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

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on Tuesday December 4, 2012 @01:44AM from the coming-and-going dept.

jfruh writes "A bipartisan group of U.S. Senators are working hard to make it legal for U.S. states to collect sales tax on any sales made to their residents, even if the sellers live elsewhere. They tried to add an amendment making the change to an unrelated defense appropriations bill, but the attempt was defeated. They have vowed to try again."

12 of 268 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

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.
1. 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.
2. 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?
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
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.
1. 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.
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.
1. 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: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: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.