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Not true. Although some super-rich people are able to skate out of much of their taxes, the rich in this country pay a vastly disproportionate share of all income taxes. Income tax is a highly "progressive" system, meaning it's designed to hurt the rich the most. Corporate profits are in a sense double-taxed as well.
Having said that: The "FairTax" proposal would be a good idea.
Revive the Constitution.
Actually, it is.
No matter where an item is purchased, the purchaser owes a "use tax" payment to the state in which the item is first used. If "sales tax" has been paid on the item, the amount paid in "sales tax" is deducted from "use tax" payment which is due. When you buy an item in your state of residence, the "sales tax" and "use tax" amounts are equal, so while it was collected as a "sales tax" by the merchant, you actually DEDUCTED that amount from your "use tax" liability, resulting in no additional "use tax" payment.
When you buy something from out-of-state, there is generally no "sales tax" collected. When the "use tax" payments come due, there are no "sales tax" payment to deduct, so the entire amount of "use tax" must be paid. If you traveled out-of-state to make a purchase and the "sales tax" paid on that purchase is less than your state's "use tax", then the difference is still due to your state.
Most government services are funded through excise (purchase) taxes. Road maintenance is funded through user fees (the gas tax). National parks are funded through user fees (including fishing and camping permits). The patent office is funded through user fees. The national phone & electric services are funded through use taxes on your bill. Etc. The only real reason to tax the Internet is to pay for administering Internet services. But the Internet is largely run by private companies, not the government. What, exactly, would the Internet sales tax pay for? Lining politicians' pockets. There is no need to tax the Internet.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
There is absolutely no way Texas will ever agree to something similar.
I truly hope that this tax gets shot down. They tax our money when we get it, they tax our money when we spend it. The only safe haven from the latter is the 'net, and now they want to tax that too. Give us a break, you bastards!
"Well, as it stands, Prop 13 is doing a great job of helping to price nearly everybody except the elderly out of home ownership. California has experienced an insane increase in the price of homes over the past generation, and the government is doing everything it can to crush the secondary home market and transfer the tax burden to newcomers and the young. That's a great way to get votes, but it's not a sustainable policy."
One could make the argument that it is fair because the newcomers are benefitting from the effort of those who have came before. Consequently the newcomers can do better than those who starting lower in the effort ladder.
As for the property inflation, you're going to have that wherever the demand exceedes the supply. Tax or no tax.
You can get most of the same effect as the (un)"fair tax" with less downsides (including avoiding the double-tax effect of switching):
- Stick with an income tax but make it DEAD flat. Collect the full amount as withholding at paycheck time. Everybody pays the same percentage, so there's no need to track I.D.
- Do the flat "rebate/dole" as a separate (though related) item: One to a customer, regardless of income. Registration is voluntary, as is picking up the payment. Anybody who wishes to trade in the money for anonymity can simply refuse to sign up or to collect his check that year.
This would also eliminate much of the financial incentive for illegal immigration / "undocumented workers" and their cost advantage over citizens and legals under the current "look the other way" system (which amounts to a subsidy to business paid for by the documented/citizen workers.)
- They'd be paying their taxes regardless of whether the rest of the money was spent locally or sent back to the old country.
- They couldn't get the "rebate" unless they went through the normal immigration channels.
- Decriminalizing their working would eliminate an employer's ability to impose unconscionable (but cheaper) working conditions and fire or arrange the deportation of any who complain.
- With the "rebate" replacing welfare most "services" and "programs" (and their costly bureaucracies) could be eliminated. "Undocumented" dependents would, of course, be ineligible, eliminating the major income "redistribution" from legal workers to the families of illegals.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
"The proposal from those states was to replace (for purposes of mail order sales) all the individual state/county/city/etc. tax rates with a single tax rate, and a single national tax authority, that would take in money from all mail order businesses, and distribute that money to the states, etc."
Hey if it works for the CPCC, then it'll work for california.
The push to streamline sales tax probably isn't what you think. The effort is ONLY to streamline the definitions of what is taxable. That is to say that chocolate might be food in one state, and luxury in another. That's a contrived example, but illustrates the point. On top of state & local (county, municipal, etc.) tax calculations, there's a difference among what is being taxed. Add to that who/what it is being used for and the rates vary once again. Multi-state taxation for companies with multiple nexus' (nexi?) are about as complex a a problem as you might dare to tackle. This streamlining effort is only the tip of the iceberg for the larger problem.
The current system is stupid on the face of it, since now most states only tax commerce for corperations which have a actual physical presence in that state, it encourages companies to not setup any investment in states where they do a high volume of sales.
Are you saying it is stupid that online stores don't have to collect sales tax? If so why should they have to to collect and pay state's sales tax? As far as I'm concerned there sholdn't be any sales tax on online purchases. If what is purchased is a physical item then taxes are already paid for when it's shipped, ie the shipper has to pay tax on fuel which pays for the roads used. Any other tax is just a money grab by the states.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"The biggest, IMHO, is that switching to them ends up taxing people's savings - especially retirement savings - twice. It was taxed once, at various rates, while it was was being squirreled away. Then it gets taxed again, at confiscatory rates, when it is spent."
:)
You do know that most (all?) federal retirement plans are pretax, right?
http://www.irs.gov/retirement/index.html
"Right now is especially nasty, since you've got the entire baby boom just reaching retirement age. They've already been massively soaked by the Social Security pyramid scheme to give bread and circuses to previous generations - amid constant predictions that it would collapse when THEY retired."
Source
"Myth #1: Social Security is in crisis and facing bankruptcy.
Even if Congress were to leave Social Security untouched, the program would be able to pay currently guaranteed benefits in full until 2042, according to the program's trustees. Thereafter, about 70 percent of promised benefits could be financed. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office is even more optimistic: it projects that, without changes, Social Security will be able to meet its obligations in full until 2053, after which about 80 percent of benefits still could be paid for. Even under those worst-case scenarios, decades from now the system would be far from "bankrupt," "flat-out bust," or "broke," which imply that no resources would be available to pay any benefits. At that time, workers and their employers still will be contributing payroll taxes to finance benefits for retirees.
So Social Security is facing a long-term financing problem, but it is far from a "crisis" by any definition of that word. And the problem is much less immediate and threatening now than in the recent past, even though no changes have been made to the program. In 1997, Social Security's trustees had projected that the program's trust funds would last only another thirty-two years and would be depleted in 2029. Those forecasts have improved steadily-largely because of stronger than expected economic growth-so that the trust funds now are expected to remain sufficient for thirty-seven more years.
Like a doctor who recommends "watchful waiting" while a patient becomes healthier, Congress should think twice before performing radical surgery on an enormously successful program that appears to be getting better with age. "
"So they had to build their own retirement nest-eggs on top of it, while paying the ever-climbing interest on the national debt (which first became intractable when their parents ran the Vietnam War on credit, back when the bulk of the boomers were opposing it)."
Later than that.
"And: Sales taxes zap the lower income earners harder than the upper (since the lower-income people are working hand-to-mouth and need to spend pretty much all of it, while the upper can avoid spending much of it - investing it to make more, moving it to places and situations where the tax can be avoided before spending it, etc.). This scheme attempts to avoid the effect by "rebating" a certain amount of tax to each individual - approximating a flat-tax plus dole scheme. What a massive opportunity for cheating (by creating multiple fake identities to get multiple "rebates".) What a massive excuse for the government to impose a national ID / registration / citizen tracking system."
Flat Tax fiascos
Hmmm, interesting there's no biblical "flat tax"
The biggest, IMHO, is that switching to them ends up taxing people's savings - especially retirement savings - twice. It was taxed once, at various rates, while it was was being squirreled away. Then it gets taxed again, at confiscatory rates, when it is spent.
Sales tax does not tax savings, it only taxes spending. When it is spent it changes from savings to spending money. Actually income tax should be abolished and replaced with a national sales tax.
Right now is especially nasty, since you've got the entire baby boom just reaching retirement age. They've already been massively soaked by the Social Security pyramid scheme to give bread and circuses to previous generations - amid constant predictions that it would collapse when THEY retired.
If you want to save Social Security then what you should do is get rid of all those immigration laws. Let all of those "illegal immigrants" to legally work and pay the SS tax. After the Immigration Reform act of 1996 the Social Security Administration issued dummy SSNs to "illegals" and using these SSNs immigrants were able to get jobs and pay income and SS taxes. Using these SSNs $50 billion has been paid by the immigrants using them into SS thus helping to keep it solvent. And because the numbers are dummies, the immigrants using them can never use them to collect Social Security.
So they had to build their own retirement nest-eggs on top of it
Social Security was never meant to replace retirement savings, it was only meant to be a safety net. Everyone should save for retirement. If an 18 year old person saves and invests just $2000 a year for 7 years, until they reach 25, and keep it and all dividents and interest invested by the tyme they are 65 with an ROI, Return On Investment, of 10% per year that $14,000 invested will grow to almost $1,000,000. Ah, the miracle of Compound Interest.
And: Sales taxes zap the lower income earners harder than the upper (since the lower-income people are working hand-to-mouth and need to spend pretty much all of it,...
This is wrong. That I know of not one state has a sales tax on food and some don't tax clothing. If the poor are spending money on more than just clothing, education, food, and shelter then they are keeping themself down. If you're poor, once you have paid for the "essentials" of life you should using the rest of the money to improve your life by seeking an education or investing. If instead you are buying the next iPod then you only have yourself to blame.
FalconShould there be a Law?
I know it's all a conspiracy, and the people that actually put money in the stock market over the past few decades and live off of their investments are a myth. I also know that only rich people have money, and they have everything, which is why the people in the big houses and fancy cars are often leveraged to the hilt, and their neighbors with smaller homes and cars aren't seen as wealthy, but may or may not have more wealth.
However, your understanding of the VC market is illusionary. The real rate of return from VC funds, compared to the risk assumed, is no higher than the stock market as a whole. There is no "alpha" to VC investing.
Do people get rich, absolutely. VC investing is much more of a crap shoot, there is MUCH more variance in the returns than in an S&P 500 fund, so some people get fabulously wealthy, and others lose the investment. Who makes money in VC land? Generally the partners of the VC fund, because they raise a series of funds, and give the investors a preferential rate of return, after which, the VC's tae 20%. Let's assume that it is double in 5 years, well, if the VC firm has 10 funds, it's very likely that in 5 years, the OVERALL performance of their investments is up 50%-60%, but to get there, some funds have probably collapsed, but if one increased by 10x (had a Google or similar super star), well they may not collect on the double, put 20% of 10x the fund, if the fund was $250m... that's a $500m management fee for the VCs.
Pension Funds and other institutional investors use hedge funds, venture funds, LBO funds, stock funds, overseas funds, and bond funds to diversify. In some years different asset classes do better, and institutional investors aim for consistency, hence the package of funds. It's true that when the early Internet companies went public, the VCs that backed them (and their investors) made tremendous amounts of money. But after that the system was flooded by money chasing hot returns, and the returns dropped.
The overall market may go up 10% per year, but an investor who rode out the 70s stagflation made nothing, while someone that started investing right have the 1987 crash made out like a bandit. Markets are rarely steady, and generally drift for stretches then shoot up for stretches, just the way markets work.
If you include the FICA tax its actually regressive, since your 90,000th dollar is taxed at a higher rate than your 90,001st dollar (adjust as necessary for where the FICA runs out in a given year)
If you consider that you really pay both sides of the FICA (15.3% total) since your employer pays the other half (or if you are self employed, like me, you pay it directly) then my marginal rate is higher when I hit $90,000 then it would be if I was able to up my income to $90,000,000!
I don't think the issue is as simple as that. Yes percentagewise the rich spend less of their income, than the poor. However the poor spend their income on low cost, small profit goods, and services. The rich spend their income on higher-cost, greater profit-margin goods and services. A greater amount is passed down the economic chain. Also rich people's money can have a greater influence on the total system, than the poor. Investments, charitable donations, etc. As for taxes, generally in the US one spends more as one rises in the tax brackets. This also includes taxes that the poor don't pay. e.g. luxury taxes.
Check out any new gadget article on Slashdot. Nobody talks about buying it locally.
I have and do talk about buying locally. I have stated at least a few tymes that I am a member of two local coops that support both organic and local producers, Lakewinds Coop, and The Wedge Coop.
FalconShould there be a Law?
For example, it's pretty difficult for most people to buy an Apple computer locally (defined as 45 minutes away or less), or BluRay recorder for your PC, or anything from Bose, or a Palm LifeDrive, Canon DSLR or pretty much anything else that is new and expensive.
I'm not sure where you are but I know of at least two locally owned and operated businesses that sale Macs, one of them is 10 maybe 15 minutes walk for me. And they specialize in Macs. Now a Canon DSLR, like the EOS 1Ds Mark II, or maybe the 5D might be a little harder though there's a store I know that probably will order one. Then again I haven't even seen either one of these stocked in national stores. Now what I am having trouble finding in local stores is a DL DVD RW drive I can install in my Linux box. I may end up ordering one.
FalconShould there be a Law?
"The state also requires its residents to report purchases made over the Internet and pay taxes on them"
States can't enforce it, it's all voluntary.
FalconShould there be a Law?
You guys are missing the big picture... We're California. If we were by ourselves we'd have the 6th, 7th, or 10th largest economy in the world (depending on who you ask--says wikipedia). We'd have the TERMINATOR for president. Our army would be undefeatable in any 70-80 degree dry climate.
"Of course, if they tax them to be the same as brick and mortar, then folks will just shift back away from the internet."
And so we now have the other part of taxation. Instrument of collection, or instrument of social influence. e.g. cigarette tax.
not entirely sure, but it looks like it's. .ORG in the url?)
(Note the
http://www.taxadmin.org/ -- Last Updated February 12, 2007
Federation of Tax Administrators
444 N. Capitol Street, NW, Suite 348, Washington, DC, 20001 (202) 624-5890
I can't remember the actual figures, but it was something like this:
...) even maybe by a long way. But their earnings are vastly more.
the top 5% earn 60% of the money. The top 5% pay 30% of the taxes raised.
Now that may be a bigger proportion than any other 5% segment (1-5, 6-10,
I think it is amazing that California didn't go with it. Usually it is very hard for politicians to turn down money. I expected them to take it and figure they will iron it out later. Thanks California... for now. That's the spirit, keep on fighting. Teach those smaller states!
UPS / FedEX, that's who.
When you do the math, if all you're trying to do by buying online is saving the tax, you'll be in for a rude surprise with today's shipping charges.
The reason I buy online has nothing to do with tax. The shipping always cancels out any tax savings. The reason is because local retailers in most parts of North America still haven't woken up to the global economy... why in god's name would should I pay $50 for widget X, when it is selling for $30 in NY with $10 shipping? Tax is next to irrelevant - it's globalization that drives internet commerce.
Wherever in the world that item is cheapest, it is available to *anyone* at that price now.
You would think that someone, somewhere would understand that we the people need something we can call our own,
without the government having to extract a tax on it. Please, just let us imagine we can surf without revenue.
We already pay dearly.
Ad Astra Per Asper
... we need no such 'internet tax'. tourism and waterfront sales tax gives us all our necisary revinue and then some thus the yearly tax break on items under 15 grand us
Vermont has just signed on to this project. The biggest effect on most of us: Beer now has sales tax; that's part of this interstate standard. What does this accomplish? You cannot legally ship anything with alcohol into Vermont to a retail customer (unlike some states where you can buy wine that way), and none of Vermont's small brewers are trying to mail order beer out of Vermont. Would you want your beer delivered by UPS?
Those of us on the eastern side of Vermont already drive to New Hampshire to buy other stuff that's taxed at home. Now, since this new law to protect the taxability of future internet beer sales, we're getting our beer there too. Smart move, legislature.
"with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
Does that mean I'm "getting" NY? No, they'll make up their $7 loss with a raise in the Income, Gas, Sales, Luxury, etc. etc. tax, or a decrease in subsidies for farmers, or lowering of state employee raises or whatever.
And if you get audited by the NY Board of Revenue (or whatever they call their state-level IRS), you'll have to pay the NY sales tax, plus penalties for tax evasion.
IAmNotALawyer, and I have not specifically read the NY sales tax laws. I don't know of anyone in NY who's been bitten by this; I do know someone who lived in CT who was. (He has since moved to Florida.) Many states write their tax code as a "sales or use tax". This means, if you live in Foo county in the State of BAR with a tax rate of X%, and go buy something in Baz county in the state of QUX that only collects Y% tax (with X>Y) for use back in Foo county, you owe the remaining X-Y percent and are supposed to declare it on your state Income tax. In the case of buying things over the Internet, the collected Y usually is "0%", because of previous rulings.
Or, in short: the internet seller has at present no legal obligation to collect sales tax... but this is not because the buyer has no legal obligation to pay sales taxes on such purchases.
Confusion over this (along with basic greed) has led to massive consumer evasion of sales taxes, which in turn has cut state sales tax revenues. As I understand it, the scheme is to simplify the complex mosaic of sales tax regulations to something trivial enough to quickly computer code, getting around one of the main reasons the SCOTUS struck down the requirement on sellers in the first place.
//Information does not want to be free; it wants to breed.
In the Clinton age, internet tax hikes were unthinkable. Now suddenly we have extremely positive articles about internet taxation. Opinions have changed dramatically, proving with enough effort, persistence, and money, people can be made to think anything.
To Whom It May Concern, I'm right in there with California. I don't want there to be an internet sales tax either,thank you. Sincerely, EJ Griffith
Who is behind this? State Governments and large multinational retailers (wal-mart)
Why? States are interested in any new source of money. The primary states that are pushing this tax are net importing states. Only 15 relatively small states have passed fully joined this cartel. They see their citizens buying things online and want the sales tax. These states are unwilling to collect use taxes directly from their citizens, so they want to force businesses to collect the tax for them. PROBLEM: It's illegal.. Thats right boys and girls, the Supreme Court has ruled, in Quill v ND that states dont have any authority to force an out-of-state retailer to collect its sales tax, if the business doesnt have a physical presence in the state. Ultimately these states need congressional approval.
Business: It cost money, and a lot of it to comply with all the various sales tax laws throughout the U.S. The same candy bar that is taxable in one Wal-Mart store isnt in another just accross the state border or city limit line. Additionally, each state crawls up a business' backside regularly with costly audits. Simply making uniform the definitions of products accross all jurisdictions and limiting the number of sales tax audits would save the business community millions. BUT WAIT, THERE's MORE: The way the SST is set up now, these states hungry for new sales tax revenue on internet purchase have offered to PAY the wal-marts of the world to collect these new taxes.
At the end of the day, ask yourself these questions: After my next internet transaction, who has more of my money, me or the government. I hate to quote Dick Armey, but he had a good one where the SST is concerned. he called it: "Streamlining a path to your Wallet"
I know a family where the mom has dreamed for 6 years of owning a blender (~$30 from Walmart), but hasn't been able to afford it. Do you even think of a blender as an amenity?
I don't think of a blender as something I need or will use, so I don't have one. And though I hope the family you know can improve their circumstances, I knew and worked with some homeless people. While between jobs and in college I worked some through day labor pools, where you go in early in the morning and sign up to work then wait until they pick you to go somewhere to work. While working there, you could say I was an oddball there as I was in college, I met and worked with some who literally slept on the streets, under bridges, or or in some woods.
the mother has had a entry level mail room job at a good company for ages, but she can't afford nice 'business' style clothing and so she has been repeatedly passed over for real jobs she's trained and qualified for because they feel she doesn't project a 'business image' they want. All because she can't afford to buy blouses and pants from even JC Penny's let alone 'Old Navy' or something like that.
I don't know if she has looked into it but there might be some non profit organization, or thrift shop, she may be able to get good even if used cloths from. A roommate I had years ago went to a Catholic social services org where he got help with clothing and food even though he wasn't Catholic himself.
She also is unlikely to ever get a better paying job and never end the cycle without marrying someone who could support her. However how many men would really want a wife that has 2 kids and is close to 30 years old? How many men that age are still unmarried if they wanted a family...? How many could afford to support her even if they meet criteria 1 & 2? I'll keep the answer short: Not many.
"how many men would really want a wife that has 2 kids and is close to 30 years old?" It may seem a nitpick but I have a problem with the word "want". Change the question to "who would marry a 30 year old with two children", heck change it to a 45 year old and I might very well marry her. If I loved her and I felt ready for it I would ask. Then again since growing up I've wanted four children, two that were mine and two that I'd adopted. However I'm getting to the point where I'd rather just adopt instead. That is if I had the financial capability, which I don't have. More than 10 years ago I had an accident it would of been better if I had died from, according to the docs it's a "miracle" I lived, and I've been on disability since. I hate it, not working, but I have no idea what type of work I can do with my injury. I'm not directly physically handicapped, instead I am a survivor of a TBI, Traumatic Brain Injury. However I don't believe I could do much physical labor, and my memory is bad. And as for being or getting married, I'm over 40 and though I've never been married I do want to get married and have a family. However some medical research I've heard of is that the older the parents are when they have a child the more likely it is the child may have health problems. I have two problems with this, one is I think it's be irresponsible to bring a child who won't be healthy into the world if you, well I, know this. And two I don't know if I'd even be able to take care of a family.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Virginia, West Virginia, Wyoming.
Care to open your mouth again?
Didn't think so.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock