Senate To Vote On Internet Sales Tax (For Real This Time)

New submitter JoeyRox writes "On 3/22 the Senate approved a non-binding proposal to allow states to tax online sales to residents outside their state. That vote was a trial balloon to gauge the support for the Marketplace Fairness Act. This week Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid filed a cloture to allow the law to be voted on for real this time. The vote may occur as soon as tomorrow. eBay is attempting to rally Americans against the bill via a massive email campaign."

Comments

Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The retailers are not using any state subsidized utilities except for postal service. Instead of doing this, they should just run postal service at cost and finish off the issue

Re:Why?

[Skreems]

No, but the people buying the products are.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

you are exactly right, they float in the cloud and teleport their goods to the parcel service

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The retailers are not paying the tax. They are only collecting it.

Re:Why?

[nospam007]

"The retailers are not paying the tax. They are only collecting it."

But don't the politicians know that people buy guns on the internet? They'll end up in a register somewhere and we all know that can never be, so this will get shut down.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're a retard. If you buy a gun on the internet, it's shipped to a local FFL that performs a background check before it's handed over to you.

Re:Why?

[gl4ss]

The retailers are not using any state subsidized utilities except for postal service. Instead of doing this, they should just run postal service at cost and finish off the issue

you really think sales tax is just about that? it's a tax on the value the company made to the product by acting as the mover for the product. you might not agree that it's a good taxing system to tax trade, but as long as you do it doesn't make much sense that if you order from the next state, possibly just a stones throw away, you would gain a tax advantage by ordering it via post.

from outside of USA perspective it has taken ridiculous amount of time for the americans to sort out the sales tax issue - so long that it's amazing that _all_ trade in USA hasn't just moved to online sales as a runaround on the tax(and explains a lot of amazon managed to do profits). say, all purchases done in nevada being moved technically to have been done in california and vice versa.

of course, it's fucking ridiculous how the prices in shops don't include the sales tax on shown prices but still ask it at the counter!

at least europe has some sense in this, the price advertised includes the value added tax and if you buy from different country within the eu you pay the vat to the country you ordered from and don't pay taxes on it when receiving it. it's a pretty simple system. and when ordering from outside the eu if it's expensive enough you'll pay the vat(+possible customs fees etc..).

Re:Why?

[Grishnakh]

That's irrelevant. Here's an analogy for you:

John lives in New Jersey, but only a few miles away from the Pennsylvania state line. The nearest town from him is 20 miles away, but just 3 miles away from him is Stroudsburg, PA, a decently-sized town. Because of proximity, naturally John regularly drives over the border to this town to do all his grocery shopping and other shopping. Which state does John pay his sales tax to? Simple: it all goes to Pennsylvania, not New Jersey which he resides in. Sales tax is levied at the merchant's location, not the customer's.

Here's another similar analogy: it's 1975, and the internet doesn't exist. John wants to buy a quadrophonic stereo system, and he wants a particular model. No one in his state has the model he wants, however he calls around a lot (costing him a pretty penny in long-distance charges), and finds one at a specialty retailer in Boston, several states away. He doesn't want to trust any private shippers or the USPS with delivering this expensive piece of delicate equipment, so he drives 5 hours to Boston to pick it up in person. At the shop there, he has to pay sales tax. Does the retailer charge him based on his home address? Of course not; he has to pay the exact same sales tax that any local Bostonite would, and that tax money goes to Massachusetts and Boston (assuming Boston has a separate municipal sales tax as many cities do). John's home state of New Jersey doesn't get a cent.

So will someone please explain why these sales tax initiatives require the retailer to charge tax based on the customer's location, rather than the retailer's location? If I set up a shop in Kansas (with no mail orders or internet orders), all my customers, no matter how far they drive to visit me, will have to pay sales tax to the state of Kansas. It doesn't matter if they have an Oregon driver's license and try to argue they don't owe tax because OR has no sales taxes. If you're in KS and buy something, yo pay KS sales tax. So why should it be an different for internet sales? It'd surely make calculations a lot easier for any merchants, big or small, and be a boon to their localities and states. Of course, one might argue that a bunch of merchants might move their operations to tax-free jurisdictions like OR, but that's just too bad for high-tax states, and besides, many small business people don't have the capital to just pack up and move cross-country based on this one factor, or they might not be willing to leave all their family and friends just because of that. And secondly, for large corporations with operations in many states, this would complicate things and would certainly require special legislation so they can't just stick a small office in a tax-free state to avoid charging sales tax.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's not alway true. I live in Oregon, and I buy stuff in Washington and fill out a short, simple form with my Oregon ID and pay no sales tax. Washington has what most states have now, a "use based" sales tax which means it depends not upon where the item is sold, but where it's primary use will be, which means the tax actually does depend upon the resident's location. I know this because I've recently had to implement such a system for a Washington and Oregon based business with almost 200 retail location. between the two states.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Only if you buy from a third party that lives a distance away from you. Many online transactions are delivered in person by the seller or picked up in person by the buyer, guns included.

Re:Why?

[JoeyRox]

And the same is true when you buy a car over state lines, which I've done. You can opt to pay the sales tax in the state you purchased the car or in the state you use the car - either way, at the time of registration you either need to prove you've paid sales tax on the car in any state (receipt) or failing that pay sales tax in the state you want to register the car in.

Re:Why?

[IcyWolfy]

However, if I buy anything out of state, I am required to report it and pay the tax on it in California by law.
Anything purchased online or physically out of state needs to be reported and taxes paid.

Re:Why?

[Grishnakh]

Does that also apply when you've already paid taxes in the state where the purchase was made? So if I drive to the next state, and eat a meal there, and pay taxes on that meal (let's say that the taxes are actually higher in the restaurant's state than in my own), then I'm supposed to pay taxes again in my own state? That's double taxation, and doesn't sound quite right.

Re:Why?

[Grishnakh]

Ok, so how does some little independently-owned mom-n-pop coffee shop in Washington handle it when someone visits from out-of-state, or from any other taxing jurisdiction for that matter?

Re:Why?

[firex726]

So which rate do you pay?

Sales tax can vary but city, county, and state.

If i buy something from out of state, which combination of those possible six should I pay?

Re:Why?

[WindBourne]

exactly what state subsidized utilities does a brick/mortar use?
Educated help, but at the same time, the educated help makes more money who then are likely to buy products from all over.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shut the fuck up. You don't know the law or you don't give a fuck and you just want to be another dipshit troll. In either case, you're not trying to work towards a solution, you're trying to inflame the problem. This doesn't help anyone. If nothing else, you make people working towards this legislation look like fucking morons.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shhh that doesn't play into the hands of the people trying to incite fear.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The way most use taxes work for "normal" purchases - say anything that's not licensed and taxed like a car or boat - is that you have to pay the use tax if you purchased your product from a state that does not have a sales tax. If you physically go to a state that DOES have a sales tax, then it gets tricky. You either pay NO use tax for that item, because you were already taxed for it, or you may be asked to pay the difference between their sales tax and your local sales tax, if your tax is lower.

The problem with a use tax is most people, and states for that matter, don't take it seriously. Even if you do, it can quickly add up to a significant records and accounting burden, even for an individual, if you use the internet semi-frequently for purchases. Not just records, but one most somehow put the funds aside - and most banks don't make it easy to have multiple accounts without tacking on additional fines of their own. (A separate account, in my mind, being one of the better methods to make sure you don't spend money that was meant for that once a year tax.) For that matter, the individual may not *know* what's taxable in their area. Some states tax just physical goods, but not software. Some tax professional services, while others don't. Some tax some physical goods, or foods, but not others. A business would need to be aware of all these nuances. Technically, so should individuals in states with a use tax, but most of us don't.

Even more complicated, and currently unconstitutional, is inter-state sales tax. Most states do not require a vendor to pay a sales tax if he is shipping an item out of state so that said vendor can remain competitive with other vendors. (It wouldn't be unconstitutional to require that vendor to collect sales tax for every purchase, shipped out of state or not, but it might make it difficult for the local vendor to compete with somebody from a state with no sales tax.) Further, inter-state taxing, where the vendor in CA basically collects a NY sales tax and sends that tax to NY is, at this moment, unconstitutional. And, as others have pointed out, could be a records keeping nightmare, especially for smaller retailers, as there are separate taxes not just for the 50 states, but also for counties and cities.

The sales / use tax issue is something that has only recently become a "real" issue. There were always purchases from out of state via catalogs, or simply driving over the border to make purchases, and potentially large out of state purchases by companies. (Often, on the individual level, states kinda wink, wink, nudge, nudge encouraged individuals to do this. Sure, live in Vancouver, WA, where we have no property tax, but do all your grocery shopping in Portland, OR, where they have no sales tax. It ends up being a net gain for us, because we get your INCOME tax.) It's the advent of the internet, and big retailers on the internet like Amazon that have really brought the issue to a head.

In my mind, this may end up being one of the issues that *should* be adjusted by an amendment. Done properly, in my mind, the amendment would work something like this:

Each retailer that does X$ or more of out of state commerce, adjustable by congress to accommodate inflation, etc., must collect individual state taxes. They may use our SYSTEM X, developed with tax payer money and available for free, or for a small fee, in both an online and offline system. If they use this system, they may submit their taxes either via direct deposit at time of purchase, direct deposit monthly, or may send a check into this account, which the federal government will be responsible for distributing to the states. On offline mode *WILL* be available so one is not crippled if the internet goes down. If requested, the feds will even ship a physical catalog that one may use, though one will pay the cost of printing and shipping the catalog.

It will *NOT* be required to use the fed system. One may keep track of the taxes themselves, or through a third party like Quic

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's see. . .
      School - elementary, highschool, and colleges
      Police
      Fire and other emergency services
      Power
      Sewer, trash, utilities in general
      Public transportation if it's available in your area
      Roads and sidewalks
      Parks and any "humanizing" greenery like planting of trees and other foilage
      Cleaning services - street sweepers for instance
      Museums, halls of science, records offices for little things like proving Person A actually owns the property he sold to you. . .
      Libraries
      Many other services I'm not thinking of.

      The federal, state, county, and local city governments have a say of how much they pay for these services.

Re:Why?

[TheGavster]

What this example really shows is that sales tax, for all of the theoretical perfection it has, is probably the tax structure with the highest frictional cost. Between the bureaucracy required to figure out who pays what, to the individuals that need to file the reams of paperwork to document what was paid when, to the time wasted by consumers attempting to estimate tax on a purchase, just pick any other way to raise revenue, it'll be better.

Besides which, despite attempts to exempt categories of goods from sales tax, it also winds up being a pretty regressive structure; rich people may spend a lot of money, but the portion of their annual income spent on taxable goods is small compared to someone in the middle class.

Re:Why?

[Grishnakh]

No, it shows that sales tax, as currently implemented in the Unites States, is a horrible mess and has a high frictional cost. It doesn't mean it has a high frictional cost all the time; if they wiped out all state and local sales taxes, and replaced them with a single federal sales tax, it'd be easy and would have much lower enforcement costs than federal income tax does (since you'd only need to collect from companies in this scenario, not individuals). I believe that's sorta how it's done in the EU with their VAT.

You are right about it being regressive in theory, but I'm not so sure that's true in practice. It's pretty hard to evade sales taxes: retailers won't sell things to you unless you pay it on the spot. But rich people come up with all kinds of crazy ways of avoiding income tax. The main problem with trying to tax rich people on purchases is that they frequently go out of the country to buy things, though I suppose if they go for a shopping trip in Paris they're going to pay a lot more tax there than they would in Manhattan, but I wonder what the tax rates are for megayachts built in the EU. Also, don't forget the costs of enforcement: I've read that the IRS uses 1/3 of the money it collects just to operate its own bureaucracy. So theoretically, if you replaced income taxes with sales taxes, you'd only need about 2/3 as much revenue, as sales taxes surely don't require remotely as much money and resources to enforce.

I wonder if that Cain guy was onto something with his 8-8-8 idea.

Re:Why?

[Seumas]

If you don't see that as "too much government", then I don't know what the fuck is.

Re:Why?

[Seumas]

Which is just fine and that's your responsibility; not the retailers. You are the one with ties to the state you live in; not the online retailer.

I mean, unless we just want to ditch the tenth amendment. Let's ONLY have federal laws and let's force them to trump state laws. Then we can tax the ever loving shit out of everyone and we can squash those pesky states that are allowing things like gay marriage and pot smoking, while we're at it.

Or... are we just gonna pick and choose when we give a shit about the tenth amendment and when we don't?

Re:Why?

[Skreems]

Presumably the one that would apply if there were a physical store in your living room that you bought from. But I'm assuming the new law, when passed, will address this question...

Re:Why?

[firex726]

So then there needs to be a nationwide sales tax.

Also that's kind the issue we have now. Amazon and other places do not have a physical location in most states.

The Walmart near me shares my cities roads, utilities, etc... Amazon does not. Should I pay the city they are using those services in, or my own where they are not?

Re:Why?

[Skreems]

So then there needs to be a nationwide sales tax.

Why?

You seem awfully focused on the idea that sales tax is meant to compensate an area for the resources a business uses, but this generally isn't the case. Applying it at the purchase location spreads the money around more or less evenly, rather than concentrating it in Delaware or wherever Amazon is incorporated.

Also, you claim that Amazon "doesn't share your roads and utilities" like Wal-Mart does... but how do you think Amazon gets a package to your doorstep? They're using your city's roads, and the local last-mile UPS center uses the utilities. If you live in one of the 20-something states where Amazon has a fulfillment center, they or their subsidiary's warehouses are also using the roads and facilities. Why would you want to lock that sales tax to the one state where Amazon is legally headquartered? Frankly, that seems even worse than the current situation (where individuals are SUPPOSED to report sales tax for their online purchases, and most people are just breaking the law).

Re:Why?

[TrollstonButtersbean]

Thoughts:

A) You are smart, but not so smart that you are part of the solution. No, you intelligence is not high enough to escape the gravity well of being part of the problem. You, sir, are part of the problem.

B) Tax is paid by humans. If it is complicated, it is doing no one a favor.

C) Requiring a textbook to figure out taxes is a fail.

But most importantly ...

D) Please have nice hot cup of shut the fuck up. Seriously, your over-thinking isn't helping. It really isn't. Go find a hobby that isn't destructive to other members of your species.

That is all.

Re:Why?

[TrollstonButtersbean]

If the government makes paying taxes too difficult for joe six-pack to figure out, the government doesn't deserve the money.

The End.

Re:Why?

[TrollstonButtersbean]

You and your thought process have all the credentials and merit to be someone who runs for office and gets 2% of the vote.

And hopefully, slapped in the face with a fish. One of the prickly fish, if there is justice in this world.

Re:Why?

[BitZtream]

Quickbooks is already more than capable of dealing WITH EVERY SALES TAKE JURISDICTION IN THE UNITED STATES.

If as a business, you can't use quickbooks or something more capable, you don't deserve to be in business. Surely the TEAM of programmers they have dealing can manage to buy a copy of the tax rates based on locality and then charge it based on the billing address.

This isn't rocket science. Its not even hard. If the data is in a SQL database, its not even a mildly complex.

Next time UPS flies a package to your door, let me know. I'ld love to know how they get those packages to your door without driving down your local roads.

Re:Why?

[BitZtream]

All of them?

Are you serious?

Re:Why?

[CaptainLard]

Sales tax is levied at the merchant's location, not the customer's.

Thats all well and good for your examples because in each case, the transaction occurred at the merchant's location. What's the point of sale for amazon.com or a bid on ebay? Is it where you enter your credit card on your PC in your home state? The home of the guy you're buying from? The warehouse where its shipped from? Or the server that handles the transaction? It seems to me your examples break down when you apply them to online sales.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yet in 1975 if you mail-ordered something from a company you paid sales taxes based on YOUR state (where it's being shipped), not where the company is. That is the most comparable situation to internet purchases.

Re:Why?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Also, you claim that Amazon "doesn't share your roads and utilities" like Wal-Mart does... but how do you think Amazon gets a package to your doorstep?

Actually it is the delivery company that Amazon.com paid to deliver the package is the entity that uses the local roads that they help pay for. That delivery company (unless it is the USPS and even then I am not sure) pays license fees and fuel taxes which are suppose to be for funding the roads at the state level they also pay property taxes in the city where they have their facility to support their infrastructure. My local property taxes in part go to the local roads (as well as schools, fire protection, police protection, other stuff) so I still don't see why amazon should pay local sales taxes to support local infrastructure that they do not use.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Your analogy is flawed. A better analogy (revealing why everything is so muddied) would be if he shouted his order across state lines, threw his money to the cashier across state lines, and then the cashier threw the quadrophonic system back across state lines to him. Now where was the purchase made? The customer was in one state, but the vendor was in another.

Re:Why?

[Grishnakh]

No, you didn't. Where'd you get that idea? There's no way that some mom-n-pop mail order company in 1975 had the ability to figure the proper sales tax for 10,000 different tax jurisdictions across the country, just as they don't now. Sears Robuck wasn't the only mail order company back then.

Re:Why?

[Grishnakh]

No, it's no different at all: the point of sale is the location of the merchant (for smaller merchants; for really big merchants it's not so simple, but that's not the issue here because it's the small merchants that are crying foul about the burden of dealing with this).

Here's an example: Bob has an old-tyme hardware store in Sometown, MO, population 500. He doesn't have an internet site at all, or any kind of mail-order business. His only concessions to modern times are a telephone, and a credit-card terminal, since so many people even in this small town pay for everything with debit and credit cards. His town is near a state line, so some customers drive over the line to visit his store as there's no closer store on their side. They all pay MO sales tax when they show up in person. However, sometimes one of them doesn't feel like making the drive that day, and just calls him up and asks him to send a part in the mail, which he's happy to do since business is slow and the Post Office is a 1-minute walk away. They pay for it with credit card, read over the phone. What tax do they pay? Bob just charges them the regular sales tax for his state and town. The transaction is no different than if the customer had walked into the store, except that now the customer is having a third party transport the goods for him.

Before you jump on the third-party transport aspect, having a third party transport your goods doesn't change the tax you pay either: you still pay the tax based on the merchant's location. If you drive across a state line (or just to a neighboring town, where there's a different municipal sales tax) to a furniture store and buy a new bed, which of course you have no way of transporting in your Prius, they charge you tax based on their location, even though the bed is going to be transported (for an additional fee) by either their truck or a contracted freight service to your home address. They don't charge you based on your home address.

Re:Why?

[Vermonter]

When filing Vermont State Taxes, you have to either claim all your purchases made out of state, and pay sales tax, or pay an additional percentage in tax on your income. This is due to the fact that a large portion of the population in Vermont shops in West Lebanon, New Hampshire, (a city with many stores and which borders Vermont) where there is no sales tax.

Re:Why?

[Golddess]

Are you sure you have the right amendment? The 10th states that powers not granted to the federal government, nor prohibited to the states, are reserved to the states or the people. And according to the Commerce Clause, the federal government is the one with the power to regulate commerce among the states. Now granted, the Commerce Clause has been abused to hell and back. But if I, a Marylander, purchase something via the internet or a mail-order catalog from a company in California, how does that not legitimately fall under the Commerce Clause?

Re:Why?

[cayenne8]

Ok, so how does some little independently-owned mom-n-pop coffee shop in Washington handle it when someone visits from out-of-state, or from any other taxing jurisdiction for that matter?

Because all levels of govt, especially the Feds, don't give a fuck all about small businesses, even though they have historically been the backbone of employment and business in the US.

More regulations and all, are just another brick in the wall, so to speak, squashing out the small business.

Re:Why?

[Grishnakh]

Perhaps, but that still doesn't answer my question. Let's change it a little:

Ok, so how does some Starbucks shop in Washington handle it when someone visits from out-of-state, or from any other taxing jurisdiction for that matter?

It's not just the small companies that don't bother checking where you're from when you buy something at their local brick&mortar shop.

Re:Why?

[Grishnakh]

Right, just about every state has a "use tax" that people are supposed to file with their state income taxes. Of course, almost no one actually does. Do Vermonters really claim all their NH purchases?

Re:Why?

[ais523]

The way it's done in the UK is that the shop (whether it's a small corner shop, or a large chain) charges you the tax anyway and gives you a receipt with a tax breakdown (as they're required to do on request, by the law). Then you take the receipt to a tax reclaiming kiosk with proof that you're not a UK national and are only there for a short time (holiday or the like), and they give you a refund for the tax. (They tend to be at airports, for obvious reasons; they wouldn't really be required anywhere else.) This way, the shops don't have to worry about establishing whether someone's meant to pay tax or not; all that complex handling can be centralized.

Re:Why?

[Grishnakh]

I don't know about the USA (since I live here, and am not a foreign tourist), but Canada is much the same. Americans visiting Canada can fill out a form and get some of the taxes back which they paid while on vacation in Canada.

If that's good enough for tourists, maybe it should be good enough for everyone else, including internet shoppers. Charge the tax based on the merchant's locale, and if the shopper thinks it's wrong, they can file a form to reclaim it. If that's too much work for the government, maybe they should eliminate these sales taxes and switch to a national sales tax instead.

Re:Why?

[KingBenny]

in short, if this John here lives in belgium and he buys ... let's say a first print version of a zelazny novel from a guy living in say California if this law would apply then the guy selling me the second-hand crisp book to be put in a shrine and worshipped forever would have to add the tax to the price and charge it through to me ?
or does it only get more expensive for u.s.-residents but not the rest of the world ?

Re:Why?

[gottabeme]

Truer words...

Re:Why?

[torkus]

They don't. What's SUPPOSED to happen is the buyer pays use tax in his/her home state. Really.

About 0% of people do so.

Since even the US Gov't realizes it isn't practical to go after the large majority of it's population they're shifting the burdon (or trying to) to those selling instead. Retailers are jumping onboard pointing at amazon and crying "no fair no fair no fair." Of course 'fair' for them is at the expense of...drumroll...the consumer of course. I'd totally continue to shop at a retailer that lobbied to make things from their competitors cost me more. Or not.

It would be better if we had a practical tax system instead of the nickel and dime charge this, deduct that, but charge this and don't deduct that while writing off this other unrelated thing and claiming a tax credit for a goat herding initiative in Somalia.

Re:Why?

[torkus]

You can't just have a federal sales tax. How would you fund state/city/town governments? Since this tax rate would have to be significantly higher people would have a much greater motivation to shop in the lower tax towns/cities ... which further acerbates the problem.

Re:Why?

[Grishnakh]

They don't. What's SUPPOSED to happen is the buyer pays use tax in his/her home state. Really.

No, they aren't, because they already paid sales tax in the foreign state. You're only supposed to pay use tax when you didn't pay any sales tax for an item. I'm pretty sure there's usually some kind of exemption if you paid sales tax at the seller's location, and there might be some clauses dealing with differences between the tax rates.

What'd be better is if we shifted the burden entirely to the seller, and made it so the seller charged the sales tax rate applicable in their own jurisdiction. Then, the seller's states (and cities) would get all the sales tax from sales by that seller, making it very appealing for cities and states to court sellers to live in their states. Having the consumer be responsible for paying sales and use taxes, and trying to figure things out when they buy stuff in other states (whether by internet/mail-order sales or on a road trip) is a ridiculous burden and practically impossible, so it should be banned entirely. I think we need a federal law banning all collection of sales and use taxes by the States from consumers altogether, and the only taxes allowed are those levied on sellers/merchants, by their own states of residence/operation, to be collected by those merchants and remitted only to their own states and cities of residence. This would make everything far, far simpler and avoid all these arguments.

If states need more money from their residents, they can raise property taxes or income taxes, since those are fairly easy to calculate and deal with (well, income tax at the state level is pretty easy at any rate, since it's usually "enter your AGI from form 1040 on this line, and then multiply by X%, and this is your state tax". Federal income tax is another matter entirely.).

Re:Why?

[Grishnakh]

You can have a federal sales tax, though you'd need a Constitutional Amendment to do so. Anyway, to fund state/city/town governments, there's many options:

1) get the money from the Federal government, perhaps somehow calculated from the Federal sales tax received and allotted by population, or which states it came from, etc. i.e., if the Federal government gets $100B from Montana businesses in sales tax, it sends it all back to Montana to use. Having it collected at the Federal level just simplifies the collection and remittance, and fixes the whole "internet sales tax" debate, and also eliminates the problem of having differing rates.

2) Town/city governments are already mostly funded by property taxes, not sales taxes. Let them increase those if they need to. Cities that have excessive property taxes will have excessive rents and mortgage payments, and people will move to lower-tax locales. People are already fleeing New Jersey because of this. No one can afford to retire there because the property taxes keep going up, and are already #1 in the nation.

3) State governments already have their own income taxes.

4) There's various other taxes that states and cities levy on all kinds of different things: gasoline, cigarettes, alcohol, permits, etc.

Re:Why?

[torkus]

You speak from inexperience. Something about walking a mile in my shoes...

If the data is in a SQL database, its not even a mildly complex.

While I understand this is /. and all ... consider the OTHER people who sell things - online, mail order, ebay, or other - and have no clue what SQL even is. Hell, plenty of people HERE wouldn't know a simple SQL query.

If as a business, you can't use quickbooks or something more capable, you don't deserve to be in business.

Entering every purchase into quickbooks to figure out sales tax and generate an invoice...BEFORE the buyer can complete the purchase? Or having to code a link between your shopping app and quickbooks? Or finding a ecommerce app that already has every tax jurisdiction accurately set up? ... not to mention who is responsible if they get one wrong somehow?

NO ONE is doing this today. No company has a physical presence in every tax jurisdiction and thus the requirement to tax every single order. Is it impossible? No. Is it easy? Nyet. Is it reasonable for small businesses? Can't say it is.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod points! Mod points! My kingdom for a mod point!

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only one-way. A Washington resident doesn't have to fill out a form when buying a frying pan in Portland, OR.

Re:Why?

[torkus]

If you think state tax i as simple as taking x% of a line from your 1040...please stop reading and leave the discussion. You're in so far over your head I can't even...

For the rest...

I'm not an expert, but I believe you're incorrect about how sales tax is supposed to work. Either way, it's obviously horribly complex and we can agree that buyers are basically ignoring/exploiting it. If you remove that, you add a major tax burden back on individuals. Basically raising the cost of goods by several percent in a substantial portion of sales. THAT won't do our economy any favors.

Beyond that, shifting the burden entirely to the seller based on their location? Impractical. I'll simply pick locale with the least (or no) sales tax or the best tax breaks (for larger companies who can negotiate such) and bypass tax once again. Consider how NY forced Amazon to charge sales tax on items sold to NY residents. The tax model is based on the buyer's location currently ... a use tax.

Sellers are taxed - they pay income tax. They *collect* tax on behalf of the state/city/etc.

Re:Why?

[torkus]

Yes, that's FAR simpler.

1-Let the US gov't collect tax from every state and then based on some magical "fair" formula re-distribute it. I'm *sure* that won't turn into a lobbying for fairness similar to all the current federal tax breaks/funding/etc. we have now.

2-so your idea is to just give the finger to large cities and crash their economy by forcing people out? Brilliant.

3-yes they do but forcing them to use only that is a huge shift to the tax environment. Better or worse is an argument that's not likely to end

4-once again, it shifts the tax burden to specific areas while other's pay less/nothing. While we're at it, how about anyone who smokes also makes a car payment for their neighbor?

Re:Why?

[Grishnakh]

If you think state tax i as simple as taking x% of a line from your 1040...please stop reading and leave the discussion. You're in so far over your head I can't even...

State tax IS as simple as that. At least, that's as simple as it is in Arizona; I don't know about your state. If you disagree, then prove it's not that simple, otherwise STFU with your accusations. (Yes, it's slightly more complex than that, with some additional deductions for a tiny minority of residents, but for the vast majority of residents that's as simple as it is; get your AGI, subtract a standard or itemized deduction, subtract your exemptions, calculate your tax, and you're done, and then at the bottom decide if you want to contribute some extra money to one or more special funds, like the wildlife fund, the child abuse prevention fund, the Special Olympics fund, the clean elections fund, and the "I didn't pay enough" fund--yes there's really a fund for that on the tax form.)

If you remove that, you add a major tax burden back on individuals. Basically raising the cost of goods by several percent in a substantial portion of sales. THAT won't do our economy any favors.

First, how does reducing taxes increase the cost of goods? I call BS on that idea.
And second, I never said sales taxes should be eliminated altogether, only that the entire scheme should be reworked so that they're collected only by sellers, for use in the seller's jurisdiction, to keep things simple and avoid all these arguments and complexity over wondering if Joe Schmoe lives on one side of some imaginary line or the other because there's some weird law somewhere that only residents on the north side of the street have to pay some extra sales tax. This wouldn't eliminate taxes at all, only simplify their enforcement, and end the whole internet sales tax debate.

Sellers are taxed - they pay income tax.

No, they don't. Corporations (esp. large ones) don't pay income taxes. Go look at how much tax Amazon paid last year.

Beyond that, shifting the burden entirely to the seller based on their location? Impractical. I'll simply pick locale with the least (or no) sales tax or the best tax breaks (for larger companies who can negotiate such) and bypass tax once again.

So what? States are free to raise or lower their taxes if they wish, to compete. They could even give special tax advantages to warehouse shippers if they want.

The tax model is based on the buyer's location currently ... a use tax.

You talk of use tax and you call my idea "impractical", when NO ONE pays use taxes because there's no way to enforce them? And you actually think it's somehow practical for small internet sellers to figure out how much tax they need to charge everyone nationwide, and somehow send checks to 9600 different tax jurisdictions?

Re:Why?

[Grishnakh]

2-so your idea is to just give the finger to large cities and crash their economy by forcing people out? Brilliant.

Are you really that simple-minded? NYC and Silicon Valley have probably the highest costs of living in the country, and most likely very high taxes as well. Do you see people flocking away from those cities and moving to Montana for the low taxes and cost-of-living? No, they keep going to the big cities because that's where all the high-paying jobs are.

And if some cities/states do have a problem with too many people leaving, then maybe they should lower their taxes (or perhaps try to find a way to bring in more good jobs to attract people despite the taxes). I don't see many people complaining about the taxes in Manhattan, and there aren't miles of empty brownstones there either.

3-yes they do but forcing them to use only that is a huge shift to the tax environment. Better or worse is an argument that's not likely to end

I never said there'd be no sales taxes, just that they'd be collected differently, and probably of a different amount.

4-once again, it shifts the tax burden to specific areas while other's pay less/nothing.

How would anyone pay nothing? My simple proposal in this thread (which is a very different from my proposal in the other thread you replied to) was for the Federal government to have a single sales tax (much like the VAT in EU), and dole that out to states. States with no sales tax currently would obviously benefit. States with very high sales taxes would probably get less. What's the problem with that? Taxes change all the time, and even more, revenues change drastically, as they depend on the economy. It's governments' job to keep up with that and keep their spending in line with the tax revenue. If they can't do that, then too bad. There's no way to guarantee a particular tax revenue in any year (since again, this depends on the economy), so I don't see why changing around the tax scheme is a problem. You're never going to have any progress if you don't shake things up once in a while, and rework things.

Re:Why?

[Skreems]

Let's get one thing clear: Amazon is not paying sales tax. Amazon is (under this hypothetical law) collecting sales tax on behalf of the buyer, who local law says is obligated to pay a tax on any purchases they make to their local government. Same as with in-person purchases.

Re:Why?

[torkus]

State tax IS as simple as that. At least, that's as simple as it is in Arizona; I don't know about.....

You don't know about. For one, federal income tax is, in theory, about that simple too. Reality differs greatly. Check yourself, I'm not getting paid to educate you.

First, how does reducing taxes increase the cost of goods? I call BS on that idea....

Again, you just don't get it. First, define "sellers location" for us. That's the problem vexing tax collection NOW. As for the increase - internet sales that bypass sales tax suddenly get hit with it. In 2011 ecommerce was ~$255 billion. Let's say half of that went untaxed (probably much higher) and now we're taxing at ... 5%? That's $13 billion in additional taxes.

Sellers are taxed - they pay income tax.

No, they don't. Corporations (esp. large ones) don't pay income taxes. Go look at how much tax Amazon paid last year.

Straw man. Corporate tax shelters are an entirely different problem and discussion.

So what? States are free to raise or lower their taxes if they wish, to compete. They could even give special tax advantages to warehouse shippers if they want.

Which tax rate applies? See above.

You talk of use tax and you call my idea "impractical", when NO ONE pays use taxes because there's no way to enforce them? And you actually think it's somehow practical for small internet sellers to figure out how much tax they need to charge everyone nationwide, and somehow send checks to 9600 different tax jurisdictions?

Can purple eat from square rainbow? Sorry, my brain almost exploded because you can't seem to follow the discussion. I'm not suggesting a use tax, I'm explaining that we have (a broken) one now which you don't seem able to grasp. Buyers are supposed to remit the unpaid taxes but they typically don't. The proposed legislation will punish the SELLERS for what they buyers are doing.

Your original analogy/suggestion/proposal entirely ignores the definition of location in the modern world. Even take a simple ebay seller...their storefront exists on ebay servers in some datacenter. Their 'office' exists in their living room. Their warehouse exists in their garage...and in china because they drop-ship...and in another state because they sell for their cousin who's parents died. Do you really think the tax code for this will be SIMPLE and appropriate for small time sellers?

Re:Why?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

I don't have a problem with that but stating that somehow they are are not paying for services that they used is what I was attempting to disprove. Amazon is not using the infrastructure in you city or state unless they have a presence there. Also most (probably all but I don't know for sure) have a use tax that is equal to their sales tax for items you bring into the state that were purchased elsewhere to recoup the loss of sales tax. The problem is that it requires you the individual to self report it and barely anyone does.

This is a Constitutional tax

[roman_mir]

As long as the tax is uniform, Congress can levy such an indirect a tax on transactions.

Of-course they are not going to repeal the unconstitutional taxes that exist today, so for example income tax, payroll and Medicare taxes stay.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[peragrin]

Exactly. Sales tax varies not only state to state, but state, to county to city as well.

whose sales tax do you charge in the following scenario?

I in Mass, order something from a company in SC to be shipped to random upstate town, NY.

Which sales tax is to be collected and paid? there are at least 4 and possible 7 different sales taxes that need to be applied to that order.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[rhodium_mir]

All taxes are THEFT and are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as are the parts of the constitution that authorize UNCONSTITUTIONAL taxes.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[paiute]

It must be true, because I saw it bolded on the Internet.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[Anonymous Coward]

How in the hell is income tax unconstitutional when Amendment XVI of the constitution specifically authorizes Congress to levy it?

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[roman_mir]

The Federal tax must be uniform, the USA Constitution does not give authority to the Congress to prevent individual States, counties, municipalities from collecting their own taxes.

The question is whether this law going to force Amazon (and the rest) to collect taxes for localities where Amazon has no physical presence? That would be unconstitutional, federal government cannot force a retailer to collect local taxes.

Federally Constitutional excise tax is not a local sales tax. Also there is an interesting question about legality of forcing the seller to collect the tax, even if it is Constitutional. Of-course the government has no problem turning bankers and financial types into unpaid FBI and IRS agents, so forcing an online store to be one is not out of their character, they don't have a problem with it.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[roman_mir]

That's not what Constitution does, you should read the link that I provided, though it's not a short comment, if you can read you'll find your answer.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[smpoole7]

> How in the hell is income tax unconstitutional when Amendment XVI of the constitution specifically authorizes Congress to levy it?

Good heavens, don't feed the trolls. You'll get a dozen answers and the net result is that you'll be late for dinner. :)

I strongly recommend Dan Evans Tax Protester FAQ. He covers all of the arguments (and why they've failed in court) in more detail than you probably want.

http://evans-legal.com/dan/tpfaq.html

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[Anonymous Coward]

The sixteenth amendment to the US Constitution:

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration.

Congress can directly tax income without regard to any census, nor do income taxes need to be apportioned among the States. The language of 16A is really incredibly clear. Your rant is misinformed wishful thinking garbage.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[rhodium_mir]

Clearly you didn't read his LINK or else you would have been convinced by the crushing legal CONSTITUTIONAL scholarship of BOLD and italic text.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[Anonymous Coward]

If it's in The Constitution, it's constitutional. The Amendment XVI was ratified allowing the government to collect taxes.

End of.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[green1]

All taxes are THEFT and are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, as are the parts of the constitution that authorize UNCONSTITUTIONAL taxes.

(emphasis changed)

I'm having a hard time figuring out how a part of the constitution can be unconstitutional. (Not being from the USA I can't tell you every line of your constitution, but that sentence simply doesn't parse)

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Which sales tax is to be collected and paid? there are at least 4 and possible 7 different sales taxes that need to be applied to that order.

That's easy. The tax is paid for the locale that the order is being shipped to. It is to be treated as though it was purchased in person in that municipality.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[Anonymous Coward]

In the EU the problem has been solved by the following:

You pay the VAT (aka.. sales tax) where the person receiving the item resides in. I don't think companies are required to levy the target country tax in some cases, like with low volume, but not sure.

Quite frankly this makes sense, since it means local companies can compete with the internet shops operating from low tax areas. It doesn't really work for local economy (which you are a part of), if all product services go to low tax areas and are remote only.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[Captain Segfault]

There are a number of fringe arguments that the sixteenth amendment, allowing an income tax, wasn't properly ratified.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[rhodium_mir]

You should read the link provided by roman_mir, one of the great constitutional scholars of our time.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[Runaway1956]

The government does a lot of crap that I disagree with. And, in fact, I see a lot of their crap as unconstitutional. But - the concept that all taxes are unconstitutional is pretty insane.

The federal income tax clearly has a lot of constitutionality issues surrounding it. Social security has some. Sales taxes? No way. Local governments are largely funded by sales taxes. They have to be funded from SOMEWHERE, so they are funded by local sales. When the internet was new, internet sales were exempted from local sales tax. Now, congress is going to change that. How is it unconstitutional? If anything, the exemption was unconstitutional, because it interfered with local government's ability to generate legitimate revenues.

Lighten up dude - not all taxes are unconstitutional. Taxes suck, but they are a necessary evil. Concentrate on those taxes that are actually unconstitutional, or at least very controversial.

As for which jurisdiction collects taxes on internet sales - the purchaser's home address serves as a point of contact, for billing purposes, mailing purposes, and for tax purposes.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

Amazon supports this bill. They understand that closing off the opportunity for a company to grow on avoiding stat sales taxes is in their best interest because they know better than anyone how successful that model is.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[Anonymous Coward]

I in Mass, order something from a company in SC to be shipped to random upstate town, NY.

I suggest putting MA, SC and NY into a cage match to fight to the death to determine who gets that tax.

Also include Montana (where the SC company's distribution warehouse is!) and all the stats between Montana and New York. I mean, the usual money grab justification is, "use tax", yeah? Why should states stuck in the middle of a transaction be denied revenue for their roads/infrastructure being used?

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

The Constitution does not grant Congress the power to regulate state level taxation, to force one to pay taxes in another state, or to collect the taxes on behalf of another state..

The issues that most complain about regarding income taxes are the methods of collection and enforcement. For example, the 5th amendment is supposed to protect us from self-incrimination, but a tax filing is self-incrimination. The IRS has its own tax courts, which do not follow due process. The right to assistance of counsel in defense has been turned into a joke because they seize the means to provide that counsel, then give a public defender who knows next to nothing.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree that they are supposed to charge the tax rate in effect at the address of the purchaser (although in practice they may instead charge the tax rate at the shipping address, for example when you buy a gift and ship direct). However, today, they can't even get it right in cases where they are required to charge tax. For example just this morning I ordered some stuff from Monoprice. They have a presence in California and I am in California too - so they have to charge tax. They did, but at the wrong rate. I am in a 8.25% district and they charged just the state value of 7.50%. They are supposed to charge the state, county, city, water district, etc. taxes. Another strange one in the retail space - we bought a new car yesterday. We were in the 9% district just next to ours. They charged us the 8.5% rate because of our address. However none of the stores in the adjacent mall do this. They charge the 9% rate - the rate where they are at, not the rate where I live. Where do I apply for my refund if what the car dealer did was correct? Since we can't even correctly apply the sales / use taxes we have now, how the hell are we going to have everyone get it even close when it goes across state lines? And, does this become a boom for "locker box" services at the state line of states with no sales tax?

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Clearly you didn't read his LINK or else you would have been convinced by the crushing legal CONSTITUTIONAL scholarship of BOLD and italic text.

Ahhh ... so you're one of those people. The ones that think "If you knew what I knew then you'd interpret it the same way I do and you'd see what I see and you'd obviously agree with me . Good luck with that. Maybe you need to use more caps & style tags to get your point across.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[Anonymous Coward]

The tax is paid by whatever address the item is billed to, not shipped to. I work for a major retailer and we have a program that does this in our point of sale. It conforms with local and state tax laws.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[ColdWetDog]

Roman, at least your old UID indicated you are an established nutcase. We're much more tolerant of established nutcases than new ones.

You've lost the war on taxes, old son. If you want a tax free haven, make one yourself. And good luck with that.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[peragrin]

but it doesn't conform with ALL state and local tax laws. some are shipped to some are shipped from.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[Grishnakh]

WTF? Income tax is not unconstitutional, it's by definition part of the constitution. Go read the 16th Amendment; they passed that just so they could have an income tax. And no, it's not "voluntary"; the amendment is extremely concise and says nothing about such tax being "voluntary". There's a reason this is called an "amendment": it overrules anything older in the Constitution that might be construed as forbidding it. Just because you don't like a particular amendment (I don't care for the 17th myself) doesn't mean that what's in that amendment is "unconstitutional". The amendments ARE the Constitution.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[Grishnakh]

Not being from the USA, you obviously cannot comprehend just how insane many of our citizens are, and what kind of wacky convoluted arguments they'll come up with which defy all logic and reason.

Yes, you're right, as this is quite simple: if it's part of the Constitution (and that includes the Amendments), then by definition, it's "constitutional". Furthermore, newer Amendments overrule old ones, so it doesn't matter if the original Constitutional text, or some of Amendments 1-10 could be construed as forbidding income tax, because Amendment 16 explicitly allows it, so that's the final word on the matter. In fact, free speech, freedom of religion, etc. could be repealed, and we could be forced to quarter soldiers in our homes: all the government has to do is pass a new Constitutional Amendment overturning Amendments 1 and 4. Of course, it's very very hard to pass new Amendments (by design), so such a thing is unlikely, but it's possible.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[ColdWetDog]

Irony doesn't suit you much, Roman.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[Anonymous Coward]

That is specifically what the Interstate Commerce clause was intended for (not the war on drugs, or any of the innumerable other things it is used for these days, though).

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[Prof.Phreak]

Well, it's called "sales" tax not "buying" tax. Makes sense to collected it at point of sale :-/

So if amazon movies to a state with no sales tax, it makes sense to collect their *local* tax for all customers (even those outside of that state). Perhaps what they're really interested in is interstate commerce tax, since that's what this is in disguise---except that would be unconstitutional. ...Why are they spending their efforts in creating a regressive tax instead of just getting rid of sales tax everywhere and increasing income tax on everyone?

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Nothing screams "pay attention to me" like the HTML Blink tag nested inside H1. He should have used that if he's serious about being heard.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[roman_mir]

Interstate commerce tax imposed by USA Congress is a constitutional tax, it's an excise, an import even, a duty, basically a federal sales tax is legal if it is uniform.

What is in fact illegal is an income tax, payroll tax, Medicare tax, death tax, those are in fact illegal taxes but the system doesn't care about the legality of it, it just imposes itself.

By the way saying that a tax is 'regressive' means approving discrimination. You want to apply laws differently to different people based on their specific circumstances, that's injustice and discrimination.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[roman_mir]

You are talking about things that you didn't in fact think about. You should go read the 16th, then go read the link to my comment where I explain that what is in the amendment is not in fact authorisation to collect an income tax. It is an allowance to tax 'income' (without defining what that is) without apportionment.

It was left up to the courts to define what income was, and I talk about the court cases and SCOTUS decisions in my comment, which show that SCOTUS explained that an unapportioned tax cannot be direct, so it must be an indirect tax. Eventually the court explained that in order to have an 'indirect income' is by dis-associating a person from his income, and that was possible to do through a corporate balance sheet, so the 'income tax' in fact was explained to be a corporate profit tax.

There is no individual profit, individually you have incomes, not profits, otherwise you have to be able to subtract your own costs (depreciation of your body is part of it) from your revenues.

Again, you can read the comment, obviously you commented without doing it, otherwise you would at the minimum come back with something meaningful to say rather than that, whatever that was.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[roman_mir]

"nutcase", good to know nothing changes on /., same old, same old.

Though after all the years, you think I do not in fact exercise what I believe in? By the way, you should be happy that people can in fact move their money somewhere you'd call a 'tax shelter', if there was no way for anybody to hide from government taxes, the taxes on everybody would be much higher.

It's very simple, without the competition there is a monopoly. Even within the USA, various States have different tax rates (and some have no State income taxes at all), and so there is competition even inside there, which shows you how it works. Push the people enough and they move their money, they move themselves even. That's what keeps every State from constantly raising the taxes higher and higher, they know people have a choice and can leave.

Same thing exactly applies to 'tax havens', without them there is nothing to prevent governments from raising taxes ever higher.

Kill tax havens and you kill your economy as well though, you'll kill savings and investment (though in case of USA, Japan and Europe they are successful at that just with inflation and existing taxes and regulations).

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[roman_mir]

That's not my comment, take the blinders off.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[Grishnakh]

You are talking about things that you didn't in fact think about. You should go read the 16th, then go read the link to my comment where I explain that what is in the amendment is not in fact authorisation to collect an income tax. It is an allowance to tax 'income' (without defining what that is) without apportionment.

I DID read the 16th; it's extremely short and concise and there's really no way to misunderstand it. It lets you tax income. It doesn't have to define it, the definition is fairly obvious, and I'm sure court decisions have defined it more exactingly.

so the 'income tax' in fact was explained to be a corporate profit tax.

No, profit and income are two different things. The Amendment says "income", not "profit". If they had meant corporate profit, they would have said so. It just says that the government can tax income, that's it. There's no way for a rational person to misunderstand that simple language. And anything the SCOTUS says really doesn't matter, only the text of the Amendment. The SCOTUS can only interpret laws (and they don't always do so correctly, which can be changed in subsequent court decisions). They can also declare things "unconstitutional". However, they can't declare part of the Constitution to be unconstitutional, and that makes no sense whatsoever.

I only read part of your comment, but stopped wasting my time when it became clear that it was pure lunacy and that you completely fail to understand the simple truth that when something is part of the Constitution (this includes Amendments), that it's by definition Constitutional. (You also make some wacky arguments that the 16th conflicts with some earlier parts of the Constitution, including the 4th Amendment, which again shows you either don't understand or are willfully ignoring the simple truth that Amendments supersede older parts of the Constitution. It doesn't matter if the 16th violates the 4th as you allege, because the 16th supersedes the 4th. If the States all decided they wanted to ban free speech and private ownership of guns, they could easily pass a new Amendment completely overturning the 1st and 2nd. The only reason this doesn't happen is that it'd be extemely unpopular and because it's really hard to get all the States to agree on Constitutional changes, which of course was the intent of the Founders when they devised the Amendment process.)

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[roman_mir]

Again, you call something 'lunacy' without going through the court cases, that in fact DEFINE what INCOME is.

16th amendment does no such thing.

There are of-course a large number of other problems there that I touch upon, but you are clearly incapable of understanding words in English language.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[Kjella]

That would be unconstitutional, federal government cannot force a retailer to collect local taxes.

Why not, specifically? They're explicitly permitted to regulate interstate commerce, and a vendor in one state selling to a customer in another state most certainly sounds like it to me. Remember they can use it in the negative "No interstate commerce is permitted unless the vendor has collected any applicable sales tax of the destination state" so strictly speaking they're not forcing anyone to do anything, it's a condition for doing interstate business. If you don't like it, don't sell outside your state. I doubt you'll get the Supreme Court with you on this one.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[Anonymous Coward]

The constitution prohibits states from levying taxes and duties on imports and exports. This includes imports from other states. See Article 10.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[roman_mir]

Local taxes are not within the authority of federal government, federal government cannot force a business to do anything about local taxes. State can force a business to pay taxes to the State.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[dryeo]

By the way saying that a tax is 'regressive' means approving discrimination. You want to apply laws differently to different people based on their specific circumstances, that's injustice and discrimination.

Be consistent please. Discrimination (excepting in the case of race and perhaps religion) is perfectly constitutional. We're talking about a country that has institutionalized discrimination based on feudal principals. A country that didn't amend its constitution to make women equal to men in law. A country where the constitution was written to discriminate against classes of citizens by denying them the vote. If you want to go on about the constitution you have to accept that it's an 18th century document and was designed to discriminate and tough if it's you that is being discriminated against as that is the American way.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[BitZtream]

You charge the tax based on shipping or billing address, which isn't all that important since most times they will be the same.

You pay the tax to that location.

The end result is that things work like they do now, and Amazon doesn't get to pretend they have lower prices when they actually don't have nearly the gap that is perceived.

Why is this even a little bit complicated. You look at the problem, which is Amazon and Ebay don't want to have to do what every other business in America has to do. So you fix the problem by making them do the same thing every other business does. Pay fucking taxes on the sale at the location of the sale.

My business is required to pay sales tax in any state we sell in because we have 'agents' in all those states. What does Amazon do when say ... North Carolina required them to pay taxes on those agents in North Carolina? They terminated the agents, or 'referral' partners. Is that really the kind of business you want around?

I admin a SaaS service, I have to pay taxes in any state I have an agent in ... in most states that means if I have a sales person in that state at any point in the year, that means I pay them taxes on sales to customers in that state.

I for the life of me can't possibly understand why you would even bother to ask this question, its mind numbing obvious who pays and where the pay goes.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[BitZtream]

Legality of requiring a seller to collect the tax ... We already have those laws, fairly certain they get enforced ... since ... you know ... everyone bothers to collect sales tax.

The Fed can simply state that businesses in the US doing interstate commerce are bound by the states they are selling their products in. The definition of 'selling their products in' is the physical location of the buyer at the time or purchase.

Problem solved.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[BitZtream]

The fed doesn't have to make a law regarding tax collection or collection itself, just has to make it a federal crime to violate sales taxes laws in a state if you sell products to people in that state. By that meaning that at the time of sale, the person buying the property, their physical location (or shipping address for internet stuffs) is the place of sale.

Problem solved.

Do you really want to hide behind something like this like you're clever while you're neighborhood crumbles around you cause you thought being clever on the Internet was a better idea than just paying your fair share of upkeep?

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[multiplexo]

If the States all decided they wanted to ban free speech and private ownership of guns, they could easily pass a new Amendment completely overturning the 1st and 2nd. The only reason this doesn't happen is that it'd be extemely unpopular and because it's really hard to get all the States to agree on Constitutional changes, which of course was the intent of the Founders when they devised the Amendment process.)

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong! Jesus you are fucking stupid. You are so fucking stupid that you should be shot in the fucking head for writing something this stupid. Go read the Wikipedia article on "Substantive Due Process" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substantive_due_process The useless racists in the southern states tried this shit back in the 1960s when they said that state laws overrode federal laws in matters relating to desegregation, interracial marriage and the like and the federal government said "Wrong fucking answer and in one case even sent in federal troops (Little Rock, AK, 1957) to get the point across. God you're fucking stupid.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[BitZtream]

Don't be confused. When you see people talking about the constitution being unconstitutional and you don't understand why ... the reason is because they're trying to manipulate the meaning of one thing, usually it'll be a single line, rarely more than that, into fitting their definition of the argument and ignoring everything else.

You can more or less instantly write of anyone who tells you parts of the constitution are unconstitutional. Its unlikely you will miss anything of value (except perhaps a good laugh) if you do.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[BitZtream]

Dude, you're a nut case ... I was about 3 lines into your rant before I realized it ... but its clear, you're an idiot living in another world.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[BitZtream]

... And so he was right wasn't he ... Perhaps you should go re-read your linked article and actually understand what Substantive due process is before you try to tell someone else. You seem to not have any fucking idea what ratification requires. In short, I'm fairly certain you don't have any clue how the America government actually works.

A state, or even half the states in teh country can't modify the constitution. Just because Old Miss decides to chain up the negras doesn't actually make it part of the constitution ... the rest of the states actually have to agree with it in a majority.

God you're fucking stupid.

If you stop looking in the mirror you won't have to say that so often.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[Anonymous Coward]

The only argument that the 16th amendment wasn't properly ratified was the Supreme courts ruling on it.

And they say it was.

End of argument.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[kwbauer]

"Regulate" in the sense of causing it to be regular. All of the writings on that from the time it was written deal with how a state cannot discriminate against the goods from other states nor can they interfere with the movement of goods through them to another state. It did not, when it was written, mean that the Federal Congress got to write billions of rules about every aspect of your life simply because you deal daily with stuff that has moved across state lines.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[kwbauer]

A "progressive" tax structure is also discriminatory because it treats people differently based on their specific circumstances as well.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[Anonymous Coward]

The Amendment was never properly ratified by the States.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[Anonymous Coward]

It must be true, because I saw it bolded on the Internet.

If BOLD is true and ITALICS are titles, then BOLD ITALICS would be TRUE LIES ?

I'll be back for your answer.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[Anonymous Coward]

If a rational person had a rational argument, it is expected that they would make it, rather than resorting to ad hominem. We can conclude, based on the evidence, then, that you are not a rational person and have no rational response.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[rhodium_mir]

The SCOTUS said in Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire Co (1926)

"Income" has been taken to mean the same thing as used in the Corporation Excise Tax of 1909 (36 Stat. 112), in the Sixteenth Amendment, and in the various revenue acts subsequently passed. [cites omitted] After full consideration, this court declared that income may be defined as gain derived from capital, from labor, or from both combined, including profit gained through sale or conversion of capital.

However, they FAILED TO DEFINE LABOR. Therefore, we must conclude that the government only has the power to tax non-capital-derived income if it is gained through women giving birth. Taxing the income of anyone other than recently pregnant women or obstetricians is UNCONSTITUTIONAL theft.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[Anonymous Coward]

Local governments can, and should, be funded from income taxes, receiving a portion of the taxes collected at the state level according to population or some other criteria. If you think sales and use taxes make sense, you haven't thought through the issues. Go back through this thread and read the posts again.

Re:This is a Constitutional tax

[Anonymous Coward]

First, how is the federal income tax considered possibly unconstitutional?

And the sales tax...when states go and seek businesses to collect from people that are from another state....can definitely be considered trampling on state's rights.

and that whole "taxation without representation" thing.

But aside from that....this is just an insanely stupid bill

Unconstitutional as heck

[naroom]

But very practical, and should have happened sooner. The overall efficiency of our society will increase if people buy more things at local stores. Less gas wasted on shipping, more money staying in its own communities.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[subanark]

Screw the constitution. It is out of date, but people keep standing behind it trying to justify their stance. The constitution is difficult to change and enough people will lose power if any part of it does that they can put a stop to it changing. Some parts I approve of, but that is no excuse for people to keep treating it as the absolute unchanging principal that defines the United States.

I do agree with allowing tax of online sales should not be different than local stores, but I disagree with your reasoning. By your reasoning, virtual services like purchasing software online should be taxed less as it is very cheap to produce and sell online vs buying a box from a physical store. The tax should simply be fair, and the market will punish the less efficient systems. Besides, what is more efficient? The goods have to get to the stores in some way. Making the extra trip to each house to deliver as opposed to a bunch of people driving to the store and back sounds more efficient to me.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Warhawke]

Um, what?

If it's "unconstitutional as heck," then no, no it absolutely should not have happened sooner. You don't just get to flagrantly violate the Constitution -- you know, the document that enumerates states' and citizens' rights -- because it somehow promotes local tribalism. Go amend the Constitution if you want to make something unconstitutional suddenly constitutional. Otherwise, you just basically said it's a good idea to flagrantly violate the fundamental law that has serves as the core of the United States because it affirms your limited idea of what constitutes economic efficiency.

If a state's sales tax is so high that it is more economically efficient to ship the product from a different state at least 48 hours transit time away than to buy from within the state, it's a pretty clear indication that the tax is too high, or the distribution models within the state are lacking. By your logic, we should violate the GATT 1994 and place punitive tariffs on incoming products from China because they rob hardworking Americans U.S. jobs. Because clearly that's a more logical and economically friendly policy than reducing the number of domestic legislative restrictions that sent those jobs overseas in the first place.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[WhitePanther5000]

But very practical, and should have happened sooner. The overall efficiency of our society will increase if people buy more things at local stores. Less gas wasted on shipping, more money staying in its own communities.

Less gas wasted on shipping? Considering that the vast majority of consumer goods are not produced locally, how do they get to the local stores?

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

Less gas wasted on shipping? Unless you live in the middle of nowhere, UPS is hitting multiple people on the same route. At best each person going out to the store would have to go to multiple stores on 1 trip, otherwise they waste gas compared to them. I agree with the money in communities though.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

Why didn't this get modded as funny? The parent was being sarcastic right? Do people think products show up at stores magically? Does everyone walk to stores or take mass transit?

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[paiute]

treating it as the absolute unchanging principal that defines the United States.

Except for the fact that it is, you are otherwise correct.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[lord_mike]

I think the commerce clause is pretty clear that the constitution authorizes the federal government to regulate interstate commerce. Considering that this bill is specifically targeted towards goods ordered and shipped from out of state, it clearly falls under the purview of the commerce clause. It's not even a taxing bill, since it merely specifies that retailers such as amazon must conform to state and local laws in regards to sale. What is exactly "unconstitutional" about this idea?

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

But very practical, and should have happened sooner. The overall efficiency of our society will increase if people buy more things at local stores. Less gas wasted on shipping, more money staying in its own communities.

Your post reeks of "protectionism" and "buy local" garbage.

Do you really want a laptop or a smartphone built by the guy next door? Do you want clothes that cost 10x as much because this year's local cotton crop got destroyed by boll weevils? Do you want to give up eating oranges, bananas, grapes, pineapples because they don't grow natively in your climate?

Marketplace "fairness" is just a way to prop up the middle-men who contribute nothing to the marketplace except jacking up the price. Now they are out of work because their only skill was being able to look you dead in the eye and give you a firm handshake while knowing they were ripping you off. Paying hundreds of dollars for baseball cards, using travel agencies, getting a $60k job with only a high school education, all of that is dead and we are all better for it. Internet transparency helped make that happen, and now the leeches want to make it "fair" to contribute nothing and rip you off.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[shmlco]

"The overall efficiency of our society will increase if people buy more things at local stores. Less gas wasted on shipping..."

Right. Because one hybrid-powered UPS delivery truck delivering 50 packages to 50 homes on a computer generated best-path-least-turns route is less efficient than 50 people climbing into 50 SUVs and driving to and from 50 different local stores to buy 50 different items that were themselves shipped to each of those stores.

Remind me never to hire you to as an efficiency expert...

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Going to local stores uses more gas in your car than is used by your products as a minuscule fractional increase on a truck...even a UPS or FedEx truck.

It's fair enough if you want to support local stores, but huge stores command big discounts, and it's wrong to use the force of government to make people pay more to keep less efficient businesses alive. That isn't just theory -- people vote with their dollars that way. That's why Walmart, common bitching-boy for the online snotnosed crowd, is so successful while saving Americans over $200 billion a year over precious little local stores.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Trepidity]

In what sense is it unconstitutional? Congress expressly has the authority to regulate interstate commerce. Here they are planning to add a requirement, to inter-state commercial transactions, that the seller collect whatever sales taxes are required at the destination of the sale.

It would be unconstitutional for states themselves to levy a tax on out-of-state retailers with no local presence, because 1) they lack jurisdiction over out-of-state retailers to regulate them as local retailers; and 2) they cannot avoid #1 by taxing the goods as imports to the state, because the commerce clause gives Congress sole authority to regulate interstate commerce. But Congress itself can Constitutionally add conditions to interstate commerce.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[rudy_wayne]

But very practical, and should have happened sooner. The overall efficiency of our society will increase if people buy more things at local stores. Less gas wasted on shipping, more money staying in its own communities.

Wrong on every count.

While people do buy things online out of convenience, that is only one small part of the story. While I would really like to support local business, I can't because of one simple fact -- local stores rarely have what I want. And so I buy a lot of stuff online. If I need something like computer components, the only "local stores" are a Best Buy which only carries an extremely limited range of products at inflated prices and a MicroCenter 50 miles away. Where's the efficiency in that?

If "local stores" had everything that people wanted, then online business couldn't exist. But they don't. And it's not even possible. You can't have gigantic stores that stock millions of items in every city and every small town. That would be ridiculous, horrendously inefficient and unworkable, not to mention unprofitable. But large online businesses, like Amazon, etc. can have a few big warehouses around the country that stock millions of items. This gives consumers greater choices and the ability to buy what they want rather than be limited to whatever is sitting on a shelf in a "local store".

Buying from large centrally located business, like Amazon, Ebay, Newegg, etc is in fact more efficient than 200 million people driving all over the place, going from store to store trying to find what they want.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

And what happens in a few hundred years when the English language has changed enough that the Constitution can no longer be considered written in the same language that is spoken in America. What happens when the constitution looks as odd to common English speakers as Chaucer looks to us now. When that happens the document becomes meaningless. It can be interpreted to support any position on any issue. The only responsible thing to do then is re-write the thing periodically. Ideally it would be every 100 years or so.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[the eric conspiracy]

I doubt it's unconstitutional.

Article I, Section 8, Clause 3:[3]

        [The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

Also, how do the consumers get to the store?

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

Less gas wasted on shipping,

You can argue that, but it's not a great argument as others have pointed out.

more money staying in its own communities.

That's better but I'd put it differently.

The best argument is that our cities and towns have been built around the idea of local retail. We see adjustments over time, with the wave of suburban malls, big box stores and discounters built between 1960 and 2005, and the "back to the city" wave we're seeing now. But notice these are *intra-regional* adjustments, all still accessible by car or local transportation within a half hour's drive. Sucking all that retail business out of the region and sending that out to guys like Jeff Bezos is not good and has not been good. Well it's good for Seattle, terrible for all the local communities across the country.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[hedwards]

Yes, but the states had that right already as they weren't regulating interstate commerce with the taxation. They were taxing in and out of state retailers the same based upon where the items were being shipped to and the person buying the goods was the one being taxed.

The federal government is just stepping in to provide an enforcement mechanism that the states didn't have due to a lack of jurisdiction over the retailer.

The only change here is that the states will be paid for the money that they were supposed to be paid for because nobody bothered to keep track of it. Indeed it would be a crushing obligation as I'm not even sure how much I was supposed to pay as I'd have to go through however many transactions and add up all of the tax on there to report it to the state on a form that I don't even know where to find.

As for what about it is "unconstitutional" the answer is that it upsets RWNJs so it's clearly unconstitutional. Sometimes you have to read literally what the constitution says and other times you have to infer, whichever gives you what the RWNJs want.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[green1]

While I mostly agree with you, it's not quite that simple, and calculating the net environmental impact would be in fact a monstrous task.

When I order a widget from some guy in china, and he ships it to me directly, it will generally go air mail, if I go to the local walmart and buy the widget, it probably came in a container of widgets by sea and by train. both of which are far more efficient shipping methods than air. for the local part of the delivery you are correct, the UPS truck is probably more efficient than everyone driving to the store (not to mention the impact of having the store in the first place) however once you factor in the long haul shipping piecemeal instead of bulk and air instead of surface, it becomes less certain. And of course even the local part can't be certain because it varies on many factors, if the person is driving past the store anyway on their way home from work or whatnot, the environmental impact of stopping in to buy something is likely far less than the delivery truck making a special trip to their house. There are simply so many factors at play here.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you, only pointing out that it isn't really perfectly clear in either case.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Warhawke]

What you describe is mutually exclusive, and therein lies the problem. If it's a federal tax then it does fall under the purview of the Commerce Clause, which would make it legal although nevertheless a very bad idea, because it doesn't solve the alleged problem (i.e. states not able to recoup revenue). However, as you point out, that's not what is going on at all. The bill specifies that Amazon must conform to state and local tax laws which are attempting to tax Amazon based on sales to the state despite Amazon et al not being present within the state. This is definitively a tariff between states, taxing and price-restricting out-of-state goods to cause the market to favor domestic, in-state products, and is exactly what the Constitution prohibits because trade must remain free (as in liberty) between the states. If the federal government wanted to tax it as interstate commerce it very well could. The states, on the other hand, can only tax sales made within the state, and if the seller does not have an established presence within the state, then the sales occur in the other state where the business is domiciled.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

But it is NOT a federal tax. It is the federal government making retailers collect tax that the recipients of the goods should be declaring and paying as use tax (if their state has a sales tax).

Re: Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

The constitution most certainly does not "enumerate citizens and states rights", it defined federal power. The document it self states that it does not enumerate our rights through the 9th amendment. Really people did you learn nothing about our country in school.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

The Constitution was written to preserve a republic, not the environment.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Mashiki]

Screw the constitution. It is out of date, but people keep standing behind it trying to justify their stance.

I'm sure you feel that way about the 1st amendment too. And thus is the problem when people believe that founding documents are "living breathing" documents, instead of foundational.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

I drove to Target just to get some dinner plates. They were out of stock - not a single plate on the shelf. While walking out of the store I ordered some off of Amazon. They arrived 2 days later on my doorstep.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

Think of that word 'regulate' to mean 'make regular' instead of the modern definition of 'control every aspect'. Congress is authorized to fix issues like not being allowed to purchase health insurance from a provider outside of one's own state of residence. Congress is not authorized to redefine state tax laws, except in very specific cases.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Animats]

[The Congress shall have Power] To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;

Right. Regulating state taxes is well within the Commerce Clause. What states can't do by themselves is force other states to collect taxes for them.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Vlad_the_Inhaler]

That is not a problem which needs to be addressed now, yo! This discussion is also wandering off topic so I'll try and rope it back: The founding fathers screwed up in not considering internet commerce.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Grishnakh]

I'm not a lawyer, but the idea of forcing people to obey laws in jurisdictions other than where they're located seems wrong to me. How on earth is anyone supposed to figure out what the law is in tens of thousands of different jurisdictions across the country? It's impossible.

If they want to fix the sales tax "loophole", at the federal level, it's easy: pass a law requiring e-merchants to collect sales tax based on the merchant's physical location. That's already the way it is if you buy stuff in person: you dont pay sales tax based on your home address, you pay based on where the store is. Why should e-commerce be any different? Moreover, if you have some dispute with the tax authorities, it'd only be the authorities in your own state and locality, not some authorities 2500 miles away in some state and small town you've never heard of or visited before, and you'd go to your local courthouse to resolve the dispute, instead of being required to fly across the country to do so.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[subanark]

Some of the amendments (in addition to the original) have aged well over time, and I agree with mostly. Others I disagree with. Others still are simply irrelevant in today's time (like the 3rd). I won't let the decisions of past people define the proper way for civilization to be run. Any law, or guideline has a limit to how long it is relevant as long as society changes. In 100 years many of our laws work seem barbaric, short sighted and simply ones that can't be used in the light of changing technology.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[dryeo]

The first amendment is out of date. It needs to be extended with the word electronic as currently it seems that electronic papers aren't covered and many people seem to think it should have some exceptions added for things like child porn and national security. Currently it is disregarded in the above circumstances.
The second amendment needs to have "well regulated" better defined as that language has changed, same with arms and also why is it OK to have a blanket ban on a class of people owning arms, namely felons many of which are considered felons for reasons having nothing to do with abuse of arms, eg having smoked a joint many years previously .

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[lightknight]

Dude, give up while you still can. Grandparent has 'buy local' religion...you're essentially trying to convince the same kind of person who believes that vaccines cause autism that they might be wrong about something...

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[the eric conspiracy]

Did you even read the article??

Sens. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) and Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), the other lead Senate co-sponsors along with Durbin, argue the bill will actually protect states' rights. They note that it would not force any state to collect taxes, and argue that states that choose to tax online purchases could lower other rates.

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/295115-senate-poised-to-back-internet-sales-tax#ixzz2R8iOoOha

Personally I think the idea is very bad because it puts a business doing commerce between states open to audits from 50 jurisdictions.

However being a a bad idea is different from being unconstitutional.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[the eric conspiracy]

Poppycock.

Here is the definition of regulate from Samuel Johnson's Dictionary which was considered authoritative in 1755.

To Régulate. v.a. [regula, Lat.]

To adjust by rule or method.

Nature, in the production of things, always designs them to partake of certain, regulated, established essences, which are to be the models of all things to be produced: this, in that crude sense, would need some better explication. Locke.

To direct.

Regulate the patient in his manner of living. Wiseman.

Ev'n goddesses are women; and no wife
Has pow'r to regulate her husband's life. Dryden.

http://johnsonsdictionaryonline.com/?p=8802

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

The Constitution was not written with words and phrases having only the meaning stated in the dictionary. The Constitution is a governing document very similar to a power of attorney, and the phrases and terms used should first be considered from what the ratifiers considered them to mean. Another example is the Congressional power to "declare war". If we just look at the dictionary definitions of "declare", then we will not find what was meant by the phrase. However, if we review the ratification debates, then we find out exactly what the term meant to the ratifiers, and such is also the case with the commerce clause.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

Not the OP.

I run a small biz making unique items only available from me. They are made from materials I went to great lengths to source from local suppliers.

I sell these all over the world. Buying local isn't just for the end buyer.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

What you are proposing is taxation without representation. Taxing the recipient of the goods based on the seller's location, with the collected tax going to the seller's state, would result in the recipient paying tax into a jurisdiction that does not represent her/him. Taxing based on the location of the recipient of the goods, with the taxes going to the state of the recipient, would result in a transaction that would mimik a local purchase (the actual intent of Use Tax).

This isn't about knowing the law "in tens of thousands of different jurisdictions across the country". You only need to know the sales tax requirements in the approximately 9,600 different tax jurisdictions in the US. Not an easy task, but there are already companies that provide this specific service.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Grishnakh]

Taxing the recipient of the goods based on the seller's location, with the collected tax going to the seller's state, would result in the recipient paying tax into a jurisdiction that does not represent her/him.

So what? When I drive across the state line and buy stuff over there, the tax goes to that state, even though I'm not represented there. If I don't like it, I don't have to drive over there. It's no different with internet sales, except that instead of going there physically, I'm going there virtually.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget, even though it was airmailed, it wasn't the only thing on the plane, similar to your container of widgets. They just weren't all the same thing.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

Except it wont for the vast majority of us. Many of us buy our online goods due to selection more than for price.

And to be honest, Walmart has put most of the local options out of business at this point. My personal options for all but groceries is either Walmart or a 30 minute drive each way for a very limited selection and that is the Hope Mills / Fayetteville area near Fort Bragg which is very populated.

Even if I start paying taxes on it, I would still rather give my money to an online retailer than my local options. I work at the Walmart and after seeing how they treat their employees, I would rather give my money to an online retailer, a yard sale, or even a drug addict who stole from them before I give them my money. Only shop there when I have zero options due to time constraints.

Still doesn't help enough since anyone who pays taxes at this point effectively subsidizes Walmart due to their exploitation of Welfare and Tricare by the options they give their employees and their hiring practices.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[green1]

The issue wasn't that you are sending a plane for one item, but that a plane load of items is much less efficient than a ship load of items. and many of the items on the plane are in a similar situation, if more was shipped by sea than by air you'd need fewer planes making the regular runs.

Again, I'm not disagreeing with you, only pointing out that it's a much more complex calculation than your initial post made it sound. so complicated in fact that I doubt anyone has really done a complete calculation of it.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

Less gas wasted on shipping? Considering that the vast majority of consumer goods are not produced locally, how do they get to the local stores?

You're both kind of right and kind of wrong.

"On demand" shipping of goods works in the sense that it allows a much wider variety of goods. It's a good thing, but generally fuel inefficient in the sense that we could ship them for a lot cheaper using economies of scale.

Imagine shipping 200,000 rolls of toilet paper to a town. It's much more efficient to send the trucks with full loads (and hopefully full loads of something out) and have people stop at the store to pick up the toilet paper (and whatever other goods they need) then it is to ship 200,000 rolls of toilet paper at random times direct to their houses. And customers get their toilet paper faster anyway.

So which approach works best really depends on the good in question. That random t-shirt you found on the internet? More efficient to ship as a one-off. Toilet paper, milk, eggs? Bulk shipping makes more sense in terms of fuel.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[multiplexo]

The Constitution was not written with words and phrases having only the meaning stated in the dictionary. The Constitution is a governing document very similar to a power of attorney, and the phrases and terms used should first be considered from what the ratifiers considered them to mean.

Cool story bro. Tell us, who died and left made you the authoritative scholar as to what the original intent of the founders was. Do you have access to the same Magickal Jeezus Originalist Dictionary of Constutional intent that Antonin Scalia does?

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[multiplexo]

Wrong libertarian douchetard. Read Article I, section 10.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly. That's the problem with the second amendment arguments in governmental meetings. They've tried to bring it down to comma placement... Just realize its setting the sentence up and finishing it, nothing more.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[BitZtream]

The 'vast' majority of consumer goods are FOOD, and they ARE produced locally for all sane environments. Norther exposures tend to depend on more shipped food, but the further south you go, the less is required. Anything below the mason-dixon line doesn't NEED any food shipped in, those shipping is what keeps your market full of vegis from all different environment types all year round.

A single McDonalds goes through FAR more truckloads of product than most Walmarts will (superstores and such being a little different. obviously)

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[BitZtream]

Do you want to walk to work because you have no infrastructure to get there or telecommute on?

Thats what this is about. I'm sorry you're too dense to see the bigger picture here, but Amazon, Ebay and their ilk are exploiting a bug in tax law that wasn't an issue before the Internet.

It is now, it has to be addressed or you will not be able to have shit shipped to your door because their won't be a god damn road or cops to prevent the UPS man from just selling your shit out of the back of his truck.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[BitZtream]

In 30 years of working and running businesses, I have never been audited in business. I was once audited for personal income tax by the feds though. Made several thousand dollars in the deal as I had over paid, but that was an odd case of course.

To pretend that its a hassle is dishonest at best. Thats an even bigger bullshit excuse than 'collecting different ammounts for different states is hard' when you're using a fucking computer to sell millions and millions of random crap items on the internet.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

Precisely. What happens to goods that aren't needed where they are shipped to? Mail-order goods probably waste less gas, room and time than the goods delivered to stores in bulk. The only other difference seems to be that physical sorting of goods is done by the store that ships the items instead of customer walking around in store and picking items up.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[aztracker1]

Except, there are clearly provisions to amend/change the constitution... so do it.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[the eric conspiracy]

You have presented no source material to refute the authoritative source I provided that completely blew away your ridiculous claim as to the meaning of regulate in the late 18th century.

You haven't got a leg to stand on.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

the constitution of the US sucks.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[RGladiator]

Not entirely true. When I buy a car I get charged taxes based on where my address is, not where I'm buying. Going to a nearby city with a lower tax rate doesn't work. I haven't tried across state lines but at least in state I always pay local taxes on cars.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe he thinks shipping companies make a special trip for each package recipient... hand delivered on a rose petal bed nestled in purple velvet pillows in the back of a royal carriage!

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Grishnakh]

Ok, so why is this, and why is this not the case when I buy groceries, or a drink at a coffee shop, or just about anything else? No one asks me where my home address is when I buy stuff like that.

And how exactly does the car dealership figure out your tax anyway? What if your house lies immediately over the city line, and some municipal tax doesn't apply to you but it applies to everyone on the opposite side of the street as you? What if you're an Indian and members of your tribe aren't subject to a particular sales tax, but your non-tribe-member roomates are subject to that tax?

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

But you shouldn't be allowed to sell those all over the world, as you are hurting local business elsewhere. You selfish bastard you - how dare you attempt to sell outside of your local area and thus hurt others.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[TechnoJoe]

If they want to fix the sales tax "loophole", at the federal level, it's easy: pass a law requiring e-merchants to collect sales tax based on the merchant's physical location.

Except your proposal can be construed as an export tax, which is expressly prohibited by the constitution.

This "loophole" isn't a bug; it's a feature. The founding fathers foresaw that taxes might get too high in one state. These constitutional restrictions enable people to buy goods from a state with lower taxes, which in supposed to force tax competition between states and help keep taxes low.

Honestly, the taxation is completely backward. There should be a federal sales tax (instead of income tax), and states should tax income (instead of sales). Why? Because you can buy your goods from anywhere (federal), but you have to live somewhere (state). The inherent nature of what is being taxed on what level can resolve all the jurisdiction issues.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that it's not always so clear where a merchant is based. Do you calculate based on where the corporate headquarters are (in which case you'll see a lot of online merchants based in the Cayman islands)? The location of the fulfillment center that actually ships the item? The location of the nearest physical office to the customer?

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Grishnakh]

Except your proposal can be construed as an export tax, which is expressly prohibited by the constitution.

Except that we already have this "export tax": if I drive across the state line to a higher-tax state and buy loaf of bread there, and bring it back home with me, I've done the exact same thing as if I ordered it online, except that I just paid a (higher) sales tax to that state instead of my own.

This "loophole" isn't a bug; it's a feature. The founding fathers foresaw that taxes might get too high in one state. These constitutional restrictions enable people to buy goods from a state with lower taxes, which in supposed to force tax competition between states and help keep taxes low.

Yes, which is exactly why many people drive across state lines to buy stuff. Southern Washington residents regularly drive across a bridge to Portland to buy stuff because there's no sales tax in Oregon. It should be the same for internet sales. Of course, those WA residents are supposed to pay a "use tax", but of course none do, and the state doesn't bother enforcing it because it's too much trouble and expense, and plus, they're getting those peoples' income taxes instead, as someone else here pointed out.

If we're going to make some big change for cross-state sales taxes, it needs to apply equally to both internet merchants and to brick-and-mortar merchants. This means that merchants, anywhere, even some small mom-n-pop business in Smalltown MO, need to see proof of all customers' addresses, and charge them sales tax based on their home address, even if it's a total PITA to do so. Otherwise, the B&M retailers are getting an unfair advantage. If we can't do this, then this internet tax scheme needs to be thrown out and we should stick with the way things are now.

Honestly, the taxation is completely backward. There should be a federal sales tax (instead of income tax), and states should tax income (instead of sales). Why? Because you can buy your goods from anywhere (federal), but you have to live somewhere (state). The inherent nature of what is being taxed on what level can resolve all the jurisdiction issues.

Sounds good to me. Of course, it'd require a Constitutional Amendment or two.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Grishnakh]

As I've said before here several times in other postings, since the real furor is not about Amazon having trouble figuring tax properly (since they have the resources to handle this), but about small internet merchants dealing with these taxes. Some mom-n-pop internet site selling fishing lures (for example) with 4 employees (Mom, Pop, and two kids) operating out of their home is not going to have the resources to deal with thousands of different tax locales, figuring out if fishing lures are taxable in some town 1500 miles away where they've made a special tax exemption for fishing lures, etc. Small businesses don't have multiple locations.

Anyway, for the big ones, they'd just have to figure out a way to handle that and make it somewhat fair. My proposal is to base it on where all the company's employees are located within the US. First off, ignore any foreign locations like the Caymans, and only consider their US operations (which will in effect make it not profitable for them to move stuff offshore). Then, just total up their US employee count, then figure the tax based on where those employees work (office, warehouse, etc.), then figure the tax by proportion. So, for a simpler example, suppose a company has 400 employees, with 300 of them in a NYC office in Midtown (where the sales tax is high, let's say it's 10% for this example to make things easy), and 100 of them in a warehouse in Oregon (where there's zero sales tax). So, 75% of their employees are in the 10% tax jurisdiction, and 25% are in the 0% jurisdiction. So, the tax they have to charge all their customers is 7.5%. Obviously, this will make it advantageous to move as many employees as possible to low- or no-tax locales, which is fine with me, but just as tech companies are still largely located in high-tax and high-CoL Silicon Valley, and finance and advertising and web companies are largely located in high-tax and high-CoL NYC, large internet retailers aren't going to be able to easily move all their operations to OR, AK, DE, NH, and MT. OR is the only state in that list with any significant tech presence, and even then it's not that large.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[IndustrialComplex]

I don't think you quite grasp what the Constitution is, and why suggesting that it be ignored as times change, rather than changing it to match the times is so naive and dangerous of a suggestion that I'm not even sure where to begin. (I rewrote this sentence three times just trying to grok the implications of your statement)

The Constitution isn't a law which may or may not have aged well over the centuries, it is the document which authorizes the existence of the US government itself. To leave the authorization for exercise of power up to a mutable interpretation (an interpretation developed by the government itself) without the conscent of the governed is the closest thing I've heard to someone saying, "Yeah, whatever the government decides to do is just, because it decided to do it."

The document is hard to change because any change is likely to have massive implications for both citizens and the rest of humanity.

An analogy would be someone taking it upon themself to make modifications to the Safety Procedures and work authorization process at a factory. Perhaps he felt it was completely unnecessary for someone to have to get approval from plant operations before modifying any structure. It was just a small hole being cut in some drywall. Except right behind that drywall was a chemical line. He cut through it, killed himself within 4s, the guy next to him within 2 hours, and caused a 1kilometer evacuation around the plant. All because he felt it was too outdated and time consuming to get proper approval for his action.

Sometimes, the difficulty in changing something is intentional because people's lives depend on that change not screwing something up through unintended consequences.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

And people like you are exactly why the Constitution exists. Your impotent rage pleases me.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[IndustrialComplex]

pass a law requiring e-merchants to collect sales tax based on the merchant's physical location.

I like it, but that's very tricky.

I incorporate in Delaware. I host my website in Delaware. You purchase from my site hosted in Delaware. I collect Delaware sales tax (0%). The item ships from a warehouse in some state other than Delaware.

The net result of your law is that you would have many corporations (and a LOT already do) incorporating or just making shell companies to setup a 'presence' in Delaware.

Granted, that's pretty much what happens now (and similar with regard to things like credit companies shopping for favorable laws).

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Grishnakh]

As I said in some other posts here, I think the law would have to make sure to apply some simple rules to prevent this kind of thing, such as basing it on where the employees are located. If all the employees work in NY, then NY state tax applies. If half work in NY and half in DE, then the tax charged could be half of NY's tax, and remitted to NY. If half the employees are in NY and half in NJ, and NY and NJ taxes are the same (they're not, but let's assume so for this example), then regular NY/NJ tax is charged, and half is remitted to each state for each sale. For small companies, compliance would be easy; they'd just charge the tax at their one physical location, and would only have to remit to a single tax authority. For bigger companies, they'd have to determine where all their employees are working, what the tax rates there are, and what the total proportional tax rate would be, and would have to send out multiple checks, but even so it'd only be a handful of tax authorities (and locations) for most companies, and would be far simpler than figuring tax in tens of thousands of different places and remitting checks to them all.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

Except sales tax is levied against the customer and collected by the merchant. There are recouping mechanisms for sales tax paid to non-resident states. Just like there is use tax for uncollected sales tax.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Mashiki]

The first amendment is out of date. It needs to be extended with the word electronic as currently it seems that electronic papers aren't covered and many people seem to think it should have some exceptions added for things like child porn and national security.

If the constitution was treated as foundational instead of "living breathing" as so many left-leaning folks like to believe, you wouldn't be having this problem with the terminology. In turn, the 1st amendment would hold, and individual laws would then in turn be created. I.e. national security exception, and child porn. In turn cases would be argued against/for in merit in court against said laws. This is what we do up in Canada with the Charter of Right and Freedoms, this is not what you do in the US. In the US, you argue against the 1st amendment in turn twist the meaning from literal to legalese, with a myriad of interpretations.

The same holds true with the second amendment.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you think the container ships from China are sailing ships ? No they use fuel. So with your logic maybe we should stop importing goods. The fact is that most of these large corporations complaining have on line stores plus they sell on ebay and Amazon. They are pushing this law so that they can force undue burden on their competition. Since most of these large retailers already have locations in every state in the US then by current law they have to collect sales taxes. My company collects sales taxes for all sales that we make to customers in the state where we are located as does most companies because it is the law. We don't need more laws. It is unfair and unjust to expect a company that does not have a location in your state to collect sales taxes for you. What's next should we make all the people that have yard sales pay sales taxes and all the kids with lemonade stands pay sales taxes.
These large retailers are campaign contributors to these law makers and they have lobbyist to push their agenda. Why don't we really look out for small business for a change and leave them alone so they can prosper and create more jobs for Americans.

Pest1

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

What is exactly "unconstitutional" about this idea?

It's actually quite simple. Let me give you an example to help you understand (a "thought experiment" for the physics types in the audience). Suppose you live near the border of some government jurisdiction. It doesn't even have to be a state border: cities and counties can have sales tax. Suppose the sales tax on the far side of the border is zero (or even just lower then the tax where you live). Suppose further that you can travel 5 minutes to the far side of the border to buy goods, but you have to travel one hour to buy goods within your jurisdiction.

Note that I do not mention the word "Internet" once in the above description.

Now answer the following questions:

1. Would you make most of your purchases at the stores within 5 minutes travel, or those 1 hour away?
2. Does the government where you live have the right to tax purchases made on the far side of the border?

The simple answer to the first is, "YES, OBVIOUSLY", and the to the second question the answer is a resounding "NO!". To have such a tax, the government would be able to require you to keep track of EVERY purchase you make, and how much sales tax was paid on the purchase, in order to correctly determine how much tax was owed. Naturally, in the event of an audit, you would need to provide the government with detailed information on every purchase made, including the items purchased.

It gets worse. They would need to track your movement throughout the year, in order to catch people that didn't accurately report purchases. It might come down to "May I see your papers, please, citizen?", or perhaps it would be more efficient to simply implant devices in everyone to help monitor purchases, catch terrorists, and save the children.

It gets worse. When I use the words "they" or "the government", this is overly simplistic. Most folks live in multiple government jurisdictions at the same time (such as city, county, state), so potentially you would have to properly report purchases and taxes to each of these multiple governments, each potentially with its own set of rules.

It gets worse. The sales tax laws in some jurisdictions can be very complex, and change from year to year. Dealing with this complexity is one of the most hated tasks for small business owners who travel in the course of business. You'll get to experience this joy as well, should you travel outside your home jurisdiction. For example, is that t-shirt you buy as a souvenir at a national park subject to federal or state or city or county tax, or all at once? What if some items are not subject to sales tax within one jurisdiction, but they are in another?

Do you see how this sort of thing -- inherently and unavoidably -- leads to massive violations of fundamental rights?

People in a free country have lots of fundamental rights not explicitly stated in the US Constitution, such as a right to privacy, a right to travel, a right to not have their time wasted by the government, a right to not be subject to excessive bureaucracy, and so forth. These fundamental rights arise in US law under the 9th Amendment (rights retained by the people), and the 10th Amendment (rights reserved to the people). Both amendments were written in the form that they were by James Madison to deal with the objections made by the Anti-Federalists to the Constitution, some of the most damning of which being that a) it had no Bill of Rights, and b) any specific Bill of Rights would necessarily be incomplete. Being a rather clever fellow, Madison simply made the Bill of Rights "open-ended", by denying government the ability to infringe various unspecified rights, which could then be specified later (kind of like a "fill-in-the-blanks" Bill of Rights, with the people -- not the government, not the lawyers, not the judges -- filling in the blanks).

A number of high court decisions have recognized the authority of rights not explicitly stated in the Constitution, b

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

1. Wal-Mart is not the only warehouse-based operation. Many of the items sold through non-local companies such as Amazon come from warehouses. These warehouses typically benefit MORE from bulk shipping methods than local Wal-Marts, as they can be more adventagously located (near ports or rail heads). Thus, purchases made from these sources have an environmental advantage with respect to BOTH local and bulk shipping.

2. The situation where an individual orders an item direct from China (or makes other long distance orders not going through a warehouse) is relatively rare, and as such, will be swamped in the statistics by the more common purchases. To see this, look at lists of best selling items ...

3. The presence of local stores creates traffic congestion in many cases. The ability to just "stop in on the way home" can have environment consequences in itself.

4. Don't neglect the environmental impact of all the driving accidents associated with local shopping traffic...

5. Think about the traffic levels in the USA from Black Friday through Christmas, and the MANY negative consequences of this traffic, if you want a graphic example to highlight the impact of local shopping on the environment.

There's really little doubt that, for many classes of goods, the long distance sellers do far less damage to the environment than the local sellers.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[dryeo]

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is quite different from the American Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is very definite, eg Congress will make no law (States were allowed) whereas in Canada when the Charter was being debated it was pointed out that a similar document would allow child porn and hate speech, so section one was written,

1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

This is the part that allows exceptions such as national security, hate laws and such and something that the American constitutional literalists do not believe in, except when its their pet cause.
You see it all the time on here, Americans, usually right wingers with libertarian tendencies going on about how everything would be great if the government followed the constitution, usually with a very rigid interpretation.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps you should study some legal history. Using "the law" and "some simple rules" in the same sentence shows a massive misconception regarding how things actually work. There will always be very smart, very clever, and entirely amoral folks that are going to look for loopholes, not to mention that lawyers don't really have any interest in a simple legal system (not good for their business).

In this case, businesses will simply amalgamate in such a way as to have lots of low paid employees in jurisdictions with low taxes ...

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

Ignorance of the law is no excuse... it's an inevitability:
it's already flatout impossible to know the law in any jurisdiction I know of, there's simply to much of it.
Worse even: new law (even excluding case law) is being generated at a rate higher then any one person can consume.

Something has to break sooner or later, the entire situation is ridiculus (respect for the law? HA! One doesn't respect absurdities, one laughs at them)

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Grishnakh]

Perhaps you should study some legal history. Using "the law" and "some simple rules" in the same sentence shows a massive misconception regarding how things actually work. There will always be very smart, very clever, and entirely amoral folks that are going to look for loopholes, not to mention that lawyers don't really have any interest in a simple legal system (not good for their business).

Yes, of course I realize all this. I was describing the way I think things should be done. I don't believe in making laws complicated. Just because we stupidly continue to elect people that believe otherwise isn't going to change my opinion on that, or make me propose ridiculously complex laws to "fit in".

In this case, businesses will simply amalgamate in such a way as to have lots of low paid employees in jurisdictions with low taxes ...

And what's the problem with that? If the high-tax states don't like it, they're free to lower their taxes to be competitive. Meanwhile, lots of people in the low-tax states will have gainful employment, which in this economy is a good thing.

Re:Unconstitutional as heck

[Anonymous Coward]

That is not a problem which needs to be addressed now, yo! This discussion is also wandering off topic so I'll try and rope it back: The founding fathers screwed up in not considering tax free internet commerce.

FTFY

Of all the issues facing this country right now

[ganjadude]

this is what Harry Reid decides to push through the senate for a vote? There are dozens of other issues that should be addressed before the senate even considers something like this.

Re:Of all the issues facing this country right now

[Anonymous Coward]

Such as background checks for gun transactions?

Re:Of all the issues facing this country right now

[ganjadude]

that, passing a budget is another good one that is higher on the list

Re:Of all the issues facing this country right now

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder if revenue-related bills like this have anything to do with figuring out a budget?

Re:Of all the issues facing this country right now

[the eric conspiracy]

They have already passed a budget.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324103504578377843045138904.html

Destruction

[DNS-and-BIND]

The power to tax is the power to destroy. Thank you, US Congress, for rescuing me from the evils of convenient online ordering. Because we all know that the government will spend this new revenue wisely, and not at all immediately squander it buying votes and then borrow against 10 years of future revenue and squander that too. Eh, as long as the correct party keeps getting elected.

Re:Destruction

[iggymanz]

don't forget spending it on our chief exports, death and maiming and tools for same.

Re:Destruction

[hedwards]

What are you talking about? This doesn't change anything. You were supposed to be paying that tax anyways, if you live in a state with sales and use taxes. All this does is make it so that your state and local governments get the taxes they're owed.

If you don't like this, then push your officials to change over to an income tax from a sales tax.

Re:Destruction

[Anonymous Coward]

Many states have both an income and a sales tax. Mine has both. Counties often have sales taxes as well as do cities. Sometimes special districts like water districts, rapid transit districts, etc. also add on .25% here and .5% there to the sales taxes.

Re:Destruction

[Anonymous Coward]

Missing the point, if the GGP poster doesn't like online transactions being taxed, then the legislature would have to change to an alternative revenue stream. You can't not have sales tax and have a combination sales and income tax system.

Re:Destruction

[multiplexo]

Then why don't you leave America, Libertarian douchetard? Go Galt and head off to magickal libertarian Jesus freemarketopia where there is no evil government to tax and destroy. At the very least you should give up on using the internet, which was developed by the Department of Defense and resolve to never again use GPS or to drive on public roads or highways or to use any other service provided by government since every time you do so you are implicitly giving them consent to pay for these services with taxes.

Re:Destruction

[BitZtream]

Explain ... without being a nut job (too late) how this makes it any more difficult for you to buy something online.

Walmart online collects sales tax. Amazon doesn't. They work THE EXACT SAME. How exactly are you losing anything other than the money you were ALREADY RESPONSIBLE FOR to the IRS?

The only effect this has on you is that it won't allow you to commit fraud when you file your taxes at the end of the year and claim you don't owe additional taxes.

This actually makes it EASIER ON YOU as you ARE NO LONGER RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING THE TAX YOURSELF, AS YOU ARE REQUIRED BY LAW CURRENTLY.

Again, how does this make it harder?

Re:Destruction

[Anonymous Coward]

So many fallacies... let me help you with a few:

• Magic contracts (no, using a provided service is not consent to anything)
• Love it or leave it (no, you leave, and take the other infringing fucktards with you)
• The state did that (no it didn't, and past extortion doesn't create an obligation)

Glad to educate.

I need quim

[Anonymous Coward]

I need pussy. Even nigger pussy will do. Thankse.

Re:I need quim

[roman_mir]

With attitude like that
all you are going to get
is nigger dick.

Re:I need quim

[Anonymous Coward]

There's lots of free pussy at the animal shelter.

Why Bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

The government spends whatever amount it wants to anyways. If the spending is greater than the amount of taxes, the rest just goes to a magical fairy land called "National Debt" which the government says it's concerned about but has no intention to ever pay.

Re:Why Bother?

[roman_mir]

They have to keep pretending that they have a 'strong dollar policy'.

Re:Why Bother?

[peragrin]

One day in the next decade or two that policy will start to collapse and drag the rest of the country into a hole.

The USA is already in default. Every time they modify Social Security benefits they are saying they failed to plan properly and are declaring default to address the issue.

Re:Why Bother?

[rhodium_mir]

The dollar is strong if you measure its value relative to something useless like gold--increasing 30% since 2011. Of course nobody wants to face the facts and compare it to something with INTRINSIC VALUE like rhodium or palladium, but that's just because everyone but me and you are idiots.

Re:Why Bother?

[Anonymous Coward]

Rhodium? Palladium? The value of these are driven by the UNCONSTITUTIONAL MANDATE that cars have catalytic converters for emissions CONTROL. Before the 1970s and JIMMY CARTER demand for both of those metals was ALMOST ZERO.

Now, tantalum, on the other hand, that's something with intrinsic value.

Next Question

[Anonymous Coward]

What's Delaware doing these days?

Re:Next Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Playing golf and being a state. The usual.

Keep the taxes coming!

[Anonymous Coward]

I already "donate" enough of my paycheck to you fucking people in one way or another.

Re:Keep the taxes coming!

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't know that Mitt Romney participated on Slashdot. Welcome! Sorry for all the "parasites" here who pay ore taxes than you do. They are just "takers", working 60 hours a week and all. We know that the real "makers" ship jobs overseas, invest in the Cayman Islands and have elevators for their cars in their mansions. Forgive us rabble for causing you so much trouble oh great one.

Re:Keep the taxes coming!

[letherial]

I am not sure your argument, but the way you say 'you fucking people' makes me think a few things

1. you pay alot of taxes and you assume it just goes to everyone else
2. you have the ability to leave the country.

So if 'you fucking people' are USA citizens, your answer is to leave the country. Dont worry, nobody is going to cry cause your .0001 cents is missing from what ever those fucking people are using it for.

School system, Roads, tax breaks, electricity?

[rsilvergun]

Heck, then there's that whole internet thing. Practically everything businesses use is heavily subsidized by the gov't, especially big guys like Amazon & Ebay. It's just done in an indirect manner. Amazon pays their warehouse workers poorly and lets the gov't pick up the slack in the form of Earned Income Credit, childcare services, etc (same as Walmart actually).

Capitalism is for the poor my friend.

Re:School system, Roads, tax breaks, electricity?

[green1]

What part of the government picking up the slack is capitalism?

Re:School system, Roads, tax breaks, electricity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, I guess somebody didn't read their Adam Smith.

Re:School system, Roads, tax breaks, electricity?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does anyone take this communistic crap seriosly?

Re:School system, Roads, tax breaks, electricity?

[green1]

Government intervention in this case is socialism, not capitalism.

Whether for, or against, is irrelevant, but if we are arguing these things let's make sure we use the correct terms. It could be argued that without the socialist handouts that these people would starve and that should be avoided, (the socialist solution) or it could be argued that without those socialist handouts the people would not accept the lower wages and wages would go up as people refused to work at the lower wages (the capitalist solution)

In this post I will not advocate for one solution over the other, however we do ourselves an extreme disservice if we do not even recognize which is which.

Government regulation and services are by definition the opposite of free market capitalism. That doesn't make them good or bad, it simply is something one should keep in mind when advocating on either side of the issue.

If you think we need more capitalism and less socialism, don't advocate for more government interference.
If you think we need less capitalism and more socialism, don't advocate for less government interference.

Re:School system, Roads, tax breaks, electricity?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the capitalism that people want. Especially banks, manufacturers, energy industry, et al, who regularly have the government "picking up the slack".

Re:School system, Roads, tax breaks, electricity?

[Anonymous Coward]

All else being very true, Amazon does not pay their warehouse workers too poorly.

So if we use Bitcoin what sales tax?

[elucido]

Does the Internet sales tax only apply to those who use USD?

Re:So if we use Bitcoin what sales tax?

[green1]

Considering that taxes officially apply even to barter transactions (not that anyone ever declares them), and especially considering that there was another recent article on here talking about how bitcoin is now subject to many of the same regulations as normal currency (like reporting transactions over a set dollar threshold) then yes. this does.

Of course some currencies and transactions are easier to hide than others, but that doesn't make it legal, only likely.

You don't actually

[rsilvergun]

did you know that most states let businesses keep the money you withhold for state taxes? Why do you think all the states started doing mandatory withholding all a sudden?

You're a victim of trickle down economics, not taxation. Your "Job Creators" done got you good.

Way to boost revenue

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a way to boost revenue without the tea baggers going ape shit. Most of those old people won't even notice it because they still shop at Sears and JC Penny.

Gotta pay for Medicare and the other wealth transfer to the old people.

Here's a better idea:

[Ichijo]

Don't. Every state already has the power to equalize internet and local sales taxes, by abolishing its local sales tax.

The sales tax is regressive and discourages commerce. Because this goes contrary to the welfare and commerce clauses of the U.S. Constitution, the federal government should be actively discouraging the use of a sales tax, not encouraging it.

Further, the sales tax encourages cities to offer incentives to big-box stores and give them a competitive advantage over small businesses. On the other hand, a property tax encourages cities to make land-use decisions that increase property values. I would rather have higher property values in my city than more Wal-Marts, wouldn't you?

Re:Here's a better idea:

[Anonymous Coward]

I would rather have higher property values in my city than more Wal-Marts, wouldn't you?

More Walmarts will bring jobs.

Your $60k house that you paid $415k for because of "property value" does not bring jobs. No, calling the plumber once every five years does not help the economy.

I'll take the Walmarts, thanks. Can we also get a Sam's Club? I fear the juggernaut that is Costco is getting too complacent.

Re:Here's a better idea:

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is "increased property values" desired as an end in itself? All it does is raise the barrier between the property-owning class and the renting class.

Re:Here's a better idea:

[Ichijo]

More Walmarts will bring jobs.

Will a Wal-Mart bring more prosperity per dollar of incentives than a non-Walmart retailer?

Your $60k house that you paid $415k for...

Who pays $415k for a $60k house? People pay $60k for a house they value at $60k, and $415k for a house they value at $415k.

Re:Here's a better idea:

[Ichijo]

If I were a renter looking to buy, I would be looking at neighborhoods whose property values are rising, not at those whose property values are lower but not rising.

Re:Here's a better idea:

[Ksevio]

I think he's saying the house costs $60k to build, but because of the land value it costs $415k to buy. The same house in the middle of no where would be a different value.

Re:Here's a better idea:

[betterprimate]

More Walmarts will bring jobs.

Sure, they'll bring jobs. They KILL far more jobs by killing off local infrastructure.

I certainly don't want to settle in a township dependent upon foreign imports. Not simply for the lack of culture, but lack of local infrastructure. As a township, you've already dug your grave.

Re:Here's a better idea:

[lightknight]

Not going to happen. The likelihood of Congress passing up a chance to extend a tax is about the same as them passing up a chance to let themselves off the hook for insider trading. Which was cute, by the way...amazing the lack of debate, and pure speed with which that bill was apparently passed into law.

Re:Here's a better idea:

[Anonymous Coward]

I would look at those that have rents that I can afford, and rents generally vary directly with property values (when they don't, that's how you can tell you're in a housing bubble).

Re:Here's a better idea:

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it is more likely the house was bought for 415k during the housing bubble and is now valued at 60k.

Could go both ways though.

Re:Here's a better idea:

[BitZtream]

Yes.

A non-walmart retailer will have high prices and pay the same minimum wage.

Who pays $415k for a $60k house? People pay $60k for a house they value at $60k, and $415k for a house they value at $415k.

Almost everyone who buys a 400k+ house. There are really few houses in America that justify hundreds of thousands of dollars in price. In fact, in my experience, the more expensive the house, the shittier the quality actually turns out to be once you break a certain point.

A 60k house in my neighborhood would be a million dollar mansion NYC. Doesn't mean its actually worth million, but people would be happy to pay it. Houses cost what you can con someone into paying, they are in no way valued at actual worth or construction cost and haven't been in at least 40 years in any city I've seen. Rural is probably a lot closer to reality but I've been stuck in cities too much recently to assume thats the same as it always has been.

My house now costs under 200k, it is about twice as larger as a house I can buy in florida for 35k, and again, that house from florida, if in NYC would go for a half a mil EASY. On paper the house is close to the same size as the 35k counts spaces that I consider 'unlivable' but in reality its got about half the living space.

None of those prices are in any way fixed to the cost of building the house, as I assure you, that 35k house did not cost 35k to build, nor did mine, and nor does any of the ridiculously priced crap you find in overpopulated cities (the over population is WHY the prices are so skewed)

Re:Here's a better idea:

[Anonymous Coward]

Your $60k house that you paid $415k for because of "property value" does not bring jobs. No, calling the plumber once every five years does not help the economy.

Do you have any idea how much work it is to keep a typical house going? This often comes as a shock to those who are insulated from the real world by dwelling in apartments or college dorms. There are MANY things that require work, most of these require purchases, many of these also require professional skills, which the average person will have to pay for.

Even those that "do-it-themselves" may end up spending just as much on tools (not to mention the loss of otherwise productive time) as they would have spent getting it done professionally.

Budgeting 3-4% of the house's value per year for maintenance is a reasonable start, but many houses will far exceed this (even new houses require a budget, as you'll have to eventually replace those pricey items such as the furnace).

For a $415k house, 3% is $12,450 -- far more then most Walmart customers spend in a year. For a new house owner, average amounts are typically $4k-$9k higher (see nahb.org for details) than for those with existing houses.

On top of maintenance, you might want to consider that building codes often implement MINIMUM standards for the era in which they are created. For older houses the standards may -- today -- be viewed as greatly inadequate in terms of safety or environmental considerations, so if you want to live in a safe house, or be an environmentally conscious citizen, well, you'll be spending more money. Not something the average apartment dweller thinks about, perhaps.

Guess who gets most of this money? I won't claim it all goes to local folks. However, on average half the cost of work is labor, so quite a bit will go to the local contractors (creating jobs). More of this will go to the local professional supply houses (who employ local people, thus creating more jobs), and the big box stores (more jobs).

Don't forget that house ownership creates a demand for "do-it-yourself" classes, which somebody has to teach (still more jobs). It also creates demand for the services of insurance agents, real estate agents, brokers, title companies, inspectors, appraisers, lawyers (all more jobs). In short, that $415k house is bringing more jobs to the local economy than you realize.

Smarten up

[fnj]

The title of the summary is STUPID and most of the commenters have absolutely no clue whatsoever what this is. It's not an "internet sales tax", guys. It is simply legilation which would ALLOW the states to collect state sales tax on purchases made via the web, just as they do on other purchases. It doesn't mandate that any state has to do it. It just removes a barrier that currently exists, whereby no state may enlist and compel the services of internet sellers to collect that state's sales tax for them. It doesn't give the FEDS any additional power to collect any new federal tax whatsoever.

Most or all states already require their own taxpayers to volunteer purchases they made out of state, by WHATEVER means, and cough up the sales tax for same on their tax return. Of course only about one millionth of taxpayers are sucker enough to so volunteer. All this does is make payment unavoidable by burdening the red tape and collection on the sellers.

I am entirely against the measure, on various grounds, but come on, let's at least realize what this is.

Re:Smarten up

[phantomfive]

It is simply legilation which would ALLOW the states to collect state sales tax on purchases made via the web, just as they do on other purchases.

Wait, what barrier currently exists? Because California already collects taxes for purchases made via the web. It's called the Use Tax, and there's a space on your 540A tax form to fill it in.

Re:Smarten up

[Anonymous Coward]

Most or all states already require their own taxpayers to volunteer purchases they made out of state

That is what I am concerned about. I really don't mind paying taxes but I really don't want to pay sales tax to TWO states and potentially a municipality, all with post income tax dollars. That scenario could potentially take some people from 100 dollars in salary to ~53 dollars in purchasing power.

Re:Smarten up

[JoeyRox]

fnj writes "It's not an 'internet sales tax', guys. It is simply legilation which would ALLOW the states to collect state sales tax on purchases made via the web, just as they do on other purchases."

I see, it's not an internet sales tax but instead a way to allow states to collect sales tax on purchases made via the web. The distinction is clear to me now, thanks. :good grief

Re:Smarten up

[stenvar]

All this does is make payment unavoidable by burdening the red tape and collection on the sellers.

That seems like a good thing if you think "Amazon". It doesn't seem like such a good thing if you think "mom-and-pop business" or "part-time open source hardware hacker". They now need to deal with dozens of different states' tax laws and regulations.

The fact that Amazon backs this tax shows you that they view it as a great way of protecting them from competition by creating barriers to entry.

Re:Smarten up

[Anonymous Coward]

It is simply legilation which would ALLOW the states to collect state sales tax on purchases made via the web, just as they do on other purchases.

Wait, what barrier currently exists? Because California already collects taxes for purchases made via the web.

It's called the Use Tax, and there's a space on your 540A tax form to fill it in.

Ah but it's voluntary. So of course people being people will at 99,99% not fill the space on the 540A tax form. Closing this loophole and making it mandatory to collect the tax at the level of the seller is all good. People can't evade legitimate tax and the State gets income it should have had and not being subject to the "honesty" of the buyer.

Re:Smarten up

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh please what $100 sales app doesn't support tax computation for every state. In a world where 5 years carry around computers more powerful than those on the space shuttle, the argument about burdens on small business doesn't hold water.

Re:Smarten up

[phantomfive]

It's not voluntary. If you buy a sufficient amount of goods across the border, don't pay Use Tax, and California finds out about it, you will understand what involuntary means.

Re:Smarten up

[Anonymous Coward]

If mom and pop have less than $1 million a year in internet sales, they won't have to collect sales tax.

Re:Smarten up

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not voluntary. If you buy a sufficient amount of goods across the border, don't pay Use Tax, and California finds out about it, you will understand what involuntary means.

I thinks it's you that doesn't understand what voluntary means. Right now you have the choice to write down your out of state purchases on the 520A tax form. Every choice comes with consequences. In this case IF the State finds out you lied on your tax form well it's going to be shit. But this doesn't invalidate the fact that YOU chose wether or not to be honest about your purchases. After all IF the State doesn't find out you've being lying there are no penalties for you.
In the future, you simply won't have a choice. You make an out of state purchase, the State automatically (as in not subjet to your morality) gets its tax income.
Get it now ?

Re:Smarten up

[CrimsonAvenger]

They now need to deal with dozens of different states' tax laws and regulations.

More likely thousands - I can think of a dozen tax districts within 30 miles of where I'm sitting without even making a real effort...

Re:Smarten up

[phantomfive]

That's basically the dumbest definition of voluntary anyone has every come up with. Voluntary doesn't mean, "I can do it even though it's against the law."

Re:Smarten up

[Anonymous Coward]

That's basically the dumbest definition of voluntary anyone has every come up with. Voluntary doesn't mean, "I can do it even though it's against the law."

Seriously ? You're just mirror climbing at this stage.

Re:Smarten up

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, this will make a market for a tax regulation firm that can handle the tax amounts as a subcontractor.

Re:Smarten up

[BitZtream]

Everyone does that. But its obnoxious and no one reports it ... and its rather stupid to expect individuals to manage all the accounting rather than the business who ... has to do accounting as a fact of doing business and the tax amount is a single fucking database query with data provided ready to use for EVERY tax jurisdiction in existence for free.

Fucking quickbooks deals with sales tax for the entire nation, businesses can do the work with the rest of their accounting responsibilities. Far more efficient.

And its a fuckton easier to get Walmart to pay the taxes on all their customers than to get all their customers to pay walmart.

By your logic, why does any store collect sales tax? Everyone can just pay it on their tax forms right? How many years have YOU filled in that box on your tax form? And if you say anything other than 0, no one is going to believe you.

Re:Smarten up

[phantomfive]

By your logic.......

I'm really wondering what you think is my logic, because I didn't have any logic at all in my post. It was a question and a statement of fact, no conclusions were drawn.

Re:Smarten up

[infinitelink]

All this does is make payment unavoidable by burdening the red tape and collection on the sellers.

So it crushes any kind of hope for new start-ups that don't sell all to the VCs and established players...but that's just an ancillary benefit/distraction to the real point: of necessary consequence this would mean the sellers would have to be compelled to become involuntary informants (unpaid and, in fact, burdened in the process monetarily and otherwise) to the States (at the least). But of course http://politics.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3671075&cid=43511821 nails it.

Re:Smarten up

[Anonymous Coward]

You just need one startup that handles tracking all taxes and offers a checkout service for a flat monthly fee and the problem for M&Ps goes away. Hell, Google Checkout will probably implement it for free.

Re:Smarten up

[Anonymous Coward]

California has a lot of illegal laws. Unfortunately, it's also "too big to fail", and there are lots of conflicts of interest that work against getting this situation corrected.

Re:Smarten up

[Anonymous Coward]

This is Slashdot. The odds are good that you write computer programs for a living. You've just proposed that government should be able pass laws complex enough to require the use of computer programs. No ethical conflict of interest there.

How about this, instead: any law or set of laws that is complex enough where a reasonable person would want a computer to assist them in compliance violates fundamental rights arising under the 9th Amendment.

One way to restore my faith in humanity

[Stirling Newberry]

Is to read a tax thread on slashdot, that the rest of the world isn't this burblingly insane gives hope.

Yes states can collect excise taxes, and yes this bill is constitutional. "On a computer" or "over the internet" do not make fundamental law vanish. Whether state sales taxes are a good idea, is a different question, one of policy, not law.

Re:One way to restore my faith in humanity

[MyFirstNameIsPaul]

The states can collect the taxes from entities within their jurisdiction. My understanding is that this bill requires entities outside a given state's jurisdiction to collect the taxes. That is unconstitutional.

Re:One way to restore my faith in humanity

[Stirling Newberry]

You clearly have not the smallest understanding of the Commerce Clause and have not read Quill. The federal government has plenary power to regulate interstate commerce, and can therefore grant to states the right to collect excise levies on particular acts of interstate commerce, or forbid them from doing so.

Learn to use Google, it's catching on, I hear it may be a big thing some day.

Re:One way to restore my faith in humanity

[Anonymous Coward]

My understanding is that this bill requires entities outside a given state's jurisdiction to collect the taxes. That is unconstitutional.

Why do you say it's unconstitutional? Since at least 1945 states have had the (admittedly limited) recognized authority to exercise jurisdiction outside their own borders.

Re:One way to restore my faith in humanity

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly have not understood anything about the history of the American revolution, the writing of the Constitution, the debates over ratification, and the writing of the Bill of Rights.

Learn to read a real book, instead of relying on shallow Internet summaries.

You'll discover that two states refused outright to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights, and that other states only ratified as a result of promises by men of honor whose word was trusted (such as James Madison) that a satisfactory Bill of Rights would be added (some of these states added long lists of rights as "suggestions"). These states, of course, knew that it was neither militarily nor policially feasible to force them to stay in the Union (at that time: it would take industrialization to change this, something that didn't happen until shortly before the Civil War) if they decided they weren't satisfied.

As a result of this history, we must neccesarily conclude that all elements of the original Constitution, including the Commerce Clause, are subject to the Bill of Rights, and James Madison deliberately made the Bill of Rights open-ended in response the objections of the Anti-Federalists. The Commerce Clause does NOT supercede the Bill of Rights, including any rights that might be asserted under the open-ended aspect of that document, in any jurisdiction where oaths to uphold the law mean something. This includes preventing state governments from exercising authority over entities or persons outside their borders, which clearly violates a number of principals of government that the Founding Fathers cared about, such as the idea that the government that governs best, governs least.

Many of the Founding Fathers were just as concerned with the abuse of authority by state governments as they were by the federal government. James Madison, for instance, in his early career (before he became a member of the federal government) successfully fought the government of Virginia when it attempted to tax religions other than the Church of England in violation of the State's own Bill of Rights. For that matter, Madison's original text of the Bill of Rights explicitly limited BOTH state and federal governments in what would become the 1st Amendment, so we absolutely know he was still concerned with abuse of state power at that later date. Others were concerned with this as well: look at some of the anti-slavery statements of the time to see this. The current situation, where elements of the federal government are attempting (more properly, are being bribed by lobbying dollars) to aid and abet state governments in exceeding their legitimate authority, is NOT the kind of thing they would have stood for.

Re:One way to restore my faith in humanity

[Anonymous Coward]

Is to read a tax thread on slashdot, that the rest of the world isn't this burblingly insane gives hope.

Yes states can collect excise taxes, and yes this bill is constitutional. "On a computer" or "over the internet" do not make fundamental law vanish. Whether state sales taxes are a good idea, is a different question, one of policy, not law.

Collect it from the business that doesn't reside in that state?

This tramples on state's rights, methinks.

SCOTUS ruled in favor of catalog companies on this issue decades ago.

But hey, thanks for trying....

Re:Unconstitutional as heck? - WRONG.

[garyoa1]

The gov itself can't charge sales tax. That would be illegal. However they aren't getting any tax from this. The states would.

Obligatory...

[Sfing_ter]

UNLEASH THE HOUNDS!
(filter was telling me I was yelling, well fuck it, I was yelling)
AND SEND THE TROLLS TOO!
(I know, that is a bit redundant, but funny shit none the less)

What does the bill mean?

[Anonymous Coward]

So about the bill, if I'm in state A and I'm buying from state B, do I have to pay the tax in A or B? Will there be double dipping? Also if there is no tax in state A but there is in B and vice versa, would I have to pay it?

Re:What does the bill mean?

[BitZtream]

Just for clarity:

Forget local laws for the moment as I don't know the specifics for California and they don't change because of this so just ignore them for the moment, until the end.
You are in State A, say California
'The Store' is in State B, North Carolina.
'The Store' has no presence in California. (If it did, it would already collect tax on you and this discussion wouldn't apply)
California and North Carolina don't even like each other for sake of argument.

If you are in State A, buying from a store in state B, but with no presense in state A, then state A MAY (at its discretion) require the store in State B to pay taxes back to state A. The taxes payed would be based on the BUYERS location and paid to that municipality (in principal, states may do it differently as its up to the state to even do it if they want to according to the bill). The BUYERS state, State A in this case, is where the taxes are meant to be. The Store just doesn't want to have to do the work or have the price difference.

You are ALREADY responsible for said taxes.

The difference is that currently, a State A can not require company in State B to pay taxes for the sale to you. This bill is an attempt to fix that loophole, so state A can then enforce its sales tax requirements on the seller rather than expecting you to actually report the out of state tax on your forms at the end of the year.

In both cases you already own the tax to your local state, the difference is that the store can be required to collect it rather than expecting you to tell the state about it at the end of the year.

If there is no tax in State A then state A isn't going to tax you. If there is a tax in state B, they might, but that would have no relation to this bill at all. State B could already choose to tax your purchase via the retailer that is In its state already under State B's control.

Basically, the idea is to prevent Amazon from setting up shop in Billings Montana, and selling shit and never collecting any tax across the entire nation ... to the point that states have noticed the drop in income.

All the bill does is change who is responsible for actually writing a check to YOUR (State A) states IRS office.

Done Deal

[ChiRaven]

Indiana already charges its residents tax (state, county, and local) via their income tax forms, for all on-line and distance sales on which Indiana Sales Tax was not paid. Virtually EVERY state (as far as I know) collects the equivalent of its sales tax on purchases of things like automobiles made out of state and not taxed a point of sale.

those poor millionaires

[vm]

Is it just me or should anyone making more than a million a year from online sales not be exempt from taxation? Do CEOs like John Donahoe believe that people who make more than a mil/year are somehow poor or middle class? That guy's an asshole.

Re:those poor millionaires

[Anonymous Coward]

You can 'make' a shitton of money via business, and take home very little.

A million made by a business is not all clear profit, it goes back to buy materials, labor, expenses, etc.

I know this first hand. A mil is nothing when the profit margin is low.

Summary is even stupider

[SpammersAreScum]

"to allow states to tax online sales to residents outside their state" is exactly backwards! The taxing would, if directed by the state, apply to sales to residents _in_ that state. The writer probably confused "sales by vendors outside the state" with "sales to residents outside the state" for some bizarre reason.

oops

[JoeyRox]

Yeah, I meant to say sales by companies outside the state, but what I was thinking when I wrote it was "applying the tax laws of one state to citizens (ie, companies) of another", thus my conflated/backwards summary.

Taxation regime

[aurizon]

The feds should impose an interstate commerce tax, say 9% and give 3% to the ship-from state and 3% to the ship-to state and the feds grab 3%.
States with no sales taxes, their 3% is omitted.

This will give states a bite of in and out traffic, that they get little of now. Not as much as the states full taxes, but they lose most of that now. 3% of both ways is a lot btter than what they have now. It will give the feds something to erase debt, it waill act as a leveller of the playing field.
States will have to waive their state use taxes on good shipped to to conform with this law.

Re:Taxation regime

[macbeth66]

Hey!

Don't give them any stupid ideas! They've already got plenty of their own.

Re:Taxation regime

[aurizon]

No, It is a good idea. It would get tax to both states and the feds abd be a great leveller of I/S commerce

We aren't taxed enough? (List of taxes)

[plastick]

Every year average Americans pay dozens of different types of taxes, and yet many of our politicians are very open about the fact that they want to raise rates even higher and invent even more ways to bleed us all dry. Someday historians will look back and be absolutely amazed at how stupid we were. We have the most complicated tax code in all of human history and at this point the federal tax code is more than four times as long as the entire collected works of William Shakespeare (close to four million words long). But that is just for federal income taxes. We have a number of other taxes taken out of our paychecks such as state income taxes, Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes.

Just counting federal, state and local income taxes, some Americans will be paying marginal tax rates of over 50 percent in 2013. But like I said, there are a lot of other taxes we pay than just those. The following are 44 more taxes that at least some average Americans are paying now or will be paying soon other than federal, state and local income taxes...

#1 Building Permit Taxes
#2 Capital Gains Taxes
#3 Cigarette Taxes
#4 Court Fines (indirect taxes)
#5 Dog License Taxes
#6 Drivers License Fees (another form of taxation)
#7 Federal Unemployment Taxes
#8 Fishing License Taxes
#9 Food License Taxes
#10 Gasoline Taxes
#11 Gift Taxes
#12 Hunting License Taxes
#13 Inheritance Taxes
#14 Inventory Taxes
#15 IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax)
#16 IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax)
#17 Liquor Taxes
#18 Luxury Taxes
#19 Marriage License Taxes
#20 Medicare Taxes
#21 Medicare Tax Surcharge On High Earning Americans Under Obamacare
#22 Obamacare Individual Mandate Excise Tax (if you don't buy "qualifying" health insurance under Obamacare you will have to pay an additional tax)
#23 Obamacare Surtax On Investment Income (a new 3.8% surtax on investment income that goes into effect next year)
#24 Property Taxes
#25 Recreational Vehicle Taxes
#26 Toll Booth Taxes
#27 Sales Taxes
#28 Self-Employment Taxes
#29 School Taxes
#30 Septic Permit Taxes
#31 Service Charge Taxes
#32 Social Security Taxes
#33 State Unemployment Taxes (SUTA)
#34 Tanning Tax (a new Obamacare tax on tanning services)
#35 Telephone Federal Excise Taxes
#36 Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Taxes
#37 Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Taxes
#38 Telephone State And Local Taxes
#39 Tire Taxes
#40 Tolls (another form of taxation)
#41 Traffic Fines (indirect taxation)
#42 Utility Taxes
#43 Vehicle Registration Taxes
#44 Workers Compensation Taxes

Sadly, this list is far from complete!

Dick Durbin, the Senate's No. 2 Democrat, actually said that levying Internet sales taxes on American shoppers is "one that is long overdue!" Ya know, because they need more money and everything. Half of all the money made in America isn't enough, right? Oh, and also all those "corporate sponsers" than give them money to put in new "laws" so they can make more profits.

Re:We aren't taxed enough? (List of taxes)

[Anonymous Coward]

It's funny how you manage to make something look bad with a lot of redundant complaints.

Re:We aren't taxed enough? (List of taxes)

[WindBourne]

First off, IRS penalty and interest are NOT taxes. That is for lazy or corrupt individuals.
Secondly, perhaps you can push for one large tax of say 50% and be done with it.

Re:We aren't taxed enough? (List of taxes)

[mjwx]

First off, IRS penalty and interest are NOT taxes. That is for lazy or corrupt individuals.
Secondly, perhaps you can push for one large tax of say 50% and be done with it.

Thirdly, He can realise that most of those are optional and consumption taxes. So he cant treat them as income taxes.

I get these idiots on Australian forums all the time trying to prove that we pay 50, 60 and sometimes even 80% tax by dragging up some obscure 3 cent sugar free chocolate cent tax that only applies in the western half of Wagga Wagga that 99.9998% people wont ever pay.

If you pay 7% sales tax, you pay 7% on what you buy (not what you save or invest) so it doesn't amount to 7% of your income.

But logic and reason doesn't stop the loons from trying to pretend you pay 1.21 gigadollars in tax. Much like Australia the US is one of the lowest taxed western nations, unlike Oz you dont have the high prices.

Re:We aren't taxed enough? (List of taxes)

[WindBourne]

Good post. I would mod you up. We DO have plenty of high prices. Sadly, our fossil fuel is subsidized, so that is cheap, but that only serves to hurt us. Hopefully, we will stop that.

Re:We aren't taxed enough? (List of taxes)

[mjwx]

Good post. I would mod you up. We DO have plenty of high prices. Sadly, our fossil fuel is subsidized, so that is cheap, but that only serves to hurt us. Hopefully, we will stop that.

The US has low prices compared to OZ.

Our fuel is cheap compared to Europe (US pays about $1.10/L, Australia pays 1.45/L Europe pays $2.00/L) but everything here is expensive, cars, CD/DVD's, clothing.

When Aussies go to the US, we tend to load up on things like clothing, shoes, media because it's so much cheaper for you than us. I buy a lot of things from the US (tyres and aftermarket car parts of late) because paying A$100 to get 4 tyres flown from the US is cheaper because we pay twice as much for them here.

Streamlined sales tax system

[Animats]

All the software and systems for this are already in place for 24 states. There are services which will do a sales tax calculation for you, or you can download all the data files The required inputs are ZIP code (9 digit ZIP code in a few cases where a ZIP code crosses a tax boundary), product class, and date (for "sales tax holidays"). It's complex because the interstate consortium that does this has to accommodate all the vagaries of state sales tax law in each state.

The idea is that small businesses sign up with a service provider, and send them one check for all state taxes plus an XML file of the transactions. Big businesses will probably run their own software. Expect to see this as a standard component of most shopping cart programs.

What the Federal law is about is getting all the states on board for this, and applying it nationally. There's even a huge loophole - "Online sellers with less than $1,000,000 in remote sales annually will be exempt from collection requirements. Remote sales are sales to customers in states where the seller does not already have a physical presence." eBay lobbied for that, yet they're still whining about the law.

Re:Streamlined sales tax system

[EmperorArthur]

Right, because that's just what I want. Someone else who has all of my online purchase history.

Plus, it's not that simple. 99% of all retailers calculate total price as base plus tax. Almost all online shopping software supports doing state taxes, but retailers are going to want to charge you the tax at checkout time. This means you feed an XML file into your software, then write a different check to each government. You could have an organization write the individual checks, but you're still billing the customers at checkout time.

I have a few problems with the bill. First, this has the potential to turn into a privacy nightmare. To insure compliance, businesses will probably be forced to give names and dollar amounts straight to the government. Second, this heaps a significant amount of work on businesses. Not so much for ones employing thousands of people, but the cap is set so low it's easy for a three or four man company to trigger it.

Also, don't be surprised if this is used as an excuse to go after foreign businesses. Since most won't even have heard about this law, I doubt many will comply. Then, there's the fact that some countries have online retailers charge sales tax on all purchases. So, for those countries you would be taxed twice when you buy from them.

Re:Streamlined sales tax system

[Anonymous Coward]

I just spent the day compiling and generally dicking around with taxes for my state, for which I have to file monthly.

This is in spite of "having it all done for me".

This bill is a huge timesink for real small businesses - big biz can afford to throw as many accountants as they want at this.

This tax is unreasonable, unmanageable, and unbelievable. No taxation without representation. Can't say I've felt very represented for the last 12+ years.

Also, interesting definition of small biz here: Under a mil is exempt. Yet during campains, a small biz is defined as anything under 100 million a year.

Fucking laughable.

Re:Streamlined sales tax system

[Goetterdaemmerung]

The idea is that small businesses sign up with a service provider, and send them one check for all state taxes plus an XML file of the transactions. Big businesses will probably run their own software. Expect to see this as a standard component of most shopping cart programs.

It's ridiculous and burdensome to create a system that requires yet another 3rd party private processing center to perform a common transaction. Visa and Mastercard or Paypal are entrenched on the financial side and costs merchants ~3% or so off their bottom line, but can be bypassed by using Money Orders or personal checks. Adding another 3% or so across the board to pay a new tax processing center is not a negligible cost.

Fortunately I live in a state without sales taxes, so as long as they don't propose charging me to fund the coffers of another state it doesn't really affect me.

Re:Streamlined sales tax system

[BitZtream]

Right, because that's just what I want. Someone else who has all of my online purchase history.

So ... you're worried about an online vender having all your purchase history online ... from an online vender?

You'll give amazon that information, and your credit card company that information ... but holy fuck some other organization who is backend data processing for them ... oh my god no ...

WTF is wrong with you? This is no different than any other store already.

Plus, it's not that simple. 99% of all retailers calculate total price as base plus tax. Almost all online shopping software supports doing state taxes, but retailers are going to want to charge you the tax at checkout time. This means you feed an XML file into your software, then write a different check to each government. You could have an organization write the individual checks, but you're still billing the customers at checkout time.

Its done with computers. Its automated. No one is writing a check, their sending what is essentially an email (no, its not technically, but it is a message of sorts, nothing more) .

You are already billed at checkout for taxes EVERYWHERE ELSE IN AMERICA so this is really irrelevant in every possible way. Its no different than any other store.

I have a few problems with the bill. First, this has the potential to turn into a privacy nightmare. To insure compliance, businesses will probably be forced to give names and dollar amounts straight to the government. Second, this heaps a significant amount of work on businesses. Not so much for ones employing thousands of people, but the cap is set so low it's easy for a three or four man company to trigger it.

Explain exactly how this is different than what we already have from a privacy perspect. Your CC is already the only thing they need to look at. You're purchases aren't private already, this isn't going to change anything.

Businesses are not required to 'give names and amounts' to the government for sales tax currently, why would this be any different? It wouldn't, and its not.

Heaps work on businesses? Look, if you're taking orders over the Internet and you use shopping cart software that is so fucking shitty that it can't keep up with the laws of the country you're in, you don't really deserve to be in business, you certainly are not qualified to be running an online business. Quickbooks will handle the issue so you've got no excuse, try again. Oh, and quickbooks has been capable of handling this issue for years, so its not like this is a new task to handle.

Business ALREADY do this if they have a physical presence in the state. It seems that people have no problem running businesses with these requirements. Walmart has been doing it for years, as has my little company. Its not even something I have to think about, 'it just works'.

Also, don't be surprised if this is used as an excuse to go after foreign businesses. Since most won't even have heard about this law, I doubt many will comply. Then, there's the fact that some countries have online retailers charge sales tax on all purchases. So, for those countries you would be taxed twice when you buy from them.

And it won't be used as an excuse to go after foreign businesses ... since it doesn't actually apply to anyone outside the US.

You have essentially gotten every single statement you made, 100% wrong and backwards. Thats impressive.

Re:Streamlined sales tax system

[BitZtream]

It's ridiculous and burdensome to create a system that requires yet another 3rd party private processing center to perform a common transaction. Visa and Mastercard or Paypal are entrenched on the financial side and costs merchants ~3% or so off their bottom line, but can be bypassed by using Money Orders or personal checks. Adding another 3% or so across the board to pay a new tax processing center is not a negligible cost.

Okay, so you're mixing credit card fees with taxes ... if you don't like CC fees ... don't use a CC, its really simple.

It does not 'require' a 3rd party unless you are incompetent. Quickbooks can handle this problem just fine and tax appropriately for the entire nation without you doing anything more than installing it. Thats right, out of the box, this problem was solved years ago. They can use a 3rd part provider if they want though. Just like people use outside accountants and payroll firms.

Re:Streamlined sales tax system

[Anonymous Coward]

The "under $1 million" part is about individual sellers (ex. eBay sellers), not small businesses.

Most of it has been taxed already

[Anonymous Coward]

EVERYTHING is already taxed as it goes down it gets more and more taxes put on top of it. For a used or new item, ALL of the materials were taxed NUMEROUS times (dont be a smart ass we already know what items don't count), and finally taxed again when sold to the end user, and if its a used item on ebay they want to tax you again for something somebody else already payed tax on, and when you decide to sell it, taxed again. HOW ARE PEOPLE SO IGNORANT TO SEE THE GOVERNMENT HAS TAXED THE FUCK OUT OF THAT SINGLE ITEM ABOUT 10 TIMES. If we were to do this to our government we would go to prison, so why is it ok for them to do it to its people?

Re:Most of it has been taxed already

[BitZtream]

When you make ridiculous statements like yours, no one listens. Try to come off as less of a nut job and you'll get more attention. I mean, you're still a nut job so you're going to have to work at it, but if you're less obvious you'll do better with the trolling.

Ebay's Internet sales tax page

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.ebaymainstreet.com/campaigns/tell-congress-oppose-internet-sales-tax-legislation

Yet another unconstitutional law

[RKBA]

Have none of our legistraitors ever read the United States Constitution?

CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
Article. I, Section. 9: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

Re:Yet another unconstitutional law

[Anonymous Coward]

The interstate commerce clause, which I tend to bring up every time sales/use tax is brought up. How the heck has use tax for goods shipped across state lines never been shot down by the courts? If everything was handled by use tax, then I couldn't object, yet the moment they exempt in-state purchases it certainly interferes with interstate commerce.

Re:Yet another unconstitutional law

[Anonymous Coward]

Article. I, Section. 9: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

As the tax is being payed to the State where the purchaser resides, it's not the State taxing *exports* - if anything it would be a tax on *imports*. (And yes, the distinction is important.) An additional technicality is that it's not even taxing imports - the tax is on the *sale* (the exchange of goods for money), rather than the act of importation (the transportation of goods across state lines).

It may be a bad idea, but it's not unconstitutional, at least under the quoted section.

Re:Yet another unconstitutional law

[ral315]

Article 1, Section 9 does not apply to the states, it applies to Congress/the federal government, in that Congress cannot institute a federal tariff on exports from states. Nothing in this section is applied to the individual states. Not to mention, as another poster mentioned, this is not a tax on exports, it's a tax on imports.

Re:Yet another unconstitutional law

[litehacksaur111]

Currently Amazon, Frys.com, Microcenter, Newegg, etc all charge sales tax. Sales tax is not an export tax on the good. If you actually look at what sales tax revenues are used for you will find that they are used for fund public schools and road repair. UPS or USPS is still using public roads to deliver the goods, so they should charge sales tax. The only items to which sales tax should not apply are dowloaded items which have no physical footprint.

Re:Yet another unconstitutional law

[multiplexo]

Oh goody, a fucknut with the user name of RKBA, which probably stands for "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" lecturing us on the Constitution. Hey fucknut. Why don't you read the entire document? If you ever did that, and didn't just spend all of your time masturbating over the second amendment you might have come across this portion of the document in Article I, Section 10.

No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

So according to this section of the Constitution Congress can consent to grant states the ability to tax imports and exports from that state, and by imports and exports the founding fathers meant not just commerce with foreign countries but commerce with other states. Right now online merchants have a huge and unfair advantage over brick and mortar merchants because they can set up in states without sales taxes and then sell to residents of states that have sales taxes without collecting any taxes. Why don't you do us all a favor you ignorant son-of-a-whore and take one of your guns, jam it into your mouth as far as you can and blow your fucking head off.

Re:Yet another unconstitutional law

[BitZtream]

Have you read the constitution? We've amended and ratified past that a long time ago, but way to pretend you have a clue.

Re:Yet another unconstitutional law

[BitZtream]

Having read several of your posts, you have no right to tell anyone they are a nutjob or that they need to read the constitution until you look in the mirror and say it several times.

Measure Levels the Playing Field

[litehacksaur111]

This bill simply allows the states to collect sales tax according to their local laws on online purchases. This would level the playing field for local retailers of electronics and higher end luxury goods, where people come to the store and browse the merchandise only to buy it online to save in sales tax. Also this bill exempts all firms with less than $1 million in sales from compliance, so that "small businesses are not hurt". Lastly, most online purchases are with paypal or credit card, so it is easy to search for the sales tax in your jurisdiction. I am not in favor of picking winners and loser, but you have to level the playing field to charge online retailers the same sales tax that you charge a local retailer.

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Tell that the Wesley Snipes.

Just a matter of time

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm surprised they haven't done it already.

Just do it

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a case of technology ahead of regulation.
Tax the internet for purchasing and be done with it - time to stop the bleeding of state tax revenue. Just because it's good for consumers doesn't mean it's good for states consumers live in. It's better this than even more regressive state sales taxes to make up for the losses.

Time for a VAT tax.

[WindBourne]

Skip the sales tax and simply apply a VAT tax to everything that is sold to a retailer. In addition, if anything is shipped from foreign sources directly to the user (i.e. a retailer), then they pay the VAT as part of the import.

This way NOBODY is happy, but the bill will be paid all the same.

Re:Time for a VAT tax.

[BitZtream]

And poor people suffer the most.

50% tax on me might hurt, and I'd bitch, but I could still eat.

50% tax on my father and he'd be living under a bridge and still not able to survive.

Flat taxes are exactly the wrong way to go about it.

Re:Time for a VAT tax.

[deimtee]

Australia has this with a 10% GST (Goods and Services Tax) on just about everything.
Local retailers complained they were losing business to overseas businesses and wanted it enforced on all imports.
The tax office looked into it and concluded it was not worth the effort of enforcing it on shipments worth less than $1000, so individually imported items less than that are not GST'ed. *
If it wasn't worth it for our tax office, I don't think it would be worth it for yours.

*This is basically for personal use. If you make a habit of shipping $990 worth at a time for resale, they will come after you with steel-capped boots.

Re:Time for a VAT tax.

[WindBourne]

I said a VAT tax on the item just at the point where it goes from wholesale to retail. The other issue is when it come from foreign to local, but the ideal way is to simply have the shipping collect it and give them part.

ebay petition

[Anonymous Coward]

if you dont agree with the new tax, please fill the petition
http://www.ebayinternetsalestax.com/ist/step1_b.asp

not associated in any way with ebay/paypal, but not a us citizen so posting anonymous

Washington

[rossdee]

I have a couple of questions

Wouldn't this have to pass in the House as well as the Senate?

Are the Republicans going to filibuster it?

How are they going to force sellers outside of the United States to collect sales tax? Especially on digital sales.

Does tax apply to items downloaded NOT shipped?

[RickMcG]

Does the tax apply to items that are not shipped - but just downloaded like software packages? If so then a perhaps unintended consequence will be to move that software store offshore. I my software store is located in Albania, but I reside in Arizona and pay Fed / State taxes there - do I have to collect this tax Similarly, if I have a site which sells my photographs, were people use a credit card or pay pal and then download the digital image, can I avoid collecting the tax if I move the hosting of the site outside the USA? I am reminded of the idiocy around encryptation software many years ago were there was legislation forbidding its exportation - so over a short period of time all of the production of encryptation software moved offshore as it was not illegal to import it rick rmcgonegal@gmail.com

Re:Does tax apply to items downloaded NOT shipped?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes this applies to downloads. Any purchase over the internet - whether you're in competition with a local store or not - is considered taxable at the rate of where the purchaser resides.

And to answer the next question - yes the idiots in Washington do have their heads up their butts.

insufficient language at the time of writing

[technosaurus]

When the constitution was written, there were no phones or internet and no way to electronically transfer funds. A sale happened in 1 state or the other ( prepay or cash on delivery ) never in both except maybe a state-line shop. When a product was shipped by ship, riverboat or horse and buggy from a supplier to a merchant, the founders didn't want central states to act as middlemen states by taxing products in transit. This product typically went to a merchant who bought wholesale to sell at retail at which point a sales tax _could_ be levied by the state, or the merchant or a representative would go and pick up the merchandise and may be obligated to pay sales tax at the origination point - though in most states this is only assessed at the point of final sale if it is purchased for resale with a TIN.

Other places use a VAT or value added tax, where basically the tax applied at each point is base on a difference between the purchase and sale cost at each point.... arguably much easier to implement

It could just be a compromise where it is 5% flat and states get 4% (1% federal) whether they have a sales tax or not. This encourages local economy but is too simple and our current legislators don't do "compromise".

A hybrid version could allow someone to set up shop in NH (no sales tax state) buy stuff at wholesale and pay no sales tax, then pay a sales tax only on the difference between their wholesale and the customers cost to the customer's state

Both fed and state _need_ to invest in regulating "customs" on the internet - yesterdays illegal fur import and banned weapons is today's pirated whatever and malware .... but it would probably get misappropriated to some other garbage.
Would a takedown notice then be called an ICE packet?

Not the merchant location, the CUSTOMER location.

[Anonymous Coward]

If an internet retailer knows where to deliver the purchase, or knows the billing address of the payment card, or address registered with the originating bank account, then its not hard to determine what tax is due based on the customer location. If a customer tries to avoid taxes by pretending to be somewhere that they are not, then to deter such behaviour, they can be slapped with an almighty penalty under a general anti-avoidance rule. Tax raising bodies need to stop allowing internet retailers using tax to undermine the bricks and mortar retailers. Not everyone can work delivering parcels, or in a warehouse. People are less mobile than internet businesses and so less likely to flit from state to state as they pursue ever lower taxes because of their registered address. The G20 is moving in favour of something called "country-by-country" reporting for corporate taxes on multinationals, it would be a big mistake if an opportunity to demand "state-by-state" reporting were missed.

No

[Anonymous Coward]

As long as members of congress are pushing to ionfringe our constitutional rights, which is an illegal act on their part, then We will not recognize anything they try (or succeed) to pass.

If the courts do not stand behind the law, the courts do not have the weight of law.

Re:Not the merchant location, the CUSTOMER locatio

[Grishnakh]

Yes, actually it's almost impossibly hard to determine tax in so many other locales because of the extreme complexity. There've been many posts made about this, so I'm not going to repeat them here, but here's a quote from this article:

"Cnet kindly reminds us how convoluted this country’s tax structure can be. You can expect to pay sales tax on bottled soda in New Jersey, but not on bottled water, even cookies. A mink handbag is taxed in Rhode Island, but not a mink fur coat. It’s a big mess, in other words."

In addition, there's places where the location isn't good enough, because certain people get a tax and others don't, regardless of their address; this is the case on many Indian reservations.

Screw this. Hard.

[RogueWarrior65]

Everyone seems to be missing a key issue here. Everyone is constantly complaining about the high costs of everything. Gasoline? Too expensive. Food? Too expensive. Healthcare? Too expensive. Satellite TV? Too expensive. And on, and on, and on. Why the hell isn't government too expensive? If I have to make do with less, then so does the government.

Most people have never run a business selling something and therefore have no clue how much time it takes to deal with sales taxes. In most states, even if you have no sales in any given month, you still have to file the paperwork. Proponents of this tax keep saying that it will "level the playing field for brick&mortar stores". Bzzzt. Wrong. A mom & pop brick & mortar store only sells locally therefore they don't have to deal with the out-of-state sales taxes. That effectively gives them an advantage rather than leveling the playing field. Furthermore, big box stores such as Wal-mart don't give a damn because they already have an army of accountants to deal with the paperwork.

And then who in each local state government is going to process the paperwork suddenly coming in from 49 other states? Oh, well, gee whiz, we don't have enough bureaucrats to deal with it so we'll have to hire more...and pay them...and give them benefits...and a pension...all at taxpayer expense. But wait, this tax was supposed to close budget shortfalls. Oops. Now you've compounded them.

And ultimately, this will lead to only one thing: inflation. Because nobody is going to take the extra costs up the a$$. They are going to pass it on to the consumer. A VAT tax won't solve this either. In fact it will make it worse because invariably there are sticky fingers all along the government food chain.

Which location?

[phorm]

What is their physical location? Head office? Warehouse?

This ultimately ends up with them moving to wherever they're subsidised to near no taxation (which only lasts until the taxes rise, then they move). You end up with some town in b**f**k nowhere that serves as the distribution point because they don't charge any tax, and a head-office in India/China/Kerplekistan/etc.
Another county or another country, it won't matter so long as they can dodge the tax-man.

Re:Which location?

[Grishnakh]

This is a little more complicated because now you're talking about large companies. A lot of this issue is really about how dealing with these taxes will affect smaller businesses. Smaller businesses don't have multiple locations, warehouses, head offices, etc.; they're just operated out of someone's home, or a single office space somewhere, and that's it.

Surely the legislators can come up with a way of dealing with larger companies that might try to have a warehouse in Oregon (no sales tax) while having their HQ in Silicon Valley or NYC (presumably high sales tax). Maybe they could base it on where all their employees are, so if 3/4 of their employees are in an HQ in a high-sales-tax locale, and 1/4 are in a warehouse in Oregon, then they have to charge customers 3/4 of the high sales tax in their HQ's location.

Amazon != Amazon

[kingbilly]

Having read comments on a lot of websites I noticed many people are unaware that while Amazon has the resources to figure out tax code in 50 states, many of us are selling on Amazon and do NOT share the same benefit. We average about 500 sales per day across various marketplaces and it is going to cost a pretty penny to absorb these new requirements. The $1,000,000 threshold is too low - one million in sales does not leave us one million in profit to pay tax companies to figure all this out. A lot of people are forgetting that when you buy on Amazon.com, there is a huge chance you are buying from a small seller like my company. We are not Amazon; and Amazon just sends us a check each month and lets us deal with having to please 50 states and their different tax requirements.

Wrong!

[Anonymous Coward]

No taxation without representation! These people need to repeat civics class.

INTERNET TAX

[gosgog]

You get the INTERNET, thru your SERVER, DSL or WIFI provider, in practice the "net" itself is Free. This just goes to show, that Assholes like 'HARRY REID' & others of the same ilk, make laws about things they don't even understand. The reality is that the "Congress/. SENATE should have to pass a University exam on whichever subject they decide to make legislature about. Failures should be thrownout of either Congress or Senate, then maybe we would end up with an INTELIGENT Gov't!!

Re:Not the merchant location, the CUSTOMER locatio

[Anonymous Coward]

I once tried to figure out taxes on a few grocery receipts and found it nearly impossible with 3 different tax rates applied singly and in combination depending on the category it fell into. I even asked the grocery store's manager and called up the corporate HQ but nobody could explain it. Obviously they must have a method so someone there at least think they know, but I gave up since it was too difficult to do on a regular basis.