Senators Vow To Renew Bid For State Taxes On Remote Internet Sales

Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 01:45 · Score: 0

I'm going to assume none of these senators have taken the Norquist pledge?

Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-12-04 02:09 · Score: 2

Allowing the states to collect a tax isn't the same thing as imposing a tax. Not quite. Besides it's either that or the states will have to raise income and property taxes.
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 02:10 · Score: 0

Not that I agree with these Senator's methods, but Grover deserves to be ignored anyway.
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 02:22 · Score: 4, Insightful

Or they could just not spend without restraint in exchange for votes. I know, that's not an obvious solution nowadays.
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by jythie · 2012-12-04 02:24 · Score: 2

I guess they could promise to cut taxes without restraint in exchange for votes instead....
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by sycodon · 2012-12-04 02:44 · Score: 1

But when they reach 0 tax rate, they have to stop.
OOhh... wait. unless you do an Earned Income Tax Credit, a negative tax rate, in other words...spending.
We have a fucking SPENDING problem.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by cayenne8 · 2012-12-04 02:56 · Score: 2

At the very least, is there a list of the senators voting for this measure so we can all vote them out of office?
We don't need another fucking tax.....we got plenty.

--
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by cob666 · 2012-12-04 03:03 · Score: 1

Or they could just start enforcing the USE part of the Sales & Use Tax that most states already have.

--
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by medcalf · 2012-12-04 03:04 · Score: 2

Why so? If the problem is on the spending side (which appears almost beyond reasonable doubt), then raising taxe rates does nothing to fix the problem, instead just impoverishing the nation and, if we're on the right side of the Laffer curve (also almost beyond reasonable doubt), actually reducing the revenue generated by taxation. So where is the problem with Norquist, exactly?

--
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by sycodon · 2012-12-04 03:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

They want to raise taxes on the "rich" by 1.6 trillion over 10 years. That's about 180 billion a year.
The deficit is well over a trillion a year, but let's just say it's only $1 trillion. That leaves $820 billion left to make up with cuts.
This whole argument over taxing the rich is a waste of time and a distraction. I say let the raise it to where they want and then insist that Obama cuts $840 billion a year.
If he doesn't then, we are just rearranging the deck chairs on that well known ship.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:26 · Score: 0

No, it's not. You're right. The big problem is that if you allow it, it's intrinsically the same thing as doing the act- as they'll just increase taxes all the same.
You're part of the problem, not the solution- just so you know.
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by DragonWriter · 2012-12-04 03:53 · Score: 1

I'm going to assume none of these senators have taken the Norquist pledge?
Well, first, voting to remove a federal barrier to state taxes isn't raising a tax (it might let other people raise a tax, but that's up to those other people.) Second, quite possibly not. The influence of Norquist's idiotic pledge is declining even among Republicans in Congress, because even while the Republican Party continues to become increasingly radicalized, many of its members in office realize that the idea that you can never raise the tax rate on anyone is stupidity that is both substantively bad and, in times when there are real tough decisions to make, a lead weight around their political necks.
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by DragonWriter · 2012-12-04 03:59 · Score: 1

Or they could just start enforcing the USE part of the Sales & Use Tax that most states already have.
Enforcement on the use side is uneconomical, because (unlike the sales side) you have too big of a pool of targets, and no smaller group to mandate information collection from (its essentially equivalent to trying to the problem that the IRS would face with income tax if you got rid of mandatory reporting by employers, interest-paying banks, etc.) -- and the obvious reporters are protected by the same dormant commerce clause barrier from being subjected to mandatory reporting that prevents them from being hit up directly for sales taxes. Of course, the thing about a a dormant commerce clause barrier is that it goes away when Congress listens to the states and waives the barrier. Since the use part is identical in effect, but for enforcement logistics, to the sales part, its obviously more efficient and better for everyone for Congress to act and enable states to collect a sales tax than it is for states to enforce a use tax.
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:01 · Score: 0

Let's be honest - what we have here is a classic case of the law not keeping up with technological and transportation developments. Happened to banks where they were a lot more heavily regulated in terms of interstate activity in the 1980s. The re-regulation was, frankly, botched to hell and beyond, but it's the closest example to what's going on here.
Sales Tax is an accepted and understood concept. But on e-commerce, where physical locations are more or less accidental, and they rely more heavily on federal then state resources, it should be collected on a national basis, not a state basis. Find a national "Average Sales Tax", apply it to everything, only ask for the state in which it occured, redistribute. Keep it simple.
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by DragonWriter · 2012-12-04 04:06 · Score: 1

No, it's not. You're right. The big problem is that if you allow it, it's intrinsically the same thing as doing the act- as they'll just increase taxes all the same.
Its not a tax increase, its a change in the locus of taxation from the use side to the sales side for the same transactions, which makes the existing tax on the transaction easier to enforce, and negates a de facto tax subsidy to online business retail resulting from the difficulty of enforcing use taxes. This de facto subsidy turns the purpose of the dormant Commerce Clause barrier that creates it in the absence of specific Congressional action on its head; the reservation of interstate commerce powers to the federal government is supposed to prevent states from discriminating between in-state and out-of-state commerce, but the effect of the barrire is to discriminate against in-state transactions.
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by DragonWriter · 2012-12-04 04:11 · Score: 1

Why so? If the problem is on the spending side (which appears almost beyond reasonable doubt)
"The problem" isn't on either the taxing or the spending side, because there isn't one simple problem. The biggest problem on both the tax and spending sides isn't the total rate of taxation of the volume of spending, its the distribution of taxes and the distribution of spending. Among the distribution problems at the state level on the tax side is that, in the absence of Congressional action, the reservation of interstate commerce powers to the federal government under the Commerce Clause -- intended to create an efficient competitive market by preventing states from unfairly discriminating between in-state and out-of-state transactions by favoring the former causes sales taxes (even when combined with use taxes for transactions not subject to the sales tax, because of logistical differences in enforcement between sales and use taxes) to discriminate in favor of out-of-state transactions when, as is the case with the internet, it is possible to conduct those with no significant nexus in the state.
This proposal fixes that problem.
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by DragonWriter · 2012-12-04 04:16 · Score: 1

They want to raise taxes on the "rich" by 1.6 trillion over 10 years. That's about 180 billion a year.
$1.6 trillion over 10 years is $160 billion a year, not $180 billion, but that's not the real problem with your argument. The real problem is that the whole thing is a red herring.
Relevant to this proposal, "they" don't want to tax the rich at all. This is about a bill which permits states to impose sales taxes (which are paid directly by the retailer) on certain transactions which currently are usually taxed, at the same rate as sales tax, via use taxes paid by the purchaser (which are more difficult to collect), because the Commerce Clause limits states ability to tax interstate transactions in the absence of Congressional action by way of the "dormant Commerce Clause". Its not about taxing the rich, its about not creating a de facto tax subsidy to online retailers through the increased difficulty of collecting use taxes vs. sales taxes.
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:18 · Score: 0

Yep, we're not spending enough on the right things, but too much on the wrong things.
Tell you what, we spend 300 billion on clean power at home, we can write off the Middle East.
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:31 · Score: 0

It's not another tax, it's a change to the way an existing tax (state sales tax) is collected.
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by suutar · 2012-12-04 04:33 · Score: 1

Hmmm. Your mention of the automatic reporting by employers/banks makes me think... a lot of the pain for a widespread online company is in the tracking of tax rates. If instead they are allowed to simply report the transaction to the state revenue service (based on billing address, probably) then the state can go to the effort of making sure that the rate is correct for the area. And the company has less regional info to try to keep up to date. (And another chunk of per-user data if they are so kind as to send an email with the total at the end of the year to the purchaser.)
The downside for the consumer is that instead of having the taxes for a transaction show up with the transaction, in small amounts, they have an end-of-year payment of (probably) unexpected size...
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by medcalf · 2012-12-04 04:39 · Score: 1

Sure, but I was asking about Grover Norquist, which is a different issue.
Also, I would note that the problem of discrimination against in-state retailers could also be solved by eliminating sales taxes on most goods (those easily bought out of state) and instead using property or other tax rates to fund state/local government. TMTOWTDI.

--
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by suutar · 2012-12-04 04:52 · Score: 1

Thought of a refinement later. Collect the state percentage; that's 50 pieces of information to remember, and (usually) the vast majority of the tax involved. The city/county part is smaller, and the state can take care of verifying that the use tax paid is suitable for the city/county of the filer.
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by sycodon · 2012-12-04 05:25 · Score: 1

Hey, I'm trying to push the whole discussion off topic here.
Yer not helping.

--
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 05:41 · Score: 0

We don't need another fucking tax.....we got plenty.
I thought Nevada was the only state with a fucking tax.
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by spiffmastercow · 2012-12-04 06:05 · Score: 3, Insightful

Allowing the states to collect a tax isn't the same thing as imposing a tax. Not quite. Besides it's either that or the states will have to raise income and property taxes.
Then they should raise income or property taxes. Sales tax is about the worst tax there is -- it's regressive, so it hurts poor people disproportionally, and it depresses retail sales and services. If states really want their businesses to compete with amazon, they should abolish sales tax so that purchasing locally becomes more attractive.
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by spiffmastercow · 2012-12-04 06:07 · Score: 1

I'm going to assume none of these senators have taken the Norquist pledge?
Norquist says it's okay because sales tax hurts the poor disproportionately more than the rich.
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by Soluzar · 2012-12-04 06:39 · Score: 1

How much do you think states are spending on the Middle East situation?
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 07:22 · Score: 1

Sales taxes are a great tax. They encourage people not to spend. Staple items should not be taxed and everything else should be. Income taxes are dumb idea, it encourages people not work. The USA needs a 15% federal VAT and massive income tax cuts.
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by orthancstone · 2012-12-04 07:28 · Score: 1

So where is the problem with Norquist, exactly?
Forcing elected officials to be at his (Grover's) behest as opposed to said congressman's constituents is problem #1 with Mr. Norquist. Do you have a reasonable response to that?
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 08:17 · Score: 0

Nice, there is intelligent life on slashdot.
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 11:45 · Score: 0

If nobody paid tax on stuff bought from out of state before, but you will now, it's effectively a new tax. Suggesting otherwise is taking pedantry to new heights to justify even more spending and higher taxes.
I don't know when it became preferable to increase taxes instead of being more responsible about spending, but we're going to end up in situations like the French. You just keep spending until your tax rates reach 75%, because nobody wants to say "No."
I realize people have very different opinions about what we should spend on, but this idea that we should just skip those debates entirely and just collect more taxes to pay for everything is bad policy at both the state and federal levels.
Should we have had federal tax breaks in combination with two unfunded wars? Absolutely not. But the responsible answer would've been to skip the wars or pay for them with the already massive defense budget, not to continually increase taxes for more and more spending. Same principles apply to states.
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 12:22 · Score: 0

Hear, hear!
Not to mention it is an effing P.I.t.A. to figure out how much you're actually paying in Sales Tax. Do you keep your receipts? Spend the hours with a calculator? Then to top that off, collecting Sales Tax is expensive for the government as well!
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-12-04 16:13 · Score: 1

You're already required to pay tax on stuff bought from out of state, it's just that it's hard to enforce, so most people have been dodging it. This would merely make it harder to dodge.
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by dkf · 2012-12-04 22:42 · Score: 1

[Sales tax is] regressive, so it hurts poor people disproportionally
The way to deal with that is to exclude some categories of goods and services from the tax (or equivalently to set its rate at zero for those goods) where those goods and services are things which virtually everyone needs to purchase. An example of a reasonable candidate for being untaxed is food not intended for immediate consumption (i.e., groceries). With such a tax regime, you lessen the regressiveness (but don't eliminate it entirely) to the point where it does not act to prevent people from being able to survive.

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by monkeykoder · 2012-12-05 06:30 · Score: 1

Actually it isn't within states rights to do this without a constitutional amendment (doesn't mean they won't try though).
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-12-05 06:43 · Score: 1

A use tax is certainly within their rights, because it doesn't tax the commerce, it taxes use (hence the name). Jurisdiction-wise, it wouldn't be within their rights to tax the seller, but there's no problem taxing the buyer.
Re:Where's Grover Norquist when you need him? by monkeykoder · 2012-12-06 11:10 · Score: 1

It's still a duty placed on the transaction regardless of who keeps track of it.

Um... by jasper160 · 2012-12-04 01:47 · Score: 5, Insightful

We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

--
No good deed goes unpunished.

Re:Um... by akcpe · 2012-12-04 01:57 · Score: 0

bump.
Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 01:58 · Score: 0

No kidding...these guys are desperate to raise revenue to give us more crap we don't need so they can buy votes next cycle. It goes like this...Johnny is going to take away your xyz freebie that we gave you. Vote for us, and we'll keep it. Oh by the way, your taxes are going up so we have more money to spend of the next thing you don't really need, but by gosh this is your right we are talking about. They should fix the damn potholes we already have in the road.
Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 02:13 · Score: 0

No, there is a revenue problem too. Specifically, the desire of some to keep decreasing it by all means possible regardless of consequences.

I would speculate that those who pretend spending is the only problem probably ignore much of the past 15 years of government action.
Re:Um... by alen · 2012-12-04 02:17 · Score: 1

is that like in california where the people are always voting in new spending via ballot initiatives but then vote on laws to limit property tax increases?
Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 02:26 · Score: 5, Insightful

Right. Instead of spending locally
I live in the capital of California. A few months ago, I spent an entire day looking for an alarm clock. Note: Not a limited class Mercedes. Note: Not a one of a kind Van Gogh. A fucking alarm clock. The only alarm clocks to be found were shoddy, cheap pieces of crap without a brand name. The majority of them were ridiculous 'phone docks'.
Amazon? Ten minutes of searching, done.
Instead of spending locally? You know why we're not spending locally? Because brick and mortar stores are fucking clueless.
Aww, is da widdle Best Buy gonna close?
Fuck off. We live in a global economy. I've no duty to support your failed business.
Re:Um... by rickb928 · 2012-12-04 02:31 · Score: 1

Since increasing spending without regard for the consequences isn't really a problem, right?
Let's not forget one thing - when our repesentatives are largely categorized in only two ways, that is 1) those who keep increasing spending by all means possible without regard for consequunces, and 2) those who keep decreasing revenue AND increasing spending by all means possible without regard for consequunces, then we have a problem. The problem is our representatives actions. The solution? Obvious.
And no, sadly, the solution is not Ron Paul. I say sadly because he, I believe, would actually do what he says he would do. It's what he wants to do that I have trouble with, not the man's integrity or his motives, so far as I can discern them. He just seems to want to use some terrible methods to rein in our government, but I'm also afraid thaere is no other practical solution.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Re:Um... by Toonol · 2012-12-04 02:37 · Score: 4, Interesting

I would speculate that those who pretend spending is the only problem probably ignore much of the past 15 years of government action.

You mean the last fifteen years where spending has gone from 1.6 trillion to 3.7 trillion? Where total tax revenue is still at the highest it's ever been? Where we would have an instant surplus if we could simply bring the federal budget down to where it was in 2004?
Re:Um... by MightyYar · 2012-12-04 02:38 · Score: 1

I don't really understand this argument. Spending does not match revenue, that is the only problem we have. "We the People" can raise and lower taxes and spending at will. There is no "right" answer, so I'm not sure where you are going with this argument.
There are very good arguments to reduce the size of government, but there are also good arguments to boost revenue. I propose a compromise:
1. Raise taxes (rates, loopholes, whatever - it really only matters to partisans) to cover our debt service.
2. Freeze spending.
With spending frozen and revenue increasing, it will only be a matter of time before we start paying off debt. As debt service becomes cheaper, lower taxes accordingly until they are back where we are today. Spending can be unfrozen when our debt is down to a reasonable level (10% of GDP?).

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Um... by emho24 · 2012-12-04 03:05 · Score: 5, Funny

I live in the capital of California. I've no duty to support your failed business.
And a lot of us believe that we have no duty to support your failed state.

--
You must gather your party before venturing forth.
Re:Um... by medcalf · 2012-12-04 03:07 · Score: 1

So the fact that the spending of the Federal government and most of the states vastly exceeds their ability is not a problem, but people undertaking voluntary exchanges of money they earned from working for things made by corporations are a problem? Well, Uncle Joe, you sure showed us. Time to go full Communist and shut down these wreckers and looters!

--
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Re:Um... by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · 2012-12-04 03:08 · Score: 1

You want $4.3 trillion in spending this year? Of course you do. The only thing worse than you paying for it is your bratty grandkids. Oh, and taxing the rich, go for it, but you're still over a trillion short per year. Also, it is just an accounting gimmick anyway, you will still pay for it out of purchases.

--
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Re:Um... by medcalf · 2012-12-04 03:12 · Score: 2

And if raising tax rates reduces revenue, as it generally does on the right side of the Laffer curve? And if raising tax rates reduces economic growth, as it generally does once taxes go beyond a certain point far below ours? I agree we need to freeze or, better yet, dramatically cut spending. But there is no way short of an economic collapse that it's going to happen.

--
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Re:Um... by ducomputergeek · 2012-12-04 03:18 · Score: 4, Insightful

I keep looking at all these projections of if we increase taxes on the wealthy how it will generate at most 20% of the revenue we need to close the fiscal gap. That tells me we aren't taxing our way out of this mess and while the increased taxes may help some, it's not going to be nearly enough. Spending needs an across the board massive cut on everything from defense to social spending. That's the ugly truth nobody wants to discuss.
If I didn't know better I'd think both sides wants this fiscal cliff to happen. It's the only way I think they can actually enact the needed cuts and tax increases while both sides blame each other...

--
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:27 · Score: 0

Which is fine, if you ask me. He's right...as are you. :-D
Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:32 · Score: 0

Instead of spending locally we spend online tax free.
Common misconception. Online purchases are not tax free. If your state has a Use Tax, you as an individual still owe tax. It's just not the responsibility of the seller to collect that tax.

This is a problem and hopefully this bill fixes that.
I can agree that it is a problem to create a tax that is next to impossible to collect. But I do not know if this is the proper solution.
Re:Um... by kelemvor4 · 2012-12-04 03:42 · Score: 1

So the fact that the spending of the Federal government and most of the states vastly exceeds their ability is not a problem, but people undertaking voluntary exchanges of money they earned from working for things made by corporations are a problem? Well, Uncle Joe, you sure showed us. Time to go full Communist and shut down these wreckers and looters!
States have to get revenue from somewhere. Right now, people are evading sales tax by buying on the internet. I do the same thing. I buy on the internet because I hate shopping more than I hate going to the dentist, the tax evasion is just a nice cherry on top. The net effect is that the state gets significantly less revenue. The states will end up replacing that revenue somewhere. I'd rather it be replaced with sales tax that way the burden isn't only shouldered by homeowners but is instead shouldered by everyone in the state.

This isn't a case of the states trying to raise taxes, it's a case of the states trying to replace tax revenue that was lost.

I guess the other alternative is an income tax - in my state we do not have one. We make a lot of our tax revenue in FL from sales taxes rather than income taxes. I'd like to see that continue rather than the alternative.
Re:Um... by Rhipf · 2012-12-04 03:53 · Score: 1

Did you go to "Mom and Pop" stores or just the big chain stores?
Of course you will find a larger selection online since they don't need to have a storefront they can "stock" a wider selection of items.
Did you also look for the item locally online or did you just go directly to Amazon?
Being from a small town I realize that Amazon is the easiest approach when shopping but being from Canada we still have to pay taxes on Amazon purchases (at least in Ontario).
Re:Um... by mjr167 · 2012-12-04 04:00 · Score: 3, Interesting

I went to a local bookstore once to buy a book for a friend's birthday. They didn't have it. They could order it for me and get it in about 2-3 weeks. They were also charging $15. Amazon was able to have the book to me the next day for $10 cause their 2-day shipping often arrives in one day. And no, I have never paid for Amazon Prime- they keep giving it me for free.
Re:Um... by Dan667 · 2012-12-04 04:11 · Score: 1

can't compete in the marketplace? I thought that was what capitalism was all about. Watching it in practice, it is about who has the most money to lobby the government.
Re:Um... by DragonWriter · 2012-12-04 04:23 · Score: 1

Instead of spending locally? You know why we're not spending locally? Because brick and mortar stores are fucking clueless.
If that's a reason, then internet retailers will continue to thrive even without a de facto tax subsidy from the fact that their transactions are taxed via impractical-to-enforce use taxes rather than simpler-to-enforce sales taxes. So that's no reason to oppose this bill.
Re:Um... by DragonWriter · 2012-12-04 04:25 · Score: 1

So the fact that the spending of the Federal government and most of the states vastly exceeds their ability is not a problem
No. Because for one thing, its not a fact. In fact, its not even possible for it to be a fact.
Re:Um... by Microlith · 2012-12-04 04:28 · Score: 1

Increase by how much?
Certainly they should be much higher, given that we immediately put ten+ years of two wars and the bailouts of failed companies on the public debt. And here we have Goldman Sachs' CEO demanding that the average person "expect less" of their retirement. While he, undoubtedly, will live the high life daily.
Re:Um... by Microlith · 2012-12-04 04:34 · Score: 1

We live in a global economy.
Global, except for the labor market.
Capital flows like water, and the richest among us along with it. Average person? With great difficulty, likely impossible for most.
Re:Um... by MightyYar · 2012-12-04 04:35 · Score: 1

We aren't up against the Laffer curve right now, so I don't think that is really germane. If Mitt Romney were paying 60% instead of 15% of his income, then we could talk about the Laffer curve. Lowering taxes does stimulate economic growth, but so does spending. The point is that it's not sustainable if spending and revenue aren't at parity. I advocate a freeze because it is hard to justify INCREASED spending, but cutting spending will hurt the economy in the short term. I advocate increased revenue because we dug ourselves into a huge hole. It's a compromise.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Um... by medcalf · 2012-12-04 04:40 · Score: 1

Renters pay property taxes as well, albeit indirectly.

--
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Re:Um... by medcalf · 2012-12-04 04:41 · Score: 1

Sorry I was unclear. I mean their ability to raise revenue.

--
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Re:Um... by medcalf · 2012-12-04 04:43 · Score: 2

Tax revenue increased when tax rates were lowered under Bush. That's pretty strong evidence that we are on the right side of the Laffer curve. Obviously there are other factors complicating the situation, but fundamentally, if you cut tax rates and revenues increase, that means that you were previously taxing above the rate that generates maximum revenue.

--
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 05:18 · Score: 0

Dude, we're nowhere near the right hand side of the Laffer curve. Yes, it's an economic truism that taxing some activity means you get less of it. The actual data suggests that at current tax levels, there's not much difference with and without the "Bush tax cuts", so allowing the Bush cuts to expire for some or all people won't really change the amount of work that is done.
You are conflating this effect with the indirect effect of the economic multiplier, and again, it's true that if people have more money to spend because taxes are lower, they cause more economic activity. The thing that you miss is that this isn't only to do with tax rates - the thing that is important is whether the government is a net injector or extractor of money from the economy (and note that extra money in the hands of the very wealthy isn't as useful - it doesn't get circulated as much). From the point of view of the wider economy, increased government spending and tax cuts look pretty similar. It's completely inconsistent to argue for the multiplier effect to get tax cuts, and then turn around and say "now cut spending to balance the budget". That's a political and philosophical argument about a small state, not an economic one (and do note that bullshit regulation is a much worse inhibitor of economic activity than a couple of percentage points of tax increase.)
Re:Um... by MightyYar · 2012-12-04 05:23 · Score: 1

Obviously there are other factors complicating the situation
Like it coincided with recovery from the dot-com bust?
Federal revenue has bounced between 15-20% of GDP since the 50s, so I don't really get my panties in a bunch so long as it stays in that range. The states are where most of the fight over should be these days, as state share has gone up, up, up. My state is still pretty decent (PA), but I lived in New York for a few years, and the taxes are totally out of control. But that is the luxury of state taxes - you can move.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 05:28 · Score: 0

Belief isn't relevant. What matters is objective reality; whether or not it is true that one has any unchosen positive obligations or not. Fortunately, it only takes a moments thought to understand that indeed we do not have any such inflicted obligations. The very attempt to affirm(not even prove) the negation ends up contradicting itself so we can safely disregard belief and rest easy upon certainty that we have no such absurd duties.
Re:Um... by sconeu · 2012-12-04 06:03 · Score: 4, Informative

Try again, loser. CA pays the feds quite a bit more than it gets back. *WE* are paying to support *YOUR* failed state.

--
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 06:59 · Score: 0, Insightful

It's also significantly more than our deficit. If we only paid our share to the federal government and kept that $60b for the state government, we'd be running a $40b+ surplus.
Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 07:11 · Score: 0

So why do all the people advocating cuts to spending myopically focus on social programs like Social Security and Medicare. Those programs were in fairly good shape pre-Bush, but then he cut taxes and looted their reserves (replaced them with IOUs) to pay for his wars. And now that it's time to control spending, those programs are the focus.
Any proposal that cuts those programs and doesn't slash military expenditures is a sad joke. We spend so much more than everyone else on military already.The infographic on the world's aircraft carriers is quite telling. We could literally cut military spending by 90% and solve the majority of our spending problem. But no, we cut the legs out from under the social programs and then complain that they cost too much.
Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 08:39 · Score: 0

Let me get this straight.
-local businesses are failing
-remote businesses are doing what consumers locally want
-tax remote businesses so local businesses can continue not having a clue, while making remote businesses less competitive
I'm sorry, I don't see the relationship. All I see is
a) a lot of people moving away from fail-state
b) everyone paying more so local businesses can STILL fail.
Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 08:54 · Score: 1

Try again, dumb ass. California has a failed economic model.
http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/02/is-your-state-a-net-giver-or-taker-of-federal-taxes/
Re:Um... by upL8N8 · 2012-12-04 11:51 · Score: 1

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history As you can see, revenue only got back to the point that it was in 2000, when pre-Bush tax rates were in effect. You'll also notice from this graph that federal revenue didn't increase at the rate of state and local revenue. To me this coincides with a few things. 1) The housing bubble sent home prices through the roof, which would have generated vast sums of local/state taxes. 2) The government was spending loads of money. Not only were they committing to two wars, they were also spending on public sector workers and other projects. This means more money was paid to private businesses, who in turn paid higher taxes. 3) Tech boom. Cell phones were selling like hotcakes. 4) Unemployment rates dropped, which equated to higher overall tax revenue. Just goes to show you, Correlation does not imply causation. You'll also notice that government spending was going through the roof at this point in time. In turn, the deficit substantially increased each year. Meaning, much of this new revenue was money that the government paid out, but never completely got back. It makes you wonder, if all of the above had occurred, except that taxes hadn't been cut, would the debt have doubled during Bush's term? It seems like all of the above stimulus measures would have still been wildly successful with or without tax cuts.
Re:Um... by upL8N8 · 2012-12-04 11:53 · Score: 1

http://www.usgovernmentrevenue.com/revenue_history
As you can see, revenue only got back to the point that it was in 2000, when pre-Bush tax rates were in effect. You'll also notice from this graph that federal revenue didn't increase at the rate of state and local revenue. To me this coincides with a few things.
1) The housing bubble sent home prices through the roof, which would have generated vast sums of local/state taxes.
2) The government was spending loads of money. Not only were they committing to two wars, they were also spending on public sector workers and other projects. This means more money was paid to private businesses, who in turn paid higher taxes.
3) Tech boom. Cell phones were selling like hotcakes.
4) Unemployment rates dropped, which equated to higher overall tax revenue.
Just goes to show you, Correlation does not imply causation. You'll also notice that government spending was going through the roof at this point in time. In turn, the deficit substantially increased each year. Meaning, much of this new revenue was money that the government paid out, but never completely got back.
It makes you wonder, if all of the above had occurred, except that taxes hadn't been cut, would the debt have doubled during Bush's term? It seems like all of the above stimulus measures would have still been wildly successful with or without tax cuts.
Re:Um... by Jane+Q.+Public · 2012-12-04 12:31 · Score: 1

" I'd rather it be replaced with sales tax that way the burden isn't only shouldered by homeowners but is instead shouldered by everyone in the state."
The sales-tax-vs-use-tax problem is one that has been going on for more than 100 years. It is hardly new. But a sales tax is not the answer. In fact it sets a very dangerous precedent.

The courts established two things very long ago. The first, is that states have no power to tax transactions that happen in other states. Period. Second -- and this was important because without it this kind of business would never be functional -- mail-order transactions are deemed to occur at the physical location of the seller. So if you lived in Kansas, and mail-ordered from Sears and Roebuck in New York or wherever it was, the transaction was deemed to have been made in New York. Therefore Kansas could not legally collect sales tax on it.

This is actually a good thing, because as soon as you give states the power to tax transactions that happen in other states, all hell will break loose.

The states then came up with the "use tax" scheme. Rather than taxing the transaction itself, they taxed the use of the goods that were purchased in that transaction. In practice, it is an amount equivalent to the sales tax. This is reasonable. But, of course, mostly unenforceable.

The problem is that even today, and for the same reasons, the states STILL have no power to tax transactions in other states. And online transactions, just like mail-order transactions, are deemed to take place at the location of the seller. Because that's the ONLY way it can work. If you deemed the transaction to take place at the location of the buyer, each seller would have to keep tabs on every combination of federal, state, and local taxes that exist in the United States. That is anything but reasonable. Only the biggest players would be able to afford to put their businesses online.

Just as with mail-order and other kinds of sales, if the selling company maintains "a substantial physical presence" in the state of the person making the transaction, then the state CAN enforce sales tax, otherwise not.

There is nothing new here. Nothing has changed. There is no reason for the laws to change. There is no reason to give states dangerous taxation power they have never had before.
Re:Um... by khallow · 2012-12-04 14:49 · Score: 1

So why do all the people advocating cuts to spending myopically focus on social programs like Social Security and Medicare.
Because those two programs are more than 40% of all spending. And unlike defense spending (which is roughly another 20%), they don't serve an existential need.
Re:Um... by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-12-04 16:24 · Score: 1

Most of those increased wealth taxes are income taxes. The super-wealthy don't get most of their wealth from regular income, which is so taxed - they get it from capital gains. Tax those same as regular income (and, for the sake of fairness, let companies pay dividends from pre-tax corporate income, to avoid double taxation on them), and you'll see a lot more revenue.
Then there's the corporate tax. Which is high on paper, but low in practice because there are so many schemes to dodge it that everybody uses.
Re:Um... by stymy · 2012-12-04 22:38 · Score: 1

Why do so many people assume that the US is currently on the right side of the Laffer curve? The last 10 years show that the tax cuts failed to raise revenue, so clearly the US is to the left.
Re:Um... by redlemming · 2012-12-05 05:53 · Score: 1

Simple comparisons of what goes into and out of any given state are meaningless, for reasons discussed here: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3247559&cid=41976963.
Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-05 06:09 · Score: 0

That's because of all the rich people who are getting taxed...
Re:Um... by redlemming · 2012-12-05 06:11 · Score: 1

Right. Instead of spending locally we spend online tax free. This is a problem and hopefully this bill fixes that.
You haven't put any thought into this. Suppose one lives near the border of some government jurisdiction, such as a state. The nearest shopping area in 5 minutes over the border. The nearest shopping area in your own state is 1 hour away.
Any reasonable person under such circumstances will go over the border to do a lot of their shopping.
A government requirement that one keep track of all out-of-state purchases in order to pay taxes on them would involve massive bookkeeping on the part of this individual. This person would have to keep track of every purchase (potentially throughout their entire life), with sufficient information to determine whether the purchase was made in state or out.
Clearly, this violates fundamental human rights, such as rights not to be subject to excessive government, not to be subject to excessive bureaucracy, or to not have ones time wasted. In the USA, such rights can reasonably be asserted under the 9th Amendment as rights "retained by the people" or the 10th Amendment as rights "reserved to the people".
With the internet, technology has effectively moved these borders next to all of us: we are all in the same situation as the person living next to the border wherever we happen to live.
The situation is further complicated by the fact that no legitimate government has any business taxing the sale of lifetime learning materials, such as non-fiction books and dvds. Lifetime learning is how the people learn enough about the world they live in to not be brainwashed by corrupt officials or by political parties. The power to tax is the power to destroy: no government should be able to tax the very materials that ultimately determine the ability of people to control that government. We have far too many ignorant people as it is, people who think that a college degree somehow satisfies their obligation to society to be educated. Sales taxes in many jurisdictions are overly broad: if anything, we should be limiting the scope of these taxes.
The legislators attempting to pass these laws are violating their oaths to uphold the Bill of Rights. There are legitimate ways for governments to obtain money pay for their operations: this is not one of them.
Re:Um... by lsatenstein · 2012-12-05 06:57 · Score: 1

Right. Instead of spending locally
I live in the capital of California. A few months ago, I spent an entire day looking for an alarm clock. Note: Not a limited class Mercedes. Note: Not a one of a kind Van Gogh. A fucking alarm clock. The only alarm clocks to be found were shoddy, cheap pieces of crap without a brand name. The majority of them were ridiculous 'phone docks'.
Amazon? Ten minutes of searching, done.
Instead of spending locally? You know why we're not spending locally? Because brick and mortar stores are fucking clueless.
Aww, is da widdle Best Buy gonna close?
Fuck off. We live in a global economy. I've no duty to support your failed business.
Our dollar store had alarm clocks (quartz operated) for a buck. I have one now for 3 years, and I am on the third penlite cell.
I also sleep next to my wife and my clock radio. Both can wake me up.

--
Leslie Satenstein Montreal Quebec Canada
Re:Um... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-05 10:16 · Score: 0

I heard this same story right after the election. Lots of noise, especially here on ./, of how the blue states are funding the red states. Lots of charts and stats and maps that did nothing but fuel an already bitter and highly polarized situation.
On the other hand I can come up with numerous articles that describe how broke CA is and how it is having trouble paying its bills. This used to make national headlines, but it has become such a normal thing that no one notices anymore.
What the above tell me is someone is pulling some financial shenanigans or just outright lying because these two things cannot both be true. Well, I can think of one possibility. You are supporting the other states by accumulating debt. Hopefully you're not that dumb.
Re:Um... by andymadigan · 2012-12-06 12:25 · Score: 1

It's not like CA gets a choice in how much the federal gov sucks from us. The comparison is based on federal income taxes paid by residents vs. federal spending in the state (including grants to state and local government, and in CA's case, federal spending on investigators/police attempting to enforce federal law against businesses which are legal under state law). Federal spending also includes spending on military bases and defense contracts.

As for the budget problems, Sacramento is working on it. I certainly wouldn't call CA a "failed state". We have businesses, including thriving startups. We also have public transit and an much more democratic process than the big states back east.

--
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.
Re:Um... by andymadigan · 2012-12-06 12:30 · Score: 1

Or like in California, where we vote to increase business, sales, and income taxes via propositions to balance the budget.

--
The right to protest the State is more sacred than the State.

The tax is technically on the buyers... by MitchDev · 2012-12-04 01:47 · Score: 1

Go after them. Here in MI we have a "Use Tax" on our State Income Tax forms for reporting your internet purchases for tax calculation. Usually cheaper to use the "based on your income" option to to add it all up and apply 6%...

Re:The tax is technically on the buyers... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 02:32 · Score: 0

They have it in PA also. I stopped buying on sites that don't charge PA tax, because its a pain to keep every receipt.
Re:The tax is technically on the buyers... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:07 · Score: 0

Taxing interstate commerce is unconstitional.
Re:The tax is technically on the buyers... by cdrudge · 2012-12-04 03:22 · Score: 1

Usually cheaper to use the "based on your income" option to to add it all up and apply 6%...
So you just pay an additional 6% of your income because it's "cheaper"? Doesn't that mean you are paying the tax twice for all of your in-state purchases or paying a tax on your mortgage, non-taxable purchases, etc?
Re:The tax is technically on the buyers... by compro01 · 2012-12-04 04:09 · Score: 2

It's not 6% of his income, it's 6% of an amount based on his income, which is between $4-70 or 0.08% of gross income if you make more than 100k/year.
Details can be found on the actual tax form on page 3.
If you bought more stuff from out of state that cost less than $1000 each purchase than the number in the table says, yes, it actually is cheaper.

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Re:The tax is technically on the buyers... by MitchDev · 2012-12-05 02:06 · Score: 1

Not 6% of total income. You pay 6% of your "Out of state" purchases, or a flat rate based on your Income level. For us, it's usually cheaper to go the flat rate than add up all our Amazon and other on-line purchases and then figure 6% of it. (MI sales/Use tax is 6%)

should be illegal by wbr1 · 2012-12-04 01:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

Unrelated riders on politically hot button bills and earmarks on important budget issues are how the most heinous of legislation is often passed. Should be illegal, but it will never be.

--
Silence is a state of mime.

Re:should be illegal by artfulshrapnel · 2012-12-04 01:55 · Score: 5, Funny

Sure it will be. Eventually someone will slip a measure making it illegal onto a budget reform bill or approval for increased shoe wax allowance for interns. Then it will exist in a paradox state where it makes itself illegal.
Re:should be illegal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 01:58 · Score: 0

Why not? Tag it on to an unrelated but politically hot bill and watch it ride through! :p
Re:should be illegal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:15 · Score: 0

I want one of these rider nonsense bills to also include some small print indicating that anyone who votes for the composite bill loses their congressional pension and may not run for public office in the future.
Re:should be illegal by infinitelink · 2012-12-04 03:21 · Score: 1

It can't make itself illegal because it can't legally be applied retroactively. Still a funny thought thought.

--
Intelligent idiots are we. | Evil men do not understand justice.
Re:should be illegal by jc42 · 2012-12-04 05:32 · Score: 1

Tag it on to an unrelated but politically hot bill and watch it ride through!
Ah, but then how do you plan to enforce it?

--
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
Re:should be illegal by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 07:34 · Score: 0

This. Any politician running for office should be asked to sign a pledge never to try to attach legislation to unrelated legislation. But that's already too complicated a concept for the average retarded voter to understand.

An idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 01:52 · Score: 0

Find the state's average sales tax based on net sales and the rate. Let non-nexus businesses use that rate IF we're going to pass something like this into law. It should be less of a headache for small businesses then.

Re:An idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 02:08 · Score: 1

I think it would just be easier to tax from the state that is selling instead of selling to. I wouldn't have an ideological issue with this, unlike states receiving the goods taxing companies cross state borders.
This would promote states wanting large retailers in their states for additional revenue, and companies looking for low tax states to place ware houses. If the wording isn't strict though, I could see shell warehouses in low tax states being setup and all purchases filtered through those.
Re:An idea... by Smallpond · 2012-12-04 03:02 · Score: 1

Every internet business would buy server space in NH or AK with no sales tax and declare that their headquarters if it was by seller. I think it has to be on the ship-to state. A program for calculating sales tax based on street address would not be very difficult.

Whiny money-focussed politicians can FOADIAF by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 01:54 · Score: 0

If they want to collect sales tax for state->state transactions, then they can declare independence for their state and then they can do ALL the things they currently can only dream of doing.

Re:Whiny money-focussed politicians can FOADIAF by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-12-04 02:13 · Score: 1

Tried that once. Didn't work out. http://americanhistory.about.com/od/civilwarbattles/Civil_War_Battles.htm

Creates a near monopoly by CloneRanger · 2012-12-04 01:57 · Score: 5, Insightful

By forcing web sites to collect sales tax for all 50 states and the territories will create an accounting nightmare. The only companies that can afford to hire the people to do it would be the dominant players like Amazon. So, all the small start ups would be stifled right out of the gate. The end result will be a near monopoly and very few start ups bringing new ideas to market.

Re:Creates a near monopoly by paiute · 2012-12-04 02:09 · Score: 2

By forcing web sites to collect sales tax for all 50 states and the territories will create an accounting nightmare. The only companies that can afford to hire the people to do it would be the dominant players like Amazon. So, all the small start ups would be stifled right out of the gate. The end result will be a near monopoly and very few start ups bringing new ideas to market.
OK, independent of the question of good or evil, wouldn't that be an opportunity for a startup which offered that service to other startups?

--
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Re:Creates a near monopoly by bill_mcgonigle · 2012-12-04 02:12 · Score: 1

By forcing web sites to collect sales tax for all 50 states
45 States. What benefit do the residents of Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon gain from expending Federal resources on enforcing particular States' tax policies? None, so this should not qualify as a Federal issue. Remember, retailers don't charge sales tax, they collect it. The taxes on delivered goods are 'owed' by the Residents of the States themselves - what the States have on their hands is a massive tax protest problem (and they're looking for a shortcut instead of dealing with it). If States want to require UPS and FedEx to declare the value of packages they deliver, they can do that themselves.
So, all the small start ups would be stifled right out of the gate. The end result will be a near monopoly and very few start ups bringing new ideas to market.
Works as intended, feature not a bug, marking WONTFIX. (whose lobbyists do you think are paying for the steak, whisky, and Cubans dinners to plan these regulations?)

--
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Re:Creates a near monopoly by xelah · 2012-12-04 02:13 · Score: 1

Except, of course, for the 'calculate US sales taxes for your online shop as an outsourced web service' startups, which will do quite nicely. Well, until Amazon invents the new AWS Sale Tax Calculator service.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 02:14 · Score: 2, Informative

these companies exist but are very expensive. Probably because it's a nightmare to figure out what to charge for which address at what time for which product.
The rules are beyond insane in one state alone for one company and one product, let alone trying to figure this out for a huge range of products. Also note that these tax zones are not split on zip code boundaries! Getting it wrong means huge liabilities...
Source: I take care of sales taxes for two states.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 02:17 · Score: 0

While I don't think its a good idea in general, I don't think the accounting hurdles are what they're made out to be. Your'e talking about a max of 50 entities that will receive disbursements. Checking against a particular table to see the sales tax rate and then calculating it and adding it to a particular line item wouldn't be all that complicated.
I suspect that most sites are more against it due to the fact that many people see being "tax free" as an advantage of internet shopping over local merchants rather than worrying about the logistics of collections (not that its not a factor - I just don't think that's the dominate one).
Re:Creates a near monopoly by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-12-04 02:18 · Score: 3, Insightful

So, in place of the many thousands of startups that will not get started because one more regulatory and financial hurdle has been put in their path, you are proposing that we settle for a single startup and call it a win?

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:Creates a near monopoly by MozeeToby · 2012-12-04 02:21 · Score: 1

Alternatively, 3rd party accounting firms will spring up which specialize in solving the issue. So that many, many small business effectively pool their resources to solve the problem. On the one hand, no one wants to pay sales tax on the things they buy online. On the other, it's completely unfair to local businesses that do have to pay taxes, especially when there are players with the size and influence of Amazon that don't.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 02:21 · Score: 0

Accounting nightmare indeed. Why you'd need a 50-element array to keep track of that kind of thing. Everytime you sold something, you'd need to use the state listed on the billing address and figure out a way to look that up in the array, and then increment it by the amount of sales tax charged. My god, you'd need another array to keep track of the rates too, implying some kind of matrix of values! How fiendishly complex! I can't even begin to think how you'd program something like that.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 02:23 · Score: 0

While I don't think its a good idea in general, I don't think the accounting hurdles are what they're made out to be. Your'e talking about a max of 50 entities that will receive disbursements. Checking against a particular table to see the sales tax rate and then calculating it and adding it to a particular line item wouldn't be all that complicated.
Sales tax rates also vary by locality within a state and by the type of item purchased.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by CloneRanger · 2012-12-04 02:25 · Score: 1

> Checking against a particular table to see the sales tax rate and then calculating it and adding it to a particular line item wouldn't be all that complicated.
Each state has a table. You have to look up the zip code to cross to a county to see what the county's tax rate is because some county's add 0.5 to 1% above the state's. Some cities have a tax, too, so this has to be taken into account. These tables change all the time. Then you have some goods that are taxable and some that are not. Florida, for example, does not tax foods. Then you also have "tax free" periods like back to school. Which state is doing that which weekend or week? Its a huge mess for any small company to deal with. Only the big companies can navigate this.
It would be a wise business strategy for the incumbents to back this idea/bill as a way of sealing off any new comers.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by jythie · 2012-12-04 02:28 · Score: 1

Eh, I suspect that if this became law we would see a whole crop of inexpensive middleware or other accounting apps that would automate the process, probably integrating right into Quicken or whatever. It would actually be the big players with their legacy home grown systems that would take a hit.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 02:29 · Score: 0

work just fine in europe, as long as a shops annual sales to a country is below a limit it can charge local(sellers) VAT (so it doesn't have to mess with VAT for just a few sales) when annual sales to a country go above that limit shop has to charge and pay VAT at the buyers country (so an internet shop can not gain an unfair advantage over local shops just by being located in a low VAT country )
Re:Creates a near monopoly by stewbee · 2012-12-04 02:38 · Score: 1

If only it were just a 50 element array. Using Illinois as an example, each county and sometimes city have their own tax rates. The sales tax on an item if I were to buy it in Cook county would be more than if I were to buy it in Lake or DuPage counties. I can't speak for the rest of the country, but I am sure there are other states which have something crazy like this too.

But this is where the burden comes, is that it would require more research than just what does each state have as its base sales tax.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by bondsbw · 2012-12-04 02:38 · Score: 1

OK, independent of the question of good or evil, wouldn't that be an opportunity for a startup which offered that service to other startups?
It would. Many regulations are opportunities for somebody.
The net effect is that the government receives tax it once didn't receive, and the service provider receives money it didn't once receive. Don't forget that the service itself is taxed by sales tax, income tax, etc. So the government receives a relatively tiny sum more.
All this extra cost is passed on to the buyer, so the buyer has less money to spend on other things he may need or want. This isn't quite the same as the broken window fallacy, as there hasn't been any value destroyed in the exchange. It seems the tax is fair, so the decision here is whether being fair to all is worth the cost passed to the consumer (the cost provided by the tax service).

--
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by digitalaudiorock · 2012-12-04 02:52 · Score: 1

If only it were just a 50 element array. Using Illinois as an example, each county and sometimes city have their own tax rates.
Amen to that.
A software company I used to work for had a customer in the aviation business...mostly airplane repair. When they did repairs for someone they had to charge all applicable taxes based on where the owner lived. They had a dedicated system to handle it which required regular updates. All in, it apparently handled thousands of special cases.
...and lets not forget...collecting the taxes is the easy part. Properly submitting them to the states etc for which you're collecting them with all the proper documentation makes that look easy.
Let's be clear: forcing businesses to collect all applicable taxes would effectively end Internet commerce for the little guy...at least for any who want to operate within the law.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by V-similitude · 2012-12-04 02:58 · Score: 2

As part of the bill, require any state that wants to participate to publish a public API that takes a dollar amount, a zip code (or address) and a product type and returns how much tax is owed. Done.
It's absurd to call this a "nightmare". It's trivially solvable.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 02:58 · Score: 0

I would suspect most part smaller sites will likely just pay a provider like Avatax to handle it in the same manner they pay a bank and or clearing house to process their credit cards.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by Overzeetop · 2012-12-04 03:00 · Score: 2

"these companies exist but are very expensive. Probably because it's a nightmare to figure out what to charge for which address at what time for which product."
No, they're very expensive because it's a nightmare to create it yourself from scratch. Once it's done once, it costs nothing to reproduce the tables/software. But because they know it would take $x to create from scratch, charging 0.25 x $x is a reasonable value proposition.
The only possible positive outcome is that by requiring everyone to do it, it may entice more solutions, which will bring the prices down to the reasonable level for small-medium business.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:Creates a near monopoly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:03 · Score: 0

If only it were just a 50 element array. Using Illinois as an example, each county and sometimes city have their own tax rates. The sales tax on an item if I were to buy it in Cook county would be more than if I were to buy it in Lake or DuPage counties. I can't speak for the rest of the country, but I am sure there are other states which have something crazy like this too.
But this is where the burden comes, is that it would require more research than just what does each state have as its base sales tax.
Agreed. When I lived in Colorado, they had sales tax for large ticket delivered items based upon delivery location. When I'd go to buy e.g. a refrigerator, the store would have to look up my address to figure out how much sales tax to charge. It was a bit of a mess and I'm certain it was a pain in the a$$ for the stores.
Rather than having a merchant look up your local tax rate(s), how about a national VAT style tax? If it's a mail order/internet purchase, the merchant collects e.g. 5% national tax. That's sent to Uncle Sam with a list of dollar value shipped to each zip code. The money is then shipped at say 2% to the correct state, 2% to the correct county and 1% kept for Uncle Sam. Of course politicians would make it a lot more complex than that....
Re:Creates a near monopoly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:08 · Score: 0

CloneRanger covered a lot of the issues, but there are yet more. The main difficulty is not the tax rates table: that's a pain, but you do it once and keep it up to date and everyone can use it (in theory). There's the other problem that different localities have different taxes for different categories of items and define those categories differently, so you can't just categorize your items and use a chart, you have to carefully check if your items fall under the proper categories for each relevant state.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by ducomputergeek · 2012-12-04 03:11 · Score: 2

It's not the calculation that's the problem. There are already several services that offer sales tax tables for the US. I know, we used one in a point of sale application at the last company I worked for and it cost us about $12,500 a year for a license (IIRC). The problem for a small business is the accounting nightmare of having to keep your books straight an ensuring each state gets paid its due. After I sold that last company I started buying vintage and antique furniture from estate sales and opened a small private, sale by appointment only showroom. I sell some local, but a lot of my sales are to larger dealers and customers out of the area. I probably spend between 5 - 10 hours a month doing book work now. Mostly I have to keep extremely good records incase I audited by the state sales tax because of my $90k in sales this year, only about 20% of it was to local residents which I collected taxes on. The rest were out of state purchases from my website, mostly to other dealers. In my state I get to keep a percentage of the sales tax "to cover the costs of collecting for the state". But if a law like this gets passed suddenly am I going to have to know the taxing laws for every state? Right now my accounting is simple enough I have to pay a CPA $800 to review my end of year statements to ensure that I deducted what I thought I could and to provide some protection against IRS Audit. If something like this got passed I have a feeling that would turn into $800 a month. Well that's about $10,000 in accounting costs a year added to my business. Okay, I did $90,000 in sales, but my inventory cost me around $35,000. Rent, utilities, insurance, travel, hiring movers for some of the items, marketing expenses was about another $15,000. Add in another $10,000 in accounting fees plus the added time plus hassles and it makes me start to wonder if I really want to keep doing this or not.

--
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by cdrudge · 2012-12-04 03:12 · Score: 1

You are SO under estimating the complexity of the requirement. There aren't 50 tax jurisdictions out there. There's about 11,000. There isn't one flat rate that covers the state. Many jurisdictions have different rates for general merchandise, food/beverage, grocery, clothing, medicine, etc. Some jurisdictions have progressive tax on some purchases, or exempt up to a particular value of the item. Add to that local county or city taxes.
Take all the above and then decide which taxing authority a particular person lives in. Can't go by zip code, as zip codes can span multiple jurisdictions. You need to have a fairly precise map of what the bounds for each of the 11,000 jurisdiction are, as they relate to addresses.
When remitting all these taxes, it's up to the company to document which tax jurisdiction the funds go into. The state doesn't do that for the company. This process needs to be repeated anywhere from once a year for very small sales volume, to monthly for even modest sales of a few thousand dollars annually.
So instead of a 50 element array, you're now tracking 11,000 elements that each may have multiple rates depending on the product type, as well as the geographical information of all 11,000 of those elements and every single address in the country. And you need to keep track of any changes to any of that information.
Now you see what a huge PITA sales tax is for electronic commerce.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by cob666 · 2012-12-04 03:13 · Score: 4, Insightful

It's not JUST calculating the tax. Every business would have to have a Sales Tax ID for every state that collects sales tax, those aren't free and some states require you to pay a yearly renewal for said privilege. Also, many states require you to file quarterly, but not calendar quarterly, quarterly based on the state's fiscal year.

--
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
Re:Creates a near monopoly by medcalf · 2012-12-04 03:19 · Score: 1

Interesting factoid I dug up years ago when trying to solve this problem: did you know that there are (or were at the point I looked into it) more than 50,000 sales tax rate/condition changes per year in the US, taken as a whole? That is not the rates that you have to keep track of, but the velocity of changes. It's not like you program a table in and then walk away. Even if the rates didn't change, that table would have to include a huge amount of logic for no-tax/reduced-tax zones, items and periods, as well as interstate tax agreements and the like. It's more of a mess than you're intimating.

--
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Re:Creates a near monopoly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:27 · Score: 1

You can't just do it once and sit on your laurels. Tax laws change. You have to be on top of every sales tax change in every state, county, municipality, and other taxing entity (yes, there are taxing entities that aren't cities, counties, or states). A large part of the subscription service is to pay someone else to keep up with sales tax changes precisely because it is an ongoing nightmare. It's not like there's one website you can just go to and see all sales tax changes in the country for the last 90 days.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by SvnLyrBrto · 2012-12-04 03:28 · Score: 2

> sales tax for all 50 states and the territories will
> create an accounting nightmare
Oh, it's a whole lot worse than you realize. Cities, counties, multi-county "transportation districts", multi-city infrastructure districts, and like can all levy sales taxes too. Any and all of these, including the state, may chose to levy the tax only on certain goods, but not on others. They may have sales tax "holidays" certain times of the year; maybe for all goods maybe for just a few. For example, "back to school" sales tax holidays on various school supplies are fairly common each August. And all of these, and the hoops you'd have to go through to remit them, may change unpredictably at the whim of any of a thousand local governments.
And there's no simple and easy way to do a lookup. First off, do you use the customer's residential, billing, or shipping address to decide what tax to levy? And once you have an address, how do you do a lookup? You can't use the ZIP code or even the city field of the address. Those fields are determined by the post office for its own convenience in planning delivery routes and may not conform to municipal borders at all. (I've first-have experience with this. I once lived with one town and regularly got a card in the mail requesting and reminding me to use the neighboring larger town, in which my local post office was located, as the city field in my address.) Obviously, the state field is not granular enough.
What you'd need is an always up-to-date, nationwide, lookup of street addresses and the actual borders of every city, county, and miscellaneous tax district in all of the US; and what and when they tax and what's exempt and when. That sort of thing may be within the capabilities of a giant like Amazon. A startup? Not so much. This law would by a massive barrier to entry that would stop new internet businesses like a brick wall.
And all that's just the practical difficulty. There's also the basic fairness issue. If I run a business in one place, with no physical presence in the other, why SHOULD I have to pay even a single penny to that other government... from which I receive no services and to which I have no representation?

--
Imagine all the people...
Re:Creates a near monopoly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:29 · Score: 0

There's no reason why that would have to be true of the internet sales tax though. Any Federal level bill could simply state that the sales tax rate must be uniform across a state.
Hell if they wanted they could even make it a uniform RATE across the nation, with the collections simply being remitted to the applicable state. Make it 7% across the board and just have the merchants remit payment to each state's IRS at regular intervals.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:33 · Score: 0

It's even worse sometimes. My company has one service we sell where in one state the taxability of that service also depends on specific functions of the customer's site. We have to know what the customer is doing with our service before we know what tax will be applied. It's crazy.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by idontgno · 2012-12-04 03:53 · Score: 2

No, they're very expensive because it's a nightmare to create it yourself from scratch. Once it's done once, it costs nothing to reproduce the tables/software. But because they know it would take $x to create from scratch, charging 0.25 x $x is a reasonable value proposition.
But that's utterly, naively, massively ignorantly beside the point. "Reasonable value proposition" is lying dead under the wheels of the huge bus "What the market will bear" is driving.
The "nightmare" of creating accurate, legally viable tax tables across literally thousands of tax jursidictions, plus the associated never-ending nightmare of keeping them current across those same thousands of tax jurisdictions, plus the omnipresent ubernightmare of liability if you get just ONE of those jurisdictions wrong... well, let's just say those are hellacious barriers to market entry, so those few companies already in the space pretty much have it to themselves. And under those circumstances, you'd have to be living in Pink Pony Unicorn Land to expect them to operate to a "reasonable value proposition". I think the correct expression for the business model is "squeeze it to the edge of extinction in order to milk it or as long as the near-monopoly lasts".

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by idontgno · 2012-12-04 03:59 · Score: 1

As if states were the only problem.
Municipalities, counties, and any number of subordinate jurisdictions will howl--very effectively--if they're left off the gravy train. And that increases the complexity of the tax calculation problem by orders of magnitude. And you know for damn sure no state will buy into a system that makes work for them. Lobbying is cheaper and more effective.
Maybe the invisible hand will provide that API, since that's already an established semi-competitive market, but that just means that a legal mandate will funnel involuntary non-avoidable business to the few players in the space... Hmm... where have I heard that described before?

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:08 · Score: 0

Maintenance is a nightmare. There are jurisdictions beneath states too; that's where it becomes awful.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by DragonWriter · 2012-12-04 04:29 · Score: 1

By forcing web sites to collect sales tax for all 50 states and the territories will create an accounting nightmare.
Online retailers can easily choose to only do sell to places they are set up to collect and pay taxes for.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by CohibaVancouver · 2012-12-04 04:33 · Score: 1

The problem for a small business is the accounting nightmare of having to keep your books straight an ensuring each state gets paid its due.
You make it sound like you have some chilly Bob Cratchit hunched over a desk with a quill pen and stacks of ledgers trying to work it out. These days it's all done with software on these nifty machines called "computers" - Your online shopping cart calculates and posts the tax to a General Ledger Account based on region, then you just remit that amount based on the GL, often automatically.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by Terwin · 2012-12-04 04:41 · Score: 1

Your'e talking about a max of 50 entities that will receive disbursements. Checking against a particular table to see the sales tax rate and then calculating it and adding it to a particular line item wouldn't be all that complicated.
I live in Texas (one of 50 states) we have a state sales tax.
I also live in Travis County(One of 254 counties in Texas) and Travis County has its own sales tax rate.
I do not live in, but do most of my shopping in Austin(one of 1,215 incorporated cities in Texas), and Austin has it's own tax rate.
Because Austin is Incorporated, things bought in Austin only have the state and city taxes, not the county taxes.
Looking at the state tax information page(http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/sales/) there are also 'Transit' and 'Special Purpose Districts' with their own tax rates.
Because I do not even know what sorts of Transit sales tax or Special purpose district sales tax might apply to me, I will ignore those for now.
This gives 1,470 independently managed tax rates in Texas alone. (Cities+Counties+state)
I would hardly be surprised is some of these taxing entities did not even have an online presence to contact about what the current tax rate is, and you can be certain that they will not all remember to send their updated tax information to every online retailer each time they tweak their local regulations.
Admittedly Texas is a pretty big state, and there are probably less than (1470*50=)73,500 distinct and independent taxing bodies (that can update their tax code either at any time they feel like it or according to a set of regulations that are probably distinct for each one) in the United states, but that is at least the correct scale of the problem.
Or it is if you *only* sell to the United States, if you sell international too, things start to get messy...
Do you even know if the city but not county rule/law is in effect for all the states in the US?
I have lived in different parts of Travis County for more than 30 years, and I do not even know if there are any Transit or Special District sales taxes that I currently pay, and you think that some start-up that sells novelty bobble-headed dolls and pez dispensers could easily track down all the taxes they need to charge each and every one of their customers?
Re:Creates a near monopoly by suutar · 2012-12-04 04:49 · Score: 1

You think it will take Amazon long enough to crank that up for any startup to actually get significant business? I have my doubts.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by suutar · 2012-12-04 05:01 · Score: 1

Let the state build that into their API. They want the revenue, they can put in the work. And they have the use tax declaration on the income tax form, so they'll be doing the validation at the end of the year anyway. Presumably they already have a way to distribute the county/city part of the use tax back to the county/city... or should.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by suutar · 2012-12-04 05:19 · Score: 1

The idea I had was to collect the state tax at the time of the transaction. The state is then responsible for (if needed) collecting the rest of the use tax from the tax filer at the end of the year and distributing it to the appropriate city/county (like they already probably do... or should), but since they have the records of transactions for which sales tax was collected they can verify that the tax filer reported the right amount. The business wins (well, doesn't lose as bad) because they only have to track state sales tax, the state wins because they get revenue they're not currently getting, the city/county win because they get revenue they're not currently getting, and the consumer loses because they have to pay more, but not as bad as they could because most of the new tax is at time of purchase; the use tax 'balloon' should be pretty small since it's just city/county level amounts.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by IndustrialComplex · 2012-12-04 05:40 · Score: 1

You make it sound like you have some chilly Bob Cratchit hunched over a desk with a quill pen and stacks of ledgers trying to work it out. These days it's all done with software on these nifty machines called "computers" - Your online shopping cart calculates and posts the tax to a General Ledger Account based on region, then you just remit that amount based on the GL, often automatically.
Glad everyone uses the 'software' and that their current 'software' already provides this currently non-existent feature.
I wonder how this wonderful system would work for my dad. He currently takes orders via web/email/phone, and negotiates a deposit to start work. About 1.5 years later, he finishes the carving, requests the remainder of the payment, then packages and ships the carving. (It takes a long time to do his carvings because there are multi-month treatment steps) If sold in person, sales tax is simple, it's the sales tax of where he lives since he is selling from his home. His 'software'? A literal accounts book. If you are only processing 20 orders per year, a full blown software suite is pretty overkill. (and you try to teach an 80 yr old former steelworker to use financial software)
It's an added expense, and it isn't necessary. Why should the resident of one state be burdoned with the regulatory cost of enforcing the laws of another state? Don't forget that an interstate tariff is Unconstitutional. The free flow of goods and services between states was a pretty important part of establishing the US.
The problem for the States is that some of them collect revenue from methods which are no longer appropriate in a modern era. Isn't that the point that we keep raising with regard to the music industry?

--
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
Re:Creates a near monopoly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 06:12 · Score: 0

No, there's always a business that can service your business. If you are a small start, hire a company that takes care of this kind of stuff for you. It ain't a BFD.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 06:17 · Score: 0

Some cities (I live in chicago) collect sales tax on certain things monthly... like soda but quarterly on other things and annually on other things...
Re:Creates a near monopoly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 07:16 · Score: 0

so what you're saying is it'll create jobs?
Re:Creates a near monopoly by Blue23 · 2012-12-04 07:25 · Score: 1

Agreed. And the states change their tax laws fairly often when you consider across all the states. My wife used to work for aplace and this was her primary responsability. Just to clarify, we're looking at a startup having a dedicated person just to track and pay state sales tax. Or paying a third party to do it for them, which may be cheaper thoguh includes both the costs of the third party, the costs of integrating them into your sales channels (say, to provide the correct sales tax costs on web pages), plus any time spent by members of the startup in finding, setting up, administering and reviewing this.
Ya, big barrier to start-ups. Because it's just as much work for one sale in a state and one hundred thousand.
If they also standardized all state sales taxes it would be less of a barrier to entry. Same rate, same things they apply to, same payment schedule, no "tax reduced economic areas", etc. Of course, then if become cheaper total cost to purchase outside the US (hello global economy), and good luck Rhode Island going after a web site elsewhere in the world for state sales tax. So we'd have to put a tarriff on all international sales to balance it out. We'd still be left with US products more expensive for Americans than those not living in the states, so maybe charge everyone else the amount too. Woo! Oh wait, no.

--
LITTLE GIRL: But which cookie will you eat FIRST? C. MONSTER: Me think you have misconception of cookie-eating process.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by thetoadwarrior · 2012-12-04 08:51 · Score: 1

You make sound like there no software around that could handle the task or that no one would step in and fill the gap. That'sa pretty poor assumption.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by stdarg · 2012-12-04 09:29 · Score: 2

On the other, it's completely unfair to local businesses that do have to pay taxes
Why is it unfair? The local business in Rhode Island is using local government resources -- fire, police, etc. The guy operating out of his garage in Utah selling to people in Rhode Island isn't using Rhode Island's fire, police, etc. And really, don't the local businesses in Rhode Island have the same opportunity to sell to people in Utah as the guy in Utah? So they can take advantage of the tax situation as well.
If states are looking at shortfalls because of inter-state commerce, they should use other revenue sources. If a bunch of people in your state are evading local taxes by buying out of state, guess what, you can make that money up by raising their property taxes and income taxes. If a bunch of businesses in your state are evading local taxes by selling out of state, guess what, you can make that money up by raising their property taxes and income taxes, which they'll have to pass on to their out of state customers by raising prices.
Why isn't that a fair solution?
Re:Creates a near monopoly by hurfy · 2012-12-04 11:07 · Score: 1

Nice to see some people explain what a royal pain this is. I did taxes for 2 states here and our system was barely able to handle it. Most systems won't get that far. Few items were nontaxable in both states, many were in one or the other.
It took weeks to build a matrix for just WA (350+ taxcodes) and ID (3 codes at the time). 20 year-old Unix software beat out most new programs as it actually was possible. My technique might have expanded to a 3rd state but after that I doubt i coul d have made it work.
Don't know of an accounting system that will have 45 fields for TAXABLE? to use countrywide.
So far noone has tried to explain that it may matter WHO your customers are also. I had to charge tax to Veterinarians on items that otherwise would be tax-free if used on humans!
Now, add that variable to what others have expanded on....!
Re:Creates a near monopoly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 14:06 · Score: 0

Why can't each state be responsible for the tax tables? A retailer should be able to take code from each state's website and use that for determining tax rates. If a particular state has thousands of tax jurisdictions, it would be the state's responsibility to figure it out. If the state messes it up, then the retailer shouldn't be liable.
Re:Creates a near monopoly by Overzeetop · 2012-12-05 02:41 · Score: 1

It's not the subscription pricing, it's the magnitude of the pricing. And they know that.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:Creates a near monopoly by Overzeetop · 2012-12-05 02:44 · Score: 1

Why should the state do it - it's the localities which are assessing the tax (well, in some cases; in others the state collects and then refunds).
That's the whole idea behind the nexus concept. Unless you have a physical presence in every possible taxing jurisdiction, it's very difficult to keep up.
As for it being the state's fault - that is never a defense in any court of law. Practically all laws are written such that compliance is mandatory, whether or not you are informed, and whether or not the state provides data.

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:Creates a near monopoly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-05 03:31 · Score: 0

And people wonder why you guys don't like your government. How much money is drained away by dealing with the mess of tax that you guys have? Why can't you just decide on a simple tax system? Say: x% of income (including but not limited to income, capital gains, etc), y% sales tax and/or z% of property tax (type and ratio tbd by state). That total can be divided up between the state and federal government by a predetermined ratio. The IRS can administer the entire shebang and using loop holes to pay little to no tax will become a hell of a lot harder (since the tax laws for private citizens will become so simple).
Of course if you were to go this far, it would be prudent to set a nation wide payroll/corporate/gasoline/alcohol/etc tax rate which is collected by the IRS and distributed to the states and feds by the percent of tax gained by each state. States could still become corporate havens by assisting with the various services and utilities and perhaps even tax rebates.
A single face for tax purposes will allow citizens to vent their rage at the proper place and reduce overhead while the lack of administration costs will give the states more of their tax money to spend on important stuff like schools and roads.
And don't say that this kind of setup wont work because it does, many countries including Australia use a national taxation office. Only real exception that I can think of is the property taxes which are collected on a local government level (due to taxes providing local infrastructure like local roads, libraries, public pools, development approvals, etc)
Re:Creates a near monopoly by just_another_sean · 2012-12-05 06:21 · Score: 1

Why can't each state be responsible for the tax tables?
In my experience most states do provide these. On paper or PDF.
Well, that's an exaggeration but really some provide txt, others csv ( and really, I can swear our accountants only get the data in a paper book from one state, can't remember who though, maybe it's changed over the years). But anyway, even the electronic copies generally have different schema and, in some cases, are difficult at best to interpret. My small company deals with 8 states if I remember correctly because of our remote sales force. We have a staff account who spends about half her time on this in a month and that's with support from IT. Adding 42 more states would be horrible.
So the fix of having the states provide data would be somewhat more manageable if they could come up with a standard format but in my mind I think the states would be better served by coming up with a common internet tax at a flat rate instead of imposing sales tax on out of state orders. I realize sales taxes are used by different states to paint themselves one way or another so I'm not suggesting every state implement the sames sales tax rate, just that if their residents are receiving goods from another state that they pay a flat rate tax for that. Anything bought locally would still be subjected to the usual sales tax.
Of course I can hear the low sales tax states screaming already about the Feds imposing on them and I can hear the higher sales tax states moaning about how everything their residents buy is now through the inter-tubes because the flat rate is lower than their sales tax... So, you know what, forget I said anything! This is why I am not a politician.

--
Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
Re:Creates a near monopoly by cob666 · 2012-12-06 13:23 · Score: 1

Now, in addition to the expense of paying for a Sales & Use tax for I believe it's 45 states, I have to pay a third party to process all my sales tax forms. Also, because not all states are standardized, you will also have to pay for a service that provides sales tax information for states that calculate sales tax based on location.

The point I'm trying to make is that most states that have a sales tax ALREADY require that residents pay the tax for purchases made out of state. There is no reason why states can't simply start enforcing these laws.

--
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley

Democrats said, "We will not tax the Internet!" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 02:00 · Score: 2

Having heard, with my own ears, Democrat Senators and Congressperson tell the whole country that they would never support a tax on the Internet, I am surprised that they would so quickly change their highly proclaimed position.

Of course, they promised me that I could retire with full Social Security benefits and have changed that also--now that they have raised the retirement age.
They promised that Medicare would provide for senior health-care needs and the Democrat President is set to take $1,116,000,000,000 out of Medicare.
I guess the cost of "Obama Phones" is more than expected.

Those who propose and vote for Internet taxes have lied to the USA citizens and taxpayers. They have lost their morality (assuming that they had any to begin with.).

Re:Democrats said, "We will not tax the Internet!" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 02:10 · Score: 1

They all do it in the One-Party-System. The only time those bozos get together and hold hands is when they're taking money from your pocket. They love your money enough to overcome their "differences."
Re:Democrats said, "We will not tax the Internet!" by MozeeToby · 2012-12-04 02:23 · Score: 1

It's not a tax on the internet, it's a tax on goods bought from an out of state seller. In other words, it's a tax that, from a purely legal standpoint, you're already supposed to be paying yourself every year when you file your taxes.
Re:Democrats said, "We will not tax the Internet!" by Sponge+Bath · 2012-12-04 02:35 · Score: 1, Flamebait

FTA: "Senators Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, Mike Enzi, a Wyoming Republican, and Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican"
Two Republican senators and one Democratic senator.

Having heard, with my own ears, Democrat Senators and Congressperson tell the whole country that they would never support a tax on the Internet...
Was that Democrat you heard with your own ears Dick Durbin? No? Then your comment makes no sense. You did not mention 2/3 of this group are Republican which makes even less sense.

I guess the cost of "Obama Phones" is more than expected.
Ahhh. Obama Derangement Syndrome. Now it makes sense.
Re:Democrats said, "We will not tax the Internet!" by MightyYar · 2012-12-04 02:44 · Score: 1

Much better would be to just establish a national tax rate for cross-border sales. Distribute the tax as you see fit. Requiring out of state sellers to know the tax laws of all 50 states is not fair, IMHO.

--
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Re:Democrats said, "We will not tax the Internet!" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:18 · Score: 0

Yeah, that'd be great. Just another pool of money the federal government gets to dangle over the heads of the states and says "If you want this money you'll do what we tell you to do... even if we don't have jurisdiction over what we're telling you to do."

The states giving money to the federal government is just like saying "bend me over, I'll obey your every command."
Re:Democrats said, "We will not tax the Internet!" by medcalf · 2012-12-04 03:20 · Score: 1

We have such a rate already. It is 0% on all items in all conditions.

--
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Re:Democrats said, "We will not tax the Internet!" by Jaysyn · 2012-12-04 03:36 · Score: 1

I guess the cost of "Obama Phones" is more than expected.
You mean the ones that have been around since Regan?
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/10/the-obama-phone/

--
There is a war going on for your mind.
Re:Democrats said, "We will not tax the Internet!" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:44 · Score: 0

since only Durbin's party (the one in power in the Senate) has control over which bills see the light of day... so this is a Democratic reversal on their earlier pledge to avoid taxing the internet. Pretty obvious who you voted for.
Re:Democrats said, "We will not tax the Internet!" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:53 · Score: 0

http://www.wireless.att.com/learn/articles-resources/community-support/lifeline-link-up.jsp
AT&T gets quite a big fat contract for this program... factcheck is wrong about it not funded or subsidized by the government.
Re:Democrats said, "We will not tax the Internet!" by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:32 · Score: 1

Having heard, with my own ears, Democrat Senators and Congressperson tell the whole country that they would never support a tax on the Internet, I am surprised that they would so quickly change their highly proclaimed position.
This isn't a tax on the Internet. It's a system for collecting taxes already due on out-of-state goods purchased through various means, including the Internet.
Do try to get your ears checked, and whatever part of your brain is responsible for communication, obviously you're not able to understand what you're hearing or saying.

Of course, they promised me that I could retire with full Social Security benefits and have changed that also--now that they have raised the retirement age.
You mean the proposals by the Republican party?
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-03/retirement-age-in-u-s-may-have-to-be-raised-republican-rand-paul-says.html
http://crooksandliars.com/susie-madrak/sen-lindsey-graham-lets-raise-retirem
That Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham, such hard-core Democrats, aren't they?

They promised that Medicare would provide for senior health-care needs and the Democrat President is set to take $1,116,000,000,000 out of Medicare.
Yet another lie. Here's a clue, those Obama cuts are to eliminate waste, fraud, and to improve fiscal responsibility. Yet Republican shills would have you believe a prudent reduction in spending necessarily entails less care.
No factual basis for that claim exists.

I guess the cost of "Obama Phones" is more than expected.
Those who propose and vote for Internet taxes have lied to the USA citizens and taxpayers. They have lost their morality (assuming that they had any to begin with.).
Please name this people, and the specific times and places you heard them, and repeat to us their words.
Oh wait, you can't, can you?

Why is this a states issue?... by artfulshrapnel · 2012-12-04 02:02 · Score: 2, Insightful

Seems to me that the states shouldn't be trying to deal with the taxes on this, and instead congress should be doing it under the mantle of "Regulating Interstate Commerce". Pass a law that says all sellers must collect and report both federal and state income tax on sales as if the sale were occurring at the buyer's physical location, or the location to which the product is delivered. (Whichever is easier to make into an enforceable law).

Simple, clean, unambiguous, very few loopholes, and understandable to customers.

Re:Why is this a states issue?... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 02:14 · Score: 0

Start your own business and see how much you like calculating "local sales taxes" for people in all 50 states. I ran my own part time, small time mail order business for 10 years, with customers all over the world. Just me. Add additional paperwork on top of the local, state, and federal paperwork that I had? Forget it. This will kill the small entrepreneur, or at least make them just want to go completely under the radar.
Re:Why is this a states issue?... by howardd21 · 2012-12-04 02:15 · Score: 5, Informative

Seems to me that the states shouldn't be trying to deal with the taxes on this, and instead congress should be doing it under the mantle of "Regulating Interstate Commerce". Pass a law that says all sellers must collect and report both federal and state income tax on sales as if the sale were occurring at the buyer's physical location, or the location to which the product is delivered. (Whichever is easier to make into an enforceable law).
Simple, clean, unambiguous, very few loopholes, and understandable to customers.
It is anything BUT clean - it is a complete mess for businesses to try and figure out what tax to charge and who it gets sent to. It is not just 50 states, it is as you suggested the buyer's physical location, so every other tax on top also must be calculated, collected, and paid to the local parish, county, city, district, etc. And add in some audits by each of these taxing authorities. Paying local taxes is is easy when Mom and Pop hardware is selling to it's walk in customers, they pay the city, county, state and federal govt. And it is almost workable for a large corporation that pays for a top tier ERP system and adds a tool like vertex (expensive and must be maintained by a team). But your proposal just cut off any small - medium business that wants to sell beyond the physical locations they occupy. I hep you like Walmart, because they and others sized like them will be your online provider of products.

--
no comment
Re:Why is this a states issue?... by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-12-04 02:21 · Score: 2

And a boatload of work for small startup companies. You seem to be unaware that many states do not have a single sales tax rate. Instead some states have a rate that varies according to what municipality you are in at the time of the sale. This is not something that can be determined by zip code as zip codes are not divided by local municipality boundaries but are instead determined by what post office the USPS delivers mail to that address from.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:Why is this a states issue?... by rickb928 · 2012-12-04 02:41 · Score: 2

SCOTUS (especially the CJSCOTUS) seems to be willing to interpret the commerce clause fairly liberally. I have little hope of a solution there.
We are in a tax-it-all era. Expect your overall tax burden to grow linearly for the next decade unless some course change occurs.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Re:Why is this a states issue?... by rickb928 · 2012-12-04 02:44 · Score: 2

Here in Arizona we have multiple taxes, at state, county, and municipal level.
But calling that a 'state' tax issue is misleading. It's the localities that really hose things up. And Phoenix goes one further, and taxes food at a different rate than merchandise. Yes, they tax food. And how they did it is even more disturbing than the fact that they do, but tha;'s the topic of several pages of posts, and not for this thread.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Re:Why is this a states issue?... by ducomputergeek · 2012-12-04 02:45 · Score: 1

We have a model for this, one that has existed for well over 100 years dealing with catalog companies. After all really what is the difference between a catalog company and an online retailer other than dead tree vs. electronic. The law states you only have to collect taxes in the states in which you have a physical presence in. I live in Missouri and if I have an online store, incorporated in Missouri, and have all my operations in Missouri I have to collect sales tax on Missouri purchases. If I sell to you in New York, Illinois, Kansas, Washington, I don't collect the taxes. Now some states have "use tax" but that responsibility is on the buyer, not the seller. To give you an example, many years ago if you bought a Dell computer online or over the phone they wouldn't charge you sales taxes. But then you'd usually get a tax bill for the computer from the state a few weeks later.
At a previous occupation we had an E-Commerce and Point of Sale solution. Most of our clients were small businesses with between one and five locations and usually within the same state, but we were getting more interest from some larger companies and looked at how to deal with the taxing side. Because we felt it was only a matter of time before some kind of Internet Sales tax was levied.
There are companies that sell sales tax tables and update them usually every 30 days for the approx. 11,000 taxing jurisdictions in the United Sates. But even then with things like TIF's, the taxes collected on one side of the street might be different from the other side of the same street. That is where the mess comes into play.

--
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Re:Why is this a states issue?... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 02:58 · Score: 0

Net sales need to be free of taxation. People with disabilities use net purchases to avoid the pain of shopping. Additionally people in smaller towns use the net as products are often not locally available or are very over priced due to no competition. We pay for delivery. If you add sales taxes on top of that the attraction of shopping online vanishes.
For example I often purchase sheet music for my euphonium. Unless you live in a major city and probably even if you do live in a major city you won't find any sheet music for euphonium at all. Go online and there is some available and you pay for it as well as a typical $4.95 shipping fee.
Notice that local merchants suffer no loss as they can not afford to carry music for euphoniums anyway. The state is enriched by a person being able to participate in a decent hobby. Just how is it moral to tax such items anyway? Look at what happens when an area becomes subject to taxation. Property taxes are a great example. Many people pay more to live in their own homes in property taxes alone than most people dream of earning. In my area there are homes paying very close to one million dollars a year just for property taxes. Who is the lunatic that allowed property taxes on homes to exist in the first place? For those forced to rent and not own the share paid of their rent to property taxes can be a crushing load. Yet corporations often pay no taxes at all. We could start by paying congressmen what we pay our school teachers and allowing them only the health care that Medicaid and Medicare pay for.
Re:Why is this a states issue?... by RattFink · 2012-12-04 03:07 · Score: 1

There are plenty of solutions on the market that don't require a full blown ERP or accounting packages for tax calculation and remittance. Off the top of my head I can think of Avatax but I know there are plenty of others. It really isn't THAT big of a deal.

--
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I say." - Marshall McLuhan
Re:Why is this a states issue?... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:25 · Score: 0

We are in a tax-it-all era.
Remember to pay your 6% payment priveledge tax. (a tax on all taxes, including itself)
Re:Why is this a states issue?... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:54 · Score: 0

If you think there is any software out there that can juggle EVERY state sales tax, you don't know the tax code as well you think you do.
Theres a reason why every large corporations need an army of lawyers and accountants.
Re:Why is this a states issue?... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:58 · Score: 0

The solutions is simple.
If you run a online store, don't collect taxes and don't pay them.
If you are the customer for online stores, give those stores a choice of either not charging you tax, or not having your business.
Re:Why is this a states issue?... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:35 · Score: 0

Yes it is that big a deal. I have catalog of 100-500 products and I'd have to go through and somehow tag each one of these products into categories in such a way that such a system can even identify the tax to apply. Some taxes shipping is taxed, some states/towns/districts/whatever not, some oil is taxed, etc. but all of these are at different rates. So you have millions of possibilities. And not only that... but some places have a tax on services but not if its a "building improvement". Just dealing with one CITY it can be insanely difficult to figure out the sales taxes. So as a computer repair service which comes to your home your literally fucked if they ever audit you... because there are 3-4 different tax jurisdictions plus 3-4 "cities" (since the cities have grown into a "mega" city but are still run separately), there are tax holidays, etc. If you want to be f****ed go try setting up a small business in New Orleans. We failed because it was such a nightmare tax wise. I operate business in multiple states too so I have a clue on how to do it (PA, NJ, OR). Plus we ship shit all over the world. But the difference between US and world wide is the country being shipped to is responsible for collecting the tax. That is a barrier to entry if your tax law is F**** and customs slow. Can you imagine the states taxing like that? Obviously they would have to simply the tax system for it to even begin to be practical.
Re:Why is this a states issue?... by RattFink · 2012-12-04 04:53 · Score: 1

They are services firstly and yes they do just that, EVERY state tax, EVERY county tax and EVERY city tax. That is what they do. Big corporations pay armies of accountants because they want to do it in house since it's cheaper that way for them. The same reason that the biggest retailers may have lawyers and accounts needed to act as their own credit card clearing house, just because they do doesn't mean everyone does.

--
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I say." - Marshall McLuhan
Re:Why is this a states issue?... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:58 · Score: 0

Soooooooooooooooo...how about a technological solution and compromise?
The states and local municipalities give up complexity and fine granularity. The government sets up some broad categories. I've never seen sales tax distinctions go beyond "Can be bought with food stamps" and "Can't be bought with food stamps," the former having a far lower total rate than the latter. You probably could even push to have only these two categories.
In exchange, the government will set up a service in which everyone who charges a sales tax can log in, somehow define their entities area of jurisdiction, and give it the current sales tax rate. This is then exposed as a web service that people may register to use. They then call it passing in the address of the buyer and recieve back a tax rate. This also simplifies accounting, because you could then use the service to track, invoice, and distribute sales taxes.
But no, that would make too much sense, I suppose.
Re:Why is this a states issue?... by soupdevil · 2012-12-04 05:26 · Score: 1

RattFink is right. It's not that complicated to find a service that automates all of this. Just like companies outsource their payroll, they can outsource sales tax.
Re:Why is this a states issue?... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 05:34 · Score: 0

your state probably already requires you to report any purchases from out of state sources on your tax forms so you can pay sales tax on them. the problem arises because most people don't know that is the case and the state has no real way to enforce it.
the thing is, the federal government cannot force private companies to enforce the tax law of every other state (cannot in the sense that is not within their powers, but really, it's not like that's stopped them much in the past 150 years.)
Re:Why is this a states issue?... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 05:52 · Score: 0

It is that big of a deal. There are thousands of tax jurisdictions in the US. Rates are different in each one. Which items are taxable in different states. Some states don't tax clothing, others don't tax food. This is a crazy burden for small businesses. Small websites and ebay sellers will be forced out of business and only Walmart, Target and Amazon will survive.
Small business would be required to file 50 sales tax returns/payments each year. (assuming they sold something to each state). With a small company this is a huge burden.
Re:Why is this a states issue?... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 06:09 · Score: 0

Pardon, I haven't owned a business, and I don't know if this is burdensome to them, but:
What if businesses dealing in sales online just sent along to the state a list of who paid how much. If you're already buying off of a web form, why not make a law that says businesses will send the name/address/what-have-you (from the CC info, with the CC number of course) along with the amount purchased (not the individual items, again, of course). The business could do it right away as part of the transaction, and don't have to keep track of individual tax rates, collect taxes, etc.
You could even make (or leave an opening for private businesses to fill the gap for) an anonymizing agency, so that the state doesn't even have to know from which store you bought things, only that you purchased something.
Then it can be up to the state how easy/difficult they want to make the process, if they want to retain the data, etc. A state could just offer you a pdf you print along with sending a check, or they could have a fancier interface where you actually keep track of your spending, opt to pay the tax right away or have it appear on a bill at the end of the year, etc. Or the state could discard the data entirely, if they choose.
Mandate this and you ease some of the disparity between a local business and ones doing business country-wide, while imposing (what seems to me to be) very little burden on on-line businesses and keeping people honest in paying their use taxes. Privacy is, I think, the main issue, but I trust the well-seasoned minds of Slashdot to work out the logistics.
That last bit was to get some "Funny" votes, in case the rest of it doesn't warrant any kudos.
m!
Re:Why is this a states issue?... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 09:11 · Score: 0

SCOTUS (especially the CJSCOTUS)
He's not CJSCOTUS, he's CJOTUS
Re:Why is this a states issue?... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 13:59 · Score: 0

A workable compromise would require all states/localities to vastly simplify their definitions of which items are taxable. See: taxable goods. Short version: I've never even heard of the "can be bought with food stamps" vs. not distinction. The Wikipedia article references it (using different language) and it's the sort of thing I would expect... I just don't believe I have lived in a state where that applied. There's all kinds of ways states try to not tax "necessities" (ignoring, of course, that the sane way to handle not over-burdening the poor is to tax everything and simply have a flat tax reimbursement to everyone at the poverty line income * the tax rate).
Re:Why is this a states issue?... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-05 07:47 · Score: 0

Not only is is anything but clean....but most states actually require a PERMIT to collect their sales taxes. California is one of those. I approached the Franchise Tax Board in California to get a sales tax permit because I was selling books out of my truck while traveling through California. They said, "But your business is located in Illinois?, We cannot give you a permit to collect sales tax." Finally I said loudly, at the front desk, " I'll tell you what, I will not collect your F*&*ing TAX and you can go to HELL." A supervisor came out and several hours later I had a sales tax permit. Imagine doing this for all 50 states!!! Because a sales tax permit carries other privileges, it is NOT easy to get.

Big government to the rescue! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 02:02 · Score: 0

Most Slashdotters must be thrilled, given that 99% of people here are fans of big government.

Sad times. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 02:03 · Score: 0

There was a time one would vow when doing something against his/her will.

It was like acknowledging an obligation and actually a humbling act with the aim of taking responsibility.

Nowadays, people vow to do what they want. That's pretty lame by any measure...

This requires amending the US Constitution by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 02:04 · Score: 0

In the USA, states have to recognize the sovereignty of other states, and can't tax or regulate other states or their residents.

A state does not have the authority to force a business resident in another state to collect & remit its sales tax.

QED. End of story.

Re:This requires amending the US Constitution by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 02:16 · Score: 0

This requires amending the US Constitution
Not necessarily. It can also be accomplished through collusion. How about:
- One state passes a bill requiring any company that has a presence in its jurisdiction, or any ecommerce website that is hosted in its jurisdiction, to collect the appropriate sales tax for any sales shipped to any jurisdiction of the United States, if and only if that jurisdiction also has a similar bill.
- Another state passes the same bill.
- And another.
- Here we go!
Re:This requires amending the US Constitution by medcalf · 2012-12-04 03:24 · Score: 1

You are under the illusion still that the Constitution is a limiting factor on the desires of our would-be overlords? How cute!

--
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Re:This requires amending the US Constitution by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 05:13 · Score: 0

Try again. These are US Senators making the proposal. You know, part of Congress.
Now let's look at the US Constitution:
Section. 8.
The Congress shall have Power To [....]
To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;
So let's see, Congress has the authority to regulate Commerce. All they have to do is pass a law saying "Oh yes you will collect these taxes" and it's entirely Constitutional.
I swear, you're as bad as the quorum people.
Re:This requires amending the US Constitution by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-12-04 05:14 · Score: 1

The federal government has the power to regulate and tax interstate commerce and can direct businesses to pay state taxes.

Lamar by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 02:06 · Score: 1

3 out of 100 is barely a group, and it's barely bipartisan with Lamar being a progressive RINO.

The of the Websites! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 02:06 · Score: 0

This will eventually fall into the laps of the websites that are selling the goods. For small websites this is going to turn into a nightmare. What is or isn't taxable in which states? It's not the same everywhere.
* some states tax items that others don't.
* some states tax items in certain categories of merchandise if they are over a specified dollar value.
* some states have a temporary 'sales tax amnesty' on certain categories of merchandise at specifies times of the year.
* with some states requiring tax on shipping/delivery charges.
* there's more out there than I can remember, let alone image.

What makes it unrelated? by __aaltlg1547 · 2012-12-04 02:06 · Score: 1

Can't the Pentagon buy stuff from discounttankoutlet.com?

Re:What makes it unrelated? by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-12-04 02:23 · Score: 1

The Pentagon does not pay sales tax.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison

States just want somebody else to be the bad guy. by lfp98 · 2012-12-04 02:14 · Score: 2

If the states really wanted to collect all that sales tax, all they would have to do is enforce current law (requiring residents to pay the tax themselves) and increase the penalties for evasion. Random audits would reveal massive infraction - supposedly less than 1% of taxpayers in states requiring it report any internet or other purchases where the vendor did not charge tax. But they won't do this, they're too scared of the backlash from voters. In short, they want somebody else to do the dirty work for them.

What about by rossdee · 2012-12-04 02:15 · Score: 1

What about the interstate commerce clause in the constitution?

Anyway this sort of thing will cost jobs in this country - since companies can set up offshore and sell stuff without having to collect US state taxes - especially for non physical goods (mu7sic, videos, software, subscriptions etc.

If the States need more money, they can increase sate income tax, of have a state lottery (a tax on the mathematically challenged)

Re:What about by Attila+Dimedici · 2012-12-04 02:28 · Score: 1

You are correct that it would cost jobs, but offshoring would not get around it. It would be trivial for Congress to pass a law collecting from businesses that sell to consumers from outside of the country and equally trivial to enforce it against any large enough to be a shell for a company that is actually located in the U.S.. The problem is that this law would make it harder for a small business to get started. Existing regulations have made it difficult to start a brick and mortar retail business as a small, fully legal side business, this would extend that difficulty to being an online retailer.

--
The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
Re:What about by rickb928 · 2012-12-04 02:46 · Score: 1

Why wouldn't states seek additiknal revenuw from nonresidents, whenever possible? Stop thinking benevolently, and think like a bureaucrat.

--
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
Re:What about by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:41 · Score: 0

Only if this law was improperly implemented. Not an impossibility mind you, but not a necessity.
See what a lot of people don't know is that sales tax collection already includes a share taken by the business for the purpose of paying for the collection.
You think that wasn't intentional?
Here's how to solve most of the problem: Make each state produce a universal rate, and leave the state to distribute collected funds as appropriate.
If you really want a granular approach, that too could be done, but this simpler option is an easy example.
Re:What about by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 05:37 · Score: 0

Note that the federal government does enforce such a law against foreign gambling companies, but only because the states saw all those lovely casino taxes at risk.

Won't work. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 02:28 · Score: 0

So if I buy a $15 gadget from China online, how exactly are they even going to charge me those taxes, unless the foreign stores/countries decide to agree to this stupidity?
To me this is another example of old dumb people who are asking for the impossible while not knowing how the internet works and are just shouting "make it work!".

People don't remember the nightmare by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 02:30 · Score: 1

It's not just state sales tax that the brick-and-morter stores have to collect, it's all the sales taxes: state, county, town, and special districts like recreation, area improvement, fire, police, and so forth. It's not 50 different tax rates, it's thousands. It's not writing 50 checks, but hundreds of checks or more. One of the many prior attempts at defining a national "long arm" statute was to simplify the collection of out-of-state tax to minimize the accounting nightmare.

The reason that the buyer-based tax was levied on the brick-and-morter stores in the first place was that the tax applied to where the store was, and therefore where the transaction took place. That meant the store only had to pick up 10-15 taxes, which were usually remitted to a single taxing authority with one page of paperwork so that the money could be distributed to the taxing districts appropriately.

Mail order and Internet shopping broke this model, because the "point of transaction" is the ether, or the United States Postal Service. The original proposed fix, to have the seller collect local tax, was struck down by the Supreme Court. So the alternative was to collect tax based on the buyer's location...which means the seller has the nightmare. The patch was to apply "use tax", so that the buyer's taxing districts would receive the money from the buyer directly, which means that scofflaws are not going to be paying and there isn't all that much the taxing districts can do to enforce the collection, for how do you find out that use tax is owed and isn't being paid?

The right thing would be to go with a new business model...but that's not going to happen either.

Texas: Always looking to the future! by crazyjj · 2012-12-04 02:31 · Score: 0

Brick and mortar businesses, NASA, secession from the Union, anti-immigration and anti-gay laws--Texas always has its finger on the pulse of the future!

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?

Re:Texas: Always looking to the future! by medcalf · 2012-12-04 03:25 · Score: 1

Well one thing is certain: you know nothing about Texas.

--
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits
Re:Texas: Always looking to the future! by crazyjj · 2012-12-04 03:47 · Score: 1

Well, thank you for informing me that Texas is all about attracting online businesses, has no NASA facilities, would never even CONSIDER secession in the modern era, and has passed so many laws supporting gays and immigration. You've sure changed my views! Texas is truly a progressive, modern state and not a backwards, redneck shithole at all!

--
What political party do you join when you don't like Bible-thumpers *or* hippies?
Re:Texas: Always looking to the future! by medcalf · 2012-12-04 04:34 · Score: 1

Perhaps, rather than blathering about what you do not know, you should look into it. First, Texas has a huge technology sector, including quite a bit of online presence. Second, yes, Texas has a huge NASA facility in Houston. As does California in Pasadena: what of it? Third, Texas is probably the most completely integrated state in the US between Anglos and Latinos; in many ways Texas culture is a blend of the best parts of American and Mexican cultures. (Perhaps you were thinking of Arizona's laws, or California's ghettoization of immigrants?) Fourth, I really don't know of any anti-gay laws in Texas that are recent, though Texas did, IIRC, vote down gay marriage rather decisively about a decade ago, along with a lot of other states. Fifth, while Texas does have some rednecks, it's actually a pretty cosmopolitan place. But not progressive in the least, which is a rather a compliment to Texas than a criticism.

--
-- Two men say they're Jesus. One of them must be wrong. - Dire Straits

Yeah, you do that. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 02:35 · Score: 1

And when I buy more expensive items, I'll have them shipped to a friend in Sweeden, who will then ship it to me.
Easy tax dodge. If billionaire assholes can do it with their bank accounts, I can do it with this.

Interstate sales tax needed by aurizon · 2012-12-04 02:42 · Score: 1

They need to impose an interstate commerce tax. This tax will be made up of three components. One is 33.3% of the tax rate of the ship to state, and the other is 33.3% of the tax rate of the shipped from state and the third is the federal tax, which is set at 3%. All states will have a single number (none of these city extra sales taxes). This interstate tax will mean each state gets tax coming and going. Sales within the state are taxed in the normal state way. The feds will collect this tax and remit each states share quarterly for most and monthly for high volume sellers.
States that have no sales taxes, will not get $$ in this plan.
States will then get money on all sales into and out of their state. Currently they get only what is sold in the state by in-state vendors, and nothing externally, and they get little for items sold into the state - except for things like cars which get registered.

So it will give money to each state and the feds and will acts as a leveling agent, which is needed.

Re:Interstate sales tax needed by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:11 · Score: 0

None of that is needed. Go away.
Re:Interstate sales tax needed by Overzeetop · 2012-12-04 03:13 · Score: 1

No, congress needs to specify that, for items where the transaction is not placed in person but originates in the US, the sale is defined as occurring in the state where the corporation is registered. (That would make for some interesting corporate jockeying, because though Delaware doesn't have a sales tax, they do have a gross receipts tax)

--
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Re:Interstate sales tax needed by aurizon · 2012-12-04 04:16 · Score: 1

That would lead to a game of musical chairs with continuances.
No the simple tax as I state is both fair and unavoidable.

Go the EU way... by havana9 · 2012-12-04 02:42 · Score: 1

In the European Union VAT is different in each state. If you're buying as a personal customer, ie. you don't have or don't use the VAT ID, you pay the VAT and other taxes valid on the seller's country, except for alcool and tobacco. If you're buying as a professional customer, using the VAT id, the regulations are different due the compensations but the same basic rule applies most of the times except on some cases.

Interstate Commerce.... by realsilly · 2012-12-04 02:44 · Score: 1

I like anyone else hate taxes on levied upon me, but I also understand taxes are necessary. The United States is a very large country with many governments: local, state, and federal. While I'm sick to death of our tax dollars being wasted by our leadership, I also believe that if our tax dollars weren't wasted people tax rates would be much smaller and this would be a non-issue.

If I pick up the phone and call a company and purchase a product from that business in another state other than the one I live in, I'm expected to pay their sales taxes, which may include local and state taxes. So why would this tax assessment be any different for a product I purchased via the internet? It should not be different. If by using the web to make my purchase, I am not taxed, the is discrimination against those who make phone transactions. Now, the State from which I reside is not entitled to tax me for the product I purchased. The product was not bought in my state. If this is where this proposed bill is going then it's wrong and I oppose it at it's very core.

If this is an issue that cannot be resolved without double-taxing the consumer then this would provide support for a different tax system. I've heard of the flat-tax system, and I am not horribly opposed to this, as long as everyone pays the same % of tax and all loopholes are gone. But someone else has mentioned to me a straight up Consumer Tax plan. No more income taxes, but taxes exist on any and everything we consume. That plan has some merit to it's structure also, but I think this would be more likely because people will always find away to avoid taxes.

This of course it only one person's opinion, and with limited facts. I'm sure with more facts I'd have a different opinion.

--
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.

Re:Interstate Commerce.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:09 · Score: 0

I like anyone else hate taxes on levied upon me, but I also understand taxes are necessary.
That may be true, but why should you pay jack shit when the officials don't do their job.
What job you ask, Oh I don't know somewhere in the constitution, it says something about regulating the monetary system.
So Treasonous oath breaking scum fucks, who have not arrested one bankster, are going to now demand more taxes, without cutting anything.
That's going to work out well. No wonder they don't want veterans to have guns.
It isn't the PTSD (although the new DSM sure wants it that way), it's the fact veterans took an oath to put a stop to this treasonous fucking shit.
So, taxes are necessary, but GDP to DEBT is fantasy, taxes are necessary, but auditing CAFR for fraud is not.
We need to pay more so they can give more free shit to ISRAEL and AIPAC (Dear Jews I don't hate you, I hate your zionist fuckwad leaders)
Re:Interstate Commerce.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:05 · Score: 0

I think the issue is that hardly anyone reports the required use taxes, because hardly anyone knows they have to (and they clearly see an advantage to not reporting it).
From an enforcement perspective it is easier to go after companies than people as there are fewer of them.
captcha: corrupts
Re:Interstate Commerce.... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 05:01 · Score: 0

No, you're just a bunch of delusional fucks who think because you were once in uniform, you get to dictate to the country.
This has been recognized since Sulla.

What about B&M stores by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 02:52 · Score: 0

The B&M stores complain that Internet stores don't pay the taxes they do and want a level playing field. To make it level, B&M stores should have to collect taxes from their customers that don't live locally and submit it to the jurisdiction where the customer resides. That is what this bill would ask Internet stores to do. The Internet stores would have to keep tabs on literally thousands of state and local tax codes as well as submit the tax receipts to those same thousands of tax authorities. Additionally they could be audited by any one of them or all of them at any time. If the B7M stores really want a level playing field they should also have to be subject to this same administrative nightmare.

Could be Simple, but Won't by CanHasDIY · 2012-12-04 02:52 · Score: 1

This could be a very simple process - the business would charge whatever the sales tax rate is for where it is headquartered (i.e., Walmart online customers would pay Bentonville, AR sales tax). This would work, for the most part, and be fairly easy for the vast majority of online retailers to implement.

Of course, this is the "lowest approval rating ever" Congress we're talking about. The same guys who claim to be able to fix the current fiscal mess (they created), but can't give us any details.

Expecting them to do the smart thing and follow Occam's Razor is like expecting a tree to grow wings and fly - not gonna happen.

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese

Re:Could be Simple, but Won't by Teese · 2012-12-04 03:45 · Score: 1

This could be a very simple process - the business would charge whatever the sales tax rate is for where it is headquartered
This would just get every online business "headquarted" (with a PO box and an accountant) in Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire or Oregon. The states with no sales tax.

--
"I'm a Genius!"*

*Not an actual Genius
Re:Could be Simple, but Won't by CanHasDIY · 2012-12-04 03:58 · Score: 1

While I can see that being an issue in some cases, I treat generalized statements like yours with a fair amount of disdain, as they are based purely on subjective speculation and not reality or facts.

Not to mention, since some random Slashdot reader thought of it, don't you think our venerable lawmakers would as well (man, that one almost hurt to say)?

--
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Re:Could be Simple, but Won't by idontgno · 2012-12-04 05:00 · Score: 1

Not to mention, since some random Slashdot reader thought of it, don't you think our venerable lawmakers would as well (man, that one almost hurt to say)?
And do what about it, pray tell? Pass another law making it illegal to change corporate headquarters to a tax haven? If they could have effectively done that, it would have been done decades ago.
No, undoubtedly, our august legislators have thought about that very thing, which is precisely why the had the good sense not to publicly embarrass themselves by suggesting something as hair-brained and utterly unworkable.

--
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.

Small price to pay by Comboman · 2012-12-04 03:09 · Score: 1

Its a huge mess for any small company to deal with. Only the big companies can navigate this.

And yet small companies do deal with it if they are brick-and-mortars (for there own state tax codes). Multiplying the complexity by 50 for the chance to access a market that is (on average) 50 times larger than your own state is a small price to pay. Since long before the internet, Canadian mail-order companies have had to deal with collecting both federal and provincial (state) sales taxes with a similar range of provincial tax rates and exemptions from coast to coast. Like dealing with shipping and credit card companies, it's just part of the logistics of doing business.

--
Support Right To Repair Legislation.

Re:Small price to pay by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:01 · Score: 1

Okay, but you're underestimating the complexity by orders of magnitude.
In my metro area alone there are *six* distinct sales taxing entities on top of the state. Base rate for the state is 5.5%, and depending on which side of the street you're on when you buy something, the sales tax rate might vary from 5.5% to 9.675%. These boundaries are anything but obvious (annexations aren't based on postal codes, but are rather done gerrymander style for tax base increases), the items that are subject to special additional taxes vary by entity domain (eg. cigarettes, mobile phone bills, certain services), and the rules change all the time.
This last election had one of the entities changing rates and a state referendum to end another's certain abusive tactics.
It's not a completely intractable problem to solve, but it's not as simple in the USA as you seem to suggest.
Re:Small price to pay by compro01 · 2012-12-04 04:29 · Score: 1

Canadian taxes are cleanly divided by province, as opposed to the crazy quilt of state, county, and city level taxes, each with their own exemptions that the USA has.
It's not even close to 50. There are approximately 11,000 sales tax jurisdictions in the USA. Kansas, for example, has about 700 jurisdictions who can charge taxes, meaning you need a colossal database to figure out whether a given address is in foo county or bar county and the rates and exemptions for each.
Furthermore, brick and mortar store doesn't have to care about where the customer lives, just where their store physically located, which considerably simplifies matters.

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Re:Small price to pay by Terwin · 2012-12-04 04:49 · Score: 1

You are not multiplying the complexity times 50, you are multiplying it times the number of taxing authorities in the entire United states(cities+counties+states+ special purpose districts+transit districts+who knows what else) and all of those can be updated a any time.
Texas alone has at least 1500 distinct taxing entities for example.
Re:Small price to pay by suutar · 2012-12-04 04:57 · Score: 1

more than 50. A brick-and-mortar has one set of numbers to remember: one state, one county, one city. You'd be multiplying the complexity by hundreds to access a market that you're probably already serving (at this point, I think it reasonable to assume you already have a webpage).
I figure if the state wants the revenue, the state can do the work of tracking the locality information. They're the ones who get the use tax declaration on the income tax form; they can determine if it's accurate and if it's not, send a bill.
Re:Small price to pay by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 05:33 · Score: 0

And yet small companies do deal with it if they are brick-and-mortars (for there own state tax codes).
No, they don't. The only business that does is car sales, where the tax due depends on where the purchaser lives. Otherwise, if I buy a TV from a store in Cook county, I pay Cook county taxes, but if I go down the street to Lake county, I ay Lake county taxes. The TV store only needs to know about the taxing districts that it is located in.
Re:Small price to pay by IndustrialComplex · 2012-12-04 06:41 · Score: 1

Very well, tell me the sales tax which must be levied on a sale of a can of coke, jeans, and a pencil in the zip code 13760.
Here is a hint: It's a trick question, but you knew it would be didn't you?
First, let's figure out the jurisdiction: Well, there is the Town of Union to consider, and Endicott, which is a somewhat of a sub-town within the greater town of Union. However, the zip code shown there covers other areas within Broome county which do not fall within the Town of Union's jurisdiction. It's a bit tricky, but it's doable, all you have to do is verify the exact location of the billing address.... or wait, shipping address.... hmm what if they are in different jurisdictions themselves, since everyone is trying to claim that they now own a piece of the sale... However, let's simplify it and say shipping address.
The address in question falls along 1234 Union Center Maine Highway. However, no one ever uses that street name because a few systems here and there consider that to be too many characters. My old drivers license listed me at 1234 Union Centre Main Hwy. My wife's was 1234 Union-Ctr Mne Hwy. My tax bills arrived from the Town of Union, and Maine (No, not the state, the town that is just down the road).
So, do you calculate for Union Centre, Union Center, Union-Center Maine, Maine, West Corners (heh yeah, its a little jurisdiction which is sandwiched between Maine and Endicott). I've had mail delivered to my address using any of those. I've apparently lived in Endicott, Maine, Union, Union-Center if you go by the town names of the mail. Ok, I'm being a bit silly there (except when trying to get a new passport because NO ONE EVER USES THE SAME ADDRESS and thus every system chokes on the address)
OK OK. Let's assume you figured out where you are shipping to and what tax jurisdiction that is.
The can of coke, are you collecting the deposit on it? Are you remitting it to NYS?
The pair of jeans, are they taxed?
The pencil, did you remember that when I submitted my order it was a sales tax holiday on school supplies? (but only for some jurisdictions)
Don't forget that NYS charges a sales tax, and that local jurisdictions can charge an additional sales tax up to a certain percentage. That percentage is variable depending on local regulations. These regulations are updated according to the process of each individual jurisdiction.
So tell me, did you withold the sales tax on the jeans and the pencil? Did you know that the local municipality reduced the tax, but onlly the local portion of the sales tax, and the NYS portion remained unchanged.
I hope you didn't withold too much tax, because that would be illegal and can be severely punished. I hope you didn't withold too little, but I wouldn't worry, because NYS is a model of legal efficiency and would never prosecute over minor matters. The DAs and politicians in NYS would NEVER use out of state companies as punching bags as part of their re-election campaigns.
Let's face it, you call it a 'bonus' for expanding your market. However, the current reality is that THE MARKET IS ALREADY OPEN, and you are offering risk and cost with no benefit.
Now, consider the fact that the region I just described is less than 2 miles. NYS is famous for having hundreds of little fiefdom municipalities each with redundant services (and yes, taxes).
Do you really think it's just as simple as "50 times" complexity?

--
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj

Customs. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:14 · Score: 0

That gadget you buy direct from a Chinese website, has to get shipped here somehow (usually Fedex or UPS, they've both got huge shipping/receiving operations in Shanghai dedicated for that), then when it arrives in the US it has to clear Customs. Both Fedex and UPS have large facilities now in Anchorage, AK set up to expedite the Customs processing for stuff coming from China before the merchandise gets loaded onto another plane destined for the lower 48 states. It will be at these Customs facilities in Anchorage where your merchandise will become held until taxes for all the individual states are collected on them before they're released. No taxes, and Customs will keep the goods. Yes, this will be federal enforcement of state tax collection. After all, we keep needing more and more and more, bigger and bigger and bigger federal government now, right?

Some states shouldn't be allowed... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:22 · Score: 0

...until they change their tax structure so that ordinary humans can understand it.

One of the problems Amazon ran into with NY was that some residents within the same ZIP code had to pay
different sales tax rates. That is entirely unworkable.

"Ideally" (not really), there would be a single tax rate mandated by the feds that states could collect. That would
make taxing within the capabilities of a mom & pop web site that can't afford to hire programmers or buy overly
expensive shopping cart software.

Read the Bill First by Kagato · 2012-12-04 03:27 · Score: 2

The legislation in question requires states to create a simple sales tax compact. This means all the merchant needs to know is the state to ship to. They don't have to worry about city, county, special tax zones and all the other stuff that brick and mortar operations have to comply with.

Second, the legislation only applies to companies with large sales volumes online. It's not going to apply to some guy selling stuff on ebay.

Finally, I don't see the accounting nightmare. Most shopping carts are designed to accept a sales tax table. Run a couple reports, cut some checks. If you're big enough for this law to apply, you're big enough to have a staff accountant.

Main Street vs. Wall Street by jeff13 · 2012-12-04 03:33 · Score: 1

So let me get this straight...

If I was a financier trading millions and billions, and under the current de-regulated playfield that is Wall Street, I wouldn't have to pay one red cent to trade worldwide all those mortgages, hedge funds, CIDS, etc., but should some mook in a garage try to sell his old junk ONLINE well FRELL HIM.

Capitalism my arse.

Flat online tax? by Rastl · 2012-12-04 03:36 · Score: 1

Let's face it. Somehow they're going to get a tax passed for internet purchases. At least purchases made from companies based/shipped from the US.

Rather than deal with it at a state level why not do a flat tax regardless of the buyer location? I'd say 2% is reasonable. Of course changes to this tax would require a supermajority in both houses over two separate sessions separated by an election. (I can dream on that part).

This bypasses the entire situation of county-level tax tables and if any state doesn't want the revenue it can go towards the VA or some other non-pork and essential project.

It sure would be nice to know which congresscritters are introducing these provisions and trying to attach them to unrelated legislation so they go under the radar. A nice letter writing campaign could persuade them to stop that kind of crap.

Which State Collects??? by El+Fantasmo · 2012-12-04 03:47 · Score: 1

If live in Colorado and order an item from Illinois, where has the sale been made, Colorado or Illinois? I'm sure each state will argue their state is the location of the sale.

What about hosted sales sites? Let's say, I live in Idaho and order an item from a company registered in Maine, but all their internet presence is hosted in Texas. Now which state gets the taxes?

First I'm against an "internet sales tax." The only way I can see this working is for the federal government to create a single "internet sales tax" and divide it evenly among the states involved in the transaction.

Re:Which State Collects??? by RattFink · 2012-12-04 08:32 · Score: 1

The physical address the item is shipped to. There really isn't any ambiguity on this,

--
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I say." - Marshall McLuhan

NO by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 03:51 · Score: 0

The Internet is OUR domain and there will be no taxes within it paid to any external entity. There will likely be a response from a number of groups.

billions and billions of corporate tax breaks by Dan667 · 2012-12-04 04:09 · Score: 1

but tax breaks that actually help US Citizens? Nope, must crush those under the government boot, because those people have families and don't spend enough on lobbyists.

This crosses a line by Sqreater · 2012-12-04 04:18 · Score: 1

Taxing like this crosses a line into state ownership of the citizen and must not be allowed.

--
E Proelio Veritas.

Wrong by DogDude · 2012-12-04 04:18 · Score: 1

By forcing web sites to collect sales tax for all 50 states and the territories will create an accounting nightmare.

Wrong. Accounting and bookkeeping is done on computers. Tax payments are automatically calculated and paid, in most cases. This kind of functionality comes with every commercial accounting/bookeeping/ecommerce package available today.

--
I don't respond to AC's.

So what? by DragonWriter · 2012-12-04 04:21 · Score: 1

We don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.

Even taking this article of faith seriously, that's not argument against replacing more-expensive-to-collect use taxes with less-expensive-to-collect sales taxes on internet retail transactions.

Don't understand the hostility... by CohibaVancouver · 2012-12-04 04:24 · Score: 1

The cultural hostility towards this move puzzles me. Here, in Canada, if I make a purchase from Amazon.ca I pay provincial and federal sales taxes. It's always been that way and no one bats an eye because it seems, well, reasonable. If I don't want to pay tax I can buy the item used or stolen (or both) for cash on Craigslist.

TAKE, TAKE, TAKE by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:29 · Score: 0

Once again the government finding more ways to take more from the poor and give it to the rich. Robin Hood in Reverse.

State by damicatz · 2012-12-04 04:50 · Score: 1

While, as an anarcho-capitalist, I've come to the expect the state to completely and utterly ignore their own laws when they become inconvenient, I believe the void for vagueness doctrine applies here :

It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly - Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 US 104 - Supreme Court 1972

Not paying "taxes" is prohibited. The average person is not capable of understanding the tax code of their state and the feds, much less that of fifty states. Under the state's own law, the entire tax code should be stricken as being void for vagueness.

Just pay the state by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 04:50 · Score: 0

Simple: Each state gets one tax rate for the entire state. Everything purchased is taxed at the same rate. State is determined by the delivery location. Done. States are happy. Cities don't have much of a voice at the Federal level. Issue goes away.

Re:States just want somebody else to be the bad gu by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 05:03 · Score: 0

Um, how would you collect evidence of the evasion during these audits? Subpoena the merchant (who has no presence in the state, and therefore the state has no jurisdiction to compel a business in some other state to provide said audit documents used to validate the taxpayer's assertions on their income tax forms.

Furthermore, a state cannot compel a business in some other state via a subpoena or other regulatory action to provide lists of customers in their state and purchase amounts a priori of any wrongdoing. You can't get a subpoena for a fishing expedition.

It makes far more sense to go to a VAT model instead of a sales tax if this is the specific issue with tax collecting you want to solve. Not saying we should do/propose that, just that the model works better to solve the under-reported use tax problem.

Just one condition by Todd+Knarr · 2012-12-04 05:39 · Score: 1

I'd be fine with this, with two conditions:

Before a state can force on-line merchants to collect sales tax on it's residents it must provide a way for merchants to inquire, in real time and without cost to the merchant, as to what the correct sales tax rate is for any customer from that state. If the merchant uses this service, the answer is to be considered authoritative and any errors are Not The Merchant's Problem.
The state has to provide a single place to send sales-tax payments to. The merchant may be required to detail the customer address and invoice amount for each transaction. Once payment is sent to this address, the merchant has no further obligations and it's the state's responsibility to distribute any portion of the sales tax due to other entities within the state.

IOW, if a state wants merchants to collect taxes for it, they have to take responsibility for telling merchants how much to collect and for actually collecting it. They don't get to fob the hard work off on the merchants.

Sure, Canadians will collect Texas taxes by kawabago · 2012-12-04 07:09 · Score: 1

Canadians will be perfectly happy to keep track of tax legislation in all fifty states as well as every other state in every other country in the world. We would need a supercomputer to sell bubble gum!

Slight modification on your idea... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 07:13 · Score: 0

Suppose the feds declare that *all* states must charge the same exact sale tax rate (for example 7%) for goods sold to out of state customers over mail order or internet.

If an internet vendor sells to in-state customers, then that state's sales tax rate applies. Else the vendor applies the standard 7% and collects that to send to the govt of the state in which the customer resides. For states which have no sales or use taxes, leave it up to those states what to do with the money sent to them but they are forced to take it anyway... perhaps they can come up with a tax refund system on their own to reimburse their residents/customers.

captcha = "extort" LoL how fitting...

Virginia already has this. by random_ID · 2012-12-04 07:24 · Score: 1

From VA individual tax return instructions:

Consumer's Use Tax: Did you purchase merchandise by Internet, telephone, or mail, or did you purchase any merchandise outside Virginia and pay no sales tax? If so, you may be required to pay Consumer's Use Tax. Be sure to report the applicable tax on Schedule ADJ.

The difference: this tax is paid yearly by the consumer rather than automatically collected by the vendor at point-of-sale.

Do I win a prize? by Comboman · 2012-12-04 07:26 · Score: 1

Very well, tell me the sales tax which must be levied on a sale of a can of coke, jeans, and a pencil in the zip code 13760.

Despite the fact that I'm not a business, it took me less than a minute to figure this out. I googled "sales tax by zipcode" and got www.geotax.com, a free service from Pitney Bowes. I entered your zipcode, address (it was happy with "1234 Union Center Maine Highway" which was the first one I tried), and the dollar amount (I used $50, not sure if these are designer jeans or no-names). It returned the following:
Matched Address 1234 Union Center Maine Hwy Endicott, NY 13760-2046

Jurisdiction Information State: NY County: Broome Municipality: Unincorporated Other: None

Total Combined Tax Rates Sales Tax: 8% - total due: $4.00 Use Tax: 8% - total due: $4.00

It doesn't offer any additional information based on the type of purchase, but I'm sure if there was a demand for that information it could easily be added.

--
Support Right To Repair Legislation.

Re:Do I win a prize? by IndustrialComplex · 2012-12-04 08:54 · Score: 1

No prize.
NY state enacted a sales tax exemption for clothing under $110 on April 1 2012. However, Broome County did not elect to enact the sales tax exemption for it's county taxes and continues to collect at it's 4% rate.
You would have overcharged the sales tax.

--
Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj

Online sales should work like offline sales by qzzpjs · 2012-12-04 08:20 · Score: 0

There should be no difference be online and offline. If I drive to a particular state and buy something, I pay their sales tax at the till. Online should be no different. The tax is collected at the location of the seller and goes to the state the seller is in.

For those America companies that try and offshore the business, use the first American location their business touches. Start at the web site location, transaction location, head office, warehouse, etc and pick the first one in America as the tax base.

Of course, that does make states with no sales tax look prettier to the consumer for online sales, but the states will just have to compete for that business through other incentives.

I'm sure there are a lot of logistics I haven't thought of, but it has to be thousands of times easier than charging remote taxes for every company.

Simple fix would be to eliminate all sales tax. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 09:02 · Score: 0

Problem solved!

Why should the Internet be exempt? by XeLiTuS · 2012-12-04 09:07 · Score: 1

I understood and agreed with argument to keep the 'net tax free......... back in 1999. There is no real reason why retail transactions shouldn't be taxed. But, spending by governments should be reined in as well.

Very Poor Summary by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 09:52 · Score: 0

It already is legal for states to collect sales tax on anything that comes into the state. This is about whether they can force out of state retailers to collect it on their behalf.

Go buy a car in a state without sales tax and bring it back. See what happens when you try to register it.

I am confused by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 12:17 · Score: 0

I'm just incredibly confused by charging a tax based on the customer's location. When I drive from NY to PA to avoid outrageous cigarette taxes they don't ask me where I live and charge taxes accordingly, they charge me the amount of tax they are required to in accordance with their local laws. When customers travel from PA to NY to purchase from the company I work for they get charged 8% local sales tax. Why should this change for the internet?

It's not a new tax. by raehl · 2012-12-04 12:26 · Score: 1

Congress is NOT adding a new tax. They are giving the states the ability to collect sales taxes on goods shipped into their states.

It's up to your state legislature whether your particular state actually decides to do this or not, not Congress.

This just puts a state's domestic retailers on equal footing with foreign retailers.

--
paintball

So... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-04 15:24 · Score: 0

...who are the morons that voted for these buffoons?

Slashdot Mirror

Senators Vow To Renew Bid For State Taxes On Remote Internet Sales

268 comments