Why Amazon Fights State Sales Tax, But Supports It Nationally

cagraham writes "The Wall Street Journal reported this morning that Amazon will begin charging customers in Connecticut, Massachusetts, and Wisconsin sales tax today, after fighting against it for years. Amazon now charges sales tax in 16 states, affecting roughly 163 million Americans. Yet despite Amazon's continued fight against sales tax on the state-level, they support a Senate bill that would allow all states to tax online retailers. It seems like a contradiction, but it's actually a calculated move to undercut rivals like eBay (who would have a far harder time dealing with sales tax laws), and even an unequal playing field (many states that tax Amazon don't tax other online retailers)."

Comments

Duh

[Desler]

Is anyone actually surprised about this? Of course Amazon did this to hurt it's competition. It's also why they sell books at far below other places. It's not because they care about you, it's because they want to drive out everyone else.

Re:Duh

[Desler]

*Its* competition, I should have said.

Re:Duh

[aaronb1138]

Couldn't possibly be that they want to increase the standard of living for all. Everyone should be like Apple and promote exclusivity and class warfare.

Nobody has every been killed over a Kindle. Apple for example, can't say the same for their products, both domestically in the US and abroad.

Re:Duh

[ShanghaiBill]

Of course Amazon did this to hurt it's competition.

Of course, but that doesn't make them wrong. Taxes should be fair. If I buy something, the tax on it shouldn't depend on who I bought it from, or where they are located. Capitalism works best when companies compete to deliver value to their customers, rather than competing to avoid taxes.

Re:Duh

[fl!ptop]

Taxes should be fair. If I buy something, the tax on it shouldn't depend on who I bought it from, or where they are located.

How do you define "fair?" Is it fair, for example, that I can drive across my state line and buy groceries and clothes and pay no sales tax? Shouldn't my state be allowed to compete by lowering or eliminating their own sales taxes?

Gasoline tax is also lower in my neighboring state, and I buy gas there whenever I can. Most of my driving is in my own state, causing wear-and-tear on the roads that's not being paid for by my gas tax. Is that unfair?

Avoiding taxes is one factor companies consider when deciding to locate somewhere. It's also a tool states can use when competing with each other to lure businesses to locate there. That seems pretty fair to me.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but lots of people have been killed over old Nokia J2ME phones and those are even cheaper than the Kindle.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, you probably owe use tax to your state in your listed scenarios. Not that anyone pays it, but it's comforting to know you're breaking the law, right?

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

For buying stuff in another state and paying (not paying) taxes there? No, he's doing just fine, there is no law against it.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Check your state laws. In almost every case, if a state charges sales tax then that state *also* has a use tax. The use tax is negated by paying your state's sales tax.

Otherwise, the use tax applies. It typically applies to anything purchased out of state (or that has been purchased but your state's sales tax hasn't been paid, if your state's sales tax would have applied to that purchase) that is put into use in your state.

Buying dinner out of state and consuming it out of state? No use tax due to your home state.
Buying a grill in another state and taking it home to your state? You owe use tax. Typically, you can deduct sales tax paid to another state from your state's use tax bill.

So, yes, essentially everyone is breaking the law. No doubt you are too, unless you live in a state without use tax.

Re:Duh

[rhodium_mir]

In many states there is. It's called a use tax.

Re:Duh

[duke_cheetah2003]

Having lived in a "use tax" state... it's pretty much unenforced.

It's next to impossible to enforce even if they tried. I don't think they try. Unless you're a fairly decent sized business importing materials and goods from out of state.

Average American I bet has no idea what a 'use tax' is, and even less declare it on their state taxes.

I ran a small business in that state for several years, and we never paid use tax on anything we bought online for our business. No one noticed, no one cared.

Re:Duh

[wvmarle]

So... if I want to sell you something and you're located in the US, you say I should pay US sales tax, even though my locality (Hong Kong) doesn't have a sales tax at all?

Doesn't sound exactly fair to me. And then I'm not even contemplating the nightmare of having to charge customers taxes, based on where they are located, and then manage to pay it to the relevant overseas governments.

Re:Duh

[dkf]

So... if I want to sell you something and you're located in the US, you say I should pay US sales tax, even though my locality (Hong Kong) doesn't have a sales tax at all?

Doesn't sound exactly fair to me. And then I'm not even contemplating the nightmare of having to charge customers taxes, based on where they are located, and then manage to pay it to the relevant overseas governments.

What actually tends to happen (based on experience with countries that do have national sales tax systems like VAT) is that as a foreign customer you don't pay the sales tax, but you instead have to pay any local import duties. Now, they might be zero in your country/area, but that's not the exporter's problem.

The other way that technically works is that you have to pay the sales taxes and you're free to take your business elsewhere. That's what happens if you buy the goods/services in person. (Again, you might be allowed to reclaim the taxes on exit from the country, particularly in the case that they were levied on goods that are leaving with you, and again you may well be liable for import duties. I wouldn't expect to be able to reclaim tax on services, as they're not exportable in the same sense.) This has been demonstrated to work without excessive bureaucracy.

What sucks is where you've got thousands of overlapping taxing jurisdictions, each with their own rules as to what is taxable and at what rate. It'd be an absolute nightmare to code up such a mess, and to keep it up to date. Which is why Amazon would be very happy to see a national sales tax system: almost any amount of complexity in the rules there would be less onerous on them than what they're putting up with (and "minimising") now.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Unenforced != legal.

I don't disagree with your points (given that they echo my own), but I will reiterate: everyone who lives in a use tax state is breaking the law in these scenarios that were described.

My overall point is that people should realize they are, by definition, criminals thanks to idiotic laws. It would be nice if we repealed unenforceable and noxious laws like this, because otherwise people are going to become conditioned to break the law when they feel like it (it happened during Prohibition, and it is happening now with marijuana laws).

Back on topic: in my state a few years back they released stats on the number of use tax returns they received. A vanishingly small number. I cross checked with the public records regarding number of employees in the state department of revenue. It was far larger. Heh.

Re:Duh

[Attila Dimedici]

If you buy something the tax does not depend on who you bought it from. In every state in the U.S. that I am aware of, you are required to pay the same tax when you purchase something no matter where you buy it from. The difference being that if you bought it from an organization that is not under the jurisdiction of the state you live in, THEY are not required to collect it for the state and it is YOUR obligation to report and pay the tax (in which case it is called a "Use tax" rather than a "sales tax", but the rate is the same). Just because most people are unaware of this law, and most of those who are aware ignore it, is no reason to burden those not subject to your state's laws with having to keep track of what they are.

Re:Duh

[Attila Dimedici]

Um, he was not talking about being a foreign customer, he was talking about being a foreign vendor. Why should he be required to collect sales tax if he sells something to someone in the U.S. and ships it to them? And in fact, he is not required to collect sales tax.
I do not know the law, but would I be required to collect the VAT if I sold something to someone in England and shipped it to them? Would you support a law requiring online businesses in the U.S. to do so? If not, why do you support a law requiring a business in California to collect sales tax for New York?

Re:Duh

[TheRaven64]

When you're talking about completely independent jurisdictions then the tax is covered by trade treaties. You either need to pay import / export duties, or there is a treaty that waives them. Taxes in one jurisdiction don't apply to people in another. The situation in the EU, for example, is that member countries agree to waive all import duties on goods from each other, but in exchange they charge VAT on all sales, even those destined for export, at the same rate, and those rates are harmonised such that they don't differ enough between member states to provide a strong economic incentive to buy things from the cheapest one.

When you're talking about a single jurisdiction, it's somewhat different. The states in the USA are explicitly (by the constitution) prohibited from imposing import duties on things coming from other states, so there's no simple way for an individual states to work around the race to the bottom that happens when one state starts having lower sales taxes than another.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Sales Tax is a consumption tax. It is calculated at the point of consumption. For a brick and mortar business, it is assumed to be the address that you picked the item in. For service industry (like killing bugs) it is where they are gave the service (your home). Amazon and on-line it can be a mixture of the two.

Personally, The USPS which "owns" the address lookup database, should also "own" the tax rate/amount to charge that location. Then the carriers (USPS, UPS, FEDEX, ..) would be the agent to collect the tax along with delivery service rate, since the tax rate varies by address. When I say "own" means the rate USPS returns is always the "correct" rate for legal reasons so the tax departments cannot say small businessman under/over charged. Keeps small guys out of the court.

Re:Duh

[wvmarle]

I don't see why these various states can not simply charge VAT on all sales, even those destined for export to other states (like the EU does).

Also as long as they keep the VAT rates not too much different, there is not much incentive to buy from another state - increase in shipping cost due to longer distance should cancel out most such advantages, unless you're talking about 10 percentage point differences.

Re:Duh

[wvmarle]

What I don't understand is why Amazon actually cares about that.

They are a company that is located in a certain location (well maybe a few), and they sell out of that one company, and thus have to pay sales tax for that very place they are. They'll have to figure out once how much that is, after that they're done. They don't sell in the location where the customer is.

Just like if you go to a book store, the brick and mortar type, you pay the sales taxes that depend on whatever that location happens to have to pay. Not the sales taxes related to where your home happens to be. Or that retailer should charge different prices for different customers, depending on where they happen to live.

Treating those Internet sales companies as what they are - a mail order company, with a physical presence and physical warehouse out of which they sell their physical goods - should solve this whole issue in one go.

Re:Duh

[JesseMcDonald]

What I don't understand is why Amazon actually cares about that. ... They are a company that is located in a certain location (well maybe a few)...

Amazon has warehouses in quite a few places. They want to have them everywhere, to facilitate same-day deliveries. Under the current system, that means they would have a presence in every state, meaning that they would always need to collect sales tax anyway (for customers in states with sales taxes). This hurts them much more than most online retailers, who generally have a presence in one or two states and only have to worry about sales taxes for those states. That's why Amazon wants sales tax to be collected nationally: to make things just as expensive for their one- or two-state competitors as it would be for them, given their plans for expansion.

Personally, I have no problems with the "unfairness" of the current system, which is a natural consequence of the simple principle that states have no business taxing someone outside their jurisdiction (with jurisdiction most logically determined by where the property is at the time it changes ownership—either on delivery or at the warehouse—or where the service is rendered). If Amazon wants to subject itself to every state's jurisdiction, that's Amazon's problem.

Re:Duh

[Anonymous Coward]

Having lived in a "use tax" state... it's pretty much unenforced.

It's next to impossible to enforce even if they tried. I don't think they try. Unless you're a fairly decent sized business importing materials and goods from out of state.

More to the point, any judge that respects the Bill of Rights will necessarily consider such a system unconstitutional.

The right to not have one's time wasted by government, or to be subject to excessive bureaucracy, is a fundamental right arising under the 9th Amendment. It is impossible to require people to track all of the purchases they makes in different jurisdictions throughout the year (each of which can potentially have its own rules regarding sales tax, with lots of complicated special cases and exceptions, all of which can be expected to change from year to year) without violating this right (not to mention the right to travel).

This problem is particularly acute for those who live near the borders of one or more government jurisdictions (such as the edge of a city, county, or state, with different sales tax rules on either side of the border, as it may be far more time efficient to drive over the border to make purchases than to do so in one's own jurisdiction, simply due to where the stores are located. Arguably, the Internet simply moves all the public next to such a border: technology has effectively shortened the distances involved.

Dealing with sales tax is one the biggest curses of the small business, especially when the business involves any form of travel, due to the complexity of keeping track of how the rules change from one jurisdiction to another and from one year to another. That in itself is a violation of the 9th Amendment right to travel, in addition to being discriminatory against small business. We wouldn't allow government to require African-Americans, or females, to pay higher taxes on account of their race or sex, but for some reason people don't get up in arms when taxes targeting small business are created. I suppose they're too busy trying to find parking spaces at WalMart to care.

Sales taxes on fuel are a particularly odious violation of this right.

Sales taxes penalize the poor and small business, while having relatively little impact on the rich. There's nothing fair about them.

Then we have the legal ethics problems that inevitably follow from allowing unnecessary complexity anywhere in the legal system, yet another unintended (or perhaps it was intended) consequence of the overly complex tax system ...

Basically, we need to get rid of sales tax entirely. Both income based and sales based tax systems have their problems, but the sales tax system does far more harm than good, in all kinds of complex ways. ALL government spending should be funded by income tax.

Unfortunately, once government in the USA (at all levels) realized that paying attention to fundamental rights was inconvenient, they started attacking these rights. Once they were able to undermine the very explicit rights in the 1st and 2nd Amendments (which wasn't hard, the same politicians who wanted to do this appoint the judges, creating a huge ethical conflict of interest which has proved far stronger than the oaths the judges take to uphold the Bill of Rights), it wasn't a big step to all kinds of harmful policies that would have been prohibited under the other Amendments. James Madison deliberately made the Bill of Rights open ended in an attempt to prevent this kind of thing, but public apathy and ignorance (not some mention the propaganda skill of the political establishment) has prevented that mechanism for working.

Re:Duh

[TheRaven64]

The second part is the problem. Sales tax in the USA can be charged by states, counties and cities. You may be paying sales tax to three nested jurisdictions with a cumulative rate of almost 20%, or you may be paying no sales tax at all, depending on where things take place.

Re:Duh

[duke_cheetah2003]

Oh I agree, 'use tax' is pretty gosh-darn silly.

I mean, if I go across a state line, buy a tank of gas, drive around a bit, then go home with half of it left..do I pay? What about a half-eaten dinner? It's just a goofball tax, which is why most people (despite the legality) don't even bother.

Re:Duh

[chrismcb]

If I buy something, the tax on it shouldn't depend on who I bought it from, or where they are located.

Of course it should be. Or are you saying you should pay the same tax to a small boutique store in littletown, usa that you'd pay to a large flagship store on 5th ave in NY? Just like the cost of living is different between small town America and NYC, the cost of providing services (fire, police, etc) to business in smalltown is less. So why should the taxes be the same?

Supreme court quote

[girlintraining]

I'm reminded of a supreme court quote:

The power to tax is the power to destroy.

Just Hateful

[Anonymous Coward]

Ohh... That feeling ... of getting screwed by the very people that are supposed to represent you...

Now, what are they going to do with their ill gotten gains? Moar monee 4 Edukation? Moar Roads?

I don't need any of that!

Nothing beneficial is going to come from this and I'm stuck with the bill!!!!

Grrrr Connecticut! Blast you Malloy!!!!

Re:Just Hateful

[Runaway1956]

Ill gotten gains?

Pal, I don't like paying taxes any more than the next guy. But, county, city, and state governments do require money to operate. Your county almost certainly has roads to maintain. Someone has to pay for it. Your schools cost money. Everything costs. So, how are you going to pay for it?

Each state has different formulas for funding things at the local level. Maybe your state doesn't use any sales tax for education, but the next state over uses most of sales tax for education. So, I can't know where YOUR sales taxes went 30 years ago, or today.

But, the fact is, 30 years ago, almost everything sold at retail WAS TAXED. The county and the state both had a sales tax, and they got their cut on just about everything. With today's internet, both are simply cut out of about half (or more) of their revenues.

Do I WANT to pay my county a few cents every time I make an online purchase? Not really. But, I do need my roads. I like having the parks cleaned up and maintained. And, the kids need stuff at school. Horatio has been wanting to do some much-needed work at the Horatio High School's football field. The money has to come from SOMEWHERE.

What I do NOT LIKE, is the fact that local and state governments have become more reliant on federal funds for everything, from school funds, to highway funds, to local infrastructure improvements. Local governments should be independent of Washington's money. Sales tax was a large part of that financial independence.

Re:Just Hateful

[Dan667]

if you were really worried about that you would be pressuring state and local governments to stop throwing your tax dollars away subsidizing rich companies that don't need it.

Re:Just Hateful

[Kilo Kilo]

Yes, govt needs taxes, but why does my state need so much more tax than all the states around it? Why does my state need to tax a purchase I'm making in another state?

The taxes on the gas are supposed to pay for the roads. The property taxes are supposed to pay for the schools and town govt. A sales is acceptable because someone is doing business within the state. A sales tax on an out of state purchase is the state trying to punish you for going somewhere else to save a few bucks because they don't want to lower the taxes to be competitive with the other states.

Re:Just Hateful

[Runaway1956]

You still don't seem to connect all the dots. Large retail corporations have cut small retailers out, and at the same time, cut out local governments. Once upon a time, within living memory, the vast majority of people bought 99% of their goods locally. To get cheaper goods, or to benefit from lower tax rates, you had to actually drive across state lines. Yes - we did that. A lot of things in my home state were taxed, but 20 miles across the state line, some of those things were tax free, or taxed at a lower rate. So - from time to time, the family would load up, and we would make an expedition across the state line.

The problem today is, those huge megacorporations are basically depriving YOUR county, MY county, and EVERYONE's counties of much needed taxes.

If you're one who believes that you shouldn't have to pay taxes at all - I have very limited sympathy for you. I've already stated that I don't LIKE paying taxes - but pay taxes we must.

Oh - fuel taxes? Those go to state highways, for the most part. Your local government doesn't get a cut out of that. The feds have an excise tax on road use fuels, and the state has their taxes. No local government that I'm aware of gets ANYTHING from those taxes. So - how does your city pay for it's city streets? Your county or parish? You need to check that out. In MY county, they use part of sales taxes, part of property taxes, a portion of fines and penalties collected by the courts, and any federal or state grants that they can get their hands on.

Re:Just Hateful

[Runaway1956]

I agree. The company I work for is benefitting from an arrangement with the city and county government. I don't like it at all. Cheating rat bastards, take the money, and laugh all the way to the bank. But - it's not like I have a voice in the matter. The mayor, the county judges, and my bosses all gain something - we, the average taxpayers get nothing.

Pressure? You may have guessed that I am an outspoken person. I put all the pressure that I can on everyone involved. But, one loudmouthed old man doesn't generate much interest.

Re:Just Hateful

[Kilo Kilo]

Since you didn't bother to read my post, let me repeat some things.

So - how does your city pay for it's city streets?

The property taxes are supposed to pay for the schools and town govt. That would go towards city streets.

If you're one who believes that you shouldn't have to pay taxes at all

A sales [tax] is acceptable because someone is doing business within the state. This would also apply on the county level.

The problem today is, those huge megacorporations are basically depriving YOUR county, MY county, and EVERYONE's counties of much needed taxes.

If they're not operating in my state or county, then my state or county isn't entitled to to their taxes. If I go on vacation in another state and shop at a store there, should I pay sales tax in my home state? How is that different from ordering something online from another state?

I used to live in Rockland County, NY. Rockland has some of the highest taxes in the state and is also running a >$125 million deficit. Trying to grasp at more taxes isn't the solution. State and local govt's need to balance their budgets. I don't see why taxing the average citizen more is acceptable to make up for their incompetence.

Re:Just Hateful

[Ichijo]

With today's internet, both are simply cut out of about half (or more) of their revenues.

Maybe now cities will start switching from sales taxes to property taxes. Property taxes "encourage cities to make land-use decisions that bolster property values...Sales tax just incentivizes you to put up big-box stores."

I'd rather see my house value go up than see more Wal-Marts. Wouldn't you?

Re:Just Hateful

[cluedweasel]

This is pretty much how my current home town works. What it leads to though, is around 50,000 property owners financing everything in the city - roads, schools, parks, leisure centers, social programs, libraries, etc. You may think that sounds fair enough, but we get over 2 million tourists a year, who outside of a 9.8% room tax, pay nothing towards the infrastructure they use during their vacation.

Re:Just Hateful

[chrismcb]

Moar Roads?

Heaven forbid they build more and better roads for the delivery truck to travel on. Or do you think stuff you order just materalizes on your front porch?

For the record

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon has supported a national sales tax since the late 90s. Their position hasn't changed, just people's false memories.

They don't support having to figure out 10,000 taxing jurisdictions each with their own weird rules. And there is no justification for Amazon to collect sales tax below the state level anyway, unless they are shipping to a state where they have a presence or nexus.

The supreme court has already ruled on this in 1992, and their ruling was quite clear. So either Congress gets off their butts and passes a law, or Amazon can just keep fighting it out in district courts for years.

That does not absolve people from paying use tax, which most don't. But use tax was never meant for consumers, and states have little power to enforce it on anyone except businesses. So a national sales tax makes the most sense in this case, which is why Amazon supports it.

Re:For the record

[osu-neko]

The supreme court has already ruled on this in 1992, and their ruling was quite clear. So either Congress gets off their butts and passes a law, or Amazon can just keep fighting it out in district courts for years.

The Wikipedia article on the case you're referring to indicates there has been some congressional action on the matter, or attempted action at least. I wouldn't count on this congress actually managing to get real legislation done, though...

Re:For the record

[iamhassi]

They don't support having to figure out 10,000 taxing jurisdictions each with their own weird rules.

This x9000.

Back in the day I worked with a company that provided a very popular ecommerce shopping cart that online shops could use to easily peddle their goods online. I remember when they rolled out the ability to charge sales tax and OMG the nightmare it created for support. Because remember, it's not just the State sales tax, often individual cities and counties charge a tax, AND on top of that tax different items can be taxed at different rates, like alcohol and certain foods. We had a company that would automatically update the database of taxes for everywhere and we allowed the stores to put in their own rates but it didn't stop them from calling non-stop complaining that some places were too low or too high and they didn't want to figure out the rate themselves and blah blah blah

Re:For the record

[colinnwn]

Not only different tax rates for different products, but different tax rates for the same product depending on how it is prepared or packaged. For example a coke out of a fountain intended for onsite consumption can be taxed differently than a coke in a can meant to be carried out, or coke in a 12 pack meant to be taken home.

Re:For the record

[CastrTroy]

The problem is, is that they were probably collecting the taxes, to make it appear on the outside like they were doing the right thing, but they probably weren't remitting them to the government. Sure a good ecommerce system can ensure with somewhat decent accuracy that the correct amount is being collected, but it doesn't help you with actually transferring that money to the correct entity. I don't think a system exists that tells you how to remit taxes to the thousands of different tax jurisdictions in the United States.

Re:For the record

[PTBarnum]

You have to collect the correct taxes for every jurisdiction, but you submit them to the states, not to local jurisdictions. The state then distributes the funds according to the data in your filing.

Re:For the record

[margeman2k3]

You think that's bad?
I worked at a cafe in Ontario, and we had so many tax rules that the company writing our POS software couldn't even get it to work properly.

It looked something like this:
Non-food items are charged 13% tax
Some non-food items are charged 5% tax
Most food items are charged 13% tax
Some food items are charged 5% tax
Other food items are tax free
If you spent less than $4 on certain food items, it was tax free
If you were buying "bakery" items (bagels, etc), then they were tax free if you were buying at least 6, but the total had to be under $4, and you couldn't buy a drink with it.

And this was just for a coffee shop.
I can see why Amazon would be willing to charge X% nationally, as long as they don't need to deal with crap like that.

Re:For the record

[Creepy]

A national sales tax will not happen - it is unconstitutional and a right reserved for states. Collecting sales tax on behalf of the states has been proposed, but some states don't collect sales tax and again, it probably would be struck down as unconstitutional based on state's rights to collect the tax.

And the reason you get between 2000 and 19000+ jurisdictions (depending on who you ask) that change daily is because taxes need to be collected in the location of the buyer if the business doesn't have a presence in the state. That means you need to know state, county, and municipal taxes for every resident of the state. Any attempts to collect the tax in one location has been shot down because the rest of the state thinks it is getting robbed out of deserved taxes (but technically you'd still owe this tax and would be responsible for paying it, just like Sales and Use taxes today).

States have the right to request records of names and amounts of purchases made through catalog and internet sales to their state, and could easily be picking a few out of state vendors and nailing people for tax evasion. I don't think it would take many arrests and either fines or jail time to get massive amounts of people to pay taxes just because they're scared not to.

Re:For the record

[Anonymous Coward]

90% of what the federal government does is already unconstitutional so what difference does it make

Re:For the record

[Runaway1956]

Income tax is unconstitutional as well. Yet, we have an IRS enforcing the collection of income taxes.

Whether a federal sales tax ever be enacted or not, that doesn't preclude an administrative agency enabling the states and local jurisdictions to collect their taxes. It could be set up in any number of ways.

Fact is, I suspect that sometime soon, online retailers WILL be collecting sales taxes, and that the funds will be distributed according to some really arcane formula that few of us can claim to really understand.

Re:For the record

[Anonymous Coward]

How exactly is the income tax unconstitutional? Not only do we have the Supreme Court saying it is constitutional after the passing of the 16th Amendment, we have them saying it is BEFORE the 16th Amendment.

Re:For the record

[Anonymous Coward]

And before the cries of "BUT POLLOCK..." start, I am well aware of what Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Company says. I also know what the ones surrounding it say because there were almost 20 years between it and the 16th amendment.

Re:For the record

[hawk]

The solution has been obvious for more than a decade.

Each zipcode gets a tax rate. If it crosses jurisdictional lines, either the jurisdictions resolve the split between themselves, or it stays in trust until a court resolves the split.

This is a *very* small array for an electronic report.

The company writes a single check, with a monthly electronic report breaking it down by zip code.

Re:For the record

[Anonymous Coward]

Income tax is unconstitutional

No, no, it isn't. Really it isn't. There is even a constitutional amendment to support it, that in many people's views is redundant, but was passed just to stop whining income tax opponents from pretending the constitution doesn't allow it.

Re:For the record

[hawk]

>Collecting sales tax on behalf of the states has
>been proposed, but some states don't collect sales
>tax and again, it probably would be struck down as
>unconstitutional based on state's rights to collect
>the tax.

Speaking as a lawyer . . .

you're just plain wrong on this.

The Supreme Court has made it clear that while states cannot force out of state entities to collect sales tax for them, it is for Congress to find a solution. It is not that states *cannot* tax the purchases, but that they cannot tax *out of state* entities. Congress indisputably has the power to handle the issue.

hawk, esq.

Re:For the record

[Anonymous Coward]

Yow! One argument I've made over the years in postings and letters to the editor is that a bricks-and-mortar store has to deal with only *one* set of rules--the rules for where the business is located. I point out the issue becomes several orders of magnitude worse when you have not only to keep that straight for thousands of taxing authorites, but having to do a reliable mapping from an address to a taxing district. I never imagined that the rules for a single taxing authority would be that complicated.

By the way, here is another complicating factor: sales-tax holidays. For the past several years (but not every year), here in Florida we've had a back-to-school tax holiday. The dates vary, and of course the rules for what is tax free vary from year to year.

I love it now that I've got a new metaphor for byzantine complication and that it applies to the sales-tax thing: the requirements for doing the internet sales-tax calculation makes healthcare.gov seem like a walk in the park.

Re:For the record

[squiggleslash]

A national sales tax will not happen - it is unconstitutional and a right reserved for state

Actually if the sales tax is strictly limited to being imposed on interstate commerce (which, uh, it is, at least, I don't see anyone proposing it needs to be for anything more than that, it certainly isn't being proposed as an alternative to local taxation) then it's 100% constitution. As in there's even a clause in the constitution specifically authorizing the Federal government with powers in this aea.

Re:For the record

[Anonymous Coward]

That's assuming that the legislation Amazon is supporting is a National Income Tax (as in a flat rate nationwide), which it isn't at all. They support legislation that would simply grant all states the authority to charge sales tax for online goods. So every state will still be imposing different rates on Amazon (i.e., it's really not about simplify their accounting).

Re:For the record

[colinnwn]

I know it's crazy. My wife is a sales tax accountant (dealing a lot with Canada right now) and when she talks about things like this it just makes me mad. She's no fan of one of the provinces in Canada, and Denver Colorado, because they have especially strange tax rules. I looked it up and in the US I believe there are 40,000 different taxing entities and each one can have hundreds or thousands of rules in law and special considerations in private letter rulings.

Re:For the record

[colinnwn]

That depends completely on the state. My wife has told me how many do this vs. remit to the jurisdiction and I don't remember the ratio right now. For example in Louisiana you remit it to the parish tax collector, and in many cases you can't make the check out to "x parish tax collector" but to the tax collector's name personally.

Re:For the record

[colinnwn]

It just doesn't work this way. First tax jurisdictions aren't divided by zipcode as you allude to. You remit taxes to the state, county, city, and special taxing jurisdiction. As I recall there are 40,000 different "jurisdictions" in the US that can collect tax, but hundreds of thousands of different combinations of those overlapping jurisdictions. Some states will distribute the funds for you as long as you submit a report of what amounts should go where, other states the individual jurisdictions collect their own tax. In addition each of these jurisdictions have hundreds or thousands of tax laws or private letter decisions on how their code should be interpreted.

Now if you are saying our tax code should be set up the way you suggest, then I agree. But right now it is not set up in any manner where you can do that.

Re:For the record

[colinnwn]

There are a couple companies in the US that attempt to do this (determine the correct tax by sales location and nexus then distribute your payment to them from your company's ERP system). They're expensive and still make mistakes though. It requires active participation from the companies contracting them. It isn't a problem you can just hand off to them with a wad of cash and walk away from.

Re:For the record

[Anonymous Coward]

It doesn't allow it, you fucking retard. Can you pig fuckers even read the English language?

Re:For the record

[Anonymous Coward]

On the bright side: think of all the jobs these laws have created!

Re:For the record

[lxs]

Stop treating your constitution like it is the Bible. Constitutions get amended all the time. When the world changes, laws need to follow.

Re:For the record

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if tax jurisdictions fell cleanly along zip code boundaries, you wouldn't end up with a tax rate per zip code but more like 200 tax rates and several dozen exceptions and subjective if-then rules based on things like total purchase amount, carton size, resale intent, edibility, nutrition content, etc.

Re:For the record

[Attila Dimedici]

Why should local jurisdictions have to adjust their tax laws just because the Post Office found it convenient to lump parts of them together for the delivery of mail? Any correlation between zip codes and taxing jurisdictions is purely chance.

Re:For the record

[Attila Dimedici]

As someone else pointed out, there was a constitutional amendment passed to make income tax constitutional, so it is not unconstitutional.

Re:For the record

[Ken D]

... now that sounds more than a little bit fishy.

Re:For the record

[Anonymous Coward]

Me thinks the retard is you.

From the fucking 16th amendment:

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.

Now how is the pigfucker who cannot read?

Re:For the record

[Anonymous Coward]

When you use the words "English language" are you refering to an entirely different language that happens to use similar words, but with different meanings, to that the constitution is actually written in?

I ask because in the version of English I was brought up with the 16th Amendment is pretty clear, and very clearly allows the Federal government to levy income taxes.

Re:For the record

[kimvette]

> interstate commerce

You mean intrastate commerce, that is, state governments are forbidden from creating barriers to interstate trade. That is the sole domain of the Federal government, and is the sole reason for the Commerce Clause. The Commerce Clause is being abused to justify laws such as the AFA and is almost never used for its intended purpose.

Taxing out-of-state purchases is completely unconstitutional and anyone who remits such "user fees" is an illiterate moron, or one who has never read The Constitution of The United States of America.

Re:For the record

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow - ahahahah

Try a single item in bar/resturant Vienna...
Milk
If you ordered in the bar, the next table over - it was 18% VAT Bar Drink
If you ordered it as drink - it was 2% VAT Drink
If you poured it over your ceral - it was 10% VAT Food

It is not just a US thing.

Re:For the record

[squiggleslash]

You mean intrastate commerce

No, I mean interstate.

that is, state governments are forbidden from creating barriers to interstate trade

Correct.

That is the sole domain of the Federal government, and is the sole reason for the Commerce Clause

Which is what we're talking about. And why it would be constitutional for the Federal government to impose a sales tax on interstate commerce.

Taxing out-of-state purchases is completely unconstitutional

It is entirely constitutional for the Federal government to tax interstate commerce. Out-of-state purchases are, by definition, interstate commerce. It is entirely constitutional for the Federal government to tax out of state purchases.

or one who has never read The Constitution of The United States of America

Good luck on tax protestor prison, which is where you'll go if you try to convince a Federal judge that a Federal tax on an out-of-state transaction is unconstitional and somehow not covered by the Federal government's right to regulate interstate commerce.

Re:For the record

[Crispy Critters]

I think you are saying that if states, counties, and cities all rewrote their tax laws to be easier to enforce, then they wouldn't get much opposition from internet retailers. Eminently true.

Re:For the record

[hawk]

They're not forced. to.

To have this tax collected for them, instead of trying and failing to collect a "use tax" as they do now, they would have to agree to this simplified system which is not burdensome on the small business collecting it.

Either the entities sharing the zip code agree, or they watch the revenue pile up on trust.

hawk

Re:For the record

[mattie_p]

I want the US Government to roll out something to solve this. Perhaps a mandated on-line program where companies are required to use a plug-in or standard modification to their shopping cart. Maybe create a website that allows individuals to find out how much sales tax they will pay before they buy something. There could be different deadlines on when companies would have to implement this, of course. Larger companies first, then the next year smaller companies would have to implement this.

I think this would solve everything, and I bet there'd be, like, 100% buy-in from everyone!

Re:For the record

[quacking duck]

You think that's bad?

I worked at a cafe in Ontario, and we had so many tax rules that the company writing our POS software couldn't even get it to work properly.

That's still at the provincial (state) level. GP post already mentioned the stupidity of hundreds if not thousands of city/county/district-level sales and use taxes per state, each of which might have slightly different tax rules like you see in your cafe.

So if your POS software company is already having a hard time working at a provincial level, multiply that by up to the number of municipal areas to see how much worse it is in the US.

Re:For the record

[rpstrong]

Got a problem? Pass another law.
Got a business problem? Call for a government mandated rule.
(Want health insurance? [...])

Re:For the record

[rpstrong]

Now how is the pigfucker who cannot read?

He is probably feeling a bit contrite.

Re:For the record

[Anonymous Coward]

I live in Louisiana. I own a business selling knives online and at gunshows. I am registered with the state and my home parish for sales tax collection. At gunshows outside my home parish at the end of the show I have to calculate and pay the local sales tax for that show right then and there. Gunshows in my home parish I still have to report then and there how much sales tax I owe, but I can pay it at the end of the month when I file with the parish.

My parish collects all the taxes for the parish and the individual cities within it.

The state has it's own website for filing sales taxes. There is also a seperate website for filing parish taxes that covers every parish that a business is registered in with one login, but each parish has to be filed seperately.

Re:For the record

[Anonymous Coward]

I was recently directed to buy feminine products and I found out that "regular" pads are taxed at the food rate (1.75%), while "long" pads are taxed at the general rate (8.5%). I have no idea why.

Haven't used Amazon in over a year

[Snotnose]

There are other places to get stuff from where you don't have to pay the California extortion. B&H, J&R to name 2 off the top of my head. I'd rather my money go to UPS and FED-Ex than the bozos in Sacramento.

Re:Haven't used Amazon in over a year

[hawguy]

There are other places to get stuff from where you don't have to pay the California extortion. B&H, J&R to name 2 off the top of my head.

I'd rather my money go to UPS and FED-Ex than the bozos in Sacramento.

Of course, you're still required to pay the tax even if the retailer doesn't collect it.

Re:Haven't used Amazon in over a year

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe if the retailer did collect it I wouldn't buy it at all because I couldn't afford it? You should call your representatives and demand a 100% sales tax, because it's probably going to cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to punish me for not giving the government a couple of hundred dollars that I earned.

Re:Haven't used Amazon in over a year

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahem, it's *Bezos*, not bozos.

Re:Haven't used Amazon in over a year

[hawguy]

Maybe if the retailer did collect it I wouldn't buy it at all because I couldn't afford it?

That's pretty much the argument from brick and motar retailers for forcing online retailers to collect sales tax. Otherwise, if you can't afford it at Best Buy, you're more likely to buy from B&H because it's x% cheaper there without the sales tax. And for a big dollar item (the kind that's expensive for retailers to keep in stock because it is so expensive), the savings often far exceeds to cost of shipping.

You should call your representatives and demand a 100% sales tax, because it's probably going to cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to punish me for not giving the government a couple of hundred dollars that I earned.

As a private citizen (as opposed to a business) there's probably a very slim chance of non-payment of sales/use tax being discovered, even during an audit, Unless you're making any large deductions of items that you should have paid tax on. I have significant self-employment income and deduct everything legally possible, which includes significant out of state purchases, so I do track and pay my use-tax accordingly. The savings from the business deduction is worth more than the savings from not paying the use tax.

California has a simple use-tax table that seems would get you off the hook for use tax liability by paying the tax in the table for all purchases less than $1000. For larger purchases you should still itemize.

Re:Haven't used Amazon in over a year

[CohibaVancouver]

because it's probably going to cost tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to punish me for not giving the government a couple of hundred dollars that I earned.

Sure, but that's the case with all non-violent crimes. Some guy steals something and you spend $250K to lock him up for five years, not to mention the cost of prosecuting him. That's just how it is.

Re:Haven't used Amazon in over a year

[Anonymous Coward]

There are other places to get stuff from where you don't have to pay the California extortion. B&H, J&R to name 2 off the top of my head. I'd rather my money go to UPS and FED-Ex than the bozos in Sacramento.

Depends on what you are buying, of course. But in addition to the reliable and timed shipping, Amazon does have better prices

Staples sent out a $20 (or $25) coupon offer just a few days ago, on toner and related. Well, it turns out that even with this discount at Staples, Amazon was cheaper at normal prices...

Re:Haven't used Amazon in over a year

[kimvette]

> Of course, you're still required to pay the tax even if the retailer doesn't collect it.

Which is unconstitutional because it is a violation of the interstate commerce clause.

Re:Haven't used Amazon in over a year

[hawguy]

> Of course, you're still required to pay the tax even if the retailer doesn't collect it.

Which is unconstitutional because it is a violation of the interstate commerce clause.

How is that unconstitutional? Are you saying that a state has no right to collect a tax from its citizens?

As far as I know, every state that collects a sales-tax for in-state purchases requires use-tax to be paid on out of state purchases, even you drive across the border to purchase items that you'll use in your home state (though in that case, you can typically take a credit for sales tax paid in that state).

Use-tax isn't new, California has had it on the books since the 1930's. So I think that it were truly unconstitutional, someone would have had it tested by the courts long before now.

Re:Haven't used Amazon in over a year

[JesseMcDonald]

In theory the state is taxing your use of the good within the state, not the interstate commerce itself. That's why they call it "use tax". Of course, they don't apply "use tax" if you've already paid sales tax, and the rates are always the same. It's an obvious technicality, but one they've managed to get away with.

Re:Haven't used Amazon in over a year

[JesseMcDonald]

Some guy steals something and you spend $250K to lock him up for five years, not to mention the cost of prosecuting him. That's just how it is.

In a sane system, theft would carry a civil liability sufficient to cover all the costs of catching the thief and making the victim whole. If the victim wants to go further (proportional retribution) that is their right, but it's also their own free choice and consequently their responsibility to fund. In any case being locked up for five years is hardly a proportional response to theft.

When it'll hurt

[smittyoneeach]

. . .is after Bezos completes his government takeover, and, a la ObamaCare, starts taxing you for NOT shopping Amazon.

Kickbacks

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon fights state sales tax only until it can setup a sweetheart deal and get a kickback.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/05/21/0247237/amazon-poised-to-get-cut-of-ca-sales-taxes

It supports a national tax because it is an even playing field, everyone would have to implement it. On the state side, most everything is patchwork and only "big" companies have to implement it.

Companies often don't care much at policies as long as they are even for everyone. Look at the previous big box minimum wage law in Washington D.C. Very few companies would be against it if all companies had to follow it, but the law basically said, if you are Walmart, you have to pay ~50% more to your minimum wage employees.

New Hampshire

[J'raxis]

Yet another reason to live in New Hampshire: No sales tax.

Re:New Hampshire

[Anonymous Coward]

So is Oregon. It was nice to know the prices listed on items were the actual price you would pay, no extra amount in tax.

1%

[xvent]

Doesn't change the fact that sales tax is regressive. Once again the 1% fucks the everyman. When's it gonna be our time to violently ass rape Mr. Monopoly?

Re:1%

[hawguy]

Doesn't change the fact that sales tax is regressive. Once again the 1% fucks the everyman. When's it gonna be our time to violently ass rape Mr. Monopoly?

Well, it's not entirely regressive. A low income person will spend a higher portion of his income on food and housing than a higher income person -- things that are generally exempt from state tax. The higher income person will be eating out more, buying more "toys", buying an expensive car, etc and generally making more purchases that are not exempt from tax.

Re:1%

[Gothmolly]

And why is a regressive tax bad? People love to complain about regressive taxes, but the argument why they're bad always falls back to "because its bad!". I find that opponents of regressive taxes always prefer progressive taxes, as if that's somehow better. Why?

Re:1%

[CastrTroy]

This is something that a lot of people forget. The amount of money you spend on sales tax is often largely optional. Most necessities like groceries don't have sales tax in most areas. I actually find that sales taxes affect me very little, even though my sales tax rate is 13% (Go Canada), as I tend not to actually buy that much stuff.

Re:1%

[hawguy]

And why is a regressive tax bad? People love to complain about regressive taxes, but the argument why they're bad always falls back to "because its bad!". I find that opponents of regressive taxes always prefer progressive taxes, as if that's somehow better. Why?

Because it puts an excessive burden on the poor, who are least able to afford it. The assumption is that the rich got rich from the work of the poor. Which is probably not so true today as it was when we had a more industrial economy.

Now the rich get rich in increasingly complex financial schemes to extract more and more money from the underprivileged. I don't think it's sustainable in the long term - the 1% has an enormous portion of the wealth in this country, and the class of poor is expanding as the middle class contracts. As more and more of the poor are unable to support themselves, someone's got to pay for them, and the rich carefully protect their riches to make sure it's not them. So who is left to pay taxes when the poor are too poor to pay taxes, the middle class is virtually non-existent, and the wealthy have made sure that they pay very little?

The problem in the USA isn't that there are too many poor people, it's that there are too few wealthy people - locking up the wealth in a tiny class of super rich does not make for a healthy economy.

Re:1%

[pepty]

A low income person will spend a higher portion of his income on food and housing than a higher income person -- things that are generally exempt from state tax. The higher income person will be eating out more, buying more "toys", buying an expensive car, etc and generally making more purchases that are not exempt from tax.

In the worst states the poor pay 7% of their income in sales/excise taxes vs 4.6% for middle incomes and 0.9% for the wealthiest. from ITEP:

States’ consumption tax structures are highly regressive with an average 7 percent rate for the poor, a 4.6 percent rate for middle incomes, and a 0.9 percent rate for the wealthiest taxpayers. Because food is one of the largest expenses for a low-income family, taxing food is a particularly regressive tax policy; five of the ten most regressive states tax food at the state or local level. Excise taxes on things like gasoline, cigarettes or beer take about 1.6 percent of the income of the poorest families, 0.8 percent from middle income families and 0.1 percent of income from the most well-off.

http://www.itep.org/pdf/whopayses.pdf

Re:1%

[dkleinsc]

The assumption is that the rich got rich from the work of the poor. Which is probably not so true today as it was when we had a more industrial economy.

It's just as true today as it was back in the day. There are 2 reasons why it's still true:
- The poor are still being horrifically exploited for industrial labor, but in China, Nicaragua, Columbia, Bangladesh, and other dirt-poor countries rather than in the US. People are being killed and maimed and given horrible diseases so your plastic doohickeys from Walmart are nice and cheap. It used to be those people were living not too far from you, now they're halfway around the world, so it's easier to pretend that they don't exist.
- Without the (relatively) poor in the US and Europe spending more money on consumer purchases than they're earning in wages, the entire system of Wall Street collapses. That difference between consumer purchases and wages is most of corporate earnings, which drives the stock and bond prices, which is the rich's primary source of income.

Another way of looking at it:
1. An average person produces, at most, $50 worth of a product per hour. A really smart and hardworking person might make double that, or $100 per hour.
2. There are 5840 hours per year where a person could reasonably be awake. To be generous, I'll round it up to 6000. Such a person would be ridiculously diligent, doing nothing but working any moment they were awake and pushing themselves beyond their physiological limits.
3. That means that any annual gross salary higher than $600,000 has an earnings source other than the stuff somebody produced.
4. Ergo, if you're earning more than $600K a year, you're a thief of some kind or another.
The numbers might not be exactly right, but the point remains: There is some point at which what you make is higher than what you actually earned.

Re: 1%

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no. Just no.

One person can be responsible for the production of many other people like CEO, president, engineers, even sales and marketing. So they rightfully get a cut which even a small percent from thousands will be more than your magical $100 per hour. If somebody does marketing for you then they deserve to be paid right? So if they do marketing for a thousand companies then they can get a thousand times that amount which should still be reasonably to a sane person. The ones producing the product are paying for the knowledge and experience to make the product sale which is required for it to be worth any thing. It is only worth what you can get out of it.

Also the $100 is erroneous because if somebody famous (ex president, actor, musician, etc) and can get 10000 people to pay $20 to listen to them talk for 15 minutes then by definition they are worth $800000 per hour. And there are plenty of rich people who have paid more for private shows especially to musicians. There really is not an upper limit of what one can be worth per hour, just a limit on what others can afford to pay.

Re:1%

[Maudib]

The modern notion of a middle class is a complete aberration, and a bit of a misnomer. The middle class has only really existed since the mid 1900s, and previously no society has ever had one. The American and European middle class only came into existence because of our society's ability to extract wealth from other countries.

The American middle class is in fact part of the global 1%. As America's ability to control foreign economies and resources decreases, the lower echelons of the global 1% who live in America may experience some slight discomfort.

Re:1%

[xvent]

Didn't you read the part about ass fucking Mr. Monopoly? Progressive taxes are better because rich people would then be getting ass fucked a more appropriate amount.

Can't understand how they are still in business

[Anonymous Coward]

I never bought anything from Amazon, simply because they want to charge me the additional 27% VAT of my own country, while on the Internet they should charge none and I'd pay it at the customs when it arrives. If I paid them, would they return the tax money to our government later? I don't think so. Also, if the sellers location is in the EU (where I also live), the tax rate should be decided by the sellers country, not mine, as far as I know.

Re:Can't understand how they are still in business

[harlows_monkeys]

I never bought anything from Amazon, simply because they want to charge me the additional 27% VAT of my own country, while on the Internet they should charge none and I'd pay it at the customs when it arrives. If I paid them, would they return the tax money to our government later? I don't think so.

Yes, they would turn the tax money over to your government.

Can we have a recall election

[TwineLogic]

Who elected Jeff Bezos to the position "King of Each State's Tax Laws," anyway?

collects, not charges

[gerardrj]

Merchants collect sales taxes, the government charges the taxes.

And the tax is really on the buyer in most states; that way the tax isn't a cost of doing business.

Re:collects, not charges

[Anonymous Coward]

Merchants collect sales taxes, the government charges the taxes.

And the tax is really on the buyer in most states; that way the tax isn't a cost of doing business.

The tax is most certainly a cost of doing business: there are no sales tax faeries that keep track of the various tax rates for various types of goods and various types of customers, then make sure they're applied when appropriate and not applied when not appropriate, then create the appropriate records for accounting purposes and in case of audits.

In the absence of faeries that do all this work for free, the business gets to do it. Somebody has to be hired (often many somebodies), or somebody else has to take the time to set a system up and keep it current.

Don't forget the need for capital to keep the records, plus accountants to audit them, and so forth.

Nothing human beings do is perfect, so there will inevitably be errors and you'll need to take more time to address those errors. Then there's the need to take even more time away from actually running your business when you eventually do get audited.

If you're one of those unfortunate small business owners who exercises the right to travel (a foolish notion, by the way, that people have rights and might want to exercise them) by doing business in multiple jurisdictions, things simply get even more complicated, especially in those years where you get audited in multiple jurisdictions with different interpretations of the rules.

Something to think about the next time you go to a trade show, or fair, or any of the other venues where business-people have travelled to sell their goods.

Don't forget the expense of hiring a legal professional to help interpret the rules, which will probably change every year as the politicians need more money from different special interest groups to get re-elected.

Don't forget government jurisdictions overlap, and the legal profession is very aggressive about everybody being required to know all the rules everywhere in order to create business for itself. Ignorance is not a defence because, if it was, then that would reduce the ability of the legal profession to make money off the complex legal system they've created.

The marginal cost of dealing with all this nonsense in a large business is much lower than in a small business. Thus, sales tax hurts small business much more than large: the extra overhead can easily drive an otherwise viable small business into bankruptcy.

Yay, corporations terraforming our legal system!

[He Who Has No Name]

A few more decades like this, and you won't be able to tell this nation ever had flesh-and-blood inhabitants just from looking at our statutes and caselaw!

Re:Yay, corporations terraforming our legal system

[Phil Urich]

Heh, that's actually a pretty good metaphor for it, "corporations terraforming or legal system", I like it. I mean, I hate that it's happening, but that's a great way of putting it.

In praise of New Hampshire

[Okian Warrior]

Yet another reason to live in New Hampshire: No sales tax.

In further praise of New Hampshire note that we also don't have an income tax and, unlike California, we're not bankrupt. Also, the unemployment rate is pretty low - currently 5%.

(We have high property taxes, but one of the lowest overall tax burdens, so having high property taxes isn't as important as you might think.)

Re:In praise of New Hampshire

[dkleinsc]

Also very relevant to this is the direct democracy in much of the state at the local level, and one of the lowest constituent-to-representative ratios in the world in the state government. That makes it one of the most responsive governments you'll find anywhere, where you can in fact convince the powers that be to change policy if you're right.

Other interesting fact: New Hampshire has the longest-serving Secretary of State in the country, who took office in 1976 and has stayed there ever since. The reason? He's demonstrably good at his job, and in the NH government that counts more than party affiliation.

Re:In praise of New Hampshire

[kimvette]

It's amazing what can be accomplished by not having an administrative-heavy government.

For example, some are outraged that we just gave NH officials free tolls on NH turnpikes. The thing is, we have to reimburse them for travel expenses (and they're mostly volunteer positions anyway, making NH less crooked than other New England states) which is administratively heavy, so it's cheaper to just give them a free pass on in-state turnpikes. It keeps the overall costs down, gives legislators a little perk in addition to their what, $200/yr salary (IIRC), and makes sense.

I moved here from Taxachusetts and am glad I did (I was constantly getting hit with bogus taxes and user fees in Taxachusetts. If Massachusetts could get away with taxing income tax and taxing sales tax, that is, adding a tax on top of a tax, they would). Now if only I worked in NH, I'd gain what amounts to a $12K to $15K / year raise because I would not have to pay state income tax. As it is now working in MA I am being taxed without representation.

Re:In praise of New Hampshire

[Anonymous Coward]

Adding to that things are done intelligently. NH still has flagmen directing traffic in construction areas, so we're not paying police officers $90+/hr to work "details" with their thumbs up their asses. 90% of highway funds goes into actual road work, vs. Massachusetts where 80% to 90% goes into administrative costs (hence the better road conditions when you cross the state line). Tax dollars get spent on the common good rather than pander to vocal special interests.

Plus, it's free. It is an open-carry state, leading to lower crime (it feels safe seeing citizens carry openly even at public events, and you can even carry in the assembly and town meetings!), and it is a must-issue state where if you apply for a CCW permit, you get it within fourteen days if you do not have a felony, otherwise you can be awarded damages and a written apology for it taking too long. I can shoot in the backyard or even carry an AR down the street and if neighbors call it in, the police will probably ask "is she shooting you or anyone else? No? I don't see a problem here."

NH has a lot going for it. Some Massholes who move here try to change it to make it more like Taxachusetts but fortunately the moonbat types are generally ignored.

Re:In praise of New Hampshire

[J'raxis]

The "Massholes bringing socialism here" thing is largely a myth. Most people moving from Massachusetts are in fact economic/political refugees, just like some of the people in this thread. (I left the day Romneycare went into effect, 2007-07-01.) And most settle around the southeastern part of the state, between Manchester/Nashua and the seacoast.

There's an organization called the New Hampshire Liberty Alliance, of which I'm a board member; we rate State Representatives each year on their respect for liberty---both economic and personal---based on how they vote on bills with a liberty impact, for example, bills creating or eliminating taxes or fees, restricting or improving firearms freedoms, marijuana decrim/legalization, increasing or decreasing government transparency, and so on.

The most highly rated reps are from the same areas that those Massachusetts refugees tend to settle in. Rockingham County, for example. On the other hand, our most statist reps are from the college towns (Keene, Durham, Hanover) and the economically depressed areas such as Claremont and Berlin, not places "Massholes" are settling in.

We've had a couple of "high-profile" incidents where state reps trying to bring major statism to New Hampshire were recent movers here from the socialist holes to the south of us---a few years ago a rep from the Henniker area (I forget her name) introduced a bill to ban open carry in public buildings; she had moved here from Massachusetts less than a decade earlier. (The NHLA targeted her during reelection and she lost in the primary.) And just recently, Cynthia Chase, a rep who publicly claimed that freestaters moving here are "the single biggest threat" that N.H. faces was revealed to have moved here from Rhode Island herself in 2006 (two years after the FSP chose N.H.). But these few anecdotes don't really lead to the conclusion that Massachusetts movers are ruining the state.

Re:In praise of New Hampshire

[J'raxis]

It's $200/term, which means $100/year---and I seem to remember a rep telling me it's actually about $93 after federal taxes.

Re:In praise of New Hampshire

[J'raxis]

For those interested in the details:---

New Hampshire has no sales or income tax, but does have a 9% restaurant/hotel tax, an "income and dividends" tax for capital gains over $1,200/year, and two business taxes---one is a typical business profits tax like you'll find in all states, and the other is a sort of "reverse" income tax, in that the business owner pays it rather than the employee. It's minimal though, something like 1/4% of the money paid to the employees.

New Hampshire also has a lot of user fees and professional licenses, although they don't have a general "business license" like many states. Many of the licenses are silly, for example, they license manicurists and a few years ago actually tried to start licensing interior decorators, but the huge number of libertarian activists here (including over a dozen freestaters in the State House) have pushed back against this nonsense and have been slowly wittling down the existing licensing and regulations every year. The state parks are entirely funded by user fees. There are a couple of large campgrounds and ski resorts in New Hampshire that are owned by the State, and these provide the bulk of that funding. New Hampshire also has state liquor stores, and whereas I would certainly like to see their monopoly broken, this is also a major source of revenue for the State and IMO far preferable to another general tax.

The State makes the bulk of their revenue from the above sources. Property taxes are high because virtually all local and school funding comes from local property taxes, plus the counties' budgets (which fund the superior courts, sheriffs, jails, and nursing homes) are entirely funded by property taxes. The State itself gives "block grants" to towns for certain purposes, for example highway maintenance, but it's minimal compared to what the towns have to raise in local property taxes. The biggest money sink in New Hampshire is the school districts---I live in Grafton, a town where our annual budget is under $1M, but the five-town school district gets $2.3M from Grafton. That district's total budget is something like $22M. So the school represents over two-thirds of our annual tax bill. I know people in other towns where it's even worse. So if anyone is looking to lighten their tax burden here, starting with the school district is the way to go.

Re:In praise of New Hampshire

[J'raxis]

We have 400 State Representatives, which currently works out to 3,291 constituents per Rep. We also have, rather than a lieutenant governor, a five-member Executive Council, which holds a check on virtually all decisions that the Governor makes.

All towns in New Hampshire either follow the traditional "New England town meeting" style of direct democracy, or a two-stage system ("SB2 towns") where the town meeting just votes on what appears on the ballot, including the budget, and then the townspeople vote by secret ballot approximately a month later. The thirteen cities however all have city councils that replace direct democracy with a representative-style system.

This is Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Amazon fights local sales tax because they don't like the notion that any municipality with 3 pigs and a mayor can impose their own laws on Amazon despite Amazon having no physical presence there. If you were running a website, would you want to care about every law that some nut job five states over dreams up?

Re:This is Ridiculous

[lennier1]

That's basically the problem in a nutshell.

Re:This is Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

You're confusing state and local sales tax. State sales tax applies to any purchases made in the entire state, whereas local sales tax is actually added on top of that. State sales tax (which is the one we're talking about) is set by the state legislature.

Re:This is Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Not anymore. That was the old Amazon when they used to fight it but now they are promoting exactly that. They actually want you to be subject to local sales tax in any one of the 9600 tax jurisdictions in the US. The piece of legislation Amazon is promoting is called the Marketplace Fairness Act.

They realized rather than fight it they can provide a service for businesses by providing sales tax collection services and make money of interest before remittance. They call it Amazon's billion dollar pay day if it passes.

Re:This is Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Great opportunity for a B2B tech startup! Mr. Merchant, we'll figure out the tax for you and take care of the paperwork in return for a surcharge of 0.5 percent.

Re:This is Ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Right, how do you explain Amazon charging me 8% Sales Tax because they're in San Bernardino while my local sales tax is 7%? Do I get that 1% back?

Re:This is Ridiculous

[dkf]

Great opportunity for a B2B tech startup! Mr. Merchant, we'll figure out the tax for you and take care of the paperwork in return for a surcharge of 0.5 percent.

They already exist. They're expensive, very expensive.

The problem isn't feeding the details into a spreadsheet and getting a value out, the problem is partially maintaining that spreadsheet (well, really a bit more complex than that) and partially that tax collection laws are very divergent in the details.

Re:This is Ridiculous

[Attila Dimedici]

You would lose money hand over fist trying to keep track of all of the sales tax rules and keep it up to date at only 0.5 percent of the tax collected.

Why is sales tax based on the buyer's location?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't sales tax be based on the seller's location, not the buyer's? That would certainly simplify the collection issue, since as a seller you would only have to comply with one set of laws.

When I travel to another state and buy something there, I pay sales tax to their state government, not to mine. Why is it different online?

Re:Why is sales tax based on the buyer's location?

[psycho12345]

In that case, Amazon simply declares itself to be "in" a state with 0% sales taxes and everyone avoids sales tax, thus reducing every state sales taxes to basically 0%?

Re:Why is sales tax based on the buyer's location?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds good to me!

Re:Why is sales tax based on the buyer's location?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not. But when Amazon establishes distribution centers in a state, they can then start taxing purchases made by residents. Of course it also brings jobs, so the state and Amazon usually come to an acceptable middle ground. Amazon has to keep expanding into every state to make sure it's shipping times are always decreasing.

Re:Why is sales tax based on the buyer's location?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've made this argument many times. Let's look at some cases.

Suppose I live in a state with a low sales tax and travel to one with a higher rate. I pay with a credit card, just as I would if I were at home making a payment to an online reseller. Do I get charged my home-state tax rate? NO. Does the tax the seller collects at least get remitted to my own state? STILL NO. Why does nexus suddenly follow me around? Well, maybe that's the argument: nexus is determined by where I am.

OK, then. Let's assume I'm still travelling and this time make an online purchase for a music download from an outfit in a third state. Funny, this time nexus DOESN'T follow me: they tax me according to where I live. What about if I'm staying in that second state for a few weeks and this time the third-state purchase is for a physical product delivered to where I am staying? From what I understand, nexus is still back in my home state.

This stuff is far from clear-cut.

Re:Why is sales tax based on the buyer's location?

[colinnwn]

It is based on whether the seller has nexus in the buyer's location. If it has nexus it is the seller's responsibility to collect sales tax and remit it, if it doesn't then it is the buyer's responsibility to remit use tax to their taxing jurisdictions. The problem Amazon is having is jurisdictions trying to expand the concept of nexus.

One thing states have been doing is saying if someone in for example North Dakota posts a link to a product on their blog, that constitutes nexus in North Dakota for Amazon even if they have no other operations there. I don't agree with that one.

The other problem they are having is Amazon does not own their distribution centers. They set up a separate company to own and operate these locations that their parent contracts with. They want to use this corporate structure to avoid nexus in places like Texas and other states. This I think is a sketchy dodge, but on the other hand it is a slippery slope to say it is nexus when in fact they are separate companies.

Re:Why is sales tax based on the buyer's location?

[harlows_monkeys]

Suppose I live in a state with a low sales tax and travel to one with a higher rate. I pay with a credit card, just as I would if I were at home making a payment to an online reseller. Do I get charged my home-state tax rate? NO.

It depends on the states. If you are a resident of Alaska, Colorado, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon, American Samoa, Alberta, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, or the Yukon Territory and you are visiting Washington, you are not charged sales tax on tangible personal property, digital goods, and digital codes purchased in Washington if they are for use outside Washington. You show the merchant picture ID that shows your address, and they ring up the sale without sales tax.

Re:Why is sales tax based on the buyer's location?

[Anonymous Coward]

No, no, no... It's not about where the business is located; It's about where the transaction is performed. Clearly, when you purchase something from an internet retailer, that retailer is coming into your home by way of your computer. Thus, the transaction takes place in your home and subject to your local taxes.

Damn, what started out as a sarcastic jab at the system strangely makes more sense than what the tax proponents are claiming. Oh well....

Re:Why is sales tax based on the buyer's location?

[Anonymous Coward]

99% of people refer to "nexus" as you put it as "businesses presence", you should probably use that if you want people to know what the fuck you're talking about. The point to slashdot is to communicate, not pontificate.

Re:Why is sales tax based on the buyer's location?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shouldn't sales tax be based on the seller's location, not the buyer's?

Yes, but states are clueless, and often baaaaaw about roads and other such nonsense.

Fact is, a UPS truck driving around delivering widgets to a dozen people is far less damaging to a state's infrastructure than twelve yahoos hopping into their cars and driving to various stores to buy their widgets. That is to say, use tax is bullshit, and states are greedy.

Probably not unreasonably greedy, given the insanity of the Federal government and their taxes - imagine what utopias our states would be were the lion's share going to them! - but greedy, nonetheless.

So the solution is...

[Okian Warrior]

Because it puts an excessive burden on the poor, who are least able to afford it.

So which is better: adjusting the tax rate, or subsidizing the poor?

Adjusting the tax rate is communism: it relies on the perfect wisdom and incorruptibility of the ruling class to set the right rates. It's subject to personal bias, extrapolation from incomplete knowledge, and outright malfeasance.

It's also an indirect solution, which leads many people (myself included) to suspect ulterior motives. If your purpose is to help the poor, then why adjust the tax rate? A better solution is to identify and subsidize the poor through grants: food coupons, rent assistance, and so on.

The targeted solution is straightforward, and lends itself to measurable goals with oversight and efficiency. For example, legislators can define a measure for poverty and the amount of assistance warranted. The effects can be measured from case studies and adjusted as needed. Specific requirements (food, medicine, particular circumstances) can be directly addressed with specific remedies.

Changing the tax rate allows no such insight or specificity. You might infer general trends from population studies, but it's not as efficient or immediate or specific as a targeted approach.

Identify your goals and implement a direct solution which can be measured. It's the best way.

Flat tax is better for the poor.

Re:So the solution is...

[colinnwn]

If I followed the thread right, parent posts didn't reference flat tax. We currently have a progressive taxation scheme with so many loopholes and deductions that in actuality it is regressive. So if the choice is to not change the status quo, or to make our current tax law less regressive, I'll pick the latter.

But if the option were to tear up the entire system and institute a flat tax with almost no deductions (except maybe one standard deduction per person) and then provide direct subsidies to the poor, then I agree that is most preferable and arguably the most efficient.

Re:So the solution is...

[Zynder]

Adjusting the tax rate is communism

WHAT?

Let me get this out of the way in case you think I'm trolling you- I also would prefer a flat tax. I also believe we should help the poor through subsides as you mentioned. Now that's out of the way...
WHAT? Adjusting taxes is communism? And you throw that out there like you want to point out communism is bad. You then follow that up saying we should provide Food Stamps & Section 8 housing. ----- THAT is communism! (socialism actually but most equate the 2). I also don't disagree with it at all. I have had to make use of both of those programs a couple times when I was younger and am thankful they were there. Anti-socialism folks tend to want to end those programs and stop the handouts (unless they come from a church). I just wanna say I think you are confused about your platform and you might wanna double check it. You sound an awful lot like a liberal and I'm pretty sure that is not your normal stance on here. Hey if you did change sides though, Welcome to the Club!

Re:So the solution is...

[andymadigan]

Adjusting the tax rate is communism: it relies on the perfect wisdom and incorruptibility of the ruling class to set the right rates.

legislators can define a measure for poverty and the amount of assistance warranted.

Sorry, how is having the ruling class define poverty any better than having them set tax rates? For that matter, since you mention food coupons and rent assistance, you're having the ruling class perform budgeting for the poor by forcibly allocating funds, while the rest of us get to decide what to spend our money on.

Further, while you might be able to pick some specific measure for any given program (housing benefit can measure the number of people with housing, food benefit can measure the number of people who are suffering from lack of food) your measurements are unlikely to calculate overall level of suffering. Perhaps you build housing for the poor and provide it at low rent with income limitations, thus reducing homelessness. However, other housing in the area increases in rent because the low end of the market is now monopolized by income-limited housing, and so the poor can now only afford to live in public housing. In addition, the schools in the area where you build happen to have worse outcomes than the areas they were forced out of. You've provided better shelter for 5% of the poor, while damaging the future of 15% of their children. The first statistic gets printed in the newspaper, the second is lucky to make it to a scientific journal (since no study will ever be funded by the government).

The best way to help the poor is to give them cash and let economics take its course. Will you have some people that spend it on things society doesn't approve of? Sure, but overall you'll help more people and avoid market distortion.

Good insight

[Okian Warrior]

Good insight, thanks!

Should have no sales tax, anywhere

[Anonymous Coward]

Problem solved.

Re:Should have no sales tax, anywhere

[duke_cheetah2003]

Got that backwards pal. There should be no INCOME tax anywhere and federal sales tax everywhere, on everything. Income taxes are so grossly unfair.

And remitting tax too

[Sycraft-fu]

Another big problem with all the different taxes is that you have to remit them all separately as well. If the states were organized well enough to be able to collect all the taxes for all the various organizations in the state, I guess that isn't horrible only 50 places to pay it to. However let's be realistic you are going to need to end up remitting taxes to individual counties and cities as well and that becomes a complete nightmare. You not only need to know how much tax to collect at each level, you need to know where it goes and then to make those payments and it isn't as though you get to do it just once, or even once per year.

It's just a nightmare on every level.

Re:And remitting tax too

[kimvette]

> I guess that isn't horrible only 50 places to pay it to.

Incorrect. Some states (NH) outlaw sales tax on most goods (there are some taxed items, such as prepared foods but that is a restaurant tax). Other states have hundreds of sales tax zones (Nevada for example). This creates huge interstate commerce barriers for the smaller players, which is why Amazon gave up the fight and is now lobbying for it. The end result is there is literally hundreds (if not thousands) of individual sales tax zones - and some are compounded because some zones allow for a local sales tax which is added on top of the total cost+state tax, further complicating the issue.

Amazon can easily handle this, as can Newegg (and I suspect B&H as well), but most smaller eCommerce sites cannot. It is a huge cost to develop the logic for or change ecommerce platforms, and is an administrative nightmare for the bookkeeper/accountant.

costly legal and technical burden

[sometwo]

Have any of you attempted to build a professional shopping cart and tried to get accurate sales tax working for states like California, Texas, and New York?

It's amazing how costly it can be because there's no easy way to map zip codes or any other easily looked up value to a tax rate. Zip codes can cross county lines and if a mall is built on a county line, there could be different sales tax rates within the same building. And yet, the states are no help in helping online stores to easily comply with the varying sales tax rates, even though they stand to make more money if people can more easily comply.

Even Paypal, Amazon Payments, Google, and other payment providers will not calculate sales tax for you, likely because it's so easy to get it wrong- The liability of miscalculating sales tax must be huge- Amazon has the money to fight the state tax offices but not a mom and pop online store.

There are several companies that exist solely to help shopping cart builders comply with the sales tax burdens of the different states, but the fees for using paid APIs can be high. One of these companies has map illustrating the problem.

Re:costly legal and technical burden

[nnull]

And that website still gets the tax rates wrong. It lists my area with 8% tax when it's 7.75%.

As a longtime Amazon customer

[Anonymous Coward]

I probably give them over $1K in personal business every year. But I fully support making them collect sales tax, which here in Mass. is 6.25 percent. Why? Because I want Barnes and Noble, Best Buy, Radio Shack, and other vendors (especially chains) to stay in business. We saw what happened to Amazon's music CD prices after they successfully drove their bricks and mortar competitors out of business. More importantly, I don't want a local economy where everyone does most of their business online, except for grocery shopping, restaurants/entertainment, dry cleaning and personal grooming. That's boring and would turn even more urban areas into ghost towns (the ones that have survived Wal-Mart).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

frost pisT

[Anonymous Coward]

guys 4re usually

Heh.

[Okian Warrior]

I chose the term "communism" on purpose because that's how the MSM sways groupthink - by linking things to hated concepts so that people will reject an idea out of habit without thinking. I'm experimenting with message delivery. Like you say, people equate communism with socialism, and I was trying for a knee-jerk reaction. (Your post wasn't one, BTW.)

I'm actually *for* helping the poor, and to a greater extent than we currently do. More than mainstream democrats, I think. I'm a big fan of doing it more effectively, though.

I'm not on the side of conservatives or liberals, mostly I'm on the side of insight. If this seems anti-liberal, that's only because they are in power ATM and government is a hive of incompetence. I was against the previous conservative government as well.

To sway public opinion, we should learn from the techniques that others use. That's my current focus.

(P.S. - Nice likeable reply. Kudos.)

Re:Heh.

[Zynder]

Bravo! You totally got me :D
I like the cut o yer jib matey! It's political piracy!

Makes sense

[duke_cheetah2003]

(many states that tax Amazon don't tax other online retailers).

This seems quite unfair. Should definitely be fixed. I call BS on a state that taxes Amazon ONLY and leaves everyone else alone. That's plainly unfair, surprised they can get away with that.

Didn't think you could pass laws to tax specific business entities. Learn something new every day!

Re:Makes sense

[Attila Dimedici]

Actually, they do not tax Amazon. They get Amazon to collect the tax for them. They have been unable to get other online retailers to do the same. In most, if not all, cases, the reason they have been able to get Amazon to collect sales tax for them is because Amazon either has a clear physical presence in the state, has lost their argument in court about not having a physical nexus in the state, or cut a deal to avoid a costly legal battle over having a physical nexus in the state. Amazon is now pushing for Congress passing a law making all online retailers subject to collecting sales tax because it would give them a competitive advantage over smaller retailers.

wtf?

[gl4ss]

not really to hurt competition.
but a level playing field.. so others wouldn't tax the sales tax.

it's ridiculous how easy dodging the sales tax in usa has been. "oh but we're selling online!" yeah...

Re:wtf?

[JesseMcDonald]

it's ridiculous how easy dodging the sales tax in usa has been. "oh but we're selling online!" yeah...

It's not just online; all out-of-state sales (think "mail-order") have been that way since the country was formed. Online retail just makes "mail-order" much more convenient and commonplace. Sales tax is a matter of state law, and states have no jurisdiction to impose taxes or tax collection duties on anyone outside the state. Amazon wants to change that by making sales tax collection and reporting a matter of federal law rather than state law. Amazon supports this because they would have to collect sales tax everywhere anyway, given their business plans, and they'd prefer to drag their more localized online competitors down with them.

I could see myself backing a uniform national sales tax against the current system, provided it was exclusive at both the state and federal levels. State and local jurisdictions could add their own percentages on top of the federal level, but couldn't vary any of the other details. Tax jurisdiction would be decided on the basis of where the goods are at the time they change ownership, or where the service is rendered. Businesses would only be required to deal with one federal organization, which would handle determination of jurisdiction and distribution of the non-federal portion to state and local governments. I'd even support an unconditional "refund" to every citizen equal to the federal sales tax rate times the poverty level, which should eliminate any concerns about it being a "regressive" tax.

I would insist on some guarantee that they wouldn't just add more taxes later, which probably implies a constitutional amendment.

All you need to know

[NotSoHeavyD3]

I look at this like I look at Warren Buffett talking about incoming tax. When a rich company or person starts saying "Hey, hey I'm not being taxed enough. Why aren't you taxing me? I really need to be taxed more!" they have some scheme planned. They didn't get that way by paying more tax than they had to. (But hey, I'm completely cynical.)

Re:All you need to know

[dkleinsc]

They didn't get that way by paying more tax than they had to.

Warren Buffett is Warren Buffett because of a ridiculously good track record of stock picks. Either he's very very good at it, or very very lucky.

He's also at the same point as his buddy Bill Gates: Sure, he could pay fewer taxes and save millions, but when you already have enough to make somewhere around $300 million a year easily without any kind of chicanery, what's the point? These guys have realized that there's such a thing as "enough", and they already have way more than that, so they're trying to build a different kind of legacy with their charity work. Also, unlike a lot of Wall Street types, Warren Buffett lives relatively modestly: I think again he got to the point where he and his family were very comfortable, and didn't feel a strong need to buy expensive stuff just to prove how rich he was or show he was good enough to hobnob with other rich people.

Re:All you need to know

[Anonymous Coward]

I look at this like I look at Warren Buffett talking about incoming tax. When a rich company or person starts saying "Hey, hey I'm not being taxed enough. Why aren't you taxing me? I really need to be taxed more!" they have some scheme planned. They didn't get that way by paying more tax than they had to. (But hey, I'm completely cynical.)

No, they got that way by many different means. And one of them, was that America had a great infrastructure, along with loads of businesses, in which we all contributed plenty to make things happen. Now, the very wealthy want to be like 3rd world nations where the rich get to pay NOTHING.

Re:For the record - it is over 160,000

[Anonymous Coward]

There are over 160,000 tax districts "points". These points are based on ZipCode, City and County names, Type of land (Fed, State, County, City, Other). The rates run along wierd boundaries like Elementary School Boundarys and Service Areas. In the end some thing like USPS should have "ownership" since their address lookup is the bases of all. Yes, even Google's still cannot figure out streets in St Augustine, FL and Baton Rouge, LA. I know this from years writing and improving address and tax rate lookups for a large bug killing company.

Why stop there?

[gelfling]

Local taxes need to charged as well. Why should the residents of Chicago with its 10.something percent sales tax get a free ride? I say screw them to the wall too.

I guess we can agree to disagree

[NotSoHeavyD3]

Because I may be a bit paranoid but I still don't trust that they've "seen the light".

Re:I guess we can agree to disagree

[Anonymous Coward]

It is not lack of seeing the light. It is lack of knowledge. For example, he has a mortgage company combined with house building. To quality for one of his homes, you have to have decent credit, job, etc. And then you get a rate WELL below the norm. Why? Because they do not sell to delinquents the way that W encouraged mortgages to do. How much do the executives make in these companies? Below 250K. ALL OF THEM, including the CEOs.
In fact, until recent times, none of his executives got anything about that. Sadly, now he does pay wall-street level compensation.

i'm moving to Delaware

[Anonymous Coward]

so that i don't have to pay sales tax. :p now about income tax, that's another story.

Thomas Jefferson on Taxes

[Anonymous Coward]

To paraphrase Thomas Jefferson's words "Tax income, sales, or capital but only one." If you tax all three, you will kill the economy.