Slashdot Mirror
Connecticut Considers Digital Download Tax
SonicSpike writes in with a story about the latest state contemplating raising revenues by taxing the net. "Downloading music, movies, e-books and Apps could soon cost Connecticut residents more as lawmakers consider a tax on digital downloads. The bill, proposed by the General Assembly's Finance, Review and Bonding Committee, would have consumers pay the 6.35% sales tax on any electronic transfer. Supporters say the bill would level the playing field for brick-and-mortar retailers in the state who are already required to charge Connecticut sales tax to consumers who purchase these products in their stores. About 25 states around the country have already begun taxing digital downloads."
6.whatever% of zero is still zero.
Couldn't you just use an access point across the street ( and likely in another state) and bypass the whole problem?
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
1) The article is pretty much the summary? 2) "About" 25 other states? They can't even do the research to see exactly how many states already do this? 3) Half the states ("about" anyway) already do this, yet it is news on Slashdot now? Yes, I must be new here.
http://blog.ctnews.com/takeonlife/2011/01/22/forget-nickels-the-%E2%80%98use-tax%E2%80%99-could-generate-millions/
Some exemptions are mentioned in that blog, but it misses the "single purchase under $25 is exempt" written on the form itself.
I ALWAYS pay my use tax when it is due (which is rarely due to exeptions, but I have paid it twice) and this sounds like double taxation to me, unless they also change their laws on the books.
if they thought they could tax the air we breath they'd do it....
How do they actually make these online taxes work? force every single online payment gateway to tax every transaction from your state and send you the money?
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
in Bitcoin and Quatloos
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
"We steal from these guys over here. So we should steal from you, too."
Naturally the brick-and-mortar stores are going to favor fairness in the application of the tax laws. But why do we never see them saying, "You don't tax all these business, so stop taxing us?" Or, "Taxing these businesses is going to double your tax base, so how about cutting the tax rate in half?"
No, instead, the government wants more money and more control over a greater number of people and businesses. So they sell it to local businesses as "levelling the playing field" and these businesses eat it right up and support the ever-increasing growth of government.
Liberty in your lifetime
Apple aleady does this in the App Store when I purchase in Texas. If I purchase an app in another state, Apple still charges me for Texas sales tax. I guess it is a shipment to my home, not to my device.
"Supporters say the bill would level the playing field for brick-and-mortar retailers in the state who are already required to charge Connecticut sales tax to consumers who purchase these products in their stores."
An argument could easily be made that the playing field is already level. The advantage of ordering online is one of cost, with typically lower prices and less of a drain on local infrastructure (it costs the state / local government more to provide fire / police protection / emergency medical services / roads / etc. to a few dozen brick-and-mortar stores than to a single warehouse), and possibly hard to get items (ones which cannot be carried locally, for lack of space in a store; commercial space being at a premium). The advantage to brick-and-mortar stores is time, with the more popular items you are typically looking for already in stock, hence the price premium ("I need this item today").
As such, the advantages on both sides balance each other out fairly well.
This tax, of course, is then a simple cash grab. Going off a stereotype of legislatures, we will assume that the state coffers are beginning to, if not already are, empty. As such, someone took a look at things that are considered popular enough to tax (demand is unlikely to change, so it's *free* money they can skim off the top, without impacting the industry; this is also an economics-FAIL, but the people in charge love to hear things that confirm their bias), and barfed up a semi-palatable reason for this new tax.
I am John Hurt.
What about a VPN connection to another state? And if that works, would it become illegal?
You are already paying a tax on the ISP servcie and the electrical power used, along with sales taxes on the equipment that will play the downloaded media. Time again for some tea-dumping.
I realize the world doesn't work like this. But in my opinion if they're going to tax the purchase it should then fall under all the rules of buying from a Brick and Mortar store too, such as the First-sale doctrine. After all, if I buy a book from a brick and mortar I'm legally allowed to sell that book to someone else. On the other hand, when I download from iTunes I have no way to sell that item, because I didn't purchase it, I "licensed" it. Which the businesses love to remind us. If I'm then being taxed as if I'd purchased it, then the states should require the companies by law to treat it like any physical purchase and allow me to transfer the ownership of it.
PayPal is never a solution to anything.
In CT, we have the highest state tax on gasoline and among the highest in tax per capita. We probably have the most underfunded state pension fund in the country. The state enacted a tax credit last year that it can't afford, and is being blamed, in part, for the budget deficit we now have. CT has had a spending problem for years, and the answer isn't raising taxes.
Net income is easy to fudge and modify. Gross receipts is whatever you receive. Without deductions, it becomes a "flat fee" for any transaction, paid by the recipient.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Flat taxes are an excellent idea, but only if implemented on gross receipts and not on a "net" or "adjusted" income. If every entity in the US paid 5% on their gross income, we could probably run the country. Poor people would get off with a nominal tax bill (a hike from the current negative rate they "pay"). People with several shell corporations to hide assets and limit liability would pay double, triple, or more. Supply chains with short distribution would pay the least tax (think local farmers, who would have almost no markup to account for the tax), those with highly complex business operations would pay more (think of shell corporations that pass through money to low-tax states) causing their end products to be more expensive.
If your real estate agent gets 6% the gross of your house, and your wall street fund manager gets 3.5% of the total funds you have invested - neither of which are affected by how much your net proceeds are, why should the government - who protects your country and keeps the law of the land - only get paid when you happen to turn a profit?
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
PayPal is.
Rather than TAXING the good guys (who preclude the need for trips to a Bricks & Morter shop), governments should -really- be REWARDING their carbon-saving efforts... at least where the products are shipped electronically, as downloads are.
Triple Bottom Line accounting is LONG overdue, and it's crazy to support Bricks & Morter business that are -less- efficient in terms of their -customers'- carbon footprint, ie, when shopping for & buying products.
On the other hand, I'd be -happy- to endorse such a tax, but ONLY after we're all driving 100% Electric Vehicles (EVs), which so significantly reduce our carbon footprints, that shopping trips would be easier on the environment.
That would never work. After all, people never regularly cross the border into Pennsylvania or Delaware to buy fireworks or fill their trunk with tax-free cigarettes. Nope, never happens.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
A better way to "level the playing field" would be to eliminate the sales tax for the brick and mortar stores. That would also increase the chances of those living in border states coming to the brick and mortar stores to avoid the taxes in their states.
But no, they won't even consider that because it just may lower their revenue in the short term and we all know no politician thinks beyond the next election.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.