Slashdot Mirror


US Senate Passes Internet Tax Bill 69 To 27

schwit1 quotes The Washington Post: "The Senate aimed to help traditional retailers and financially strapped state and local governments Monday by passing a bill that would widely subject online shopping — for many a largely tax-free frontier — to state sales taxes. The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 69 to 27, getting support from Republicans and Democrats alike." schwit1 adds "Unfortunately online businesses could be in for a rude awakening when it comes to the law's interpretation." Passage in the House is not certain, and companies like eBay are lobbying to raise the minimum sales required to collect state sales tax to $10 million instead of $1 million per year.

89 of 678 comments (clear)

  1. bollocks by DFurno2003 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Total Garbage. Just what I expect from the U.S. Government. Can't balance our budget, find more ways to tax consumers.

    1. Re:bollocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Or rather find ways to collect the tax that consumers already owed.

    2. Re:bollocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We are taxed when we earn the money, and double taxed when we spend it.

    3. Re:bollocks by JustOK · · Score: 3, Funny

      Don't spend your money.

      --
      rewriting history since 2109
    4. Re:bollocks by ganjadude · · Score: 4, Insightful

      if you dont spend your money you got people claiming you are not paying your fair share. there is no winning anymore. your money is not yours, its the governments, they just let you have some to keep you content.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:bollocks by Rockoon · · Score: 2

      The problem with the West is that all its governments are currently having their treasuries siphoned off to various private concerns from defense to private medical contractors. There are three ways to fix the budget problem:

      i) Stop tax avoidance and evasion - being done here;
      ii) Stop paying private companies to do state business. Either you decide it's within the remit of the state, in which case the work should be done by state employees at cost, or you decide it's a private concern, in which case the state should not be sponsoring it;
      iii) Bump up penionsable age in line with life expectancy. No choice here, I'm afraid. Reduced working hours (we can do fine on a 4 day work week) would help toward this.

      i) That has nothing to do with "various private concerns" and the so-called loopholes are there on purpose, as otherwise the U.S. finds itself with the highest corporate taxes in the world.

      ii) Are you suggesting that a State maintain a crew of bridge builders during periods where they don't need bridges built? I agree that the amount of private contracting needs to be cut back, but its because I think spending should be cut way back and not out of a vague notion that private contracting is bad. I think the government should have even fewer direct employees than they do now, and that includes dumping current public workers and finding private contractors to do the work those public workers do.

      iii) How about we simply end public pensions? The problem with public pensions is that todays promises never get paid for/funded today. The government would have to offer higher wages to remain competitive with private sector positions that do offer pensions, but at least then whats promised today is paid for today rather than being allowed to become a big budget problem 30 years from now.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re:bollocks by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No one owes taxes on purchases made from companies that do not have operations in your state. That's how state sales tax works.

    7. Re:bollocks by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 2

      By requiring online retailers to file sales tax nearly 50 times per year when they could have accomplished exactly the same thing by requiring online retailers to pay sales tax in their home state for all sales. They've vastly increased business costs, most of which will go not to the public purse but to wealthy accounting firms. I wonder whose idea that was.

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
    8. Re:bollocks by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Informative

      if you dont spend your money you got people claiming you are not paying your fair share

      That's because the entire school of thought which is trickle-down economics requires it.

      If people aren't spending their money, then the entire theory behind Reagonomics is a fiction, and tax cuts for the rich don't work. ;-)

      Since the entire justification for those tax cuts is to get people out spending, you need to do your patriotic duty and get out there and spend like a mad fool or risk invalidating an entire economic theory. It's your job to stimulate the economy and get us out of this down turn by buying stuff.

      If they cut taxes and people didn't spent, people might start to think economists don't have a clue.

      If you're not gonna spend it, they'll need to tax it. So start spending, or we'll have to try Socialism. :-P

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    9. Re:bollocks by pla · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Mod parent up! It disgusts me to hear US Senators not "get" that point.

      The customer may owe use tax in their state. The merchant has (or "had", if this turd of a bill passes the house) an obligation only to the states in which they have a physical presence.

      And this whole "level playing field" BS? Seriously? How many mom-n'-pops (and don't give me any lip about the $1M threshold, your corner convenience store easily has gross receipts 2-3x that) have to deal with the individual sales tax structures of every US state, countless counties, and even individual towns? And as if that doesn't get messy enough, figuring out which products fall into which tax categories in each of those jurisdictions?

      This won't hurt Amazon. This will merely annoy Amazon. It will destroy smaller online merchants, however - If not up front, then when the owner goes to prison for screwing up some obscure detail of NYC taxes on imported llama-hair socks.

    10. Re:bollocks by MatthewCCNA · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If you're not gonna spend it, they'll need to tax it. So start spending, or we'll have to try Socialism. :-P

      What do so many Americans have such fear/hatred of Socialism?

      --
      "He is so stupid. And now back to the wall!" Moe Szyslak
    11. Re:bollocks by Gamer_2k4 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What do so many Americans have such fear/hatred of Socialism?

      Because we like to think we deserve to use the money we earn in the way we choose.

    12. Re:bollocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed. Socialism is not a bad thing. I was born an American and have lived in not one, but three countries that have socialist economies. All three countries have a higher quality of life than the US, all three have universal healthcare, all three have very inexpensive university systems through the PhD level, the list goes on.

      The average American with a family pays ~$5000 for the "right" to have health insurance. Taxes for better, actual guaranteed healthcare in other countries is far less, on average ~$2600.

      Americans want the government far removed from their healthcare, but think nothing of letting their child's mind be marinated in a government-run school system for 12 years.

      Americans want the government far from their money, but love Social Security, clean air, pot-hole-free highways, safe air travel, clean water, etc. All of the above are paid for with tax dollars.

      A civilized, democratic society uses taxes for the benefit of all, especially the least of these. Anything less is greedy, evil, and inhumane. It isn't about getting wealthy, or shouldn't be, it's about everyone having a decent life.

    13. Re:bollocks by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because socialists have this nasty habit of killing LOTS of people.

      Yup, countries like Canada, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand and the Netherlands are well known for their atrocities and killings.

      Seriously, just because you can cite a couple of really awful examples of historical groups who had the word "Socialist" in their name, doesn't mean you can equate all forms of socialism with killing.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    14. Re:bollocks by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because in a nation with the size and diversity of the US, advocates of Socialism seem willfully blind to the fact that there are people who would disagree with the implementation.

      On smaller scales (maybe statewide?) it's a different story. If I don't like the way something is implemented I can move to a state with other people who have similar beliefs. In reality, that wouldn't be possible if such things were implemented across the entire US.

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    15. Re:bollocks by mwvdlee · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because "somewhat less rational" people confuse socialism with communism, as demonstrated by parent.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    16. Re:bollocks by mwvdlee · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because we like to think we deserve to use the money we earn in the way we choose.

      Isn't that what voting is for?
      Or are you describing anarchy?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    17. Re:bollocks by ducomputergeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not only this, but most people hear $1M in online sales, you must be rich!. They don't seem to realize that $1M in sales != $1M in profit. I do consulting work for a couple clients that are above the $1M per year in sales mark. One did about $1.4M in sales last year and had profits of less than $200k. The other did about $7M in online business last year and still had profits of less than $1M.

      Add in the additional legal and accounting costs for having to track at least 50 different taxing jurisdictions and up to potentially almost 10k and be up on all the changes to tax law and try to figure out what items are taxable where....it's a nightmare. No only that but it's a legal minefield. For instance our state exempts certain grocery items from sales tax. And some of the things considered grocery items gets funky. An example: a big bag of potato chips are a grocery item. A small sized bag at a snack counter is not. Charge sales tax on the wrong item and get caught and the fine is rather steep even if it's an honest mistake.

      If I have a retail location in this state, I get to keep a percentage of the sales tax I collect to cover the cost of being the collector. What about the other states? How much of that tax collected will be owed? Now you times this by at least 50 opening up your legal liabilities tremendously.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    18. Re:bollocks by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      A lot of local businesses have expanded to the internet these days though. for example in my area honey and wood work and syrup are big, usually sold in small store front by a single person. They do around 80% of their sales online these days. This is exactly the person who is going to be hurt by this law. how is this 1 person suposed to handle tax law in over 2000 different locations?

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    19. Re:bollocks by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Fascists and Socialists are separated by a hair's worth of difference when it comes to government control over economic activity and respecting the rights of individuals.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    20. Re:bollocks by Bardez · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, that is not what voting is for. That is what personal responsibility is for. Voting is for electing people and collectively deciding directly on very few issues that involve all of our society. The money that I earn does not fall into that category. What I make and do with my money is none of your fucking business.

      --
      Perception is the thin dividing line between reality and fiction.
    21. Re:bollocks by mu51c10rd · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yup, countries like Canada, Denmark, Finland, New Zealand and the Netherlands are well known for their atrocities and killings.

      Some of us consider an NBA team in Toronto an atrocity...and don't get me started on Lars Ulrich's attack on Napter back in the day...

    22. Re:bollocks by HaZardman27 · · Score: 2

      Unlike capitalists, which throughout history have certainly abstained from war profiteering.

      --
      Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
    23. Re:bollocks by i+kan+reed · · Score: 4, Insightful

      We also like to pretend that we earn every dime that goes are way, and in no way are dependent on society at large for the potential to do so. We are by-and-large stuck up pricks who don't understand social contract theory, it's all about freedom.

      If you gave us Americans a multiple choice test about how the world works we'd just go down and answer every single question "C. Freedom" without reading what it said. Well, some would answer "Jesus" to every question, but the lever of understanding reflected is the same.

    24. Re:bollocks by cob666 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More importantly, the bottom line is that the government needs tax revenues. If you want the gov't to cut spending, that is a totally different topic. If you allow the government to exist in any way/shape/form, it needs money, and if they can't get sales tax, they will just increase your real estate taxes instead until they can cover the difference, or any number of alternative tax revenue avenues. Heck, abolish state sales taxes entirely for all I care, it's a regressive tax anyway, just make sure that whatever tax is raised in its place is applied fairly. One way or another, they will collect tax. If you don't like it, then fight spending until they don't have to collect tax. But wanting all the spending, while denying the necessary tax revenues is fiscally irresponsible.

      If by government, you mean State Government then yes, they do rely on sales tax. But most (if not all) states that collect sales tax ALREADY have a mechanism in place to charge sales tax on out of state purchases directly to the consumer. It's called a 'use tax' and states should be using THAT to collect the sales tax due. Do you know how many businesses I deal with that don't pay the use tax when they buy stuff from Amazon? States should have focused on collecting this tax instead of wishing for some magical solution that would drop revenue in their laps. So, now instead of auditing state citizens, states are going to have to create centralized departments to deal with basically every online company in the entire country and start auditing them. Sounds like a much more expensive solution to collect what should be the SAME amount of use tax revenue.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
    25. Re:bollocks by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      What do so many Americans have such fear/hatred of Socialism?

      Because it is the antithesis of the values and principals that America was built upon.

      We value the individual, the person that can take his own matters into his own hands and succeed. Personal responsibility and individual effort are what brought such success to the US over its life, until about now.

      The thought has been in the US, that the government is there just enough for basic needs (military, police, fire, etc), and largely stays out of your way to allow you to succeed or fail as you see fit.

      Many (self included) see the recent years of people depending ever more on the govt., not taking responsibility for their own actions, people not being allowed to fail, and more and more intrusive govt. as being the major factors into our fiscal and economic woes.

      The US was built upon the individual small business, and right now, it seems most all levels of govt are going out of their way to make this more and more difficult and kill things off.

      The US was built and succeeded with methods directly opposing true socialism.

      The needs of the one outweigh the needs of the many.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    26. Re:bollocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It won't stand.

      Taxation requires representation. If I buy something in another state, I either have to be present for self-representation (as is the case with in-store purchases) or have a legislative representation appointed by a vote that I had a chance to participate in. This is NOT the case for ANY state. I cannot vote in other states, thus I have no representation, thus I cannot be taxed unless I'm physically present within the borders of their jurisdiction.

      So they try "reciprocity". Reciprocity destroys any reason for levying the tax in the first place, since the state that actually bears the burden of the business (shipping, warehousing, etc.) doesn't collect the tax. Sure, they can make this stick, but expect the big exporting states to push to throw this out. They get no more benefit than anyone else, but they bear most of the costs. Think of shipping hub states like NY (Syracuse), OH (several cities), NC (Raleigh/Durham), GA (Atlanta), TN (Memphis), TX (Dallas/Fort Worth/Greenville), IL (Chicago-metro), or CO (Denver). Those places bear more than their "fair" (or taxed) share of infrastructure costs.

      The real problem lies in the definition of a sales tax and the restrictions they place upon it for no actually valid reason. Sales tax is defined as a tax paid by the buyer, but collected by the seller on behalf of the government. Some states even restrict sellers from "eating" the sales tax by paying it on behalf of the buyer. Some are even so strict as to try to "mask" the tax rate by not allowing sellers to show with-tax prices before the sale transaction begins. This is why we don't have more stores that say "this item is $5.00, tax included". This is an asinine bureaucratic requirement that needs to be removed and the people who invented it, continued to enforce it, and who support it idealogically dragged out into the street and publicly humiliated and executed. This is the price that should be paid for shoddy leadership and bureaucratic masturbation. Seriously, fuck bureaucrats.

      The real fix to all of it: Define sales tax as a seller-paid tax. No further restrictions on who can see what or when in the transaction it's made clear how much tax applies. Now, sales taxes are paid to the local jurisdictions over the seller, which has an established, known location (location of the "store" that made the sale, which must be declared as part of doing business in each state). This ALSO provides an incentive for state governments to make it easier for businesses to set up shop in their state, lest they lose out on potential tax revenue. It's just that "setting up shop" now would include moving into a data center in that state. For a setup like Amazon's, distributed transactions would have to be handled by a distributed tax, shared equally among the registered locations where transactions can be handled.

    27. Re:bollocks by twistofsin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What do so many Americans have such fear/hatred of Socialism?

      Because we like to think we deserve to use the money we earn in the way we choose.

      From what I have observed from my countrymen this is correct, and until we change the way we view each other we don't deserve better.

    28. Re:bollocks by Hillgiant · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What do so many Americans have such fear/hatred of Socialism?

      Because we like to think we deserve to use the money we earn in the way we choose.

      Because we like to imagine that we are somehow separate from and superior to the society we live in.

      --
      -
    29. Re:bollocks by Richy_T · · Score: 2

      The Chinese will just sell their stuff direct from China and the US will see *no* tax revenues and job losses. Well done, politicians.

    30. Re:bollocks by Creepy · · Score: 2

      True - the economic system of socialism (which works pretty well for co-ops everywhere) gets slandered all over the place when the political system of Social Democracy or Social corporatism or the economic system Welfare Capitalism and/or the concept of welfare state is meant.

    31. Re:bollocks by Viewsonic · · Score: 2

      Why even hold on to this idea of working hard and getting paid anymore? Our technology and automation will be displacing every "job" in the next century anyways. Farming, construction, food industry, etc - It will all be automated entirely. You may have managers making sure everything is working like clock work, but they will be automated as well as time marches on. I don't think people realize that we are on the robotics cusp of automation becoming the norm that there simply will not be ANY JOBS for the population of this planet. Economies will disappear entirely. This notion of "wake up work hard go to be repeat" will be replaced with "wake up live with family go to bed repeat" with maybe some hobbies and education thrown in.

    32. Re:bollocks by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Informative

      there is a large difference between filling out a tax form for every location that has its own tax. and typing in a zipcode on a package. I have seen numbers from anywhere between 1500 and 3000 different tax locations. As such thats 1500-3000 different tax forms needed to be filled out by the business

      this is an unreasonable cost to any business.

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    33. Re:bollocks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I think I understand social contract theory just fine and I reject it outright because of its 1) similarity to slavery/indentured servitude (we are all born into a system owing something to that system) and 2) contracts are things you enter into voluntary, yet social contract theory is neither voluntary nor something clearly negotitated and agreed upon by two parties. Social contracts also put the individual at greater risk to direct democracy. Social contract theory also puts everyone at odds. Everyone suddenly becomes debtor and debtee.

      America is a solution to an optimization problem: maximum individual liberty. Not maximum quality of life, not maximum education, not maximum civil welfare. If you want to maximize these, I highly recommend totalitarianism. The US certainly didn't need to bother with States, Checks and Balances, and local government if this weren't the case.

      I trust in the good of individuals to do the right thing. You seem to trust in the good of society to do the right thing, often at the expense of the individual (or at least under the assumption the individual will not do the right thing). While your code may be a more expedient means to an end, mine respects has a greater respect for rights of the individual without resulting in the use of force or turning people against each other. Keep your social contract. I'll keep my freedom.

    34. Re:bollocks by Hillgiant · · Score: 2

      Ah. So we are not only redefining "socialist", but also "abortion" and possibly "QED" (though I am willing to allow ignorance as a defense for the last one.)

      --
      -
    35. Re:bollocks by Sancho · · Score: 2

      Well if I understand it correctly, this will actually lead to less revenue for the U.S. Government. They are not instituting a federal Internet sales tax--they are forcing merchants to collect sales tax that is due to the individual state in which the purchaser resides. Aside from the problems this will cause for smaller businesses on the Internet, this will increase the Federal deduction that individuals can claim due to payment of state taxes. Higher federal deductions == less money for the feds (though almost certainly more for the individual states.)

    36. Re:bollocks by tompaulco · · Score: 3, Informative

      There is not internet loophole. you still have to pay your use tax. it is probably the exact same as your sales tax rate. It is not the company's fault if you don't pay your tax. Nor is it the company' obligation to collect and pay that sales tax. Not unless your state is going to send the police or fire department over to their warehouse three states over when there is an emergency.

      --
      If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
    37. Re:bollocks by Ioldanach · · Score: 2

      The founding fathers also recognized that we're all in this together, and the only way we'll succeed is to work together. "We must, indeed, all hang together, or most assuredly we shall all hang separately." Our country was built by individuals banding together to accomplish tasks that no individual can accomplish alone. We encourage both the individual *and* the group. You can see it in the most recent recession. People who had perfectly good homes and perfectly good jobs and ample savings who were not what anyone would consider leveraged beyond their means (which is to say, with a fairly small mortgage payment) were pushed out into the cold when markets tumbled, their jobs vanished and no replacements could be found, and their equity turned negative so they couldn't even sell their house. There are some things that make more sense when we demand them as a collective service. Health care, which was once a very individual thing, is now so complicated and filled with so many new possibilities for advanced treatments that very few individuals can afford anything but the most basic of services.

    38. Re:bollocks by i+kan+reed · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I have a social contract with America? Can you point out where I signed that particular piece of paper?

      Quoting since the thread depth cutoff has made me start to appear schizophrenic.

      The social contract is signed every day you're not dead from the laws protecting you. You're free to reject the contract at any time, but then you lose the implicit protections. In fact, we're so nice with our social contract in modern liberal democracies, we limit how much protection you lose based on the severity of your breach. Isn't that nice of us?

    39. Re:bollocks by operagost · · Score: 2

      Success is not a zero-sum game, but socialist types believe it is because it excuses their failure.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    40. Re:bollocks by thomasw_lrd · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's the entire US system. We're taught from an early age that those evil Communist Russians and Chinese are eviiiiil. We are not taught that Socialism and Communism are not the same. We are also not taught the difference between a true democracy and a republic. (The US is not a democracy). There are a few other issues that need to be worked on to. There are aspects of Socialism that work, and there are aspects of Democracy that work. But you must be evil if you teach that in school.

      My personal belief is that in a perfect world Communism is the best form of government, in an imperfect world, a combination of governmental philosophies are the best.

    41. Re:bollocks by danbert8 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Canada, Denmark, and New Zealand are higher than the US on the Heritage economic freedom index. They openly admit to some socialism and they are freer than we Americans are. Finland and the Netherlands are also pretty high up there.

      --
      Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
    42. Re:bollocks by bzipitidoo · · Score: 2

      Social responsibility, ever heard of it?

      If there are so very few issues worth voting on, perhaps you could give us a list?

      As to why Americans fear and hate Socialism, many of us have been thoroughly indoctrinated about the supposed evils of it. It's called "moral hazard". Socialism leads to welfare queens, to lazy deadbeats who just lie about doing nothing constructive (such as posting on Slashdot?) because they don't have to work, they need only collect the next welfare check.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
    43. Re:bollocks by Rinikusu · · Score: 2

      I get pretty irritated when I hear folks talk about states' rights as if its some sort of magic bullet solution. Is "tyranny" (to use the hyperbolic rhetoric used by some) any better if it's instituted at a state vs federal level? Local vs state? And if a state is out of line with the spirit of the Constitution? "You don't like our state laws? Well you can move to another state, bucko! In Kansas, we just don't believe in science anymore!" is a pretty retarded way of doing it...

      --
      If you were me, you'd be good lookin'. - six string samurai
    44. Re:bollocks by nedlohs · · Score: 2

      Your state sales tax rate is higher than your credit card interest rate?

      Maybe you should move to a more reasonable state?

    45. Re:bollocks by Remus+Shepherd · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Because in a nation with the size and diversity of the US, advocates of Socialism seem willfully blind to the fact that there are people who would disagree with the implementation.

      On a tangential thought, why can't we have both? This is the future. We should have a customizable, user-friendly government and economic structure.

      Maybe Citizen A prefers free enterprise, so he opts for a capitalist citizenship. He works for a living, pays a low level of taxes and receives little help from the government. Citizen B prefers a socialist citizenship, so he receives a stipend and single-payer health care, and a large portion of his earnings are sucked away in taxes. Citizen C lives in a shed down by the river and prefers the anarchist option; he pays no taxes and expects nothing from the government, and is indeed excluded from any laws that affect only himself. He can't hurt other people, but he can drink and do drugs all he likes.

      There is no reason, in today's information-rich society, why every citizen can't choose among several different legal and economic options, all of which combine to form the government system of their country. All it would take is a database and a form for citizens to choose their option.

      These systems -- capitalism, socialism, communism, anarchism -- they are not each others' enemy. They are different options that are all superior in some way, and people should get their choice in the way they want to live.

      --
      Genocide Man -- Life is funny. Death is funnier. Mass murder can be hilarious.
    46. Re:bollocks by slimjim8094 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      What the fuck do you think your freedom deal with America is if it's not a social contract? Do you make use of roads, cleanish air and water, and the right to not be hassled/killed/enslaved by roving warlords? Well you probably would claim that you mean the whole "let's not have people die in the streets" thing more than the roads thing when you say social contract, but I'd argue that you're just drawing an arbitrary line, and you're doing in such a way that it maximizes your assholishness. You're perfectly fine taking some services from the government and paying your share (and expecting the rest to do the same), but some services are too much. And the latter (but not former) services are the "social contract" ones.

      A typical explanation of 'social contract' is why we do education. It's because we want the electorate to be educated. It's pretty easy to make the same case about healthcare or foodstamps or unemployment insurance or social security. And yes I know your type, you'll start screaming about welfare queens or personal responsibility or something, but here's the dirty little secret - it is in your interest to do these things. We already have universal healthcare, for example, just literally the worst one imaginable - you can't be turned away at an ER. So only the people who are actually having heart attacks or are in labor get treatment, not people with high cholesterol or looking for prenatal care. Fuck them, which one is cheaper for you? Because the hospital sure doesn't eat the cost, they give it to you in the form of a $2000 MRI, which the insurance doesn't eat and you pay more for that. Some people who could barely afford insurance can't anymore, and then they become part of this problem.

      We do that kind of thing a lot in this country - do the worst thing imaginable because of the fear that somewhere, somehow, a poor person might benefit. Even though (in the health care case, and others) it would literally be cheaper to just give everybody health care and pay for it with taxes - as evidenced by every nation with universal healthcare, the OMB, math, logic, etc.

      Point being, you have a bad premise. It's at best short-sighted and at worst "fuck you", because it assumes that if anybody else benefits, you must therefore suffer. But doing the best thing for everyone can also be the best thing for you. This is some pretty basic civics, pretty well hashed out by a few hundred years ago. Hell, it's all over the bible itself - be nice to people and you get to go to heaven.

      --
      I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
  2. At $10 million companies would "outsource"... by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Insightful

    to collect state sales tax to $10 million instead of $1 million per year.

    I predict that if the limit is raised to $10 million then companies will "outsource" sales to wholly owned subsidiaries. For example "Your order has been filled by Amazon West Houston INC"... which has sales below the threshold. At $1 million a year it would be debatable whether the large organisational overhead would be worthwhile for larger companies, but an $10 million it probably would be.

    1. Re:At $10 million companies would "outsource"... by Etherwalk · · Score: 2

      The text of the legislation specifically provides that organizations doing this are not exempted. The people who draft bills are not (usually) morons.

    2. Re:At $10 million companies would "outsource"... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The people who draft bills are not (usually) morons.

      You'll have to provide a reference for that.

  3. ...wont make me shop at "traditional" by cgiannelli · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Shopping at home is more convenient and less stress inducing. Societal courtesy is low, people wander about stores aimlessly blocking isles, screaming kids, yelling parents. Store personnel that ignore you, and if you ask for an item seem annoyed. 10 registers and 8 people in line but only a single register is ever open. It feels like an interrogation when you go through checkout "have our store card? want our store card? Did you know about this special? fill out this form? Zip code please, credit or debit?" and I just say "can i just pay and leave please?".

    Traditional retailers want business? Change their service, train staff better, have more registers open, kick out the rabble who just hang out in stores and never buy stuff. Most of all lower prices. Even with shipping and sales taxes, I've bought quite a few items online far cheaper. It adds up. Time saved, gas saved, not desiring to punch a moron, or rude person. Despite our need to be around people, malls and shopping just sucks. It's not the same pleasant experience it used to be.

    1. Re:...wont make me shop at "traditional" by adosch · · Score: 2

      Couldn't agree more. I do prefer online purchasing for those very reasons myself. I think it also comes down to simply getting the 'best' deal, and if that's brick-and-mortar or online with 2-day S&H, that's what it is. I think there's also some convenience in there, too, especially if there's something you want. It's all what you are willing to pay for that item you want, need or can't live without. I know it's not going to break the bank for me to pay the 5-7% sales tax on items online, I just hope that the prices online still stay competitive and don't stick it to the consumer, otherwise it honestly won't make a bit of difference to me anymore.

      All in all, I'm indifferent on the sales tax dilemma and I've came to the conclusion that this internet place isn't really a fun place anymore...

    2. Re:...wont make me shop at "traditional" by davidbrit2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So what you're saying is that they should reduce marketing, spend more on training and staffing, and shrink the clientele, while at the same time lowering prices? Interesting strategy, but I don't think "reduce revenue and increase operational overhead" would have the desired result.

    3. Re:...wont make me shop at "traditional" by jbmartin6 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I said roughly the same thing when the Best Buy CEO was complaining about people using BB as a showroom for the Internet. I thought "You are really complaining that people are coming into your store?" That chump wanted to blame everyone else when people who WANTED to buy something were in his store and left empty handed. That's called opportunity, how do you get to be a CEO without recognizing this? Instead of looking into the top reasons people don't buy in the store, which you mentioned, and doing something about it. I was just in Target the other day looking at TVs and the only employee around was hunched over a laptop off in the corner studiously ignoring everyone. Well I guess an online retailer gets the sale. I wanted a big red button under the TV that I could press if I wanted to buy it. And no I don't want the goddamn Spanish Inquisition about club cards and extended warranties. Those last two are the sort of crap you get when you put stock analysts and accountants in charge of the company.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    4. Re:...wont make me shop at "traditional" by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      If local retailers go out of business, you will regret it because sometimes you need that new gooseneck or pair of shoes right now. Two day delivery doesn't cut it when you have an immediate need. It's fine for stuff that you DON'T need. It also doesn't work at all well for the kinds of thing where you need hands and eyes on the product to decide whether it's the thing you want.

      The kinds of sales where online works well are when you either know exactly what you want (down to the model number) or don't particularly care because a wide variety of items fit the bill.

    5. Re:...wont make me shop at "traditional" by pla · · Score: 3, Interesting

      So what you're saying is that they should reduce marketing, spend more on training and staffing, and shrink the clientele, while at the same time lowering prices? Interesting strategy, but I don't think "reduce revenue and increase operational overhead" would have the desired result.

      The sooner stores realize who actually spends money at them, the better. The vast majority of businesses would do far, far better if they could shed the bottom 10-20% of their customers - The coupon cutters who tie up lines for half an hour and end up paying $6.99 for 30x that value in groceries and then count out pennies one... by... one... to pay (and then end up $0.04 short); the medicaid customers who "can't afford" that $2 copay but buy smokes in a separate transaction; the "window shoppers" who just use the physical store as a gallery.

      On the flip side, when I walk into a store, I know beforehand what I want, I walk immediately to it, I take it to the register, and I have some appropriate form of payment ready before the cashier wants it. And while the necessity annoys me, I even have a "No!" handy to each BS upcharge and bit of personal info your marketing department has forced the poor cashiers to beg for this week. Bam, in and out in a minute and a half, and quite likely one of your most profitable customers of the day in terms of what you had to do to get my money.

      If you kick out the former so I don't find every visit to your brick-and-mortar an entirely loathsome experience... Y'know, I'd honestly rather not wait a week for shipping. But, as long as I can get a better experience online - Well, don't complain that the online stores have killed you, when in reality, you've pulled the equivalent of a slow suicide by eating nothing but crappy fast food.

    6. Re:...wont make me shop at "traditional" by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You shop where you find it convenient. Traditional or the net. But the tax is due either way. Eithter you allow the retailer to collect the sales tax and remit it or you track it cleanly and file the taxes yourself. If you are going to take the route, "Come and collect the taxes if you can". Then you are simply a tax dodger and a tax cheat. All this protestations about traditional marketers are thin veneer for the show. Basically you want to dodge the tax.

      --
      sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    7. Re:...wont make me shop at "traditional" by dhermann · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tell me more about this "rabble" to which you refer. Can we easily identify them to make ejection procedures? Do I need to print out a Whole Foods shopping list to show to security personnel? Will there be a credit check at the door to ensure that a potential customer can afford to shop at Crate & Barrel? Or perhaps you would prefer to filter by skin tone?

    8. Re:...wont make me shop at "traditional" by Holi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Great so make your entire area unemployed and watch the profits roll in.
      Why do you think that reducing the number of jobs in an area is going to help increase your business?

      --
      Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    9. Re:...wont make me shop at "traditional" by Richy_T · · Score: 2

      Our local one took it out a few years ago. And now they put it back in again, only bigger.

      I suspect the biggest problem with self-checkout has been the shoddy product delivered by the vendors previously. I generally prefer it.

    10. Re:...wont make me shop at "traditional" by mjr167 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The kinds of sales where online works well are when you either know exactly what you want (down to the model number) or don't particularly care because a wide variety of items fit the bill.

      So what kinds of items are left? Either I know exactly what I want or I want or I'm ok with whatever is on the shelf in front of me... I have found more variety and better stuff on line. I have also found the luxury of actually doing research on the product I am trying to buy. I buy diapers and cat food from Amazon, shipped to my door on a regular basis. There are actually very few items that you really do need NOW and not in two days, assuming you are capable of forethought and planning. There actually people that buy ALL their groceries online and have them delivered to their door.

      I bought a swing set online the other day and it was shipped to my door with free shipping. Had I bought the swingset from the storefront I would have had to find a way to transport it home.

    11. Re:...wont make me shop at "traditional" by TheDarkMaster · · Score: 2

      The traditional model is not bad or "obsolete", is poorly implemented. I personally still prefer to go into a store and see personally the product I intend to buy. The problem is when the retailer do not invest in the structure it should have (more attendees, more space, more options) to be able to sell to you.

      --
      Religion: The greatest weapon of mass destruction of all time
    12. Re:...wont make me shop at "traditional" by ConfusedVorlon · · Score: 2

      there is a difference between 'struggling to compete with model xxx' and 'struggling to compete with someone who has a 5% tax advantage on prices'

      it may well be that they can't compete and should die, but it isn't clear why there is anything fundamentally different between buying something at your shop, and buying it online from another state with respect to whether the government can/should add a tax.

      You buy all your stuff online, I buy all my stuff from the local stores. Why am I the only one contributing to the state coffers?

    13. Re:...wont make me shop at "traditional" by BLKMGK · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I can only look at pictures, I cannot handle the item in question. I have to wait for shipping and sometimes even have to be home when it arrives during business hours or travel miles to a shipping depot - during business hours. If left the item can be stolen from my doorstep, the item can be broken in shipping, I have to use a credit card or other more direct form of payment and cannot use cash. I'm often forced to setup an account and divulge email information for marketing purposes. I could go on but that's a start.... there is indeed some friction in making an online sale, it's often made up by the more competitive pricing and the ability to easily price compare. It's also nice when a site offers online reviews that aren't full of shills.

      --
      Build it, Drive it, Improve it! Hybridz.org
    14. Re:...wont make me shop at "traditional" by Wookact · · Score: 2

      I go to Bestbuy often enough. I walk through the isles and try to find what I need that isn't 40 dollars more then online. I am perfectly willing to pay more for the in store I want now experience. I am not willing to pay 40 more then what it costs online. Bring that number to 10 or 15 dollars over online price and I will go home with it.

    15. Re:...wont make me shop at "traditional" by yurtinus · · Score: 2

      I usually try to avoid self checkout for a handful of reasons:

      - Pain in the ass "unexpected item in bagging area" notices (maybe this is resolved with newer systems)
      - Half of my store trips include beer or wine and need somebody to OK the sale anyway
      - Often I'm getting bulky stuff (dog food, home or garden stuff) that's ridiculous to try and scan on the bed when the checkers could use a handheld scanner
      - If I have a lot of stuff, a trained checker and bagger is far faster than I am (and I wouldn't want to hold up the self checkout line anyway)
      - I kinda like the interaction
      - Most important: I prefer somebody be employed

      My local grocer has no self-checkout kiosks. They are very good about opening lanes if lines start growing (I've never seen more than three people in line without them frantically searching for more checkers). Admittedly, this is nowhere near the norm, and I know I pay a bit extra at the checkstand - but I'll take it any day over driving an extra five miles to the nearest "supercenter" to deal with the crowds, even if there's self checkout. I will say that I try to use self checkout if I do need to go to one of the supercenters. I usually want to get in and out of those places as quickly as possible and they're often the only way to avoid a big checkout line.

      --
      +1 Disagree
  4. What if the 'sale' was via an offshore subsidiary? by schwit1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The web front end and credit card transactions are in Bermuda, but the shipments are from a warehouse in the states? Is the seller obligated to collect state taxes.

  5. Bipartisan by stewbee · · Score: 5, Funny

    I for one am glad to see that congress can come together on such an important bill.

  6. Re:Republicans control the house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That orange line is ALL Bush era tax cuts, most of which went to the middle class. And by "most" I don't mean 51%. I mean over 80% of the Bush tax cuts went to the middle class.

    Nice try though. I don't know why you're complaining. Obama already undid most of the Bush tax cuts for high earners anyway.

  7. Re:National Sales Tax by EmagGeek · · Score: 2

    The US Constitution has not had any validity in some times - probably not since Wickard v. Filburn, and to a lesser extent Gibbons v. Ogden, which basically gave the Federal government unlimited authority to regulate anything and everything, including where you can go, and what you can do with your own land.

  8. Re:National Sales Tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Congress shall have the power to regulate commerce among the several states". Maybe you should actually read the Constitution before you spout off your talk radio style nonsense.

  9. Re:National Sales Tax by SuricouRaven · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This may be a very rare thing indeed: The commerce clause being used as intended.

  10. im just glad to see this by nimbius · · Score: 2, Insightful

    bipartisan effort working together to screw the common american. Major multinational corporations are entirely exempt from burdens like taxation, while wageslaves enjoy a cornucopia of arcane, recursive taxation. That some how we're not supposed to talk about class warfare, why we all make shit-tier pay, or what sand encrusted foreign clusterfuck our taxes are being shoveled into.

    it leads me to believe Hollyoaks has it all wrong. That Tony Stark only runs around fixing problems he created in the first place. that Batman is just the billionaire boilerplate we've come to recognize as our perpetual prison industrial complex. That should a revolution ever befall this great nation it will start with a flaming Wal-Mart, and not stop until every mansion and chateau from marthas vinyard to kennebunkport is reduced to a smoldering pile of ash twisted wrought iron.

    --
    Good people go to bed earlier.
  11. This is a good idea. by sidragon.net · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Some big online retailers charge you sales tax, some patchwork of others do. Currently, I have to dig back through receipts to report unpaid sales tax come April and it's a hassle. How about some of you stop your whining and accept that a tax code should be consistently applied.

    1. Re:This is a good idea. by ducomputergeek · · Score: 2

      Sales taxes haven't been applied to catalog businesses for decades. What's the difference between a dead tree catalog and a catalog on the inter webs?

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
    2. Re:This is a good idea. by ducomputergeek · · Score: 2

      $1 Million in sales != $1M in profit. I consult with a couple clients that do more than $1M in sales annually online. One had $1.4M in sales last year. Profits were less than $200k. The other does about $7M a year, profits about $900k. The latter business was almost driven out of the market by PCI compliance a couple years ago. Both companies are less than 20 employees.

      --
      "The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
  12. Re:Republicans control the house by ganjadude · · Score: 2

    congress has the purse strings

    note the large increase in spending took place once the democrats took control of congress. It has nothing to do with the bush tax cuts.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  13. Not 50, but Thousands of Taxing Jurisdictions by Ron+Bennett · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Among the challenges of collecting sales tax is there are thousands of taxing jurisdictions. And often the boundaries don't correspond to any zipcode nor even a particular municipality. In addition, sales tax jurisdictions can and often do overlap - ie. city and county.

    Even a state that doesn't levy a sales tax itself may allow local authorities to do so, such as some local Alaskan towns do.

    To make matters worse, there are numerous categories and exceptions in what's taxable depending on what it is, the amount purchased, the location / manner in which it's sold (ie. food item purchased in a convenience store verses supermarket; consumed on premises or take-out) and when (tax holidays, etc).

    And then there's the matter of filing dozens of state sales tax returns - some will expect filings every month, some quarterly, etc. And the time-frames will often differ, so one could find themselves filing sales tax forms practically every month or even more often depending on sales volume. And that's not even getting into dealing with compliance checks that states may perform at any time.

    Bottom line is sales tax is far more challenging to collect than many realize. It's not 50 states, but rather thousands of taxing jurisdictions with numerous different rates, rules, exemptions, etc.

    There is talk of simplifying the collection process for on-line retailers, which would lessen the burden, especially to small businesses.

    1. Re:Not 50, but Thousands of Taxing Jurisdictions by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

      The Bill is suppose to centralize the taxing authority with one State entity in each state. So they would collect the tax and audit each retailer. But the bill is not clear as to whether or not other government agencies, like local governments, could ignore letters from other government agencies.

    2. Re:Not 50, but Thousands of Taxing Jurisdictions by Anubis+IV · · Score: 2

      Software can't track something that isn't being reported.

      I think you're underestimating the nature of the problem, since there are no central authorities on this sort of thing, but rather tens of thousands of state, county, city and other municipal regions, of which 9600 have tax rates. And of those that have sales taxes, they don't all list them in the same locations on their websites, assuming they list them at all or even have a website, not to mention that there are new cities being founded all the time. Some have a page that out-and-out says what their tax rate is, while others have it buried 40 pages into a PDF of scanned images of the original town charter that they posted online, while others have the information available to the public if you just stop by the county administrative offices and ask for it in writing.

      How exactly is software supposed to help you with that problem?

      Now, the bill does apparently limit each state to a single taxing authority, so in theory the retailers would only need to deal with 50 of these, rather than 9600, but the bill also states that the central authority for each state would act on behalf of the individual taxing authorities within the state. As for what that means? The bill's creator has been cagey with his answers, apparently, and wasn't at all clear whether that would mean that there would be a single tax rate for the entire state or if the individual tax rates would still be kept. He also hasn't excluded the possibility that the local authorities would be capable of seeking out taxes independently of the state-level authority, meaning you could still be subject to audits from all 9600 jurisdictions. Nor does the bill specify that the central authority for each state will provide tax rate information for each of the different regions within the state if they don't have a single tax rate for the whole state.

      So, basically, the bill creates more problems and questions while fixing none of the issues. As a software developer, I have to say that I don't see how software can magically cure such a problem. If I did, I'd be building it now and positioning it in the market.

  14. Re:Republicans control the house by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

    I appreciate that this is an anonymous coward asking another anonymous coward, but you need to back up that 'over 80%' with an independently verifiable report. Can you? Seems like an unsupportable claim to me, even putting aside that the remainder of your claimed 80% is still too much tax to cut off the obscenely wealthy.

  15. Re:National Sales Tax by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2

    BTW, constitutionally, the Government can tax anything for any reason. The power of taxation is absolute. There are no constitutional questions here.

    That's 100% wrong. There are specific types of taxes the Federal Government is allowed to implement, as specified by the Constitution. Read it.

    --
    My God, it's Full of Source!
    OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  16. Re:I support online tax by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 2

    Brick and mortar pay state sales tax because they operate a business in that state. On-line retailers do not because they don't operate a business in that state. Where on-line retailers do operate in a state, they pay state sales tax.

    Do some research before posting.

  17. Re:What if the 'sale' was via an offshore subsidia by Creepy · · Score: 2

    Yes, is true, but I think there is a bit of a loophole. If you set up a PayPal like system in the Cayman Islands, you could funnel money into it (your "bank") and then because taxation is from the point of purchase (buyer's address) not the point of delivery, you could bypass tax law by making all purchases through that location. Basically, purchase by proxy through a Cayman's web site. The caveat is whether you owe gift tax or if it considered an overseas purchase, but once again you're right back in the unpaid Use Tax problem they are attempting to fix.

    Also the average tax jurisdictions is thought to be about 9800, though there is a highball number in the 19000s. The real problem is there are something like 120 changes a day on average according to a news report I saw on it. If you have the resources to track 9800 different jurisdictions and 120 changes a day without a major impact to your bottom line, well I commend you Wal-Mart, but most businesses don't.

  18. Lets make this fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Okay, let's make this fair and require the brick & mortar stores to do the same thing. If I live in Colorado and visit friends in California, I only want to pay Colorado's 2.9% tax (which would be sent directly to Colorado) and not California's 7.5% (California should get nothing since I don't live there). It's the exact same logic. Let the brick and mortar stores have to hire new employees specifically to deal with all the new paperwork involved.

  19. only 50 tax laws? by oneiros27 · · Score: 2

    You're forgetting every county and municipal sales tax there might be.

    And let's not forget that each state classifies items differently, and sometimes in really ambiguous ways. Is bottled water considered 'food'? (and thus not taxed in some areas) What food items are considered 'ready to eat' and thus subjected to various 'snack' taxes?

    When this came up years ago, there was a push for there to be one body per state responsible for sorting out all of the sales taxes (and to be the point of payment), so that it'd be closer to the problem you describe (although, you forgot DC and territories).

    --
    Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
  20. General Electric by tekrat · · Score: 3, Insightful

    GE paid zero corporate income taxes. ZERO. On a company that continuously reports record profits. They "offshore" most of their money so they don't even have to pay taxes on the interest they earn. Exxon Mobil plays the same games, but they're in an even better position because they receive subsidies from the government, so their taxes are actually negative (the government gives them money), on top of their record profits.

    My guess is that the larger online retailers will have to start playing these games as well. Amazon for sure, will probably charge us (the buyer) taxes, and then offshore the income, so that those taxes never get to the states they should.

    Therefore, Amazon will actually get more income from every product sold, and that money will go right into Bezo's pocket. Because he has lawyers and accountants to make that money vanish into his mansion(s), without ever reporting it to the government.

    And if not, it's fairly easy to buy a few senators and congressmen and make the problem go away.

    --
    If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
  21. Unconstitutional by techno-vampire · · Score: 2

    The US Constitution states quite clearly that all revenue and spending bills must originate in the House of Representatives. It doesn't matter how good or bad this bill is, having it introduced in the Senate is unconstitutional, and I predict that it will get shot down very, very fast when it reaches the House because regardless of how badly some of the Representatives want this, they're not about to let the Senate step on their own privileges.

    --
    Good, inexpensive web hosting
  22. Re:What if the 'sale' was via an offshore subsidia by JesseMcDonald · · Score: 2

    The web front end and credit card transactions are in Bermuda, but the shipments are from a warehouse in the states? Is the seller obligated to collect state taxes.

    No, but the customer will have fun time with US customs when the package arrives.

    The package isn't going through customs; it was shipped from inside the U.S. That's the most likely problem with this scenario; they're going to consider the seller's address to be the warehouse, not the country where they're registered.

    Anyway, sales and use taxes are a pretty bad idea no matter where or how they're implemented, and I hate to see them taking hold on the Internet, where they will inevitably go to pay for things which have absolutely no relationship to the commerce being taxed. For local public services, a flat property tax is the only one that make any sense. (Not that I'm prepared to endorse any tax, but it's better than any of the alternative taxes.) The only real advantage sales taxes—but not use taxes—have is that they're very easy to collect, at least in a brick-and-mortar context. That doesn't generalize to online sales, so it's best to just forget about sales and use taxes entirely (for both local and online merchants) and find a different source of funds for local services which is actually tied to the use of those services.

    --
    "The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat