Slashdot Mirror


Internet Sales Tax Vote This Week In US Senate

SonicSpike excerpts from CNet's coverage of the latest in the seemingly inevitable path toward consistently applied Internet sales taxes for U.S citizens: "Internet tax supporters are hoping that a vote in the U.S. Senate as early as today will finally give them enough political leverage to require Americans to pay sales taxes when shopping online. Sens. Mike Enzi (R-Wy.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) are expected to offer an amendment to a Democratic budget resolution this week that, by allowing states to 'collect taxes on remote sales,' is intended to usher in the first national Internet sales tax." There goes one of the best ways to vote with your dollars.

25 of 434 comments (clear)

  1. NOOOOOOO by cod3r_ · · Score: 5, Funny

    OH wait amazon already charges me taxes.. So who cares?

    1. Re:NOOOOOOO by noh8rz10 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'm cool with the tax. Itthe current system puts brick and mortar at an enormous disadvantage, especially with commodities such as TVs with really thin margins. It used to be that sales tax balanced with shipping costs, but amazon effectively solved thee shipping cost problem. It's time to play on level playing field!

    2. Re:NOOOOOOO by mabhatter654 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The bottom 50% of earners only receive 10%-15% of ALL THE MONEY in the posted GDP each year. They literally have nothing to tax.. And social security is STILL a higher percentage tax than the majority of businesses pay.

    3. Re:NOOOOOOO by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Also relevant to this discussion: The median wage in the United States is $32,700. That means that half the country is earning less than that. If you're like a lot of /.ers and are a college-educated person working in technology, you should understand that your experience of life in America is nothing like what the majority of Americans experience. You are probably earning twice what the average American earns. You probably have quite a lot of disposable income and may have significant net worth. The average American family has negative savings and buys very little that isn't absolutely necessary to survive (food, clothing, housing, medical care, transportation, utilities).

      The reasons you might not be aware of these disparities are:
      - You probably live far away from the people who earn a lot less than you, so you don't see how people like that live.
      - You probably don't interact with people who earn a lot less than you on a regular basis. Or if you do, you see them as (for example) "that guy behind the fast food counter" or "the woman who cleans my office", rather than as flesh-and-blood people just like you.
      - Media do not regularly portray people in that economic situation.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:NOOOOOOO by kermidge · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Good point. For a bit of perspective, I'm 65 and getting paid social security. With the recent raise, I get $500/month. Rent is $110/wk. in winter, $105 in summer, plus $10/wk. if you've an air conditioner in a window. To bring me up to, as I understand it, legal minimums, I also get $190 in SSI and $83 and change from the state. Internet is $38 some-odd per month. Tack on phone minutes, household and personal consumables. Were it not for what's still called Food Stamps I don't think that I could make it. That's worth $200/mo.

      My apartment is ~216 sq./ft. including the bathroom, in a house built in the 1880s; it's charming, with two 20-amp shared circuits, and I'm lacking a UPS. Place has a gas stove, half-height reefer, and a microwave. In this city, this is a good deal.

      Figuring out what to do with the remainder of my riches is an interesting exercise. Yet I've got it better than a substantial percentage of our fellow humans. There is no local war and I've got Medicare, without which I'd probably be dead. I even got to keep the leg.

      "Life's a bitch, then you die. If you're lucky, you get in her pants first."

      Cheers.

      Oh, yeah: in principle I can see where sales tax on internet purchases could be fair. How to collect it without the collection measures costing more than collections, not so much.

  2. Should be collected by the feds by MightyYar · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If the tax crosses state borders, then it should be collected by the Feds - or at least the rules should be national and consistent. Collect, say, 5% from everyone and then distribute it according to billing address. Making merchants deal with 50 different tax codes is onerous. I hope this bill is defeated.

    --
    W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
    1. Re:Should be collected by the feds by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You mean an up t odate database all the states and all of the municipalities within those states that collect sales tax...and don't forget that you need a map that tells you which taxing municipality every address in every state is in. Admittedly you do not currently need to know that for the states that do not charge sales tax at any level. Oh yeah, you also need to know what items sales tax applies to in every sales tax charging municipality in the country and don't forget those special tax holidays that many of them pass each year that only apply to certain types of items out of those they otherwise charge sales tax on.

      And, sorry, but a database of zip codes does NOT match up to the boundaries of taxing jurisdictions.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    2. Re:Should be collected by the feds by nabsltd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Making merchants deal with 50 different tax codes is onerous.

      I dare say that's exactly the point. Why do you think brick-and-mortars are so happy about it?

      Because they're stupid?

      Amazon is supporting this bill because of their new "same-day delivery" that is being rolled out. It requires them to have a presence in every state, so they'd have to collect sales tax anyway. This bill would put all other online stores at the same disadvantage of having to collect taxes, but without the advantage of actually having a point of presence in every state.

      If this bill passes, it will give Amazon another reason to accelerate the roll out, and eliminate the one advantage that B&M stores currently have.

    3. Re:Should be collected by the feds by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Maybe you haven't noticed, but Dell, Apple and Amazon do multiple millions of dollars in sales each year. Now if you think they should be given even more competitive advantage over small retailers, then this law is a great idea.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    4. Re:Should be collected by the feds by wiredlogic · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, the Interstate Commerce Clause.

      The constitution says that states can't interfere with cross border transactions as it is a power reserved for the federal government. It also prohibits the federal government from interfering with state affairs like revenue collection. This catch-22 is why the whole issue has been kicked down the road to this day.

      This isn't a new problem caused by the internet either. Old fashioned snail mail orders from out of state suppliers (think Sears and Roebuck in the 19th century) were also a thorn in some states sides which is why they expect citizens to declare "use" tax on what they imported from out of state.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  3. Getting the rates by Todd+Knarr · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'd be OK with sales tax on on-line sales, on one condition: states be required to provide a standard way for merchants, at no cost to the merchant, to ask what the sales tax rate for a given address should be, with the answer being the legally binding rate (if the merchant charges the rate given in that answer then the merchant cannot be held liable if that rate turns out to be wrong, and if the service failed to answer for any reason then the merchant can't be held liable for failing to charge sales tax).

  4. I honestly think... by Synerg1y · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That we really need to close this loop hole. I'm not in favor of raising taxes or anything, but by making this law, we'd be going back to a revenue model that we know. The ripple effect would be we wouldn't get tax hikes in other places I'd imagine.

    And the government does need the money... it would be nice to see them get it internally, but that's idealism. We need pot holes fixed, bridges replaced, and maybe we could throw money at some of the issues we're behind the rest of the world on.

    Another ripple would be brick and mortar stores would regain some traction against online retailers, the argument used to be that shipping > tax, but that's dramatically changed over the last decade with free shipping being pretty easy to get as online firms compete against each other.

    The downside is of course less money for the savvy consumer, but history has taught us loop holes never end well, so I think the benefits outweigh the downside.

  5. Re:Anyone tell these idiots... by Baloroth · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Umm, wasn't it techncially a "representation" revolt? Taxes are needed to pay for the services that are provided. Taxation without political power in return is what was the cause of the revolt.

    Yep, exactly. Which makes it even more relevant to the present case, not less.

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  6. Re:Anyone tell these idiots... by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If you'll check a history book, you'll find the rallying cry was not "No Taxation" but rather "No Taxation Without Representation". Huge difference.

  7. It's kind of insidious as well.. by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As it will cover all Ebay sales and Craigslist sales.

    They want to charge you tax on even items you are not making money off of. Next up, Evil Garage sales and Flea Markets, how can we tax this scourge to the economy?

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  8. Re:Anyone tell these idiots... by RabidReindeer · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you'll check a history book, you'll find the rallying cry was not "No Taxation" but rather "No Taxation Without Representation". Huge difference.

    "Taxation without Representation is Tyranny" was the cry. Freedom, not freeloading.

  9. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    They haven't done the obvious. Cancel federal income tax and replace it with a sales tax. It'd be a whole lot easier to handle businesses than it would be individuals.

    In 2009, there were just under 6,000,000 active businesses.
    In 2009, there were 140,494,127 individual tax returns filed.

    The IRS employs about 93,000 employees and is expected to hire 16,500 more.

    By eliminating the individual filing requirement, you'd eliminate almost 96% of the returns.
    IRS agents have an average salary near $75,000.

    Let's say you applied 4 times the labor to each business return.
    Then only about 18,000 staff are required to handle the load.

    91,500 jobs would be cut for an annual savings of $6.8 billion.

  10. No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported by scorp1us · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." - Article 1, US Constitution.

    It seems to me, that any such legislation would be a tax being exported from one state to another. I don't believe a distinction can be made from those being exported and those being imported, since it is only matter of perspective. A tax on imports to a state is a tax on the same article being exported from another. There is no limit to the prohibition. It could also read: "All taxes and duties are prohibited on all articles being exported from any State."

    --
    Slashdot's rate-of-post filter: Preventing you from posting too many great ideas at once.
  11. To be fair... by Junta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The 'no sales tax' scenario is generally enticement to commit tax fraud.

    Usually, a 'no sales tax' purchase has an obligation to pay a 'use tax' equal to the amount the sales tax would have been. People saving money due to sales tax are almost always committing tax fraud.

    So this isn't levelling by force, it's correcting a 'loophole'. In my mind, abolish use tax, if you *must* enact sales tax to do that, oh well, it's easier than sales tax to keep track of.

    --
    XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
    1. Re:To be fair... by mabhatter654 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This whole thing still shows even Congress doesn't grasp the basic laws at work.

      Sales Tax is almost always owed by the PURCHASER. That's why all the stores in my state have a LICENSE to COLLECT that tax and sent it on your behalf to the State. So if I buy something via mail order in Michigan from a business only in Iowa THAT BUSINESS has no obligation to MICHIGAN to collect anything. I still have the obligation to PAY MICHIGAN its USE TAX because I LIVE in that state.

      That's the only issue, that a state cannot tell people in OTHER STATES to follow its laws. Not to mention, complying with ONE state tax where your physical store is located is hard... Why should an online business have to collect for 50 states?

      Why don't states force BUSINESSES to pay the Sales Tax on what they sell? Because taxing sales BETWEEN THE STATES is illegal for any state to do. It's illegal for Ohio to force a business shipping into Ohio to pay ANY tax to do so. It's illegal for Michigan to COLLECT any tax from Michigan business on an item sold to Ohio. That keeps states from starting trade wars with each other.

      So either the FEDS need to enact a federal clearinghouse that allows Internet businesses to only file one form per customer, or they need to compel the BANKS and other financial services located IN EACH STATE to collect taxes based on their accounts mailing address. That's the closest to "constitutional" because you receive and pay your Visa at a bank licensed to your state, and you receive the bill at your postal mailing address. So each statement would only have to account for ONE sales tax per customer.

    2. Re:To be fair... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, you are correct. Your new cards - for the one that is expiring soon - came to me. I do like the new TV I got with it, and my new tablet is in shipping now. I should have it in a day or two. You might want to tell those credit companies your current address unless you want me to order more free stuff with the next cards that are up for expiration.

    3. Re:To be fair... by dnahelicase · · Score: 4, Informative

      Use tax is arguably unconstitutional due to the interstate commerce clause, and that is why states do not enforce it. They can wield the moral force of "this is the law" to those that don't know better and get them to put it on their tax returns, but they won't go after those who don't pay because they're afraid to lose. The states' end game has been a federal authorization for the states to collect sales tax because it would put them on much more solid legal ground.

      You've clearly never been through a sales/use tax audit as a business.

      They do not feel like it's unconstitutional, and are not afraid to enforce it. it's not a "moral force" - it actually is the law. You cannot get out of state entities to collect sales taxes for you, but if they can show that you have nexus in a state, they can make you collect them. If you buy things from anywhere, in or out of state, as a purchaser you must pay use tax on it. It's not a suggestion for the ignorant - it is the law that you report your untaxed purchases.

      Technically you owe this on everything, even those things that have been taxed by other states - it's just that most states agree to reciprocity.

      There is very little gray area here. As an individual they probably won't go after you, but businesses that are supposed to collect sales tax (including those without a physical presence) and pay use tax - they go after you like wolves.

      A universal rule for everyone would be a dream for those that process sales taxes. It's ridiculous the amount of time that is spent figuring out which sales are taxable, what jurisdiction those are in (the state, county, city, LOST, misc taxes) and how to report and pay those.

  12. Shipping companies will love this by andreMA · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Folks are just going to drop-ship to sales-tax free states by having a friend or relative there order for them.

  13. Re:Anyone tell these idiots... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 4, Informative

    Um no. freeloaders have not come anywhere near 50% of the voters. The so called 47% contains large blocks of people who are not freeloaders.

    1. About 60% of those not paying federal income taxes pay other federal taxes such as SS and Medicare. Not to mention local taxes such as property taxes and sales taxes.

    2. Wealthy people whose income comes from tax free bonds pay no federal income taxes. However they pay other local taxes on property etc.

    3. About 20% of the 47% are retired elderly people who have paid a lifetime of SS and Medicare taxes.

    Finally a significant proportion of these people vote for Republicans. Various polls show that above 50% of the elderly vote Republican, and about 1/3 of the people who are exempt from federal income tax due to earning less than $24000 vote Republican.

    So basically the idea that a majority of 'freeloading' Americans are going to perpetuate their situation by en-masse voting for progressive candidates is ridiculous bullshit. There isn't any such majority of freeloaders in the first place, and secondly the voting pattern of low income people is not as monolithic as you propose.

  14. Corporate Taxes? by nickmalthus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Interesting that Congress is focusing on tax loop holes that individuals take advantage of while leaving in place loop holes that allow corporations to hide hundreds of billions of dollars in tax havens. Equally interesting is that all these states that are groveling for additional revenue grant egregious tax breaks to said corporations in the hopes of luring their facilities for fleeting benefit until the inevitable better deal comes along. Who does Congress represent again?

    --
    If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be-T J