Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Big Story) NewsFlash US Senate passes Internet Sales Tax Bill. Why? Because fark you, that's why   (bigstory.ap.org) divider line 573
    More: NewsFlash, Senate, internet, senate passes, sales taxes, D-Ill, United States  
•       •       •

16670 clicks; posted to Main » on 06 May 2013 at 10:06 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

573 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2013-05-06 08:57:11 PM  
de money
 
2013-05-06 08:59:46 PM  
This is another example of why we are farked.
Politicians do not do what constituents want.
They do what big money wants, or they do something that will allow them to take in more of our cash so they can spend it on shiat constituents don't want.
 
2013-05-06 09:10:24 PM  
Can it pass in the House? I kinda don't care if it does or not, I know the states will just make it up elsewhere.
 
2013-05-06 09:11:20 PM  
You already have to pay tax on the items you buy from out of state vendors that do not collect sales tax if those items would be taxable in your state. Use tax, not sales tax is what it is called. I file my return and pay the tax quarterly as required by my state of residence, Florida.

If you live in Deleware, Montana or Oregon you have no state sales or use tax. All others should be paying their use tax as the law requires unless the vendor collects it.

This will not raise your tax burden one cent. It will however create an accounting nightmare for the sellers and many smaller sellers will simply close. Those that remain open will have higher tax compliance costs and will pass those costs along to the consumer.

If you people had paid your taxes all along like you're supposed to you wouldn't be facing this problem. Quill v. North Dakota was not litigated to save you from paying the tax you rightfully owe, it was litigated so Quill and retailers similarly situated wouldn't be required to comply with tax laws in jurisdictions in which they have no nexus.

TLDR version - you already owe these taxes, you don't pay them. Now they want businesses to collect them because you won't pay voluntarily and prices will go up. Pay your taxes deadbeats.
 
2013-05-06 09:11:56 PM  
I don't have a problem with this.  It'll cut down on really blatant tax evasion, that's it.  And smaller companies won't have to "deal with 9,000 tax codes" or anything like that.  Some vendor will see a business opportunity to run all that stuff for a small surcharge and all the small businesses will just contract through them.
 
2013-05-06 09:12:50 PM  
Good.
 
2013-05-06 09:15:39 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: This is another example of why we are farked.
Politicians do not do what constituents want.
They do what big money wants, or they do something that will allow them to take in more of our cash so they can spend it on shiat constituents don't want.


I haven't studied the issue thoroughly here, but neither of those two things seem to apply. Big money would rather transactions be tax free so the price is lower and they, in theory, sell more. And the politicians that passed this (at the national level) will never see any of this money, so they don't get to spend it.

Their constituents might not like it, but it doesn't seem like they had big money or their own spending proclivities in mind either.
 
2013-05-06 09:25:46 PM  
This will probably increase sales at the military exchange website as it's always sales tax free.
 
2013-05-06 09:27:52 PM  

Thoguh: I don't have a problem with this.  It'll cut down on really blatant tax evasion, that's it.  And smaller companies won't have to "deal with 9,000 tax codes" or anything like that.  Some vendor will see a business opportunity to run all that stuff for a small surcharge and all the small businesses will just contract through them.


Smaller companies won't have to deal with it at all. It excuses all companies with less than one million in online sales.
 
2013-05-06 09:35:43 PM  

feckingmorons: You already have to pay tax on the items you buy from out of state vendors that do not collect sales tax if those items would be taxable in your state. Use tax, not sales tax is what it is called. I file my return and pay the tax quarterly as required by my state of residence, Florida.

If you live in Deleware, Montana or Oregon you have no state sales or use tax. All others should be paying their use tax as the law requires unless the vendor collects it.

This will not raise your tax burden one cent. It will however create an accounting nightmare for the sellers and many smaller sellers will simply close. Those that remain open will have higher tax compliance costs and will pass those costs along to the consumer.

If you people had paid your taxes all along like you're supposed to you wouldn't be facing this problem. Quill v. North Dakota was not litigated to save you from paying the tax you rightfully owe, it was litigated so Quill and retailers similarly situated wouldn't be required to comply with tax laws in jurisdictions in which they have no nexus.

TLDR version - you already owe these taxes, you don't pay them. Now they want businesses to collect them because you won't pay voluntarily and prices will go up. Pay your taxes deadbeats.


Realistically, you realize, almost no one actually pays the the use tax.  The chances of getting caught for not doing it are infinitesimally small, and for more expensive items, it's one of the biggest draws to purchasing online.  This will, in effect, be an additional tax for most online purchases for most people.
 
2013-05-06 09:40:07 PM  

Thoguh: It'll cut down on really blatant tax evasion, that's it.


The only people I can think of who are currently "evading" taxes are eBay sellers who sell to in-state buyers and don't add on tax. For eBay, this is a big hassle, but for Amazon, it frees them to set up an even better distribution system.
 
2013-05-06 09:41:26 PM  
Why should you pay less?    You got no choice give us your money.  Give us the money we used to 'let' you keep, at such a loss to us.
 
2013-05-06 09:44:51 PM  
Raise your hand if you answered $0 when your state tax return asked the dollar amount of out of state or online purchases that you owed taxes on.

*raises hand*

Now, how many of you were willing to pay those taxes, but just had no f*cking clue how to go about figuring out exactly what you need to pay, therefore you broke the law and evaded the taxes because you know you'll never get caught?

*raises hand*

This is why I'm OK with business collecting them. Because if you leave it up to me, sh*t isn't going to get done. I'm lazy and unorganized. But I am willing to pay it if it doesn't involve another step in filing my tax returns, and possibly getting audited.
 
2013-05-06 09:46:31 PM  
Also, I uhhhh.... I live in Texas. Yeah, Texas.

My name is Judy and I was just giving an example and definitely didn't just admit to tax evasion.
 
2013-05-06 09:49:05 PM  

feckingmorons: You already have to pay tax on the items you buy from out of state vendors that do not collect sales tax if those items would be taxable in your state. Use tax, not sales tax is what it is called. I file my return and pay the tax quarterly as required by my state of residence, Florida.

If you live in Deleware, Montana or Oregon you have no state sales or use tax. All others should be paying their use tax as the law requires unless the vendor collects it.

This will not raise your tax burden one cent. It will however create an accounting nightmare for the sellers and many smaller sellers will simply close. Those that remain open will have higher tax compliance costs and will pass those costs along to the consumer.

If you people had paid your taxes all along like you're supposed to you wouldn't be facing this problem. Quill v. North Dakota was not litigated to save you from paying the tax you rightfully owe, it was litigated so Quill and retailers similarly situated wouldn't be required to comply with tax laws in jurisdictions in which they have no nexus.

TLDR version - you already owe these taxes, you don't pay them. Now they want businesses to collect them because you won't pay voluntarily and prices will go up. Pay your taxes deadbeats.


Catalog sales have traditionally been excluded from the state and local sales taxes. (with the exception that the sale company has a physical store in your state). (and I should say most states as some paper catalogs add taxes to certain states).

It seems this law is redefining what a 'physical store' is..meaning a internet store that takes over the internet is subject.

My question would be does the company that collects such state taxes on internet sells actually give those to the state and what gaggle of oversight to look at those sales would be in place. If I order a item and pay 20 cents in state tax---is that state tax actually going to the state each year? Would this also conflict with interstate commerce----would your hammocks you purchased in Mexico be subject to federal tax? After you reach the duty free limit? Or do you ignore that and just go on through customs?


It would be intresting to see if called up the store on the phone instead of using 'internet' which law would apply?
 
2013-05-06 09:49:28 PM  
I thought you guys liked taxes....
 
2013-05-06 09:51:28 PM  

basemetal: I thought you guys liked taxes....


That was when the $250k and up were paying them.  This here tax affects everybody who buys stuff on the internet.
 
2013-05-06 09:51:56 PM  

feckingmorons: You already have to pay tax on the items you buy from out of state vendors that do not collect sales tax if those items would be taxable in your state. Use tax, not sales tax is what it is called. I file my return and pay the tax quarterly as required by my state of residence, Florida.

If you live in Deleware, Montana or Oregon you have no state sales or use tax. All others should be paying their use tax as the law requires unless the vendor collects it.

This will not raise your tax burden one cent. It will however create an accounting nightmare for the sellers and many smaller sellers will simply close. Those that remain open will have higher tax compliance costs and will pass those costs along to the consumer.

If you people had paid your taxes all along like you're supposed to you wouldn't be facing this problem. Quill v. North Dakota was not litigated to save you from paying the tax you rightfully owe, it was litigated so Quill and retailers similarly situated wouldn't be required to comply with tax laws in jurisdictions in which they have no nexus.

TLDR version - you already owe these taxes, you don't pay them. Now they want businesses to collect them because you won't pay voluntarily and prices will go up. Pay your taxes deadbeats.


Bullcrap.  Software and apps exist now to do the calculations and filing for you.  Way esier for the seller to do this than for individual purchasers.

All this does is help to ever so slightly level the playing field between brick and mortar retailers and online only stores.  those cheap prices come at the expense of retail jobs, property taxes and commerical rents.

And the warehouse jobs are notoriously bad even when compared to other warehouse jobs.
 
2013-05-06 09:56:19 PM  
So does this mean they're gonna start going after other tax evasion? Or is it like the airport thing where it's still more important to not inconvenience the upper class?
 
2013-05-06 10:07:53 PM  

homeschooled: Raise your hand if you answered $0 when your state tax return asked the dollar amount of out of state or online purchases that you owed taxes on.


PA and DE state governments advertise to Marylanders about traveling north for tax-free shopping. If it's evasion, it's government sanctioned.
 
2013-05-06 10:08:42 PM  
How did JC Penney and Sears do it before in the age of catalog ordering?
 
2013-05-06 10:10:06 PM  
Does TF cost $5.30 now?
 
2013-05-06 10:10:49 PM  
There goes the Dow tomorrow. Again.
 
2013-05-06 10:10:49 PM  

IronTom: basemetal: I thought you guys liked taxes....

That was when the $250k and up were paying them.  This here tax affects everybody who buys stuff on the internet.


Not me. No sales tax in Oregon. Neener, neener.
 
2013-05-06 10:10:58 PM  
Goddamned Republicans.
 
2013-05-06 10:11:37 PM  
Democrats passed it.  Because paying more for everything is a great idea.
 
2013-05-06 10:11:40 PM  
Good. More Federal and State jobs paid for by these taxes will lead to greater prosperity for all. I swear to God I heard that somewhere.
 
2013-05-06 10:12:09 PM  
It will never pass the House just calm down everyone. There won't be an internet sales tax imposed in most states in the near future.
 
2013-05-06 10:13:09 PM  

The Muthaship: Goddamned Republicans.


You lost me there.
 
2013-05-06 10:13:21 PM  

basemetal: I thought you guys liked taxes....


I like society and civilization and all the wonderful trappings that come along with it.

Like roads and bridges and, yes, parks.
 
2013-05-06 10:13:22 PM  
Good luck having this pass the House.
 
2013-05-06 10:13:53 PM  
This should get more responses than a gun control thread.

/goes for popcorn.
 
2013-05-06 10:14:15 PM  
Bill Gates and Warren Buffet were on CNBC this morning expressing their pleasure over this new tax.  They can afford it.
 
2013-05-06 10:14:22 PM  
So, if I buy something online. The vendor/store isn't in my state. The company that I have my credit card with doesn't reside in my state. The company that processes the credit card to pay the vendor doesn't reside in my state. Question: what entitles my state to even one penny of that transaction? If I cross a state border and buy a sandwich, I don't pay my home state sales tax on it. This isn't the same thing how?
 
2013-05-06 10:14:29 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: Does TF cost $5.30 now?


It'll cost me $.5.50

/thank you Cook County
 
2013-05-06 10:14:44 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: This is another example of why we are farked.
Politicians do not do what constituents want.
They do what big money wants, or they do something that will allow them to take in more of our cash so they can spend it on shiat constituents don't want.


But this is what the inbred hillbilly constituents of republican legislators want.  they ain't got no high fallutin' com-puters or fancy pants credit cards.  They cash their paychecks at wal-mart and do their shopping right there like real 'muricans, con sarn it!
 
2013-05-06 10:14:51 PM  
We need to pass a bill that requires brick and mortar retailers to hold onto a product for two days (i.e. shipping time) before a customer can pick up their item in order to create equality between retailers & etailers.

/equality my ass
 
2013-05-06 10:15:21 PM  
Just about all my online shopping is through amazon and since I live in Seattle I've been paying tax on virtually all my online shopping for many years.
 
2013-05-06 10:15:33 PM  
I'm okay with this, sorta.

They should make it apply to businesses that do more than $10 Million in sales or 50 employees, just like mail order businesses, rather than $1 million or 50 employees.
 
2013-05-06 10:15:35 PM  

feckingmorons: You already have to pay tax on the items you buy from out of state vendors that do not collect sales tax if those items would be taxable in your state. Use tax, not sales tax is what it is called. I file my return and pay the tax quarterly as required by my state of residence, Florida.

If you live in Deleware, Montana or Oregon you have no state sales or use tax. All others should be paying their use tax as the law requires unless the vendor collects it.

This will not raise your tax burden one cent. It will however create an accounting nightmare for the sellers and many smaller sellers will simply close. Those that remain open will have higher tax compliance costs and will pass those costs along to the consumer.

If you people had paid your taxes all along like you're supposed to you wouldn't be facing this problem. Quill v. North Dakota was not litigated to save you from paying the tax you rightfully owe, it was litigated so Quill and retailers similarly situated wouldn't be required to comply with tax laws in jurisdictions in which they have no nexus.

TLDR version - you already owe these taxes, you don't pay them. Now they want businesses to collect them because you won't pay voluntarily and prices will go up. Pay your taxes deadbeats.


Damn right.  Personally I buy all my stuff from Best Buy, anyway, because it has far less stuff than amazon does at twice the price, and I get to take it home right then.  Amazon should have to pay tax on top of the shipping costs because it isn't fair.
 
2013-05-06 10:15:37 PM  

Funk Brothers: It will never pass the House just calm down everyone. There won't be an internet sales tax imposed in most states in the near future.


fark YES I HATE REVENUE WHO NEEDS IT ANYWAY WE'RE GODDAMN FLUSH SOMEBODY START FIXING BRIDGES
 
2013-05-06 10:15:49 PM  

Thoguh: I don't have a problem with this.  It'll cut down on really blatant tax evasion, that's it.  And smaller companies won't have to "deal with 9,000 tax codes" or anything like that.  Some vendor will see a business opportunity to run all that stuff for a small surcharge and all the small businesses will just contract through them.


Or every single credit card gateway company will do it as part of their service.  This will be transparent to businesses.
 
2013-05-06 10:16:09 PM  
Why?  Equal taxation, that's why.
 
2013-05-06 10:16:20 PM  

Triumph: homeschooled: Raise your hand if you answered $0 when your state tax return asked the dollar amount of out of state or online purchases that you owed taxes on.

PA and DE state governments advertise to Marylanders about traveling north for tax-free shopping. If it's evasion, it's government sanctioned.


This is also true of NJ advertising tax-free clothing to New Yorkers.
 
2013-05-06 10:16:33 PM  
This is good news for web developers in foreign countries who will be hired for a fraction of the cost of U.S. web developers to update various merchants' stores to be compliant with the new tax regulations if this becomes law!
 
2013-05-06 10:17:14 PM  
So canadians are still free to buy online from US companies without having to pay taxes then?
 
2013-05-06 10:17:43 PM  

themindiswatching: Good luck having this pass the House.


Not sure if serious.
 
2013-05-06 10:17:50 PM  
Yeah, this shouldn't affect the people who the article seems to say it's going to affect - it's only for businesses that pull in a cool mil in online sales per year. Most small businesses I know are never going to even get into the ballpark for that kind of game.
 
2013-05-06 10:18:10 PM  
If local governments didn't waste so much money they wouldn't be in this situation.
 
2013-05-06 10:18:11 PM  

AverageAmericanGuy: How did JC Penney and Sears do it before in the age of catalog ordering?


farm7.staticflickr.com

See about 3/4 of the way down?
 
2013-05-06 10:18:22 PM  

AirForceVet: This will probably increase sales at the military exchange website as it's always sales tax free.


I foresee a boom in e-commerce shops hosted in Native American reservations.

They'll get back the land that was stolen one dollar at a time, just like with casinos and cigarettes. I don't have any serious qualms about that.
 
2013-05-06 10:18:25 PM  

IronTom: basemetal: I thought you guys liked taxes....

That was when the $250k and up were paying them.  This here tax affects everybody who buys stuff on the internet.


Exactly. Don't tax the losers.
 
2013-05-06 10:18:25 PM  
Raising prices on goods isn't a good way to stimulate the economy...this is another example of how politicians do the exact the opposite to stimulate growth.
 
2013-05-06 10:18:26 PM  

Vodka Zombie: basemetal: I thought you guys liked taxes....

I like society and civilization and all the wonderful trappings that come along with it.

Like roads and bridges and, yes, parks.


And you like paying for them in the most regressive way possible?
 
2013-05-06 10:18:29 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: Politicians do not do what constituents want.


Dunno, mang, have you ever listened to the average vote spiel on politics?  If you listen to what the internet denizens in any thread wants, they want quality, free entertainment and more pay at work because Windows 8 doesn't le network itself.

I wouldn't listen to them, either.
 
2013-05-06 10:18:35 PM  
BestBuy.com and Target.com are giddy about this, but I'm still not going to shop at either sites. I buy things on Amazon, not because they don't charge sales tax, but because Amazon is a million times easier to navigate, the shipping is a million times better, and the review system is actually decent. I'd stab my own dick with a snail fork before buying anything from either of those two sites.
 
2013-05-06 10:18:41 PM  
Sorry brick and mortar stores, you are still just showrooms or I need it now stores. My large purchases will still be done mostly online because it costs less.

\yes, I have to and do pay the sales tax where I live for online purchases
 
2013-05-06 10:18:42 PM  
 
2013-05-06 10:19:12 PM  
I always get a kick out of the people who think shipping is a cost. If you're selling goods online and you're not making money on shipping you're doing it wrong.
 
2013-05-06 10:20:13 PM  

dopekitty74: So canadians are still free to buy online from US companies without having to pay taxes then?


Yes, but you'll still end up paying taxes to Canada Customs. And of course, the extra bonus of them wasting an extra day or so, and charging you an additional $10 fee for the privilege.
 
2013-05-06 10:20:22 PM  
As someone who deals with sales tax for my company on a regular basis, this will make my job a lot easier since more companies will actually charge the proper tax on our purchases.

For others it sucks, though really it's more of a stricter way to enforce tax laws already in place than it is a creation of a new tax. Depending on your state you're technically breaking the law by not paying use tax on your out-of-state purchases, but you were also unlikely to get caught. This lessens that a bit.
 
2013-05-06 10:20:32 PM  

dopekitty74: So canadians are still free to buy online from US companies without having to pay taxes then?


What?
 
2013-05-06 10:20:58 PM  
Who's to say Chicago or New York won't say hey fark it I want a cut also
 
2013-05-06 10:21:04 PM  
Amazon and every other sizeable business would relocate to Delaware or some other state without a sales tax. That's asking for a national sales tax. A bad bad bad bad idea, if  you ask me.

Fortunately, this will die in the House. Which sort of makes me think maybe its a good idea, except I think in this case the republitards are right in not trying to enforce an unenforceable (or at least idiotic) law.
 
2013-05-06 10:21:14 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: This is another example of why we are farked.
Politicians do not do what constituents want.
They do what big money wants, or they do something that will allow them to take in more of our cash so they can spend it on shiat constituents don't want.


Like functional, modern infrastructure.
 
2013-05-06 10:21:24 PM  

Vodka Zombie: basemetal: I thought you guys liked taxes....

I like society and civilization and all the wonderful trappings that come along with it.

Like roads and bridges and, yes, parks.


I'm with  Vodka Zombie on the roads and bridges, but I also like the thought of all the Fark Independents™, tax protestors, and self-made millionaires (what with their bootstraps and nobody never giving them nothin') having to pay taxes like good little citizens.

And when I say enjoy, I mean "aroused by." Yeah, that's right, let me hear you scream, you middle-class biatches. Get ready to take all eleven marginal percent right up your tight little tax hole.
 
2013-05-06 10:21:30 PM  
Not sure what the big deal is with this. You buy stuff, you pay sales tax. That's life
 
2013-05-06 10:21:38 PM  
YEAs ---69

Alexander (R-TN)
Baldwin (D-WI)
Bennet (D-CO)
Blumenthal (D-CT)
Blunt (R-MO)
Boozman (R-AR)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Burr (R-NC)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Carper (D-DE)
Casey (D-PA)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Coons (D-DE)
Corker (R-TN)
Cowan (D-MA)
Donnelly (D-IN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fischer (R-NE)
Franken (D-MN)
Gillibrand (D-NY)
Graham (R-SC)
Hagan (D-NC)
Harkin (D-IA)
Heinrich (D-NM)
Heitkamp (D-ND)
Hirono (D-HI)
Hoeven (R-ND)
Isakson (R-GA)
Johanns (R-NE)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kaine (D-VA)
King (I-ME)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Manchin (D-WV)
McCain (R-AZ)
McCaskill (D-MO)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murphy (D-CT)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Portman (R-OH)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schatz (D-HI)
Schumer (D-NY)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Thune (R-SD)
Udall (D-CO)
Udall (D-NM)
Warner (D-VA)
Warren (D-MA)
Whitehouse (D-RI)
Wicker (R-MS)


NAYs ---27

Ayotte (R-NH)
Barrasso (R-WY)
Baucus (D-MT)
Coburn (R-OK)
Crapo (R-ID)
Cruz (R-TX)
Flake (R-AZ)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hatch (R-UT)
Heller (R-NV)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Johnson (R-WI)
Kirk (R-IL)
Lee (R-UT)
McConnell (R-KY)
Merkley (D-OR)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Paul (R-KY)
Risch (R-ID)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rubio (R-FL)
Scott (R-SC)
Shaheen (D-NH)
Tester (D-MT)
Toomey (R-PA)
Vitter (R-LA)
Wyden (D-OR)


Not Voting - 4

Begich (D-AK)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Moran (R-KS)
 
2013-05-06 10:21:50 PM  
Remember, They aren't tracking YOUR dildo.

Just A dildo.
 
2013-05-06 10:21:54 PM  
Must be the will of the American people.
 
2013-05-06 10:22:13 PM  
I really cannot fathom why the Amazon bigshots want this bill so bad. If it happens, their sales are gonna plummet.
 
2013-05-06 10:22:26 PM  

Rindred: So, if I buy something online. The vendor/store isn't in my state. The company that I have my credit card with doesn't reside in my state. The company that processes the credit card to pay the vendor doesn't reside in my state. Question: what entitles my state to even one penny of that transaction? If I cross a state border and buy a sandwich, I don't pay my home state sales tax on it. This isn't the same thing how?


Presumably you're using the item in your state, unlike the sandwich. That's the difference. Sales tax and use tax generally go hand-in-hand.
 
2013-05-06 10:22:35 PM  
So once this passes and brick and mortar stores still get trounced by the internet what will be the excuse be next time?  How about local sales tax?
 
2013-05-06 10:22:38 PM  

Rindred: So, if I buy something online. The vendor/store isn't in my state. The company that I have my credit card with doesn't reside in my state. The company that processes the credit card to pay the vendor doesn't reside in my state. Question: what entitles my state to even one penny of that transaction? If I cross a state border and buy a sandwich, I don't pay my home state sales tax on it. This isn't the same thing how?



If you had something shipped to you, you made a transaction in the state you live in.  The value was recieved wherever it was shipped.  Why is it different than buying it in a local store who has to charge sales tax?  If you crossed state lines, you would have made a transaction in another state where you received the goods.  We tax where the transaction value was received.  Why is that hard?

If you want to argue the concept of a sales tax, fine, you have a point.  But to argue that the method of purchase determines whether its taxable by anyone is absurd.
 
2013-05-06 10:22:39 PM  
can't say I'm happy about it... but I can't really complain either. It was bound to happen. how many big retailers have closed their doors since becoming nothing more than a place for people to look at an item before ordering it online for less?
 
2013-05-06 10:22:42 PM  
There's nothing wrong with a sales tax on discretionary purchases. It's one of the few ways to impose a flat tax without screwing lower-income households. BUT...this sounds like a logistical nightmare for small business who want to sell online.The fair solution would be to impose a federal sales tax on online purchases, and distribute the revenue among the states according to each state's total online purchases.
 
2013-05-06 10:22:47 PM  
It just farking amazes me that things like minor gun control, equal pay for women, and healthcare do not pass, but a tax on everything passes without a problem...man you guys really need to start getting pissed about the way they run this place.
 
2013-05-06 10:22:48 PM  
FTA: "Supporters say the current tax disparity is turning some traditional stores into showrooms, where shoppers pick out items they like, then buy them on the Internet to avoid sales taxes."

NOT FAIR!!!!

3.bp.blogspot.com

Times change.

What, you expected people to buy buggy whips forever?
 
2013-05-06 10:23:02 PM  
Brought to you by your small business, brick and mortar minded, friends at ....

Wal-Mart.

This whole thing was because Wally world decided Amazon was getting to much of their pie.

farking Assholes.
 
2013-05-06 10:23:12 PM  
How about this: the house and senate can only pass 4 laws per year and must eliminate 2?
 
2013-05-06 10:23:45 PM  
Hmmm. Which party controls the senate?
...
The party of "Me First" plutocrats, consisting of both nominal democrats and nominal republicans!
 
2013-05-06 10:23:58 PM  
FTFA: "As a result, many online sales are tax-free, giving Internet retailers an advantage over brick-and-mortar stores."

Ummm...yeah...no...

Internet retailers offer an overall less expensive price because they do not have to staff multiple physical locations and pay all the bills that come with traditional brick-and-mortar sales locations.

I have never purchased a single item online simply to save a few bucks from sales tax...I've purchased stuff online because it is usually 20%-30% less.
 
2013-05-06 10:24:23 PM  

A Shambling Mound: I always get a kick out of the people who think shipping is a cost. If you're selling goods online and you're not making money on shipping you're doing it wrong.


A lot of stuff from secondary sellers on Amazon is $0.01. If this actually passed, even more stuff would be priced that way, with $7.99 shipping.
 
2013-05-06 10:24:27 PM  
Okay, sounds good.

Why doesn't the federal government set up a public server that returns taxes that must be collected when given an address, then another division that accepts the taxes from companies, which them disburses the tax funds to the correct states, cities, what have you?
Would make some jobs to handle all that.
 
2013-05-06 10:24:37 PM  

jeffowl: Vodka Zombie: basemetal: I thought you guys liked taxes....

I like society and civilization and all the wonderful trappings that come along with it.

Like roads and bridges and, yes, parks.

And you like paying for them in the most regressive way possible?


As opposed to progressive income taxes on the wealthy?
 
2013-05-06 10:25:02 PM  

chitlenz: Brought to you by your small business, brick and mortar minded, friends at ....

Wal-Mart.

This whole thing was because Wally world decided Amazon was getting to much of their pie.

farking Assholes.


Small businesses will appreciate the fact that Walmart initiated this, if in fact they did (I have no idea if what you're saying is factual or not).

They don't have the legal team available to lobby for it. But, if you think about it, it will help them quite a bit.
 
2013-05-06 10:25:05 PM  
Nobody worry.  I just got an email stating that Bill Gates (and you know he's got a mountain of money) will pay the sales tax on my Internet purchases for the next 20 years if I forward the email to 10 of my friends.  Apparently Microsoft has some new email tracking system, and when I just tested it out, guess what?  No sales taxes on my purchase.  So send me an email (my username @ gmail) with photos of your genitals and I'll forward the email from Bill Gates to you.
 
2013-05-06 10:25:50 PM  

TV's Vinnie: I really cannot fathom why the Amazon bigshots want this bill so bad. If it happens, their sales are gonna plummet.


IIRC they're facing multiple lawsuits from state governments to recover lost state sales taxes -- this would make all those go away.
 
2013-05-06 10:26:04 PM  
Wait.

Toomey voted against this thing?
Between this and his sponsoring the background checks bill, maybehe's not insane after all.
 
2013-05-06 10:26:16 PM  

Rindred: So, if I buy something online. The vendor/store isn't in my state. The company that I have my credit card with doesn't reside in my state. The company that processes the credit card to pay the vendor doesn't reside in my state. Question: what entitles my state to even one penny of that transaction? If I cross a state border and buy a sandwich, I don't pay my home state sales tax on it. This isn't the same thing how?


It's entitled to the tax because you live there, use its roads, its schools, its police force, its fire departments, its state parks, and countless other services.  At some point, the elected representatives all got together and figured out that a small percentage tacked onto a business transaction would be the best way to fund the many services the residents demanded.  Now that the nature of business transactions have changed because of technology, those tax laws need to be adjusted to continue to pay for services that the public still wants.
 
2013-05-06 10:26:39 PM  
FTFA: "Supporters say the current tax disparity is turning some traditional stores into showrooms, where shoppers pick out items they like, then buy them on the Internet to avoid sales taxes."

Wrong again.  Walk into Best Buy and see a 60" Sharp TV for $1899, hop online and it can be found for $1329 with free 2 day shipping.  Sales Tax has nothing to do with it.
 
2013-05-06 10:27:01 PM  

fusillade762: t me. No sales tax in Oregon. Neener, neener.


FTA...Under the legislation, the sales taxes would be sent to the state where the shopper lives.

So, if an Oregon online business sold items to someone living in a state that has a sales tax, the online retailer would be required to collect the sales tax and send it to that state.

And this is going to be particularly hard on small online retailers. However, businesses with less than $1 million in online sales would be exempt.
 
2013-05-06 10:27:26 PM  

Do the needful: AverageAmericanGuy: How did JC Penney and Sears do it before in the age of catalog ordering?

[farm7.staticflickr.com image 471x640]

See about 3/4 of the way down?


Huh. Neat.
 
2013-05-06 10:27:40 PM  

ArgusRun: Bullcrap.  Software and apps exist now to do the calculations and filing for you.  Way esier for the seller to do this than for individual purchasers.


I live in a state with no sales tax.  Why should I need to calculate sales tax on purchases in states I don't do business in?
 
2013-05-06 10:27:56 PM  
So, I guess Amazon's web services will soon include a tax calculator. The trick will be dealing with the special rules for categories like clothing.
 
2013-05-06 10:27:59 PM  
www.charlock.org
 
2013-05-06 10:28:00 PM  

Nuclear Monk: It's entitled to the tax because you live there, use its roads, its schools, its police force, its fire departments, its state parks, and countless other services


that's a lot of dildoes
 
2013-05-06 10:29:19 PM  
I run my Internet sales business in Delaware, home of tax free shopping, so I'm getting a kick.
 
2013-05-06 10:29:35 PM  
I'd rather have this than my income taxes going up. At least everyone pays this.
 
JVD
2013-05-06 10:29:36 PM  
Fark you government. Fark you.
 
2013-05-06 10:30:21 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: fusillade762: t me. No sales tax in Oregon. Neener, neener.

FTA...Under the legislation, the sales taxes would be sent to the state where the shopper lives.

So, if an Oregon online business sold items to someone living in a state that has a sales tax, the online retailer would be required to collect the sales tax and send it to that state.

And this is going to be particularly hard on small online retailers. However, businesses with less than $1 million in online sales would be exempt.


There are some states that have an origin-based tax. If you buy from a vendor in an origin-based state and you're in a destination-based state, it can get a little weird.

Here's a list, can't vouch for its accuracy on every state but I can promise you that NY and NJ are correct.
 
2013-05-06 10:30:42 PM  

dopekitty74: So canadians are still free to buy online from US companies without having to pay taxes then?


Great question and possible business opportunity.

1. Move to Canada
2. Buy shiat off the interweb
3. Profit?
 
2013-05-06 10:31:01 PM  
This is where the people who think everyone needs to pay their fair share figure out they'd rather not pay their fair share.
 
2013-05-06 10:31:22 PM  

Bathia_Mapes: fusillade762: t me. No sales tax in Oregon. Neener, neener.

FTA...Under the legislation, the sales taxes would be sent to the state where the shopper lives.

So, if an Oregon online business sold items to someone living in a state that has a sales tax, the online retailer would be required to collect the sales tax and send it to that state.

And this is going to be particularly hard on small online retailers. However, businesses with less than $1 million in online sales would be exempt.



Yes, but if one is a resident of OR no tax will be calculated or added.  No sales tax on anything.  At all.
 
2013-05-06 10:31:48 PM  
Maine requires me to pay online sales tax, whether I bought anything or not. 0.008% of my income is their default. Last year I bought a computer and some tools/books online, all for schooling. They got most of my refund back on that deal.
 
2013-05-06 10:31:56 PM  
AH HA HA HA HA HA HA!
HA HA HEE HEE HA.
You stupidos keep on voting for those republicans and democrats, now.
 
2013-05-06 10:32:48 PM  

clancifer: Good.


www.charlock.org
 
2013-05-06 10:32:51 PM  
Wow, Jeff Flake knew the internet. Did all the yays know how the nets works?
 
2013-05-06 10:33:02 PM  
Supporters say the current tax disparity is turning some traditional stores into showrooms, where shoppers pick out items they like, then buy them on the Internet to avoid sales taxes.

No, we sometimes do that because the internet almost always offers significantly better deals. If the discrepancy were $5, $10 or even $20 I'd rather pay the difference and the tax and have the item in my hands that day (the shipping savings would likely counteract the tax anyway). But when you're charging $189 for an item newegg.com sells for $99, what do you expect?

That the internet undercuts you isn't my problem. The way things exist now, the bricks and the bytes co-exist. You just want a stronger piece of the pie and are appealing to state governments' need of revenue to get it.
 
2013-05-06 10:33:36 PM  

ArkAngel: Thoguh: I don't have a problem with this.  It'll cut down on really blatant tax evasion, that's it.  And smaller companies won't have to "deal with 9,000 tax codes" or anything like that.  Some vendor will see a business opportunity to run all that stuff for a small surcharge and all the small businesses will just contract through them.

Smaller companies won't have to deal with it at all. It excuses all companies with less than one million in online sales.


Just give it time. All taxes get bigger and more invasive, never the other way around.
 
2013-05-06 10:33:51 PM  

feckingmorons: This will not raise your tax burden one cent. It will however create an accounting nightmare for the sellers and many smaller sellers will simply close. Those that remain open will have higher tax compliance costs and will pass those costs along to the consumer.


I pretty much agree with the rest of your post (and have tried to be diligent with paying my use tax), but this i'm not totally sure of. At least the summary I saw of the law said that if a state wants to collect sales tax from online vendors, they have to provide a free service that will specify the tax.

Now, "free" is not actually going to be "free", but I'd be surprised if the implementation costs are <i>than</I> onerous.
 
2013-05-06 10:34:31 PM  
"States lost a total of $23 billion last year because they couldn't collect taxes on out-of-state sales, according to a study done for the National Conference of State Legislatures."

Yes some study. Multiplying Internet sales by ten percent. The study probably cost 8 million dollars.
 
2013-05-06 10:35:39 PM  
I'm glad my senator voted against it.

/Montana
 
2013-05-06 10:36:01 PM  
FROM EACH
according to his ability

TO EACH
according to his need


 /You're not selfish, are you?
 
2013-05-06 10:36:16 PM  

cmunic8r99: YEAs ---69 etc...



I've never been prouder of my OK state senators.

Mainly because I normally can't wait to vote in some decent senators.

/even a broken clock...
 
2013-05-06 10:36:44 PM  

evaned: Now, "free" is not actually going to be "free", but I'd be surprised if the implementation costs are <i>than</I> onerous.


Whee HTML!

Also, I meant "that onerous", not "than".
 
2013-05-06 10:36:58 PM  

Stoj: "States lost a total of $23 billion last year because they couldn't collect taxes on out-of-state sales, according to a study done for the National Conference of State Legislatures."

Yes some study. Multiplying Internet sales by ten percent. The study probably cost 8 million dollars.


Brought to you by the same folks who say that the NCAA tournament costs businesses eleventybillion dollars in lost revenue due to lower worker productivity.
 
2013-05-06 10:37:01 PM  

feckingmorons: You already have to pay tax on the items you buy from out of state vendors that do not collect sales tax if those items would be taxable in your state. Use tax, not sales tax is what it is called. I file my return and pay the tax quarterly as required by my state of residence, Florida.

If you live in Deleware, Montana or Oregon you have no state sales or use tax. All others should be paying their use tax as the law requires unless the vendor collects it.

This will not raise your tax burden one cent. It will however create an accounting nightmare for the sellers and many smaller sellers will simply close. Those that remain open will have higher tax compliance costs and will pass those costs along to the consumer.

If you people had paid your taxes all along like you're supposed to you wouldn't be facing this problem. Quill v. North Dakota was not litigated to save you from paying the tax you rightfully owe, it was litigated so Quill and retailers similarly situated wouldn't be required to comply with tax laws in jurisdictions in which they have no nexus.

TLDR version - you already owe these taxes, you don't pay them. Now they want businesses to collect them because you won't pay voluntarily and prices will go up. Pay your taxes deadbeats.


Sweet cupping cakes, US tax law is a mess.
 
2013-05-06 10:37:24 PM  
On the one hand, I don't want to pay more.
On the other hand, it's a whole 6% more (it uses state sales tax, right?) and I should probably be paying it anyways.
 
2013-05-06 10:37:35 PM  
The problem I have with this is that it does not address (at least as far as I can tell) mail order operations in states with no no sales tax. I remember years ago I used to buy old coins from an outfit in New Hampshire and never had to pay sales tax for that reason.
 
2013-05-06 10:39:01 PM  
homeschooled:
Raise your hand if you answered $0 when your state tax return asked the dollar amount of out of state or online purchases that you owed taxes on

What the hell is a state income tax return?
www.united-states-flag.com

Very concerned about not getting Texas Sales Tax Exemption Certificate not honored by some web seller in East B*ttFark. What an excellent bureacracy the Senate wants to create.

Since Congress told the airports to spend wildly until they run out this summer, that's their one bill this year. They should quit while they're ahead.
 
2013-05-06 10:39:22 PM  

feckingmorons: You already have to pay tax on the items you buy from out of state vendors that do not collect sales tax if those items would be taxable in your state. Use tax, not sales tax is what it is called. I file my return and pay the tax quarterly as required by my state of residence, Florida.

If you live in Deleware, Montana or Oregon you have no state sales or use tax. All others should be paying their use tax as the law requires unless the vendor collects it.

This will not raise your tax burden one cent. It will however create an accounting nightmare for the sellers and many smaller sellers will simply close. Those that remain open will have higher tax compliance costs and will pass those costs along to the consumer.

If you people had paid your taxes all along like you're supposed to you wouldn't be facing this problem. Quill v. North Dakota was not litigated to save you from paying the tax you rightfully owe, it was litigated so Quill and retailers similarly situated wouldn't be required to comply with tax laws in jurisdictions in which they have no nexus.

TLDR version - you already owe these taxes, you don't pay them. Now they want businesses to collect them because you won't pay voluntarily and prices will go up. Pay your taxes deadbeats.


I was with you until you turned it into an attack on people you know nothing about. You can make a point without being a judgemental arse.
 
2013-05-06 10:39:45 PM  

TV's Vinnie: I really cannot fathom why the Amazon bigshots want this bill so bad. If it happens, their sales are gonna plummet.


Amazon's betting that quick delivery times will overcome a sales tax.  They're actually trying out same day delivery in some places, and you need warehouses near metro areas (ie. in the same state) and subject yourself to physical presence laws to do that.  Small internet companies can't compete on affordable speedy delivery.  Forcing them into the tax too puts Amazon at an advantage.
 
2013-05-06 10:40:20 PM  
I'm actually OK with this. If we're going to have sales tax, it shouldn't unevenly favor internet vendors.

If we have to get revenue form someplace new, this is a decent choice. Pollution taxes would be another good choice.
 
2013-05-06 10:41:08 PM  
BitwiseShift:
Very concerned about not getting Texas Sales Tax Exemption Certificate not honored by some web seller in East B*ttFark. What an excellent bureacracy the Senate wants to create.


What? Texas has a sales tax...

"The Texas state sales and use tax rate is 6.25%, but local taxing jurisdictions (cities, counties, special purpose districts, and transit authorities) may also impose sales and use tax up to 2% for a total maximum combined rate of 8.25%. " http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/sales/faq_collect.html
 
2013-05-06 10:41:17 PM  
Motherfarkers!

It still doesn't solve anything. That money only goes to suits who get to decide what all of us need the most. Probably war.

F.
 
2013-05-06 10:41:23 PM  
So instead of getting six games for twenty bucks in the last steam sale, I'd have to pay twenty and a buck forty? Well this is worse than the holocaust indeed.
 
2013-05-06 10:41:29 PM  
I'm already taxed by Amazon so it doesn't change anything for me. I'll continue to use them for free delivery to my door, saving me gas and time.
 
2013-05-06 10:42:25 PM  
Just one step closer to a national sales tax.
 
2013-05-06 10:43:10 PM  

TV's Vinnie: I really cannot fathom why the Amazon bigshots want this bill so bad. If it happens, their sales are gonna plummet.


They have the infrastructure in place to put on their big girl panties and deal with it. They also have the scale of economy to keep their pricing competitive. They know many of their competitors do not have either, but generate enough sales that they will have to cope, or go under.
 
2013-05-06 10:43:14 PM  
I wonder where Reid will buy his magic underwear now if he has to pay tax for the online purchases.
 
2013-05-06 10:43:15 PM  
24.media.tumblr.com
 
2013-05-06 10:43:21 PM  

optikeye: Catalog sales have traditionally been excluded from the state and local sales taxes. (with the exception that the sale company has a physical store in your state). (and I should say most states as some paper catalogs add taxes to certain states).

It seems this law is redefining what a 'physical store' is..meaning a internet store that takes over the internet is subject.


The bill applies to all out-of-state sellers, not just online sellers.  In theory, it applies to international sellers but good luck with that.
 
2013-05-06 10:43:38 PM  
Am I supposed to be somehow outraged by this? Because trying to calculate and pay your in-state tax for online purchases separately to your state is a real serious pain in the ass for me and many others. I guess since sales taxes are inherently regressive its a sorta bad thing, but I can't get outraged. Sorry.
 
2013-05-06 10:43:48 PM  
As has been said, this isn't an additional tax. Taxes are not going up. Instead, taxes that are due will actually be collected, instead of ignored as they always have been.

But alas, it will be spun as such...
 
2013-05-06 10:43:59 PM  
If I were Amazon, I'd just set up a lot of Amazon lockers on Indian reservations. No state taxes on the res, people can pick up their packages while they pick up their tax free cigarettes.
 
2013-05-06 10:44:05 PM  

dickfreckle: Supporters say the current tax disparity is turning some traditional stores into showrooms, where shoppers pick out items they like, then buy them on the Internet to avoid sales taxes.

No, we sometimes do that because the internet almost always offers significantly better deals. If the discrepancy were $5, $10 or even $20 I'd rather pay the difference and the tax and have the item in my hands that day (the shipping savings would likely counteract the tax anyway). But when you're charging $189 for an item newegg.com sells for $99, what do you expect?

That the internet undercuts you isn't my problem. The way things exist now, the bricks and the bytes co-exist. You just want a stronger piece of the pie and are appealing to state governments' need of revenue to get it.


lots of "THIS"

Brick and Mortar stores are for when I want a thing NOW. interwebs are for when I can afford to wait.
Next day delivery is expensive.
 
2013-05-06 10:44:17 PM  

mikemoto: The problem I have with this is that it does not address (at least as far as I can tell) mail order operations in states with no no sales tax. I remember years ago I used to buy old coins from an outfit in New Hampshire and never had to pay sales tax for that reason.


It's based on the delivery address of the sale. E.g. a New Hampshire company selling to a resident of New York has to collect and remit New York state sales tax.  A New York company selling to a New Hampshire resident doesn't collect any tax because NH doesn't have a sales tax.
 
2013-05-06 10:44:18 PM  

semiotix: Vodka Zombie: basemetal: I thought you guys liked taxes....

I like society and civilization and all the wonderful trappings that come along with it.

Like roads and bridges and, yes, parks.

I'm with  Vodka Zombie on the roads and bridges, but I also like the thought of all the Fark Independents™, tax protestors, and self-made millionaires (what with their bootstraps and nobody never giving them nothin') having to pay taxes like good little citizens.

And when I say enjoy, I mean "aroused by." Yeah, that's right, let me hear you scream, you middle-class biatches. Get ready to take all eleven marginal percent right up your tight little tax hole.


Fap fap fap fap fap
 
2013-05-06 10:44:47 PM  
Good. No reason online sales should be exempt anyways. Pathetic it took this long.

And .. Newsflash? .. Really? It's not like there's any other breaking news today or anything, right?
 
2013-05-06 10:45:28 PM  
De welfare baby mamas be needin dat money yo, get up off it now. Black Jesus needs to punish da honkeys an feed his people.
 
2013-05-06 10:45:44 PM  
It's not about "fairness", silly.

It's about State and local governments who spent like irresponsible pissed-off housewives during the Housing Bubble, ran their credit cards WAAAY over the limit, and now, post housing BUST, are faced with the ugly hangover.

For those that still think that the Dinosaur "brick and mortar" stores are treated unfairly, figure in shipping costs: Buy a widget from Vermont and have it shipped to your home in Oregon - what does that  cost?

A lot more than the sales tax, you can be sure.

/Free shipping you say?
//Free lunch, I say
///Wanna buy a bridge?
 
2013-05-06 10:45:54 PM  
We live in 'Because F U times'.
 
2013-05-06 10:45:56 PM  
In every Walmart thread, there are countless comments about how people should shun the evil empire and support their local mom and pop stores. Why are you all so upset about this then?
 
2013-05-06 10:46:13 PM  

ArkAngel: It excuses all companies with less than one million in online sales.


Total sales, not just online sales.
 
2013-05-06 10:46:45 PM  

Thoguh: I don't have a problem with this.  It'll cut down on really blatant tax evasion, that's it.  And smaller companies won't have to "deal with 9,000 tax codes" or anything like that.  Some vendor will see a business opportunity to run all that stuff for a small surcharge and all the small businesses will just contract through them.


That's because you're a pinhead. Taking your earnings which you are heavily taxed on you purchase a soft cover copy of "How Not to be a Pinhead for Dummies" and you pay tax on it. When you decide to sell the USED book you couldn't understand you will have to collect Taxes on the sale and submit them to the government. This double-dipping ain't right. And if the twatwaffle that bought the book wants to return it for refund your eBay and PayPal account won't happily show Uncle Sam IRS the tax was returned, that would be too easy. So now the tax will come directly out of your pocket and you will suffer a loss on your sale return. Ain't right.
 
2013-05-06 10:46:50 PM  
Go fark yourselves Congress.
 
2013-05-06 10:47:27 PM  
This has an interesting implication for tax payers in Massachusetts. Sales tax is supposed to be paid on internet purchases, but they're just claimed on the tax form when you file. Here, there is a tax that you can pay that basically says "give us this amount of money, and we'll call it even on all of those internet purchases you're not claiming." It was some small amount that I went ahead and paid, because I don't feel like being audited.

If/when this passes, though, there's no need for that tax, because sales tax will be collected on internet purchases. I just wonder if the state will realize this, and not try to bully taxpayers into paying for it twice.
 
2013-05-06 10:48:07 PM  
"Supporters say the current tax disparity is turning some traditional stores into showrooms, where shoppers pick out items they like, then buy them on the Internet to avoid sales taxes."

Its not to avoid sales tax. 

(1) Prices are lower in general, anyway
(2) I dont have to carry shiat home
(3) I dont get up-selled on accessories or warranties
(4) Better/easier return policies

sales tax is roughly the 5-th best advantage of online shopping.
 
2013-05-06 10:48:29 PM  

mikemoto: The problem I have with this is that it does not address (at least as far as I can tell) mail order operations in states with no no sales tax. I remember years ago I used to buy old coins from an outfit in New Hampshire and never had to pay sales tax for that reason.


So, for small stores..call them with your order. As a catalog sale--not an internet sale. Use the internet to look at the items and give a  phone call.

Al Gore put the internet sales exemption in back in the mid 90's....and it was renewed a few times. Now, that was up again it was removed.

Catalog sales from out of state catalog things have always been traditionally exempt in most states the catalog place didn't have a brick and mortar store or warehouse. Or some states that collected catalog sales taxes.
I think AZ, CA, OR, come to mind from mail order stuff.
 
2013-05-06 10:50:16 PM  

albuquerquehalsey:


Now THAT is funny. Well played sir.
 
jgi
2013-05-06 10:50:26 PM  
Hugely anti-small business legislation. Amazon can cope with this. Small businesses may find it to be a huge paperwork burden. $1M in gross sales in a year is not a lot if you sell high price, low margin items. The negative side of this bill isn't that we all have to pay sales tax on online purchases. The negative side is that the large corporations win again.
 
2013-05-06 10:51:03 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: In every Walmart thread, there are countless comments about how people should shun the evil empire and support their local mom and pop stores. Why are you all so upset about this then?


i.imgur.com

Meh. I was just going to buy a cheap casket. And only because there isn't a Ralph's around here.
 
2013-05-06 10:51:19 PM  

feckingmorons: If you live in Deleware, Montana or Oregon you have no state sales or use tax.


I live in Montana. Get farked, ya bastards.
 
2013-05-06 10:51:35 PM  
Once again an old and outdated industry is crying to the federal government to step in and stop other people from competing with them.
 
2013-05-06 10:51:50 PM  
Why does subby hate democracy? The people want to pay more taxes.
 
2013-05-06 10:52:52 PM  

feckingmorons: You already have to pay tax on the items you buy from out of state vendors that do not collect sales tax if those items would be taxable in your state. Use tax, not sales tax is what it is called. I file my return and pay the tax quarterly as required by my state of residence, Florida.


You are a sucker.
 
2013-05-06 10:52:55 PM  

albuquerquehalsey: [24.media.tumblr.com image 303x488]


media.tumblr.com

White people problems, you say?
 
2013-05-06 10:53:06 PM  

Fuggin Bizzy: feckingmorons: If you live in Deleware, Montana or Oregon you have no state sales or use tax.

I live in Montana. Get farked, ya bastards.


If you live in Montana or any other state with no sales tax, this shouldn't affect you at all. So congrats!
 
2013-05-06 10:53:20 PM  
We live in 'Because FU, that's why' times.
 
2013-05-06 10:54:19 PM  
I'm sure this will solve illinois' financial problems.
 
2013-05-06 10:54:21 PM  

12349876: TV's Vinnie: I really cannot fathom why the Amazon bigshots want this bill so bad. If it happens, their sales are gonna plummet.

Amazon's betting that quick delivery times will overcome a sales tax....


Psh, Amazon is the largest online retailer, they're the ones best able to adjust to the new regulations and they'll still be able to offer a bigger selection and lower prices than any traditional retailer. This legislation will create additional barriers to competition for Amazon without truly affecting their ability to compete with brick and mortar stores and save Amazon from having to fight this battle through the courts over the next few years.
 
2013-05-06 10:54:27 PM  
www.charlock.org
 
2013-05-06 10:54:38 PM  

TV's Vinnie: I really cannot fathom why the Amazon bigshots want this bill so bad. If it happens, their sales are gonna plummet.


It's the smaller online vendors who will be unable to handle the crazy quilt of sales taxes and their associated states' tax software that's somehow supposed to work seamlessly with their own, and subsequently fail, leaving the big boys like Amazon standing and, again, profiting.
 
2013-05-06 10:54:43 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: ArkAngel: It excuses all companies with less than one million in online sales.

Total sales, not just online sales.


Whoops, I was mistaken.  "Remote sales," not total sales or just online sales.
 
2013-05-06 10:55:03 PM  

DrPainMD: Why does subby hate democracy? The people want to pay more taxes.


People are stupid
 
2013-05-06 10:55:21 PM  

Somacandra: I guess since sales taxes are inherently regressive its a sorta bad thing, but I can't get outraged.


And, if you want to play that out, this will be... less regressive. It'll still be according-to-Hoyle regressive, of course. But it's not like the urban poor have been making out like bandits by avoiding online sales tax.

It shifts a slight bit of tax burden to middle and upper-middle class, primarily suburban, consumers. It's not really going to bother the 1%, it's not going to really be an issue for the bottom 20%. For the rest of us- we get to pitch in and pay our share for civilization. Fair enough.
 
2013-05-06 10:55:46 PM  

Warlordtrooper: Once again an old and outdated industry is crying to the federal government to step in and stop other people from competing with them.


How is the equal application of tax laws inhibiting competition?  As it is now, e-tailers have a government sponsored competitive advantage. That's what's anti-competitive.
 
2013-05-06 10:55:51 PM  
Right.

They can tax this but they can't farking legalize, regulate and tax online poker.
 
2013-05-06 10:56:37 PM  
- Benghazi
- Dijon Mustard
- ACORN
- Internet Sales Tax

Just adding another item to the list of reasons Taxbongo should be impeached.  Don't mind me.

Just like liberals don't mind showering.  LOL!!!  Get owned, stupid libs.  Get owned.
 
2013-05-06 10:57:29 PM  
This is probably unconstitutional.  Essentially, they want to force retailers to pay a tax determined by a government that they have no representation in.  If the state that the business is located in wishes to levy a tax on online retailers located in their state when they sell to out of state customers, that is their choice.  I'd support them doing it like that.

I live in Pennsylvania.  If I buy something from California, the price of that product should have the California sales tax added to it.  The California business can petition their representatives if they feel the tax rate is unfair, or they can relocate to a lower tax jurisdiction, so their rights are being upheld.  On the other hand, if they are forced to pay the Pennsylvania sales tax, they have no redress because they have no representative in the body that is levying the tax on them.
 
2013-05-06 10:57:35 PM  

Two Hearted: BestBuy.com and Target.com are giddy about this, but I'm still not going to shop at either sites. I buy things on Amazon, not because they don't charge sales tax, but because Amazon is a million times easier to navigate, the shipping is a million times better, and the review system is actually decent. I'd stab my own dick with a snail fork before buying anything from either of those two sites.


I can't really tell if you're trolling or not. Kind of funny, in any case.
 
2013-05-06 10:57:42 PM  

lenfromak: TV's Vinnie: I really cannot fathom why the Amazon bigshots want this bill so bad. If it happens, their sales are gonna plummet.

It's the smaller online vendors who will be unable to handle the crazy quilt of sales taxes and their associated states' tax software that's somehow supposed to work seamlessly with their own, and subsequently fail, leaving the big boys like Amazon standing and, again, profiting.


Stop making a fool of yourself and go  read the bill before discussing it.

http://www.marketplacefairness.org/
 
2013-05-06 10:57:50 PM  

Jesterling: [www.charlock.org image 651x433]


pretty much
 
2013-05-06 10:58:14 PM  

jgi: Hugely anti-small business legislation. Amazon can cope with this. Small businesses may find it to be a huge paperwork burden. $1M in gross sales in a year is not a lot if you sell high price, low margin items. The negative side of this bill isn't that we all have to pay sales tax on online purchases. The negative side is that the large corporations win again.


This is exactly it.

And why not stimulate production among common people and eliminate the barriers that really SHOULD just be to prevent monopolies. Grade on a curve... Perhaps Bezos doesn't want the competition.
 
2013-05-06 10:58:54 PM  

ArkAngel: Thoguh: I don't have a problem with this.  It'll cut down on really blatant tax evasion, that's it.  And smaller companies won't have to "deal with 9,000 tax codes" or anything like that.  Some vendor will see a business opportunity to run all that stuff for a small surcharge and all the small businesses will just contract through them.


Smaller companies won't have to deal with it at all. It excuses all companies with less than one million in online sales.


Just give it time. All taxes get bigger and more invasive, never the other way around.


Taxes NEVER go down....


www.cbpp.org:
 
2013-05-06 10:58:56 PM  

IronTom: basemetal: I thought you guys liked taxes....

That was when the $250k and up were paying them.  This here tax affects everybody who buys stuff on the internet.


Obama: "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
Lying SOB.
 
2013-05-06 10:59:27 PM  
IronTom


basemetal: I thought you guys liked taxes....

That was when the $250k and up were paying them. This here tax affects everybody who buys stuff on the internet.

Well, good thing the democrats only want to raise taxes on the "rich".
 
2013-05-06 10:59:29 PM  

feckingmorons: You already have to pay tax on the items you buy from out of state vendors that do not collect sales tax if those items would be taxable in your state. Use tax, not sales tax is what it is called. I file my return and pay the tax quarterly as required by my state of residence, Florida.

If you live in Deleware, Montana or Oregon you have no state sales or use tax. All others should be paying their use tax as the law requires unless the vendor collects it.

This will not raise your tax burden one cent. It will however create an accounting nightmare for the sellers and many smaller sellers will simply close. Those that remain open will have higher tax compliance costs and will pass those costs along to the consumer.

If you people had paid your taxes all along like you're supposed to you wouldn't be facing this problem. Quill v. North Dakota was not litigated to save you from paying the tax you rightfully owe, it was litigated so Quill and retailers similarly situated wouldn't be required to comply with tax laws in jurisdictions in which they have no nexus.

TLDR version - you already owe these taxes, you don't pay them. Now they want businesses to collect them because you won't pay voluntarily and prices will go up. Pay your taxes deadbeats.


Seriously? Do you save every receipt from a online purchase; a book or a dongle or something rather incidental.
And claim that toal  up and pay taxes on those when you fill out fed and state taxes?
I can't even remember what I bought online last year--I'm sure it wasn't much. But I certainly didn't log it for reference in April 14. I'm pretty sure..almost 100 percent sure, you purchased "Something" online you forgot to log in your perfect little world for tax reporting. Or you might have forgotten to claim a import form for a incidental thingy from Mexico to customs.
Might have been a couple of bucks--but then again we're haggling over the price at that point for what you might have done.
 
2013-05-06 10:59:30 PM  

1000 Ways to Dye: I'm okay with this, sorta.

They should make it apply to businesses that do more than $10 Million in sales or 50 employees, just like mail order businesses, rather than $1 million or 50 employees.



 . . . typical Leftist, "Eat the Rich" mentality
 
2013-05-06 10:59:38 PM  

DrPainMD: feckingmorons: You already have to pay tax on the items you buy from out of state vendors that do not collect sales tax if those items would be taxable in your state. Use tax, not sales tax is what it is called. I file my return and pay the tax quarterly as required by my state of residence, Florida.


You are a sucker.



Your statement, it is redundant.
 
2013-05-06 11:00:26 PM  
Not to be an a$$ (okay, so I am going to be one):

Idiots complaining this will be a "compliance nightmare" for small business, you've been suckered. Years ago, at least 10, there were companies selling fully indexed tax databases in combinations of states, counties, and so on. You could buy a nationwide list on cd, or online, and even subscriptions for a discount.

You think this is going to cause a problem? Excuse me while I laugh at your ignorance.
 
2013-05-06 11:00:41 PM  
It seems this is unlikely to affect a lot of small businesses, but is highly likely to create a clusterfark of accounting work for any online business that generates more than $1 mil in profits. Trying to create an online purchasing system to calculate tax rates for different states, in addition to shipping costs, will just make the whole online purchasing process more difficult. But maybe that is the ultimate goal...

And will this boil down to state legislatures? I lived in a county in Florida that added a 1% county tax on top of the state tax. Will individuals purchasing in specific counties eventually be held to these regulations?

/this post got away from me...
 
2013-05-06 11:00:42 PM  

DrPainMD: feckingmorons: You already have to pay tax on the items you buy from out of state vendors that do not collect sales tax if those items would be taxable in your state. Use tax, not sales tax is what it is called. I file my return and pay the tax quarterly as required by my state of residence, Florida.

You are a sucker.


Depends. He's doing what everyone's supposed to be doing if their state has sales tax, but like I said you're unlikely to get caught if you don't in most states. Not sure how strict Florida is with it.

Let's say I bought a couple of things in NJ (7% sales tax statewide) that I end up using here in NY (8.625% sales tax in my county, rate varies by county). Technically I'm supposed to pay the difference. Are they going to look closely into my purchases and charge me? Very unlikely. But I wouldn't blame anyone for paying.

/haven't actually done that so don't come after me, NYSDTF
 
2013-05-06 11:00:44 PM  

EvilIguana966: This is probably unconstitutional.  Essentially, they want to force retailers to pay a tax determined by a government that they have no representation in.  If the state that the business is located in wishes to levy a tax on online retailers located in their state when they sell to out of state customers, that is their choice.  I'd support them doing it like that.

I live in Pennsylvania.  If I buy something from California, the price of that product should have the California sales tax added to it.  The California business can petition their representatives if they feel the tax rate is unfair, or they can relocate to a lower tax jurisdiction, so their rights are being upheld.  On the other hand, if they are forced to pay the Pennsylvania sales tax, they have no redress because they have no representative in the body that is levying the tax on them.


Remote sellers are not being taxed.  They are collecting taxes from in-state buyers and remitting that money to the buyer's state.
 
2013-05-06 11:00:56 PM  
A lot states, red ones especially, need revenue.  The sequester is killing them.  This is going to mean exactly jack diddley in terms of hurting sales, and it will raise much needed revenue.
 
2013-05-06 11:01:09 PM  

EvilIguana966: This is probably unconstitutional.  Essentially, they want to force retailers to pay a tax determined by a government that they have no representation in.  If the state that the business is located in wishes to levy a tax on online retailers located in their state when they sell to out of state customers, that is their choice.  I'd support them doing it like that.

I live in Pennsylvania.  If I buy something from California, the price of that product should have the California sales tax added to it.  The California business can petition their representatives if they feel the tax rate is unfair, or they can relocate to a lower tax jurisdiction, so their rights are being upheld.  On the other hand, if they are forced to pay the Pennsylvania sales tax, they have no redress because they have no representative in the body that is levying the tax on them.


Chief Justice Roberts and the Commerce Clause would like to have a word with you.
 
2013-05-06 11:01:49 PM  

GameSprocket: So, I guess Amazon's web services will soon include a tax calculator. The trick will be dealing with the special rules for categories like clothing.


Or items you can eat
 
2013-05-06 11:02:21 PM  
Any business with under $1million in internet sales is exempt? I hope that this is correct.
 
2013-05-06 11:02:40 PM  
www.littlestuffedbull.com
 
2013-05-06 11:02:57 PM  
Supporters say the bill makes it relatively easy for Internet retailers to comply. States must provide free computer software to help retailers calculate sales taxes, based on where shoppers live. States must also establish a single entity to receive Internet sales tax revenue, so retailers don't have to send it to individual counties or cities.

Weird, that's right in TFA.
 
2013-05-06 11:03:01 PM  

tjfly: IronTom: basemetal: I thought you guys liked taxes....

That was when the $250k and up were paying them.  This here tax affects everybody who buys stuff on the internet.

Obama: "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
Lying SOB.


So the President controls your state taxes?
 
2013-05-06 11:03:02 PM  

EvilIguana966: This is probably unconstitutional.  Essentially, they want to force retailers to pay a tax determined by a government that they have no representation in.  If the state that the business is located in wishes to levy a tax on online retailers located in their state when they sell to out of state customers, that is their choice.  I'd support them doing it like that.

I live in Pennsylvania.  If I buy something from California, the price of that product should have the California sales tax added to it.  The California business can petition their representatives if they feel the tax rate is unfair, or they can relocate to a lower tax jurisdiction, so their rights are being upheld.  On the other hand, if they are forced to pay the Pennsylvania sales tax, they have no redress because they have no representative in the body that is levying the tax on them.


I know that sounds good, but it doesn't work that way.
 
2013-05-06 11:03:34 PM  
i86.photobucket.com


Since I live in BFE Michigan I shop on-line mostly because I can't get something locally and not because I'm looking for a tax free shopping experience. And when I do try to find a deal on-line on something I could get locally it would have to be a hell a lot more then 6% cheaper anyway when you factor in shipping cost and wait times.
 
2013-05-06 11:03:48 PM  

Popcorn Johnny: In every Walmart thread, there are countless comments about how people should shun the evil empire and support their local mom and pop stores. Why are you all so upset about this then?


I think the small businesses on the internet would be the most harmed... the big guys can have accountants and lawyers and programmers redo their method of processing in a matter of days... for little guys, they may simply be unable to afford the tax complexities of each and every state they might be shipping to, it could just be the end of them.
 
2013-05-06 11:03:50 PM  
The democrat's answer to brick & mortar businesses getting screwed...... Screw the internet businesses too!

That'll help the economy.  Just farking brilliant.
 
2013-05-06 11:04:33 PM  
Cook County board members are gonna be up all night figuring out how to soak me on this, so I got THAT going for me.

"We've devised a new formula, much like the property tax formula. Basically we total OUR bills from last year, then divide by the number of Internet capable devices we estimate are in the county. Your bill will be that number times all of your devices plus $50."
 
2013-05-06 11:04:37 PM  

Whodat: Any business with under $1million in internet sales is exempt? I hope that this is correct.


Any business with less than one million in out-of-state sales, via the internet or otherwise.
 
2013-05-06 11:04:59 PM  
fark Harry Reid in the ass with a sharp stick!
 
2013-05-06 11:06:16 PM  

Whodat: Any business with under $1million in internet sales is exempt? I hope that this is correct.



Yes, but it is Gross sales.  Not net profit.  Keep that in mind.  The bill is not talking about profit exemptions for small businesses.

A business only needs to churn one million dollars to be in the system, even if it takes home much less.
 
2013-05-06 11:06:28 PM  

Gonz: And, if you want to play that out, this will be... less regressive. It'll still be according-to-Hoyle regressive, of course. But it's not like the urban poor have been making out like bandits by avoiding online sales tax. It shifts a slight bit of tax burden to middle and upper-middle class, primarily suburban, consumers. It's not really going to bother the 1%, it's not going to really be an issue for the bottom 20%. For the rest of us- we get to pitch in and pay our share for civilization. Fair enough.


i.imgur.com
 
2013-05-06 11:06:31 PM  
i wonder how this affects amazon marketplace sellers (like my self)

i am not a mega seller and only do ~30k a year in sales

will i now have to deal with sales tax laws and fill out 50 different forms a month concerning my sales all the states because i use Amazon as a store front or will marketplace sellers be considered business separate from amazon
 
2013-05-06 11:07:01 PM  
Here's the thing I have never understood about sales tax:  It's a tax on the merchant, not the consumer, yet many states require by law that merchants charge the consumer for sales tax.  The merchant would actually be violating the law if they didn't charge said sales tax, but still paid the state their 1%-10% tax*.  That just doesn't make sense to me.  Why the fark does the state care if the customer is charged that tax, as long as they get the taxes from the merchant, who's supposed to be the one paying the tax to begin with?

*Obviously, a merchant could adjust their pricing so that the final cost of a given product was MSRP without sales tax, but if they don't specifically and explicitly charge "sales tax" on the transaction, they'd still be in violation of the law.
 
2013-05-06 11:07:08 PM  
I am actually OK with this.  To me it is no different than having to pay tax when you go to another state and purchase something.
 
2013-05-06 11:07:52 PM  
Bookmarking www.amazon.mx
 
2013-05-06 11:08:41 PM  

wsupfoo2: Rindred: So, if I buy something online. The vendor/store isn't in my state. The company that I have my credit card with doesn't reside in my state. The company that processes the credit card to pay the vendor doesn't reside in my state. Question: what entitles my state to even one penny of that transaction? If I cross a state border and buy a sandwich, I don't pay my home state sales tax on it. This isn't the same thing how?


If you had something shipped to you, you made a transaction in the state you live in.  The value was recieved wherever it was shipped.  Why is it different than buying it in a local store who has to charge sales tax?  If you crossed state lines, you would have made a transaction in another state where you received the goods.  We tax where the transaction value was received.  Why is that hard?

If you want to argue the concept of a sales tax, fine, you have a point.  But to argue that the method of purchase determines whether its taxable by anyone is absurd.


Presumably, I paid for shipping and therefore it's free on board wherever it's shipped from, and the transaction occurred there. Accounting is fun!
 
2013-05-06 11:09:08 PM  
And the House will shoot it down.  Sunrise, sunset.
 
2013-05-06 11:09:09 PM  

Mock26: I am actually OK with this.  To me it is no different than having to pay tax when you go to another state and purchase something.



It actually is different.  The bill does not pay the taxes of states you are buying from.  It applies your state tax (if applicable) to internet purchases you make.
 
2013-05-06 11:09:22 PM  
Yay. More taxes. Vote em all out. One more reason.
 
2013-05-06 11:09:51 PM  

TV's Vinnie: I really cannot fathom why the Amazon bigshots want this bill so bad. If it happens, their sales are gonna plummet.


There is already plenty of data that proves it won't have any affect on Amazon's sales.  And Amazon has always held the position that they want to see something nationwide than on a piece meal city by city or state by state basis.
 
2013-05-06 11:09:52 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: Supporters say the bill makes it relatively easy for Internet retailers to comply. States must provide free computer software to help retailers calculate sales taxes, based on where shoppers live. States must also establish a single entity to receive Internet sales tax revenue, so retailers don't have to send it to individual counties or cities.

Weird, that's right in TFA.


Even better, the software has to do remittance.  Sellers won't even have to mail checks.

Every farking thing that states require sellers to do will be done by software that states must provide for free and maintain themselves.  Sellers are immunized against  liability for state errors in software or tax rate databases. Every state's software must handle sales taxes for all states, so a seller will need only one software package.  It will all be done with the click of a button.

Farking whiners haven't even looked at what they're whining about.
 
2013-05-06 11:09:54 PM  
Obama:  I will not raise taxes on the middle class.

Well, I guess he lied.  But the libtards don't wanna hear it.  They voted for him twice because black.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJVMWjTQh_Y
 
2013-05-06 11:10:01 PM  

optikeye: Seriously? Do you save every receipt from a online purchase; a book or a dongle or something rather incidental.


You should see his porn receipts. I wouldn't audit him either. PissGuzzlingGrannies? Really?
 
2013-05-06 11:10:22 PM  

IronTom: basemetal: I thought you guys liked taxes....

That was when the $250k and up were paying them.  This here tax affects everybody who buys stuff on the internet.


You believed them?  Shiat son, they need 50% of everyones income down to the people who make about $70,000 a year just to support current spending. Because when you take a rich persons income, they find other ways to be comfortable with their asset and revenues drop over time.

You realize that each head of household who qualifies for benefits from the government can collect between $27k and $60k per year in benefits?   http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/over-60000-welfare-spentper-house h old-poverty_657889.html

And in my local area a child in poverty is eligible for additional benefits in the form of state spending in the amount of $30,000 per year. This includes education (three meals a day in come cases) healthcare (chips) daycare, and access to SSDI, TANF, HUD, etc that may be duplicated under the above number.

But either way a single mother with 4 kids has a household which is benefitting from about $200,000 per year in government spending. Thats not cash in her pocket, but that is what we spend on the various programs she beneftis from.

On the other side of the coin is those of us who pay taxes...... our median income is about $45,000 per year, and we pay taxes out of that amount.

The numbers are all available on various government websites. Just take a calculator or spread sheet and add it up your self. Taxpayers are the working poor and we support a huge bloated welfare state. Its got to change.
 
2013-05-06 11:10:31 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: Remote sellers are not being taxed.  They are collecting taxes from in-state buyers and remitting that money to the buyer's state.


I don't get why, as a resident of a state with no sales tax, I should have to invest in infrastructure not otherwise required by my state on behalf of a state I have nothing to do with except that I'm shipping them a product.

If they want to collect this tax they should just make UPS/USPS/FedEx collect a use tax upon delivery.  That seems a little more fair, since UPS/USPS/FedEx are already doing business in the states that collect a sales/use tax.
 
2013-05-06 11:10:50 PM  
Amazon likes it because they're planning on setting up distribution centers in (almost) every state anyway. They'd rather not be known as the one online retailer where you always pay sales tax.

Best Buy, Target, etc., like it for the obvious reasons.
But the price breaks you get by "showrooming" go well above some tax consideration. Most of the big brick & mortar stores still face some significant challenges.

Me, I don't give a shiat. Seems fair I guess... but of course I won't kick and scream if the House doesn't act on it.

//and here I thought you flat-tax tea-tards were big sales tax fans
 
2013-05-06 11:11:35 PM  

jgi: Hugely anti-small business legislation. Amazon can cope with this. Small businesses may find it to be a huge paperwork burden. $1M in gross sales in a year is not a lot if you sell high price, low margin items. The negative side of this bill isn't that we all have to pay sales tax on online purchases. The negative side is that the large corporations win again.


It is no different than a small business that does not do internet sales having to deal with state taxes from in-store purchases.
 
2013-05-06 11:11:40 PM  

Gonz: tjfly: IronTom: basemetal: I thought you guys liked taxes....

That was when the $250k and up were paying them.  This here tax affects everybody who buys stuff on the internet.

Obama: "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
Lying SOB.

So the President controls your state taxes?


He also broke his promise on $250,000, they lowered it to 200,000 after the election and then added obamacare which primarily hits the middle class.
 
2013-05-06 11:11:47 PM  
Good.

Now if they would only create an online news tax to help print journalism and we can save even more traditional businesses from online competition.
 
2013-05-06 11:11:49 PM  
meh, seems fair I guess.
Still sucky
 
2013-05-06 11:12:13 PM  

BafflerMeal: Mock26: I am actually OK with this.  To me it is no different than having to pay tax when you go to another state and purchase something.


It actually is different.  The bill does not pay the taxes of states you are buying from.  It applies your state tax (if applicable) to internet purchases you make.


...which already should have been happening under previously-existing law.
 
2013-05-06 11:12:30 PM  

Teufelaffe: Here's the thing I have never understood about sales tax:  It's a tax on the merchant, not the consumer,



Nope. It's a tax on the purchaser. The merchant is just collecting it. As to the rest of your post, it's essentially about full disclosure of pricing to the consumer.
 
2013-05-06 11:13:35 PM  

Amos Quito: FROM EACH
according to his ability

TO EACH
according to his need


 /You're not selfish, are you?


I think 16 trillion dollars in national debt and 140 trillion in unfounded liabilities... Seems there's a bit too much "need"...
 
2013-05-06 11:13:42 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: tallguywithglasseson: Supporters say the bill makes it relatively easy for Internet retailers to comply. States must provide free computer software to help retailers calculate sales taxes, based on where shoppers live. States must also establish a single entity to receive Internet sales tax revenue, so retailers don't have to send it to individual counties or cities.

Weird, that's right in TFA.

Even better, the software has to do remittance.  Sellers won't even have to mail checks.

Every farking thing that states require sellers to do will be done by software that states must provide for free and maintain themselves.  Sellers are immunized against  liability for state errors in software or tax rate databases. Every state's software must handle sales taxes for all states, so a seller will need only one software package.  It will all be done with the click of a button.

Farking whiners haven't even looked at what they're whining about.


I'm definitely not trying to argue here; I'm just uneducated. What is the software that states provide for these taxes? And are states required to update it every year?

My only reference for the horrible horrible injustice of this bill is a few friends that ran a small business and biatched about tax laws, accountability, and software. They were stupid though, so I wouldn't be surprised if there was something simple that they just missed out on.
 
2013-05-06 11:13:44 PM  

Teufelaffe: Here's the thing I have never understood about sales tax:  It's a tax on the merchant, not the consumer, yet many states require by law that merchants charge the consumer for sales tax.  The merchant would actually be violating the law if they didn't charge said sales tax, but still paid the state their 1%-10% tax*.  That just doesn't make sense to me.  Why the fark does the state care if the customer is charged that tax, as long as they get the taxes from the merchant, who's supposed to be the one paying the tax to begin with?

*Obviously, a merchant could adjust their pricing so that the final cost of a given product was MSRP without sales tax, but if they don't specifically and explicitly charge "sales tax" on the transaction, they'd still be in violation of the law.


Can you cite where it is illegal in some states to not charge the consumer the tax?
 
2013-05-06 11:13:54 PM  

Mock26: jgi: Hugely anti-small business legislation. Amazon can cope with this. Small businesses may find it to be a huge paperwork burden. $1M in gross sales in a year is not a lot if you sell high price, low margin items. The negative side of this bill isn't that we all have to pay sales tax on online purchases. The negative side is that the large corporations win again.

It is no different than a small business that does not do internet sales having to deal with state taxes from in-store purchases.


Which state or municipality has the lowest sales tax?

Anyone want to go in with me and form a legal entity that exists in the best spot in the country to pay the least tax under this bill?  We can be an umbrella company for everyone who pays us a small fee and then they can collect mush lower internet sales tax......
 
2013-05-06 11:14:22 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: This is another example of why we are farked.
Politicians do not do what constituents want.
They do what big money wants, or they do something that will allow them to take in more of our cash so they can spend it on shiat constituents don't want.


Just because you don't want it, doesn't mean all constituents don't want it, this bill actually helps the mom and pop shops and other small businesses compete with online vendors that don't collect sales tax. This isn't purely a big money bill, it is a treat all businesses equally bill.
 
2013-05-06 11:14:23 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: lenfromak: TV's Vinnie: I really cannot fathom why the Amazon bigshots want this bill so bad. If it happens, their sales are gonna plummet.

It's the smaller online vendors who will be unable to handle the crazy quilt of sales taxes and their associated states' tax software that's somehow supposed to work seamlessly with their own, and subsequently fail, leaving the big boys like Amazon standing and, again, profiting.

Stop making a fool of yourself and go  read the bill before discussing it.

http://www.marketplacefairness.org/



Will they be taxing the shipping (UPS, FedEx, USPS) portion of the bill as well?
 
2013-05-06 11:14:24 PM  

tjfly: IronTom: basemetal: I thought you guys liked taxes....

That was when the $250k and up were paying them.  This here tax affects everybody who buys stuff on the internet.

Obama: "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
Lying SOB.


Last time I checked, there is no Federal sales tax, even if this passes.  Take it up with your state.  If you live in a state that has a sales tax, you were supposed to be paying it for online purchases all this time.  No more free rides.
 
2013-05-06 11:14:35 PM  
Well, that's okay, subby.

Since I won't have any more money after they pass the tax than I do right now, this means I'll just have to spend less to offset the difference.

Do the folks in the Senate not get that? In order to pay this new tax, I will have to reduce my spending to offset it. IN OTHER WORDS, YOU'RE FORCING ME TO SPEND LESS MONEY PRE-TAX IN ORDER TO PAY YOUR STUPID TAX. YOU'RE TAKING MONEY OUT OF THE POCKETS OF ONLINE MERCHANTS, NOT ONLINE CONSUMERS, BY PASSING THIS TAX. IS THAT REALLY WHAT YOUR BUSINESS CONSTITUENTS WANTED?

(*tap-tap*) Hello? Is this thing working?
 
2013-05-06 11:15:04 PM  

davidphogan: BarkingUnicorn: Remote sellers are not being taxed.  They are collecting taxes from in-state buyers and remitting that money to the buyer's state.

I don't get why, as a resident of a state with no sales tax, I should have to invest in infrastructure not otherwise required by my state on behalf of a state I have nothing to do with except that I'm shipping them a product.


You won't have to.  Nothing will change for you.  It's the other way around:

1.  If you live in a state with sales tax
2.  online retailers of a certain size will have to collect whatever the tax would be in your state
3.  If said taxes are collected, the business must then remit the taxes to your state.

If you live in a state with no sales tax, nothing will really change for you.  If you live in a state with a sales tax, then it would be applied to all internet purchases by the business you are buying from
 
2013-05-06 11:15:33 PM  
Well, I guess when you oppose every tax ever, you'll eventually happen to oppose a bad tax. It's still surreal to see the Grover Norquist bunch on the correct side of an issue.

/yes, I realize that finding Grover on my side should give me doubts about my position
 
2013-05-06 11:15:34 PM  

davidphogan: I don't get why, as a resident of a state with no sales tax, I should have to invest in infrastructure not otherwise required by my state on behalf of a state I have nothing to do with except that I'm shipping them a product.


wat
 
2013-05-06 11:16:56 PM  

NotoriousFire: BitwiseShift:
Very concerned about not getting Texas Sales Tax Exemption Certificate not honored by some web seller in East B*ttFark. What an excellent bureacracy the Senate wants to create.


What? Texas has a sales tax...

"The Texas state sales and use tax rate is 6.25%, but local taxing jurisdictions (cities, counties, special purpose districts, and transit authorities) may also impose sales and use tax up to 2% for a total maximum combined rate of 8.25%. " http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/sales/faq_collect.html


His post references TEXAS SALES TAX EXEMPTION. Many businesses purchase from retailers, such as Sam's and Costco, to resell the product. They also buy online. That initial purchase is exempt from Sales Tax.
 
2013-05-06 11:17:15 PM  

archichris: Mock26: jgi: Hugely anti-small business legislation. Amazon can cope with this. Small businesses may find it to be a huge paperwork burden. $1M in gross sales in a year is not a lot if you sell high price, low margin items. The negative side of this bill isn't that we all have to pay sales tax on online purchases. The negative side is that the large corporations win again.

It is no different than a small business that does not do internet sales having to deal with state taxes from in-store purchases.

Which state or municipality has the lowest sales tax?

Anyone want to go in with me and form a legal entity that exists in the best spot in the country to pay the least tax under this bill?  We can be an umbrella company for everyone who pays us a small fee and then they can collect mush lower internet sales tax......


It's not so much where you set up, it's more that you'd have to ban people from certain states from buying from your store.
 
2013-05-06 11:17:19 PM  
It's good that a business won't get taxed below one million dollars in sales, but will they take into account the overhead? Equipment, employees, materials... Not everyone is selling cheap crap. And this isn't the 60's.

thinkingscifi.files.wordpress.com
 
2013-05-06 11:17:41 PM  

tallguywithglasseson: Supporters say the bill makes it relatively easy for Internet retailers to comply. States must provide free computer software to help retailers calculate sales taxes, based on where shoppers live. States must also establish a single entity to receive Internet sales tax revenue, so retailers don't have to send it to individual counties or cities.

Weird, that's right in TFA.


Free software and a single place to mail the check still doesn't cover the cost of cutting each of those checks, the extra time the accountant spends making sure those checks are sent for the right amount to the right place, the integration of said software into the existing payment system, or any number of other costs that businesses will now be incurred, even if they operate out of a location that doesn't have any local sales tax.  Hell, I can go into Washington State and show my Oregon ID and not pay sales tax there, either, cause they're nice like that.

I personally am not an internet retailer, and I still won't pay sales tax even after this goes into effect, but I have a few friends that have internet based businesses who will be effected by this.  Since I do IT consulting for one of them, and she was talking to me about the costs if this goes into effect that she'll have to account for, I guess I do have an opinion about this.

It's gonna make me some money, and that is good.  But it's at the expense of my friend so that other states can make her collect their money for them, which I don't like so much.
 
2013-05-06 11:18:14 PM  
Anyone want to bet whether or not the congresscritters are exempt from paying internet sales tax?
 
2013-05-06 11:19:16 PM  

Grimble Crumble: Anyone want to bet whether or not the congresscritters are exempt from paying internet sales tax?


sure. I bet that they are not exempt. I'll take money orders, please.
 
2013-05-06 11:19:47 PM  
Man, this is really going to drive up the prices on my Silk Road purchases.
 
2013-05-06 11:20:47 PM  
realresults-realscience.info

WHAT???

You thought this would be a "State" thing?

LOL!

Pay up, peasants.
 
2013-05-06 11:21:57 PM  

davidphogan: BarkingUnicorn: Remote sellers are not being taxed.  They are collecting taxes from in-state buyers and remitting that money to the buyer's state.

I don't get why, as a resident of a state with no sales tax, I should have to invest in infrastructure not otherwise required by my state on behalf of a state I have nothing to do with except that I'm shipping them a product.

If they want to collect this tax they should just make UPS/USPS/FedEx collect a use tax upon delivery.  That seems a little more fair, since UPS/USPS/FedEx are already doing business in the states that collect a sales/use tax.


You're not just "shipping them a product," you're getting revenue in return.  It's perfectly fair for you to pay a bit to support the market that supports you.  All of the software necessary to comply will be free to you.

If you think you can do business entirely on a COD basis, you are a farking imbecile.
 
2013-05-06 11:23:09 PM  

farkinglizardking: BarkingUnicorn: tallguywithglasseson: Supporters say the bill makes it relatively easy for Internet retailers to comply. States must provide free computer software to help retailers calculate sales taxes, based on where shoppers live. States must also establish a single entity to receive Internet sales tax revenue, so retailers don't have to send it to individual counties or cities.

Weird, that's right in TFA.

Even better, the software has to do remittance.  Sellers won't even have to mail checks.

Every farking thing that states require sellers to do will be done by software that states must provide for free and maintain themselves.  Sellers are immunized against  liability for state errors in software or tax rate databases. Every state's software must handle sales taxes for all states, so a seller will need only one software package.  It will all be done with the click of a button.

Farking whiners haven't even looked at what they're whining about.

I'm definitely not trying to argue here; I'm just uneducated. What is the software that states provide for these taxes? And are states required to update it every year?

My only reference for the horrible horrible injustice of this bill is a few friends that ran a small business and biatched about tax laws, accountability, and software. They were stupid though, so I wouldn't be surprised if there was something simple that they just missed out on.


http://www.marketplacefairness.org/
 
2013-05-06 11:23:35 PM  
While I understand the argument of price advantage due to lack of tax, this is often counter-balanced by shipping and handling costs or memberships such as Prime (which applies only to some, if a majority, of objects). However, the charge of tax to a retailer not located in the area is ridiculous because those taxes are meant to provide services which make the area appealing to conduct business in, directly and indirectly.
 
2013-05-06 11:23:53 PM  

davidphogan: tallguywithglasseson: Supporters say the bill makes it relatively easy for Internet retailers to comply. States must provide free computer software to help retailers calculate sales taxes, based on where shoppers live. States must also establish a single entity to receive Internet sales tax revenue, so retailers don't have to send it to individual counties or cities.

Weird, that's right in TFA.

Free software and a single place to mail the check still doesn't cover the cost of cutting each of those checks, the extra time the accountant spends making sure those checks are sent for the right amount to the right place, the integration of said software into the existing payment system, or any number of other costs that businesses will now be incurred, even if they operate out of a location that doesn't have any local sales tax.  Hell, I can go into Washington State and show my Oregon ID and not pay sales tax there, either, cause they're nice like that.

I personally am not an internet retailer, and I still won't pay sales tax even after this goes into effect, but I have a few friends that have internet based businesses who will be effected by this.  Since I do IT consulting for one of them, and she was talking to me about the costs if this goes into effect that she'll have to account for, I guess I do have an opinion about this.

It's gonna make me some money, and that is good.  But it's at the expense of my friend so that other states can make her collect their money for them, which I don't like so much.


stdext::hash_map<const std::string&, double> StateToHowMuchCheddarWeOweEm;

void AddMuddafugginTaxes (const std::string& StateAbbr, double TaxOnThisPurchase)
{
StateToHowMuchCheddarWeOweEm[StateAbbr].second += TaxOnThisPurchase ;
}

run a report at the end of the month. Cut the check. Send to the states.
 
2013-05-06 11:23:59 PM  

Mike_LowELL: - Benghazi
- Dijon Mustard
- ACORN
- Internet Sales Tax

Just adding another item to the list of reasons Taxbongo should be impeached.  Don't mind me.

Just like liberals don't mind showering.  LOL!!!  Get owned, stupid libs.  Get owned.


tjfly: IronTom: basemetal: I thought you guys liked taxes....

That was when the $250k and up were paying them.  This here tax affects everybody who buys stuff on the internet.

Obama: "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."
Lying SOB.


This Senate version of the bill was introduced by a Republican. So was the House version.  But don't let that stop you from blaming this bill on Obama
 
2013-05-06 11:24:36 PM  

shifty lookin bleeder: Teufelaffe: Here's the thing I have never understood about sales tax:  It's a tax on the merchant, not the consumer,


Nope. It's a tax on the purchaser. The merchant is just collecting it. As to the rest of your post, it's essentially about full disclosure of pricing to the consumer.


Actually, you're both wrong/right.  Some states impose a "vendor privilege tax" (i.e., a tax for the privilege of selling goods within that state) on the vendor, others impose a "consumer sales tax" on the purchaser.  And some states just charge a tax on retail transactions with equal liability for both merchant and customer.

Source
 
2013-05-06 11:24:52 PM  

EvilIguana966: This is probably unconstitutional.  Essentially, they want to force retailers to pay a tax determined by a government that they have no representation in.  If the state that the business is located in wishes to levy a tax on online retailers located in their state when they sell to out of state customers, that is their choice.  I'd support them doing it like that.

I live in Pennsylvania.  If I buy something from California, the price of that product should have the California sales tax added to it.  The California business can petition their representatives if they feel the tax rate is unfair, or they can relocate to a lower tax jurisdiction, so their rights are being upheld.  On the other hand, if they are forced to pay the Pennsylvania sales tax, they have no redress because they have no representative in the body that is levying the tax on them.


No. The store isn't paying the tax, the consumer is. The store is merely collecting the tax and sending it to the state. The only problem I have with the law, as I understand it, is the bit about redress for failing to comply. That, and one state being able to put a lein on a business's properties in another state.
 
2013-05-06 11:24:56 PM  
Is this really a bad thing? The system before wasn't particularly fair, as it illustrates why voluntary tax payment is a hilariously stupid concept.
 
2013-05-06 11:25:25 PM  

TV's Vinnie: I really cannot fathom why the Amazon bigshots want this bill so bad. If it happens, their sales are gonna plummet.


Because only amazon and their ilk can keep a massive database of hundreds of thousands of sales tax districts, including data items that change weekly or even daily. Amazon can simply hire a staff full time to take care of it. Other internet retailers will be forced to shut down.

If they're going to do this, the number needs to be much, much higher. I fully agree with eBay's 10 million AND 50 employees tick-stick. Anything else creates a 'doughnut hole' where either you are either so dinky no one knows you exist, or you're amazon.

Such action effectively shuts everyone else out of the market, because they cannot possibly hire a full-time staff for data compliance with the profits from only 1kk in sales, making the law de facto 'all internet sales online are capped at 1 million, except for amazon.'

An alternative addendum, that I've seen, places the burden for compliance squarely on the states, requiring THEM to reconfigure their laws for internet sales tax to be feasible (i.e. eliminating 'special sales tax zones' and similar, where between 200 and 400 oak street there is  a special 1% tax on paperclips or something else equally ridiculous.) and provide free software to the government to, in turn, give to retailers. This way the retailers would always know what the sales tax rate is for each product in each zip+4.
 
2013-05-06 11:26:33 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: This is another example of why we are farked.
Politicians do not do what constituents want.
They do what big money wants, or they do something that will allow them to take in more of our cash so they can spend it on shiat constituents don't want.


Just because constituents want something doesn't necessarily mean they're right.  Most users still operate under the idea that the Internet is some amorphous entity that popped into existence one day and why the hell should I have to pay money to watch cat videos?  I don't like paying taxes, but you have to admit there's a problem when brick-and-morter stores operate under one set of rules while internet businesses operate under an advantageous other set of rules.  Amazon has made a killing (literally in the case of retailers) exploiting that difference.  I'm all for moving towards digital downloads and online sales, but you can't expect the government to fund its mandates if a huge section of its tax base dries up.  So you have to choose.  Either treat everyone by the same set of rules, or accept that states will have to tighten their belts even more as Amazon gobbles up retailers.
 
2013-05-06 11:27:02 PM  

Vangor: the charge of tax to a retailer


Sales taxes are assessed on the consumer, not the retailer.  The retailer collects it and submits it to the state to which it is owed.
 
2013-05-06 11:27:25 PM  
Sounds like a good idea...taxes.  Let's see if we can drive commerce completely overseas...we've already done so with manufacturing.  I can't figure out who would've lobbied for this, but I am sure the senators are getting paid well.
 
2013-05-06 11:28:12 PM  

Mock26: Teufelaffe: Here's the thing I have never understood about sales tax:  It's a tax on the merchant, not the consumer, yet many states require by law that merchants charge the consumer for sales tax.  The merchant would actually be violating the law if they didn't charge said sales tax, but still paid the state their 1%-10% tax*.  That just doesn't make sense to me.  Why the fark does the state care if the customer is charged that tax, as long as they get the taxes from the merchant, who's supposed to be the one paying the tax to begin with?

*Obviously, a merchant could adjust their pricing so that the final cost of a given product was MSRP without sales tax, but if they don't specifically and explicitly charge "sales tax" on the transaction, they'd still be in violation of the law.

Can you cite where it is illegal in some states to not charge the consumer the tax?


Bah, it's a lot harder to find with this bill having passed, but I was able to find this reference on the Finance Dept page about sales tax on the site for Jeneau:

All merchants are required to collect sales tax at the time of purchase...

In the past I've found a couple of state gov sites that said similar things, but right now the Googles are chock-full of stuff about this bill, so I can't seem to find them now.
 
2013-05-06 11:28:26 PM  
i0.kym-cdn.com

The purpose of the tax break was to encourage Internet sales. Internet retailers are doing well, so we end the tax break. We now move on with life.

People get some advantage and then whine like spoiled brats when they no longer get special treatment.

If anyone is asking why Amazon is supporting this, it's because they have distribution centers in many states. They also had problems in the past with affiliate programs and taxes. They want a level playing field with other internet retailers.
 
2013-05-06 11:28:51 PM  

Sim Tree: Because only amazon and their ilk can keep a massive database of hundreds of thousands of sales tax districts, including data items that change weekly or even daily. Amazon can simply hire a staff full time to take care of it. Other internet retailers will be forced to shut down.


Right, because it's not like software to handle tax accounting automatically is something that exists.
 
2013-05-06 11:28:52 PM  

Mentat: AdolfOliverPanties: This is another example of why we are farked.
Politicians do not do what constituents want.
They do what big money wants, or they do something that will allow them to take in more of our cash so they can spend it on shiat constituents don't want.

Just because constituents want something doesn't necessarily mean they're right.  Most users still operate under the idea that the Internet is some amorphous entity that popped into existence one day and why the hell should I have to pay money to watch cat videos?  I don't like paying taxes, but you have to admit there's a problem when brick-and-morter stores operate under one set of rules while internet businesses operate under an advantageous other set of rules.  Amazon has made a killing (literally in the case of retailers) exploiting that difference.  I'm all for moving towards digital downloads and online sales, but you can't expect the government to fund its mandates if a huge section of its tax base dries up.  So you have to choose.  Either treat everyone by the same set of rules, or accept that states will have to tighten their belts even more as Amazon gobbles up retailers.


Amazon still maintains its advantage due to its partnerships and ability to quote you from a number of vendors, rather than just what they charge for what they actually have in stock. Amazon is the shiat, with or without sales tax. If you have a fulfillment center in your state (which is likely) you are already paying sales tax on Amazon.
 
2013-05-06 11:29:31 PM  
Did a FWCer sent this?
 
2013-05-06 11:29:58 PM  

feckingmorons: You already have to pay tax on the items you buy from out of state vendors that do not collect sales tax if those items would be taxable in your state. Use tax, not sales tax is what it is called. I file my return and pay the tax quarterly as required by my state of residence, Florida.


Of ll the things that never happened, this never happened the most.
 
2013-05-06 11:30:41 PM  

Monkeyfark Ridiculous: Well, I guess when you oppose every tax ever, you'll eventually happen to oppose a bad tax. It's still surreal to see the Grover Norquist bunch on the correct side of an issue.

/yes, I realize that finding Grover on my side should give me doubts about my position


It is a bit unnerving, ain't it? I can understand the Elmer Fudd moment of having a carrot-chomping visitor kibitzing while I'm seconds from cornering that screwy rabbit....
 
2013-05-06 11:31:19 PM  

MyToeHurts: fark Harry Reid in the ass with a sharp stick!


you have to get past his Magic Underwear.

although maybe the sharp stick would help with that.
 
2013-05-06 11:31:19 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: "vendor privilege tax"


that's different than a transactional sales tax that I was referring to.  I have no idea whether this legislation addresses that type of tax.
 
2013-05-06 11:32:17 PM  

shifty lookin bleeder: Vangor: the charge of tax to a retailer

Sales taxes are assessed on the consumer, not the retailer.  The retailer collects it and submits it to the state to which it is owed.


technically, no. You could never pay a dime in "sales tax" as a line item on a receipt but the retailer you purchase from is responsible for making sure he is paying the state and local sales taxes on all his sales. Usually this tax is passed along to the consumer but there is no requirement for anyone to do that explicitly or implicitly AFAIK. This is why you can often avoid paying taxes by making cash purchases. Sort of a wink and a nod to the retailer. He won't report it as revenue and therefore not pay income or sales taxes on it and in exchange, you avoid the pass along tax.
 
2013-05-06 11:33:06 PM  

Sim Tree: TV's Vinnie: I really cannot fathom why the Amazon bigshots want this bill so bad. If it happens, their sales are gonna plummet.

Because only amazon and their ilk can keep a massive database of hundreds of thousands of sales tax districts, including data items that change weekly or even daily. Amazon can simply hire a staff full time to take care of it. Other internet retailers will be forced to shut down.


Amazon provides this as a service to other retailers so everyone will be okay.
 
2013-05-06 11:33:42 PM  
Let's not pretend this is about protecting small businesses. This is about helping Amazon crush Ebay.
 
2013-05-06 11:33:50 PM  

ArkAngel: Thoguh: I don't have a problem with this.  It'll cut down on really blatant tax evasion, that's it.  And smaller companies won't have to "deal with 9,000 tax codes" or anything like that.  Some vendor will see a business opportunity to run all that stuff for a small surcharge and all the small businesses will just contract through them.

Smaller companies won't have to deal with it at all. It excuses all companies with less than one million in online sales.


I'm really really REALLY glad that exemption made it in, because from what the ebay lobby group was crying about, it almost didn't. They're still crying about 10 million dollar sales levels, as well...
 
2013-05-06 11:34:32 PM  
I love that there are apparently people out there that actually believe that people buy online so they can evade the sales tax. For me, it isn't that at all. A lot of my online purchases are textbooks. Even if tax is added, I'm still way ahead buying them on Amazon rather than the university bookstore. The other stuff I buy is random crap I need around the house, but don't necessarily need right this minute, and am too damn lazy to go looking for. Like today, I accidentally dropped my 4 cup Pyrex measuring cup on the tile floor. After sweeping up the mess, I went to Amazon and one-click purchased a new one that will be here on Wednesday (yay Prime!). Even with tax added I would have done so, because I would have saved the trouble of having to go looking for a 4 cup Pyrex measuring cup.
 
2013-05-06 11:34:44 PM  
Boohoo, my unregulated Wild West of underpriced delivery goods is coming to an end.

Seriously though, how was this not already passed a decade ago?
 
2013-05-06 11:35:00 PM  
This thread has made me very glad I live in a big city without a lot of big box stores, where I don't mind paying $1.14 more to buy an item in an actual store, because many of the local stores are locally owned and run by people who know and care about what they're doing.
 
2013-05-06 11:35:32 PM  
Why should ebay charge sales tax? Wouldn't that be like forcing people to charge sales tax when they have a garage sale or sell something on craigslist?
 
2013-05-06 11:35:39 PM  
What they really need to do is standardize the sales tax.  I'm not talking about a flat tax, (that tries to raise all revenue with a sales tax), just a sales tax that is the same everywhere.   That means that for the consumer it's easy, and it means that there isn't an incentive for the businesses to play games.  Then, just have them send a check to the IRS.  The IRS can keep the federal portion and pass the rest on to the states.  The states can take their cut and pass the rest on to the towns.  Everyone gets paid, and as long as everyone is using a computer to keep track of it it's not really any more complicated for anyone.
 
2013-05-06 11:35:49 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: davidphogan: BarkingUnicorn: Remote sellers are not being taxed.  They are collecting taxes from in-state buyers and remitting that money to the buyer's state.

I don't get why, as a resident of a state with no sales tax, I should have to invest in infrastructure not otherwise required by my state on behalf of a state I have nothing to do with except that I'm shipping them a product.

If they want to collect this tax they should just make UPS/USPS/FedEx collect a use tax upon delivery.  That seems a little more fair, since UPS/USPS/FedEx are already doing business in the states that collect a sales/use tax.

You're not just "shipping them a product," you're getting revenue in return.  It's perfectly fair for you to pay a bit to support the market that supports you.  All of the software necessary to comply will be free to you.

If you think you can do business entirely on a COD basis, you are a farking imbecile.


That's how the Amish do it. Also many Quakers. I've seen it in action - works pretty well. Of course, you have to make certain sacrifices in order to live like the Amish, but it's far from impossible.
 
2013-05-06 11:36:17 PM  

tjfly: Obama: "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."


To be fair, he hasn't signed the bill.  Yet.
 
2013-05-06 11:38:47 PM  
One more nail in the coffin of the Post Office.  People still use the Post Office, right?
 
2013-05-06 11:38:49 PM  
everyone hates taxes and everyone hates potholes

I don't ever buy anything anyway
 
2013-05-06 11:38:53 PM  

skullkrusher: shifty lookin bleeder: Vangor: the charge of tax to a retailer

Sales taxes are assessed on the consumer, not the retailer.  The retailer collects it and submits it to the state to which it is owed.

technically, no. You could never pay a dime in "sales tax" as a line item on a receipt but the retailer you purchase from is responsible for making sure he is paying the state and local sales taxes on all his sales. Usually this tax is passed along to the consumer but there is no requirement for anyone to do that explicitly or implicitly AFAIK. This is why you can often avoid paying taxes by making cash purchases. Sort of a wink and a nod to the retailer. He won't report it as revenue and therefore not pay income or sales taxes on it and in exchange, you avoid the pass along tax.


Actually, yes, it's a consumer tax and most state statutes say that explicitly.  And the rest of what you write would be crimes in most states with a sales tax, but I won't say anything if you don't.
 
2013-05-06 11:39:05 PM  

AdolfOliverPanties: This is another example of why we are farked.
Politicians do not do what constituents want.
They do what big money wants, or they do something that will allow them to take in more of our cash so they can spend it on shiat constituents don't want.


Nah, here's the thing.  People don't pay their use taxes.  If you buy something without being charged sales tax, it's up to you to do it.  If you're like me, you just look at the bill, smile, and move on with your life.

But here's the thing: your hometown still has bills to pay.  As much as I'd like to stand up behind my buddies who want a FairTax system, but AFAIK if Jeff Bezos wanted to send a big "fark you" to Tennessee, all he'd have to do without a law like this is close down any and all TN warehouses.  Now, back to your hometown: they have this shortfall.  This very measurable shortfall.  So they've been trying to cover part of the tax burden with a consumption tax, which means they get to tax the people who don't live in their town but use their roads and services.  Now, they could raise taxes on residents, but they're likely to raise hell.  What do?

And being a rural Southern Illinoisan, Chicagoans moving down here both crack me up and fill me with rage, because imho they represent what's wrong with America.  People claim they want the low taxes, but they still have that sense of entitlement!  These folks fill their coffers up there, retire, come down here and sing the praises of our low cost of living, and move to a part of the area that has low low low property taxes...and then they're shocked, SHOCKED I TELL YOU, that they don't have the same exact quality of life they had up there.  The grocery store doesn't have the same selection!  Everybody looks poor!  The road in front of my house looks like a minefield!  Why is there corn blocking the view of oncoming traffic?  Why the hell are there so many tractors on the road?  Can't someone do something about all the potholes and tractors on the road???  Why is the road crew just two rednecks with a dumptruck???!?  What do you mean my $200/year property taxes don't cover the cost of an asphalt road?  How the hell am I supposed to drive my Vette on this road?

And yeah, there are people who have multiple acres here, and property taxes that low.  Mine is a lot higher than that, for an acre, but I can drive my hybrid down the road without losing a tire, so I don't biatch too loud.

Anyway...yeah, people expect their services, but nobody wants to pay for them.  And big businesses didn't want this.
 
2013-05-06 11:39:51 PM  
I don't see this helping brick-and-mortar retail at all.  There are several reasons why online shopping is easier:  you don't have to go to a store, you don't have to deal with some asshole's idea of management or the ill-paid people who work there, the time you save by not standing in line listen to a sad spiel about warranties and the like, and you can always get exactly what you want.  Sure, you have a wait, but that often beats BAMs by a damn sight.

All this is going to do is make BAMs feel better for a month while they realize people are still shopping online.   The lack of sales tax is nice, but that's not the only reason people shop online.  BAMs have serious management problems that start with how they view the consumer and their workforce (read: with contempt) and it shows.  Online retailers probably aren't much better, but it's easier for me to cut through the shiat and just get what I want.
 
2013-05-06 11:40:11 PM  
/* Ok, THIS was farking funny, +1 internet for you */

stdext::hash_map<const std::string&, double> StateToHowMuchCheddarWeOweEm;
void AddMuddafugginTaxes (const std::string& StateAbbr, double TaxOnThisPurchase)
{
StateToHowMuchCheddarWeOweEm[StateAbbr].second += TaxOnThisPurchase ;
}
 
2013-05-06 11:41:29 PM  

Triumph: Thoguh: It'll cut down on really blatant tax evasion, that's it.

The only people I can think of who are currently "evading" taxes are eBay sellers who sell to in-state buyers and don't add on tax. For eBay, this is a big hassle, but for Amazon, it frees them to set up an even better distribution system.


I occasionally sell items on eBay, so I'm watching this pretty closely getting a kick.
 
2013-05-06 11:41:48 PM  

Sim Tree: Because only amazon and their ilk can keep a massive database of hundreds of thousands of sales tax districts, including data items that change weekly or even daily. Amazon can simply hire a staff full time to take care of it. Other internet retailers will be forced to shut down.


Amazon won't have to keep that database, because the bill requires states to do so (freely) if they want the revenue source. There will be an integration cost to said systems, but you're looking at one per state at most and there is no ongoing cost:

"Supporters say the bill makes it relatively easy for Internet retailers to comply. States must provide free computer software to help retailers calculate sales taxes, based on where shoppers live. States must also establish a single entity to receive Internet sales tax revenue, so retailers don't have to send it to individual counties or cities. "
 
2013-05-06 11:42:01 PM  

archichris: Mock26: jgi: Hugely anti-small business legislation. Amazon can cope with this. Small businesses may find it to be a huge paperwork burden. $1M in gross sales in a year is not a lot if you sell high price, low margin items. The negative side of this bill isn't that we all have to pay sales tax on online purchases. The negative side is that the large corporations win again.

It is no different than a small business that does not do internet sales having to deal with state taxes from in-store purchases.

Which state or municipality has the lowest sales tax?

Anyone want to go in with me and form a legal entity that exists in the best spot in the country to pay the least tax under this bill?  We can be an umbrella company for everyone who pays us a small fee and then they can collect mush lower internet sales tax......


Go for it.  If you can legally do so then do it.  A good friend of mine is moving to Florida because they have no income tax.  He will save about $75,000 a year by moving down there.  Sure, it is still Florida, but $75,000 buys you a lot of trips out of state.  And, it is perfectly legal.
 
2013-05-06 11:44:30 PM  

umad: Why should ebay charge sales tax? Wouldn't that be like forcing people to charge sales tax when they have a garage sale or sell something on craigslist?


How many people have a garage sale where they sell $1 million worth of stuff in a year?

Garage sale/craigslist sellers won't be hit. It's the people who run their businesses by selling on ebay which this will affect.
 
2013-05-06 11:44:37 PM  

shifty lookin bleeder: Vangor: the charge of tax to a retailer

Sales taxes are assessed on the consumer, not the retailer.  The retailer collects it and submits it to the state to which it is owed.


Sorry, I mean "to a retailer" in order to differ between retailers which must collect state taxes and those which do not.
 
2013-05-06 11:45:55 PM  

chitlenz: /* Ok, THIS was farking funny, +1 internet for you */

stdext::hash_map<const std::string&, double> StateToHowMuchCheddarWeOweEm;
void AddMuddafugginTaxes (const std::string& StateAbbr, double TaxOnThisPurchase)
{
StateToHowMuchCheddarWeOweEm[StateAbbr].second += TaxOnThisPurchase ;
}


Imma sell that function and make millions. Apparently this is a heretofore insurmountable obstacle for an online retailer to overcome
 
2013-05-06 11:45:57 PM  

evaned: How many people have a garage sale where they sell $1 million worth of stuff in a year?


Al Gore?
 
2013-05-06 11:46:13 PM  

legion_of_doo: We need to pass a bill that requires brick and mortar retailers to hold onto a product for two days (i.e. shipping time) before a customer can pick up their item in order to create equality between retailers & etailers.

/equality my ass


oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo I really like this idea!!!
LOL

plus, by not driving to the brick and mortar shiat hole, I am doing my part to reduce traffic and pollution.
can we put an extra tax on brick and mortar for causing extra pollution??
HAHA HAHAHAH HAHA
/farkem
 
2013-05-06 11:46:19 PM  

thorthor: dopekitty74: So canadians are still free to buy online from US companies without having to pay taxes then?

Great question and possible business opportunity.

1. Move to Canada
2. Buy shiat off the interweb
3. Profit?


If youre in canada you cant buy anything from walmart.com or amazon.com if you dont have a US postal code
 
2013-05-06 11:46:53 PM  
The first thing we do, we kill all the tax lawyers.
 
2013-05-06 11:47:18 PM  

shifty lookin bleeder: Actually, yes, it's a consumer tax and most state statutes say that explicitly. And the rest of what you write would be crimes in most states with a sales tax, but I won't say anything if you don't.


second part, most certainly illegal. First part, I don't think so. As long as a retailer is paying his sales taxes, everyone's happy whether those taxes are specifically tacked on and broken out on a consumer's receipt
 
2013-05-06 11:47:54 PM  
Mock26:
Go for it.  If you can legally do so then do it.  A good friend of mine is moving to Florida because they have no income tax.  He will save about $75,000 a year by moving down there.  Sure, it is still Florida, but $75,000 buys you a lot of trips out of state.  And, it is perfectly legal.

Your friend would save $75K a year in State income tax?

/bullshiat
 
2013-05-06 11:47:57 PM  
This is the worst thing ever, right?  Whenever Fark freaks out about something, it's always the worst thing ever.
 
2013-05-06 11:48:35 PM  

tjfly: Obama: "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."Lying SOB.


Obama is only a lying SOB to people who were already lying on their state tax returns.

(Well, OK, the truth is a bit more complicated in some states. But to at least a fairly large extent, that's true.)
 
2013-05-06 11:51:11 PM  
Of course the million dollar sales exemption won't expand with inflation, so when our currency is devalued further, all the more online businesses will get farked in the future.
 
2013-05-06 11:51:55 PM  

ontariolightning: thorthor: dopekitty74: So canadians are still free to buy online from US companies without having to pay taxes then?

Great question and possible business opportunity.

1. Move to Canada
2. Buy shiat off the interweb
3. Profit?

If youre in canada you cant buy anything from walmart.com or amazon.com if you dont have a US postal code


Oh. Shows how much I don't know about taxes or Canada. Thanks for clearing that up.
 
2013-05-06 11:52:20 PM  

ontariolightning: thorthor: dopekitty74: So canadians are still free to buy online from US companies without having to pay taxes then?

Great question and possible business opportunity.

1. Move to Canada
2. Buy shiat off the interweb
3. Profit?

If youre in canada you cant buy anything from walmart.com or amazon.com if you dont have a US postal code


Heh. I sell on Amazon Marketplace, and I've seen how that works. I can think of at least three things I've shipped that have been paid for with a Canadian credit card, and shipped to a PO box in a town in North Dakota that is within 20 miles of the border.
 
2013-05-06 11:52:56 PM  
People get some advantage and then whine like spoiled brats when they no longer get special treatment.


That's a great argument. Hopefully all this fairly earned money will be spent well. I'm guessing that it will be. How else will the government fix my roads and allow the fda and usda get away with anything that has to do with meddling in illicit consumerism and aiding the existence of soul crushing and market destroying monopolies.
 
2013-05-06 11:53:23 PM  
Yeah, and do you know what they'll do next? The brick stores will complain that it's unfair online stores are open 24/7, so a law has to be passed that no online transactions can happen between 9 pm and 10 AM.

I say we pass a law that requires all stores in states that collect online taxes be open 24/7 for the convienence of the consumer.

It's only fair, after all.
 
2013-05-06 11:54:10 PM  

detritus: Of course the million dollar sales exemption won't expand with inflation, so when our currency is devalued further, all the more online businesses will get farked in the future.


I wonder what consequences would be to a new Constitutional amendment that automatically indexed any dollar amount mentioned in a law to inflation.
 
2013-05-06 11:54:35 PM  
I'm signing off this "series of tubes" so I don't get taxed more.
 
2013-05-06 11:55:01 PM  

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: This is the worst thing ever, right?  Whenever Fark freaks out about something, it's always the worst thing ever.


I feel like I walked into a Tea Party rally.
 
2013-05-06 11:55:12 PM  

ParadoxDice: Yeah, and do you know what they'll do next? The brick stores will complain that it's unfair online stores are open 24/7, so a law has to be passed that no online transactions can happen between 9 pm and 10 AM.

I say we pass a law that requires all stores in states that collect online taxes be open 24/7 for the convienence of the consumer.

It's only fair, after all.


I'd imagine that they'd just stay open 24 a day without pushing for new legislation limiting online sales times.
 
2013-05-06 11:55:44 PM  

doglover: The first thing we do, we kill all the tax lawyers.


IANAL. Also, not a lawyer.

Scorpitron is reduced to a thin red paste: This is the worst thing ever, right?  Whenever Fark freaks out about something, it's always the worst thing ever.


It's funny because most of this is already the law, just a new enforcement mechanism because noncompliance is off the charts and the states are begging for a better way to enforce their laws.
 
2013-05-06 11:55:54 PM  
No one pays Use Taxes. No one. Not one person in the history of ever has put a number on that line of their state tax return.

So now online retailers like Amazon may have to collect it, boo hoo. Accounting nightmare, my ass. It's no different from what they'd have to do if they operated a physical store.
 
2013-05-06 11:57:04 PM  

GoldSpider: tjfly: Obama: "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

To be fair, he hasn't signed the bill.  Yet.


This bill does not raise taxes.  It only enables collection of delinquent taxes.
 
2013-05-06 11:57:26 PM  
Every time I bought something out of State over the phone or via the Innertubes, they charged me a "sales tax" of 9% to 9 1/2% even though Texas sales tax is only 8%.

There is no doubt they put that money in their pockets, no way in hell will a Texas bureaucrat travel to some other State to collect such a small amount of money.

\\ and it wouldn't be legal anyway.
 
2013-05-06 11:57:42 PM  
Endive Wombat:
I have never purchased a single item online simply to save a few bucks from sales tax...I've purchased stuff online because it is usually 20%-30% less.

Us, too.  Plus, there's often more options to choose from online, and it saves us the hassle of having to get in our car in drive to a store.

/Los Angeles
//We'll do anything to avoid dealing with traffic
 
2013-05-06 11:58:36 PM  
I always had thought the added expense of having to mail individual items to single points was a fair trade off for having to charge tax.
 
2013-05-07 12:00:23 AM  

ArgusRun: feckingmorons: You already have to pay tax on the items you buy from out of state vendors that do not collect sales tax if those items would be taxable in your state. Use tax, not sales tax is what it is called. I file my return and pay the tax quarterly as required by my state of residence, Florida.

If you live in Deleware, Montana or Oregon you have no state sales or use tax. All others should be paying their use tax as the law requires unless the vendor collects it.

This will not raise your tax burden one cent. It will however create an accounting nightmare for the sellers and many smaller sellers will simply close. Those that remain open will have higher tax compliance costs and will pass those costs along to the consumer.

If you people had paid your taxes all along like you're supposed to you wouldn't be facing this problem. Quill v. North Dakota was not litigated to save you from paying the tax you rightfully owe, it was litigated so Quill and retailers similarly situated wouldn't be required to comply with tax laws in jurisdictions in which they have no nexus.

TLDR version - you already owe these taxes, you don't pay them. Now they want businesses to collect them because you won't pay voluntarily and prices will go up. Pay your taxes deadbeats.

Bullcrap.  Software and apps exist now to do the calculations and filing for you.  Way esier for the seller to do this than for individual purchasers.

All this does is help to ever so slightly level the playing field between brick and mortar retailers and online only stores.  those cheap prices come at the expense of retail jobs, property taxes and commerical rents.

And the warehouse jobs are notoriously bad even when compared to other warehouse jobs.


Adapt or die. I know what I want, I get it delivered to my door. Why should I pay more so that the lemmings can "browse".

/devils advocate
 
2013-05-07 12:00:35 AM  

Vangor: shifty lookin bleeder: Vangor: the charge of tax to a retailer

Sales taxes are assessed on the consumer, not the retailer.  The retailer collects it and submits it to the state to which it is owed.

Sorry, I mean "to a retailer" in order to differ between retailers which must collect state taxes and those which do not.



And so the retailer becomes the involuntary "collection" agent for 50 states and countless counties and municipalities. And it is HIS responsibility to calculate the proper tax due (which will vary widely according to location, and may change on a whim at any moment) and submit the funds he collects to the various thousands of government entities.

And if he FAILS to do so correctly, he will no doubt be subject to penalties, fines and/or imprisonment.

Right?

I suppose these states, counties and municipalities are going to pay said retailer to compensate him for the time, effort, capital outlay and RISK he takes in handling said transactions, no?

NO???


Well, then, better repeal that pesky 13th Amendment, hadn't we?

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."


/Pesky, it is
 
2013-05-07 12:01:58 AM  

skullkrusher: First part, I don't think so. As long as a retailer is paying his sales taxes, everyone's happy whether those taxes are specifically tacked on and broken out on a consumer's receipt


I'd have to do some research to tell you which ones specifically, but that would be illegal in many states. Probably a civil infraction as opposed to criminal, but consumer friendly states generally have pretty clear rules that taxes must be fully disclosed and that the retailer can't say certain things regarding the sales tax that they're not legally able to do, i.e that the retailer will pay or waive the sales tax.
 
2013-05-07 12:02:11 AM  

JWideman: Let's not pretend this is about protecting small businesses. This is about helping Amazon crush Ebay.


Right on the money with that.
 
2013-05-07 12:03:04 AM  
I'm honestly fine with paying a sales tax for online purchases, but only on the condition that the tax gets paid to the state where the seller resides. I consider buying a textbook from a seller in California via Amazon the same driving to California and buying the book in person, only I'm using a piece of data instead of physically going there myself.

It would have delightful economic consequences, since more states would start to cut sales taxes in an attempt to pull those businesses in for jobs. With a lower sales tax, the other option is a higher income tax or property/vice/estate taxes which are all fine by me. Any state that refuses to play ball gets shut out of a new revenue source - looking at you South.
 
2013-05-07 12:04:45 AM  

spamdog: JWideman: Let's not pretend this is about protecting small businesses. This is about helping Amazon crush Ebay.

Right on the money with that.


Yep.

And given enough time, that million-dollar limit is going to evaporate, one way or another.
 
2013-05-07 12:05:14 AM  

shifty lookin bleeder: skullkrusher: First part, I don't think so. As long as a retailer is paying his sales taxes, everyone's happy whether those taxes are specifically tacked on and broken out on a consumer's receipt

I'd have to do some research to tell you which ones specifically, but that would be illegal in many states. Probably a civil infraction as opposed to criminal, but consumer friendly states generally have pretty clear rules that taxes must be fully disclosed and that the retailer can't say certain things regarding the sales tax that they're not legally able to do, i.e that the retailer will pay or waive the sales tax.


you may be right - there could be laws against saying certain things to customers to give them the impression you're cutting them a deal when you're actually not
 
2013-05-07 12:06:33 AM  
Not surprised.  The government's never met a tax it didn't like.
 
2013-05-07 12:06:44 AM  
1. Stop selling anything after $900,000 in sales.
2. Pocket the x% you've been collecting in sales tax.
3. Go on vacation until January 1.
 
2013-05-07 12:07:22 AM  
Meh.
 
2013-05-07 12:07:57 AM  

Amos Quito: And it is HIS responsibility to calculate the proper tax due (which will vary widely according to location, and may change on a whim at any moment) and submit the funds he collects to the various thousands of government entities.


That's a better argument than most of the ones raised in this thread, in my opinion, but this responsibility to other jurisdictions has precedent in a process called escheatment; commonly referred to as Abandoned or Unclaimed Property.  I doubt that the courts would look at this any differently and escheatment is far more tenuous and has been repeatedly upheld.
 
2013-05-07 12:08:18 AM  
So, phoning in an order from another state is still tax free?
 
2013-05-07 12:08:31 AM  

Amos Quito: And so the retailer becomes the involuntary "collection" agent for 50 states and countless counties and municipalities. And it is HIS responsibility to calculate the proper tax due (which will vary widely according to location, and may change on a whim at any moment) and submit the funds he collects to the various thousands of government entities.


I'm so glad you read the article before going off on your rant.

Oh, you didn't. Know how I can tell? Because of what I quoted before: to collect sales tax under this bill, states must provide a free service to determine the tax owed. Not only that, but by "various thousands of government entities" you mean "50" (an awfully small definition of "thousands"), as the bill requires states to set up a single state-wide collection point.

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I'm honestly fine with paying a sales tax for online purchases, but only on the condition that the tax gets paid to the state where the seller resides. I consider buying a textbook from a seller in California via Amazon the same driving to California and buying the book in person, only I'm using a piece of data instead of physically going there myself.


To me, the buyer's state makes more sense, it also avoids (well, to a much greater extent) the thorny issue of "what state is the seller state if the company has several locations", and it aligns with the existing use tax requirements.
 
2013-05-07 12:08:48 AM  
As a foreigner who often buys from US sites and has items shipped to me in New Zealand, if it's cheaper elsewhere then I will take my business elsewhere.
 
2013-05-07 12:09:21 AM  

Mike_LowELL: - Benghazi
- Dijon Mustard
- ACORN
- Internet Sales Tax

Just adding another item to the list of reasons Taxbongo should be impeached.  Don't mind me.

Just like liberals don't mind showering.  LOL!!!  Get owned, stupid libs.  Get owned.


lets see...
Benghazi, it seems the right have there painties in a wad over the wording the president used in the first few hours when information was still coming in
Dijon Mustard...has to be a joke, but at this point i am sure there is some far right blog all about how Dijon is some anti-american Muslim mustard
Acorn...you mean that Organization that got killed due to a scam artist Lieing, along with complying with federal laws concerning voter registration
 
2013-05-07 12:10:00 AM  

Voiceofreason01: Mock26:
Go for it.  If you can legally do so then do it.  A good friend of mine is moving to Florida because they have no income tax.  He will save about $75,000 a year by moving down there.  Sure, it is still Florida, but $75,000 buys you a lot of trips out of state.  And, it is perfectly legal.

Your friend would save $75K a year in State income tax?

/bullshiat


He makes about $1,750,000 a year and the Illinois State Income tax is a flat 5% rate.  You do the math.
 
2013-05-07 12:11:04 AM  
This i swhy more people should live in oregon. What's this thing called a sales tax?
 
2013-05-07 12:14:32 AM  

badhatharry: One more nail in the coffin of the Post Office.  People still use the Post Office, right?


I use it nearly every day, and I doubt this will make much of a dent in actual sales volume.
 
2013-05-07 12:15:18 AM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: shifty lookin bleeder: Teufelaffe: Here's the thing I have never understood about sales tax:  It's a tax on the merchant, not the consumer,


Nope. It's a tax on the purchaser. The merchant is just collecting it. As to the rest of your post, it's essentially about full disclosure of pricing to the consumer.

Actually, you're both wrong/right.  Some states impose a "vendor privilege tax" (i.e., a tax for the privilege of selling goods within that state) on the vendor, others impose a "consumer sales tax" on the purchaser.  And some states just charge a tax on retail transactions with equal liability for both merchant and customer.

Source


This is the first valid concern I've seen about this bill.  Pity your source didn't name the states in question.

Arizona has a "transaction privilege tax" levied upon sellers for the privilege of "doing business in Arizona."  However, even the Arizona Dept. of Revenue says

"The Arizona transaction privilege tax is commonly referred to as a sales tax; however, the tax is on the privilege of doing business in Arizona and is not a true sales tax."

The bill explicitly limits its effect to "sales and use taxes."
 
2013-05-07 12:15:32 AM  

evaned: Amos Quito: And so the retailer becomes the involuntary "collection" agent for 50 states and countless counties and municipalities. And it is HIS responsibility to calculate the proper tax due (which will vary widely according to location, and may change on a whim at any moment) and submit the funds he collects to the various thousands of government entities.

I'm so glad you read the article before going off on your rant.

Oh, you didn't. Know how I can tell? Because of what I quoted before: to collect sales tax under this bill, states must provide a free service to determine the tax owed. Not only that, but by "various thousands of government entities" you mean "50" (an awfully small definition of "thousands"), as the bill requires states to set up a single state-wide collection point.


How will the states adapt? Most states will find a reasonable way to regulate this, but a few states will turn it into a massive clusterfark because of inefficient regulation. This will cause millions in legal problems for a select few for the next decade. In theory, it is a good idea, but the execution is too ambiguous.
 
2013-05-07 12:15:50 AM  

evaned: umad: Why should ebay charge sales tax? Wouldn't that be like forcing people to charge sales tax when they have a garage sale or sell something on craigslist?

How many people have a garage sale where they sell $1 million worth of stuff in a year?


How many people sell $1 million worth of stuff in a year on ebay? I guess I just don't see how ebay qualifies as a "retailer."
 
2013-05-07 12:16:10 AM  

evaned: Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: I'm honestly fine with paying a sales tax for online purchases, but only on the condition that the tax gets paid to the state where the seller resides. I consider buying a textbook from a seller in California via Amazon the same driving to California and buying the book in person, only I'm using a piece of data instead of physically going there myself.

To me, the buyer's state makes more sense, it also avoids (well, to a much greater extent) the thorny issue of "what state is the seller state if the company has several locations", and it aligns with the existing use tax requirements.


I can see some major legal complications, I admit. But, I'd go with nearest (as the crow flies) point of distribution but still stick with the seller's state (part of it is, I also admit, a desire to give a giant middle finger to the less savvy parts of the country) because they're acting as economic free riders - sending my data to California for the textbook and getting the book shipped to Indiana means that Indiana gets the benefits (tax dollars) while California gets the costs (tax breaks or amnesty or credits for companies doing the employment). Sending it to the seller's state means that all the bootstrappy states have to drop their little Randian parade or risk losing out on tax revenue.

I will concede you make a good point with use taxes though.
 
2013-05-07 12:16:49 AM  

thisispete: As a foreigner who often buys from US sites and has items shipped to me in New Zealand, if it's cheaper elsewhere then I will take my business elsewhere.


I don't think you understand how US sales tax works - it's only charged on sales within the US. Foreign buyers aren't affected at all.
 
2013-05-07 12:17:56 AM  

Amos Quito: FROM EACH
according to his ability

TO EACH
according to his need


 /You're not selfish, are you?


Paying sales tax isn't "Marxist", you dork. Where the frak did you go to school?

/ruffles yer headfur
 
2013-05-07 12:21:45 AM  

FuturePastNow: No one pays Use Taxes. No one. Not one person in the history of ever has put a number on that line of their state tax return.

Close.  The assn. of state revenooers estimates that 1.6% of citizens pay use tax.

 
2013-05-07 12:21:56 AM  

feckingmorons: You already have to pay tax on the items you buy from out of state vendors that do not collect sales tax if those items would be taxable in your state. Use tax, not sales tax is what it is called. I file my return and pay the tax quarterly as required by my state of residence, Florida.

If you live in Deleware, Montana or Oregon you have no state sales or use tax. All others should be paying their use tax as the law requires unless the vendor collects it.

This will not raise your tax burden one cent. It will however create an accounting nightmare for the sellers and many smaller sellers will simply close. Those that remain open will have higher tax compliance costs and will pass those costs along to the consumer.

If you people had paid your taxes all along like you're supposed to you wouldn't be facing this problem. Quill v. North Dakota was not litigated to save you from paying the tax you rightfully owe, it was litigated so Quill and retailers similarly situated wouldn't be required to comply with tax laws in jurisdictions in which they have no nexus.

TLDR version - you already owe these taxes, you don't pay them. Now they want businesses to collect them because you won't pay voluntarily and prices will go up. Pay your taxes deadbeats.


Incorrect.

Use tax collection varies by state. In some states, they only require you pay the full percentage on very large purchases (e.g. over $1000). If you don't make any large purchases, you can either itemize your use tax or pay a fixed amount based on your income. So say I earn minimum wage and make $15,000 in 2013 and spend $999,000 in out-of-state, online purchases. If this was in the form of one thousand transactions at $999 each, I could either pay (assuming 6% sales tax) $59,940 in use tax by itemizing, or $12 if I go based on income. BOTH ARE LEGAL. It's just like you have the option of the standard deduction or itemizing your deductions. You can CHOOSE to pay more if you want, but it's perfectly legal to go the route that requires the lowest amount of tax to be paid.
 
2013-05-07 12:28:34 AM  
What services has my state provided to justify these taxes?

They didn't service any stores, build anything around them, didn't license, inspect, etc. any retail outlets.

The delivery vehicles used paid fuel and other road taxes, warehouse operators paid property taxes, etc.

Brick and mortar stores receive services that warehouses do not, and they pay sales taxes accordingly.
 
2013-05-07 12:29:14 AM  

evaned: detritus: Of course the million dollar sales exemption won't expand with inflation, so when our currency is devalued further, all the more online businesses will get farked in the future.

I wonder what consequences would be to a new Constitutional amendment that automatically indexed any dollar amount mentioned in a law to inflation.


World Peace?
 
2013-05-07 12:30:43 AM  

pedrop357: What services has my state provided to justify these taxes?

They didn't service any stores, build anything around them, didn't license, inspect, etc. any retail outlets.

The delivery vehicles used paid fuel and other road taxes, warehouse operators paid property taxes, etc.

Brick and mortar stores receive services that warehouses do not, and they pay sales taxes accordingly.


Quit reminding people that you pay taxes in order to GET something.  It all just goes into the ether.  Poof!
 
2013-05-07 12:32:12 AM  
I live in Washington, so I already had to do that.
 
2013-05-07 12:32:36 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: GoldSpider: tjfly: Obama: "I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

To be fair, he hasn't signed the bill.  Yet.

This bill does not raise taxes.   It only enables collection of delinquent taxes.



Who owes said "delinquent taxes? The consumer.
Why are said taxed "delinquent"? Because the government bodies are not collecting.
Why are the government bodies are not collecting? Because it would be far too time consuming and expensive to try to collect from the consumer.
Solution: Force retailers (outside their own government jurisdiction) to act as unpaid, involuntary collection agents - at the point of a gun.
At the point of a gun? Are you crazy? Just try to avoid compliance, and see where it leads.

Just wait 'til the Federal Government sticks THEIR hands in your pockets via the same method.


/Gotta' pay for the "War On Drugs" and the War On Terror" somehow
 
2013-05-07 12:33:10 AM  

IronTom: basemetal: I thought you guys liked taxes....

That was when the $250k and up were paying them.  This here tax affects everybody who buys stuff on the internet.


Exactly, lobs love taxes they don't have to pay
 
2013-05-07 12:34:02 AM  
Hopefully amazon.com starts putting more of those lockers and similar delivery receptacles in states like Montana, Oregon, New Hampshire, etc.

I'll plan my big purchases and have them waiting for me.  I'll visit Oregon once to twice a year to pick up expensive things.  Even if it doesn't quite work out money wise, the spite/fark you factor to my state will make it worth it to me.
 
2013-05-07 12:37:07 AM  

pedrop357: What services has my state provided to justify these taxes?

They didn't service any stores, build anything around them, didn't license, inspect, etc. any retail outlets.

The delivery vehicles used paid fuel and other road taxes, warehouse operators paid property taxes, etc.

Brick and mortar stores receive services that warehouses do not, and they pay sales taxes accordingly.


what services do brick and mortar stores receive that warehouses and delivery services don't?
 
2013-05-07 12:37:11 AM  

ArgusRun: Software and apps exist now to do the calculations and filing for you.


Calculations and accounting, yes. Though you need very specific address information to get the right tax rate if a state doesn't have the same tax rate everywhere, and a subscription to a service that lets you translate that into a tax rate.

But filing, no. You'll have to pay for each one of those (either a person or a service), probably quarterly, and you'll have to do it for each state and possibly for more specific localities, if they collect their own tax separately.

If there were just one harmonized sales tax form to fill out once a year, where you apportion your sales to their respective states, it wouldn't be a big deal. But there are forms for each state, each with different rules and schedules, and it *will* be a big hassle to keep them all straight. There's already an industry built around the hassles of foreign statutory representation (i.e. it's enough of a problem that business owners are willing to pay someone else to do it) and I'm sure they'll be happy to expand into this new field as well.
 
2013-05-07 12:37:25 AM  

farkinglizardking: How will the states adapt? Most states will find a reasonable way to regulate this, but a few states will turn it into a massive clusterfark because of inefficient regulation. This will cause millions in legal problems for a select few for the next decade. In theory, it is a good idea, but the execution is too ambiguous.


I'm not saying there aren't potential problems. (For instance, TFA makes it sound a bit like a state can sue a retailer in the home state instead of the retailer's state, which I think is a mistake.)

However, I think it's very disingenuous to imply that it's the retailer that has to keep up with the mess of what is taxable where and at what rate, because they're just  not.

umad: How many people sell $1 million worth of stuff in a year on ebay? I guess I just don't see how ebay qualifies as a "retailer."


I can't give you a number, but it's certainly my impression that there are a number of actual businesses that basically use ebay as a store front.
 
2013-05-07 12:39:48 AM  

The Muthaship: This is where the people who think everyone needs to pay their fair share figure out they'd rather not pay their fair share.


I want other people to pay taxes. Its not hypocrisy because I never claimed anything to the contrary. I'll jump through any loopholes I see while voting for higher taxes on the wealthy.

At least I'm honest.
 
2013-05-07 12:39:51 AM  

dumbobruni: Brick and mortar stores receive services that warehouses do not, and they pay sales taxes accordingly.

what services do brick and mortar stores receive that warehouses and delivery services don't?


Usually they require more in the form of things like sidewalks, traffic control devices and road features, different types of inspections, more likely to need police for things like shoplifting, etc.
 
2013-05-07 12:41:02 AM  
900+ taxing jurisdictions, each with its own rules and its own rates. The Wall Street Journal mentioned one locale where there's a 1400 word regulation determining whether or not an ice cream cake is taxable (number of layers of ice cream vs number of layers of cake, etc.). Multiply the number of regs per jurisdiction by the number of jurisdictions and you get the idea of what every business selling on the internet is going to have to deal with. Oh, and not to mention that there will be 50 different state auditors with demands to meet too. And the WSJ asked if, since there are supposed to be consolidated auditors (one per state), a business can just throw away a demand from any other taxing entity that wants info as well. No answer from the sponsors of the Senate bill.  Another Obamacare-like bill that you'll have to pass in order to see what's in it. Yay.
 
2013-05-07 12:41:57 AM  

Do the needful: AverageAmericanGuy: How did JC Penney and Sears do it before in the age of catalog ordering?

[farm7.staticflickr.com image 471x640]

See about 3/4 of the way down?


Yup, 3% sales tax.
Then it went to 5%. Thanks Mike Dukakis.
Now 6.25%. Thanks Duval (Obama Lite) Patrick
 
2013-05-07 12:42:09 AM  
I sort of wish all that sales tax money had to go to the state with the physical presence. Easier on the accounting, and then all of a sudden it isn't such an election topic since voting for it would have meant raising prices without helping the local economy.

At least that way the cities that are impacted by the businesses are reaping the benefits instead of local coffers for no good reason.
 
2013-05-07 12:42:23 AM  

jjorsett: 900+ taxing jurisdictions


Make that 9000+ taxing entities, not 900+.
 
2013-05-07 12:42:38 AM  

TV's Vinnie: I really cannot fathom why the Amazon bigshots want this bill so bad. If it happens, their sales are gonna plummet.


For one thing, Amazon is moving toward a distributed distribution network to put them in better competition with big box stores in terms of prompt delivery. So they'll soon have nexus all over anyway, and will have to collect tax regardless. This law allows them to force their competitors onto a level playing field, just like the local retailers want.

For another, it's a compliance headache for small businesses, which gives them just one more reason to use Amazon to sell instead of setting up an independent sales site. And Amazon would like to be in on every transaction on the Internet, if at all possible.
 
2013-05-07 12:42:52 AM  

pedrop357: Hopefully amazon.com starts putting more of those lockers and similar delivery receptacles in states like Montana, Oregon, New Hampshire, etc.

I'll plan my big purchases and have them waiting for me.  I'll visit Oregon once to twice a year to pick up expensive things.  Even if it doesn't quite work out money wise, the spite/fark you factor to my state will make it worth it to me.


in order to avoid paying more sales tax to your state, you will just pay more gas tax to your state.

makes perfect sense.
 
2013-05-07 12:43:21 AM  
I'm sure all the states will lower their sales tax rate a little bit to ease the sting a little.  Even with the reduction they'll still get more money, so I'm sure they'll ease everyone's burden a little.
 
2013-05-07 12:44:18 AM  
Meh.
 
2013-05-07 12:45:14 AM  

doglover: The first thing we do, we kill all the tax lawyers.


oh goody, another person who doesn't understand the meaning of that Shakespeare line.
 
2013-05-07 12:45:46 AM  

dumbobruni: pedrop357: Hopefully amazon.com starts putting more of those lockers and similar delivery receptacles in states like Montana, Oregon, New Hampshire, etc.

I'll plan my big purchases and have them waiting for me.  I'll visit Oregon once to twice a year to pick up expensive things.  Even if it doesn't quite work out money wise, the spite/fark you factor to my state will make it worth it to me.

in order to avoid paying more sales tax to your state, you will just pay more gas tax to your state.

makes perfect sense.


Only a little.  I have a diesel car ('12 Passat TDI) and could do a Las Vegas-Oregon trip on one tank if I keep a reasonable speed.

Even the extra fuel tax for two fillups wouldn't come close to what I would pay in sales tax of my 3 largest purchases this year (and those weren't much in the scheme of things.)
 
2013-05-07 12:46:33 AM  

pedrop357: dumbobruni: Brick and mortar stores receive services that warehouses do not, and they pay sales taxes accordingly.

what services do brick and mortar stores receive that warehouses and delivery services don't?

Usually they require more in the form of things like sidewalks, traffic control devices and road features, different types of inspections, more likely to need police for things like shoplifting, etc.


delivery services & warehouses don't require road features & traffic control devices? have you seen a fulfillment center up close?

different inspections, but not more inspections (which retailers pay licensing fees for)
 
2013-05-07 12:48:05 AM  

dumbobruni: delivery services & warehouses don't require road features & traffic control devices? have you seen a fulfillment center up close?

different inspections, but not more inspections (which retailers pay licensing fees for)


Warehouses and industrial areas don't have quite the same level of road and surface features, traffic lights, etc. like retail areas.  They don't have the same police, medical, or fire needs either.
 
2013-05-07 12:48:11 AM  
Taxed when you make it, taxed when you spend it, taxed when you receive it for goods, taxed when you spend it for supplies...yet somehow there's never enough money for government to be satiated.
 
2013-05-07 12:48:48 AM  

evaned: However, I think it's very disingenuous to imply that it's the retailer that has to keep up with the mess of what is taxable where and at what rate, because they're just not.


Actually, in most cases, we are. I have to calculate taxes for every county I deliver to in NY, which ranges from 8% to 8.75% (possibly 7/8ths but at that point I let the state calculate that one). It's a PITA, because for less than $25 per quarter, I'm not paying an accountant or buying software.

umad: How many people sell $1 million worth of stuff in a year on ebay? I guess I just don't see how ebay qualifies as a "retailer."

I can't give you a number, but it's certainly my impression that there are a number of actual businesses that basically use ebay as a store front.


Tons of us. Sole proprietors for the win. Granted most of us are way under the million threshold (or miserably close to nothing).
 
2013-05-07 12:49:22 AM  
so i'll be renting an apartment in a pobox in delaware, looking for 4999 roommates!
 
2013-05-07 12:49:29 AM  

pedrop357: Hopefully amazon.com starts putting more of those lockers and similar delivery receptacles in states like Montana, Oregon, New Hampshire, etc.

I'll plan my big purchases and have them waiting for me.  I'll visit Oregon once to twice a year to pick up expensive things.  Even if it doesn't quite work out money wise, the spite/fark you factor to my state will make it worth it to me.


yet another tax cheat.
pay your fair share.
 
2013-05-07 12:49:37 AM  

pedrop357: dumbobruni: pedrop357: Hopefully amazon.com starts putting more of those lockers and similar delivery receptacles in states like Montana, Oregon, New Hampshire, etc.

I'll plan my big purchases and have them waiting for me.  I'll visit Oregon once to twice a year to pick up expensive things.  Even if it doesn't quite work out money wise, the spite/fark you factor to my state will make it worth it to me.

in order to avoid paying more sales tax to your state, you will just pay more gas tax to your state.

makes perfect sense.

Only a little.  I have a diesel car ('12 Passat TDI) and could do a Las Vegas-Oregon trip on one tank if I keep a reasonable speed.

Even the extra fuel tax for two fillups wouldn't come close to what I would pay in sales tax of my 3 largest purchases this year (and those weren't much in the scheme of things.)


don't biatch and complain when your state's services suffer.

/who am I kidding? you are probably the first to complain about it.
 
2013-05-07 12:49:45 AM  
I'll believe it when it applies to tailgate gun purchases from "collector" to "collector" at gun shows...

:P
 
2013-05-07 12:50:10 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: yet another tax cheat.
pay your fair share.


As soon as my state justifies that share.
 
2013-05-07 12:51:32 AM  
This thread has so much stupid in it, it burns.

No this is not a tax increase.  No, it's not going to cripple retailers with millions of different tax rates.  No, it's not going to affect Ebay sellers, or whatever the hell is popular now.  Yes it closes out the little loophole of you reporting your purchases on your tax return (which I've never done either).  Deal with it.  A lot of states are in a financial bind already, and this helps them out without raising your taxes any.  It also evens the playing field for brick-and-mortar stores; especially the local mom/pop stores.

Not like it'll matter once the House shoots it down.  Eliminating temporary tax cuts and tax loopholes is not the same as raising taxes, you twits.
 
2013-05-07 12:51:44 AM  

pedrop357: What services has my state provided to justify these taxes?

They didn't service any stores, build anything around them, didn't license, inspect, etc. any retail outlets.

The delivery vehicles used paid fuel and other road taxes, warehouse operators paid property taxes, etc.

Brick and mortar stores receive services that warehouses do not, and they pay sales taxes accordingly.


Blah blah blah blah.  People who own property and do not have kids still have to pay property taxes that help fund schools.  Deal with it.
 
2013-05-07 12:52:43 AM  

Mock26: pedrop357: What services has my state provided to justify these taxes?

They didn't service any stores, build anything around them, didn't license, inspect, etc. any retail outlets.

The delivery vehicles used paid fuel and other road taxes, warehouse operators paid property taxes, etc.

Brick and mortar stores receive services that warehouses do not, and they pay sales taxes accordingly.

Blah blah blah blah.  People who own property and do not have kids still have to pay property taxes that help fund schools.  Deal with it.


Yawn.
 
2013-05-07 12:53:13 AM  
Sales taxes and income taxes are a terrible way to fund the government.

The reason you know that democrats dont care about the "working poor" is that not a single one of them will oppose sales and payroll taxes, the two most regressive forms of taxation since roman poll taxes.

3 steps to fixing the country

1. repeal all current sales and income taxes
2. impose a tax on all currency leaving the country (napkin math says ~10-15%)
3. impose an annual tax on all assets of value, including IP (napkin math again says ~3.4% to match current state and federal revenues).

This moves the tax burden from labor to capital. Working poor people have their rent raised by 4% and in exchange get 11+% back from the payroll tax.

Conservatives hate it since the only people paying taxes are property owners.
Liberals hate it because it pegs the size of government with the size of the economy.

And all politicians would hate it because they can no longer use the tax code to favor their puppetmasters.
 
2013-05-07 12:53:39 AM  

pedrop357: dumbobruni: delivery services & warehouses don't require road features & traffic control devices? have you seen a fulfillment center up close?

different inspections, but not more inspections (which retailers pay licensing fees for)

Warehouses and industrial areas don't have quite the same level of road and surface features, traffic lights, etc. like retail areas.  They don't have the same police, medical, or fire needs either.


There's an industrial area in West, Texas that would certainly disagree with you.
 
2013-05-07 12:56:38 AM  

AdolfOliverPanties: This is another example of why we are farked.
Politicians do not do what constituents want.
They do what big money wants, or they do something that will allow them to take in more of our cash so they can spend it on shiat constituents don't want.


The constituents want a free ride in civilization without having to cough up the taxes to provide it.

Fark the constituents. They're mostly a bunch of overweight, Honey Boo-Boo watching, mouth-breathers.
 
2013-05-07 12:57:51 AM  

dumbobruni: pedrop357: dumbobruni: delivery services & warehouses don't require road features & traffic control devices? have you seen a fulfillment center up close?

different inspections, but not more inspections (which retailers pay licensing fees for)

Warehouses and industrial areas don't have quite the same level of road and surface features, traffic lights, etc. like retail areas.  They don't have the same police, medical, or fire needs either.

There's an industrial area in West, Texas that would certainly disagree with you.


Wow, you found one exception.  I think I have some dog treats around here somewhere.

Now try to think bigger and compare government services to industrial areas vs those to retail.

Also, if you're suggesting that more retail focused areas receive the same level of services as industrial areas, how can the extra taxes collected from retail purchases be justified?
 
2013-05-07 01:00:11 AM  
hey you guys are all ignorant and retarded. FROM A TOTAL FARK TROLL THATS A COMPLIMENT

GOT AN IDEA? TAX THE RICH.
can't tax them?

BEAT THEM TO DEATH WITH LACROSSE EQUIPMENT
 
2013-05-07 01:00:16 AM  

AdolfOliverPanties: This is another example of why we are farked.
Politicians do not do what constituents want.
They do what big money wants, or they do something that will allow them to take in more of our cash so they can spend it on shiat constituents don't want.


here's how it REALLY is: When citizens pay taxes, big business no longer contends with small nuclear families, with no lawyers or economists, they can push around.

When citizens pay taxes, big business has to justify the products and services they provide to an organization with oversight.

When citizens pay taxes, the money get spent on things that profit the people.

In most instances where something is really wrong with our country (war on drugs and terrorism, etc) its business creating a "blank check" cause that provides an excuse to divert tax money into private hands.

When citizens pay taxes instead of privatizing everything into a "free" *cough* bullshiat *cough* market, they have to contend with an organization big enough to push back.

big business HATES it when you pay taxes.. because it's soo much harder to swindle and divert funds when there's a vote and record.

Divide and conquer: why taxes suck for big business and are GREAT for the average person. Go play out your mad max dystopia somewhere else, you  sycophant.
 
2013-05-07 01:00:20 AM  

JosephFinn: Why?  Equal taxation, that's why.


Ok, when are we gonna start taxing garage sales and public auctions?

/this is a major joke.
 
2013-05-07 01:00:24 AM  

pedrop357: tenpoundsofcheese: yet another tax cheat.
pay your fair share.

As soon as my state justifies that share.


That isn't how it works in this country.
You are pathetic.
 
2013-05-07 01:00:54 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: pedrop357: tenpoundsofcheese: yet another tax cheat.
pay your fair share.

As soon as my state justifies that share.

That isn't how it works in this country.
You are pathetic.


Yes, actually it is.  Taxation without representation and all that.
 
2013-05-07 01:03:19 AM  

RembrandtQEinstein: Sales taxes and income taxes are a terrible way to fund the government.

The reason you know that democrats dont care about the "working poor" is that not a single one of them will oppose sales and payroll taxes, the two most regressive forms of taxation since roman poll taxes.

3 steps to fixing the country

1. repeal all current sales and income taxes
2. impose a tax on all currency leaving the country (napkin math says ~10-15%)
3. impose an annual tax on all assets of value, including IP (napkin math again says ~3.4% to match current state and federal revenues).

This moves the tax burden from labor to capital. Working poor people have their rent raised by 4% and in exchange get 11+% back from the payroll tax.

Conservatives hate it since the only people paying taxes are property owners.
Liberals hate it because it pegs the size of government with the size of the economy.

And all politicians would hate it because they can no longer use the tax code to favor their puppetmasters.


what?
people paying taxes under your "brilliant" plan would include people who own:
cars
tvs
refrigerators
microwaves
bikes
sofas
chairs
computers
phones
etc, etc.
 
2013-05-07 01:04:51 AM  

pedrop357: Also, if you're suggesting that more retail focused areas receive the same level of services as industrial areas, how can the extra taxes collected from retail purchases be justified?

pedrop357: Brick and mortar stores receive services that warehouses do not, and they pay sales taxes accordingly.


Where does this idea that it's the business being taxed come from?
 
2013-05-07 01:06:36 AM  

autopsybeverage: I live in Pennsylvania. If I buy something from California, the price of that product should have the California sales tax added to it. The California business can petition their representatives if they feel the tax rate is unfair, or they can relocate to a lower tax jurisdiction, so their rights are being upheld. On the other hand, if they are forced to pay the Pennsylvania sales tax, they have no redress because they have no representative in the body that is levying the tax on them.

No. The store isn't paying the tax, the consumer is


oh, i don't know, although the consumer is the one using liquid cash or credit in the exchange, the seller's product is for the purposes of the transaction, of equal value. & for the purposes of a 'lost sale' due to tax, the seller's the worse off, unless he can eat and pay rent with his product like the buyer can with his not-spent money. when on vacation to ca i don't expect to pay my home tax rate either.
 
2013-05-07 01:07:50 AM  

RembrandtQEinstein: Sales taxes and income taxes are a terrible way to fund the government.

The reason you know that democrats dont care about the "working poor" is that not a single one of them will oppose sales and payroll taxes, the two most regressive forms of taxation since roman poll taxes.

3 steps to fixing the country

1. repeal all current sales and income taxes
2. impose a tax on all currency leaving the country (napkin math says ~10-15%)
3. impose an annual tax on all assets of value, including IP (napkin math again says ~3.4% to match current state and federal revenues).

This moves the tax burden from labor to capital. Working poor people have their rent raised by 4% and in exchange get 11+% back from the payroll tax.

Conservatives hate it since the only people paying taxes are property owners.
Liberals hate it because it pegs the size of government with the size of the economy.

And all politicians would hate it because they can no longer use the tax code to favor their puppetmasters.


You realize your brilliant scheme will:

Tax the shiat out of old people who own a house.

Discourage owning anything, which will make the finance system basically interest on rentals.

Discourage foreigners investing in the USA.

Discourage any investment, research or development.

Start a war with the largest holder of government debt, China, a war your country cannot afford.

And tell me, how do you assign a fair market value to an IP? Especially if it has no market? Cost? Buddy, the cost can be manipulated to hell and back.
 
2013-05-07 01:08:54 AM  

RembrandtQEinstein: Sales taxes and income taxes are a terrible way to fund the government.

The reason you know that democrats dont care about the "working poor" is that not a single one of them will oppose sales and payroll taxes, the two most regressive forms of taxation since roman poll taxes.

3 steps to fixing the country

1. repeal all current sales and income taxes
2. impose a tax on all currency leaving the country (napkin math says ~10-15%)
3. impose an annual tax on all assets of value, including IP (napkin math again says ~3.4% to match current state and federal revenues).

This moves the tax burden from labor to capital. Working poor people have their rent raised by 4% and in exchange get 11+% back from the payroll tax.

Conservatives hate it since the only people paying taxes are property owners.
Liberals hate it because it pegs the size of government with the size of the economy.

And all politicians would hate it because they can no longer use the tax code to favor their puppetmasters.


an annual tax on "items of value" is still a farking sales tax, but instead of paying it once, you pay it every year you have it. unless the rule book of what defines an asset is rewritten as well.


 
2013-05-07 01:09:53 AM  
I'll just look around the web and see who charges tax and doesn't. There you have it. I refuse to give Kailpornia one more red cent that I have to. This state is so jacked that there is no hope for it. I can' afford to sell my house and buy another one out of this God forsaken dump.
 
2013-05-07 01:11:39 AM  

pedrop357: dumbobruni: pedrop357: dumbobruni: delivery services & warehouses don't require road features & traffic control devices? have you seen a fulfillment center up close?

different inspections, but not more inspections (which retailers pay licensing fees for)

Warehouses and industrial areas don't have quite the same level of road and surface features, traffic lights, etc. like retail areas.  They don't have the same police, medical, or fire needs either.

There's an industrial area in West, Texas that would certainly disagree with you.

Wow, you found one exception.  I think I have some dog treats around here somewhere.

Now try to think bigger and compare government services to industrial areas vs those to retail.


yawn
 
2013-05-07 01:14:20 AM  
Fun part: Oregon with no sales tax.
Both of our senators voted No anyways.

Lolz
 
2013-05-07 01:20:56 AM  

evaned: Amos Quito: And so the retailer becomes the involuntary "collection" agent for 50 states and countless counties and municipalities. And it is HIS responsibility to calculate the proper tax due (which will vary widely according to location, and may change on a whim at any moment) and submit the funds he collects to the various thousands of government entities.

I'm so glad you read the article before going off on your rant.

Oh, you didn't. Know how I can tell? Because of what I quoted before: to collect sales tax under this bill, states must provide a free service to determine the tax owed. Not only that, but by "various thousands of government entities" you mean "50" (an awfully small definition of "thousands"), as the bill requires states to set up a single state-wide collection point.



So the municipalities are SURRENDERING their cut of the sales tax revenue, ARE THEY?


Click here for a list of the sales tax rates in different California Cities.

That's ONLY California, and those are ONLY the cities that start with the letter "A".

So they provide a FREE service to help the retailers collect the proper rate? Good. Here's a free yardstick. Now go measure the depth of the Marianas Trench.

I've been in business for longer than a lot of Farkers have been alive. I've dealt with impudent employees, been ripped off by suppliers and customers, dealt with natural and man-made disasters, I've been robbed, vandalized, burglarized and embezzled, and survived every market change that has come along, and I can tell you without hesitation that the BIGGEST PAIN IN THE ASS and DISINCENTIVE TO SUCCESS is government and its endless line of bureaucratic assholes who believe that it is their sworn duty in life to make business as difficult as possible.

Government bureaucrats don't like "small business". Do you know why? Because small business means extra work for them. They'd MUCH rather deal with ONE WAL -MART than 10 or 15 small retailers, because bureaucrats are lazy, and the fewer entities they have to deal with, the better.


/American
//Dream
///Rant
 
2013-05-07 01:24:03 AM  

ArkAngel: Thoguh: I don't have a problem with this.  It'll cut down on really blatant tax evasion, that's it.  And smaller companies won't have to "deal with 9,000 tax codes" or anything like that.  Some vendor will see a business opportunity to run all that stuff for a small surcharge and all the small businesses will just contract through them.

Smaller companies won't have to deal with it at all. It excuses all companies with less than one million in online sales.


... yet.

This is just stupid.  Would be much better to actually fix tax code than to make a gigantic mess.
 
2013-05-07 01:25:03 AM  

tenpoundsofcheese: RembrandtQEinstein: Sales taxes and income taxes are a terrible way to fund the government.

The reason you know that democrats dont care about the "working poor" is that not a single one of them will oppose sales and payroll taxes, the two most regressive forms of taxation since roman poll taxes.

3 steps to fixing the country

1. repeal all current sales and income taxes
2. impose a tax on all currency leaving the country (napkin math says ~10-15%)
3. impose an annual tax on all assets of value, including IP (napkin math again says ~3.4% to match current state and federal revenues).

This moves the tax burden from labor to capital. Working poor people have their rent raised by 4% and in exchange get 11+% back from the payroll tax.

Conservatives hate it since the only people paying taxes are property owners.
Liberals hate it because it pegs the size of government with the size of the economy.

And all politicians would hate it because they can no longer use the tax code to favor their puppetmasters.

what?
people paying taxes under your "brilliant" plan would include people who own:
cars
tvs
refrigerators
microwaves
bikes
sofas
chairs
computers
phones
etc, etc.


I don't know about you but I have renters insurance where I can claim $x for a total loss of all of my stuff. For individuals the tax would be $x*taxrate

Also the more stuff you have, the more you are depending on the government to enforce the laws that say someone can't just take your stuff. So you should pay more.
 
2013-05-07 01:25:14 AM  
This will make it slightly less likely for me to use American websites as my personal Mexico. Which is fine, because I've been having moral quandaries about having crap flown halfway across the world to satiate whims.
 
2013-05-07 01:33:13 AM  

RembrandtQEinstein: Also the more stuff you have, the more you are depending on the government to enforce the laws that say someone can't just take your stuff. So you should pay more.


So your plan to eliminate a regressive tax is to implement a regressive*1000 tax.

encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com
 
2013-05-07 01:34:49 AM  

AdolfOliverPanties: This is another example of why we are farked.
Politicians do not do what constituents want.


We The People are stupid. We don't always want what's best for us, and we tend to be rather short-sighted. Playing Devil's Advocate: what's the potential long-term effect of NOT taxing internet sales? Well, as we're already seeing a lot of brick and mortar stores will go out of business. That means people will lose jobs. When larger anchor stores close down, a lot of nearby smaller shops go under because they lose the traffic. Many of these are chains, many are privately owned businesses. When stores close, offices leave town. And the spiral goes on.

We all knew this day was coming.
 
2013-05-07 01:35:25 AM  
"It's about the way commerce has changed in America," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. "Bookstores, stores that sell running shoes, bicycles and appliances are at a distinct disadvantage. They've become showrooms."

I bet Dick Durbin would have voted to legislate against cars, too, in order to preserve the whip-and-buggy industry.
 
2013-05-07 01:43:08 AM  

MadSkillz: RembrandtQEinstein: Sales taxes and income taxes are a terrible way to fund the government.

The reason you know that democrats dont care about the "working poor" is that not a single one of them will oppose sales and payroll taxes, the two most regressive forms of taxation since roman poll taxes.

3 steps to fixing the country

1. repeal all current sales and income taxes
2. impose a tax on all currency leaving the country (napkin math says ~10-15%)
3. impose an annual tax on all assets of value, including IP (napkin math again says ~3.4% to match current state and federal revenues).

This moves the tax burden from labor to capital. Working poor people have their rent raised by 4% and in exchange get 11+% back from the payroll tax.

Conservatives hate it since the only people paying taxes are property owners.
Liberals hate it because it pegs the size of government with the size of the economy.

And all politicians would hate it because they can no longer use the tax code to favor their puppetmasters.

You realize your brilliant scheme will:

Tax the shiat out of old people who own a house.

Discourage owning anything, which will make the finance system basically interest on rentals.

Discourage foreigners investing in the USA.

Discourage any investment, research or development.

Start a war with the largest holder of government debt, China, a war your country cannot afford.

And tell me, how do you assign a fair market value to an IP? Especially if it has no market? Cost? Buddy, the cost can be manipulated to hell and back.


1. the old people can A. rent a room to a friend or relative B. sell their expensive house and get a cheaper one and live off the difference, not much different than now
2. a wealth tax doesnt discourage wealth and more than an income tax discourages income or sales tax discourages sales, its just a more fair way to fund the government
3. foreign investors assets are protected by our government the same as domestically owned assets, they should share the burdens in the cost of that protection
4. what is a person with extra money going to do with it other than invest it (and doubly so considering it is taxed every year)? and most theoretical research is done w/ public funds now anyway so nothing would change there
5. china doesn't have the capability to invade taiwan, why would they possibly want a war? They are getting the better end of the trade deal even with a 15-20% haircut but even then the cash export tax could be avoided by trading in goods (thus creating domestic jobs).
6. the way you assess the market value of IP is to auction it off annually. The owner of the IP would have the option to either accept the bid and sell the IP to the bidder or to pay the tax on the value of the bid. Example, author rights a book and registers it for copyright. Current value is 0. Book is immediately put up for auction and a publisher sees it and offers 10k. Author can choose to take the 10k or to pay the "value" tax which will buy another year of copyright protection. Repeat every year. There would need to be practical safeguards to confirm bidders have the assets to pay before their bids are accepted.
 
2013-05-07 01:43:10 AM  
Congress can bite my cock. admittedly they had the lowest approval ratings ever but if I had any approval for them left they just lost it. Because this isn't about leveling the playing field, it's about congress getting more money from us and giving it to the rich/businesses/government

Anything I try to sell will be on craigslist and it won't sell, dammit sorry no tax owed there if there's no sale. Anything I buy will still be from the same places I buy it from now... mostly amazon because they have the stuff and even with tax they are still cheaper than local.

Mostly the only thing I buy local is groceries and my state does not tax food items (yet)
 
2013-05-07 01:44:09 AM  

pedrop357: dumbobruni: pedrop357: dumbobruni: delivery services & warehouses don't require road features & traffic control devices? have you seen a fulfillment center up close?

different inspections, but not more inspections (which retailers pay licensing fees for)

Warehouses and industrial areas don't have quite the same level of road and surface features, traffic lights, etc. like retail areas.  They don't have the same police, medical, or fire needs either.

There's an industrial area in West, Texas that would certainly disagree with you.

Wow, you found one exception.  I think I have some dog treats around here somewhere.

Now try to think bigger and compare government services to industrial areas vs those to retail.

Also, if you're suggesting that more retail focused areas receive the same level of services as industrial areas, how can the extra taxes collected from retail purchases be justified?


Sigh.  Mr. Out-of-State Seller, the service my State provides for you is customers.  If I spend money to raise fish, you are damned well going to pay me for the privilege of catching them, even if it's only a fin that you slice off the fish that you catch.
 
2013-05-07 01:46:02 AM  

pedrop357: tenpoundsofcheese: pedrop357: tenpoundsofcheese: yet another tax cheat.
pay your fair share.

As soon as my state justifies that share.

That isn't how it works in this country.
You are pathetic.

Yes, actually it is.  Taxation without representation and all that.


oh look, you confused representation with the state needing to justifies why they need your share.
how special you are.  how very, very special.
 
2013-05-07 01:50:05 AM  

James F. Campbell: "It's about the way commerce has changed in America," said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill. "Bookstores, stores that sell running shoes, bicycles and appliances are at a distinct disadvantage. They've become showrooms."

I bet Dick Durbin would have voted to legislate against cars, too, in order to preserve the whip-and-buggy industry.



1872 Aaron Montgomery Ward produces his first mail-order catalog for his mail order business.

1873 Dick Durbin throws a hissy fit
 
2013-05-07 01:50:22 AM  

RembrandtQEinstein: I don't know about you but I have renters insurance where I can claim $x for a total loss of all of my stuff. For individuals the tax would be $x*taxrate


so now you are going to require everyone to have renters insurance too?

Also the more stuff you have, the more you are depending on the government to enforce the laws that say someone can't just take your stuff. So you should pay more.

That really is the stupidest thing I have heard on fark.
If a billionaire decides to have his own security, then using your stupid "logic" he shouldn't have to pay any taxes.
 
2013-05-07 01:54:06 AM  
This doesn't concern me one. Anyone who has ever shopped around for a laptop charger should know where I'm coming from. Taxes won't come close to closing the gap between online and brick/mortar retailers, for all but the heaviest items.
 
2013-05-07 01:56:02 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Sigh. Mr. Out-of-State Seller, the service my State provides for you is customers. If I spend money to raise fish, you are damned well going to pay me for the privilege of catching them, even if it's only a fin that you slice off the fish that you catch.


My state does not provide ME to someone else.  The state's money comes from me.
The state does not magically come into money that it  then lavishes on me so that it can present me to others.
 
2013-05-07 01:59:29 AM  

pedrop357: BarkingUnicorn: Sigh. Mr. Out-of-State Seller, the service my State provides for you is customers. If I spend money to raise fish, you are damned well going to pay me for the privilege of catching them, even if it's only a fin that you slice off the fish that you catch.

My state does not provide ME to someone else.  The state's money comes from me.
The state does not magically come into money that it  then lavishes on me so that it can present me to others.


Even though you are in one of the poorest States, you would not live a year without its services.
 
2013-05-07 02:00:51 AM  

Nullav: This doesn't concern me one. Anyone who has ever shopped around for a laptop charger should know where I'm coming from. Taxes won't come close to closing the gap between online and brick/mortar retailers, for all but the heaviest items.


The same applies for enterprise level networking and computer gear.  Frys doesn't stock Cisco, Juniper, etc. (rebranded Linksys doesn't count).  If you want a Cisco ASA 5505, 2504 WLC, or a Juniper SRX100-210 for a home lab or advanced home things, you have to go online.

Same with small servers.  Fry's doesn't sell something that (IMO) can compete with a Dell Poweredge T110 in terms or build, support, warranty.
 
2013-05-07 02:02:52 AM  

shifty lookin bleeder: Teufelaffe: Here's the thing I have never understood about sales tax:  It's a tax on the merchant, not the consumer,

Nope. It's a tax on the purchaser. The merchant is just collecting it.



No. It's a tax on the merchant. Here's why: (we're ignoring shipping charges in this grossly simplified example)

A consumer has one dollar of discretionary money to spend...

Without the tax: The consumer goes online and finds that a merchant has the perfect item for one dollar. The consumer buys that item. The merchant gets the whole dollar.

With the tax: The same consumer still has just the one dollar to spend. The merchant still has the same item online, still priced at a dollar. The tax on that item will push the price to, say, $1.05. The consumer doesn't have $1.05 to spend. He has a dollar.

OPTION 1: The consumer doesn't buy the item. The merchant does not get this consumer's dollar in that case.

OPTION 2: The merchant can bring his price down to $0.95 so that, with tax, it comes out to a dollar (or just charge a dollar and back out the tax from that). The consumer pays his dollar to the merchant.

With or without the tax, the consumer has spent only the one dollar he had.

The merchant got the dollar from the consumer, but now he is required to hand over 5 cents of it to the government.
The merchant got $0.95.

Before you get all "Bullsh*it! The consumer would just suck it up and spend $1.05!" just stop and think about this in the aggregate: Consumers are only going to have so much to spend online. If the government decides to add a tax to online purchases, the consumers aren't magically going to have additional money to pay the taxes. They're simply going to spend less to offset those taxes. The amount of money the consumers pay out won't change, but the actual sales coming from that amount will be less because of the tax. The consumer still spent what he could, but part of it got pulled out because of the new tax. That financially impacts the merchant -- not the consumer.

It's exactly the same concept as people cutting back on other spending in order to keep putting gas in the car when the price of gas goes up. When that occurs, it's the other merchants who are taking the hit. Not the consumers.
 
2013-05-07 02:04:05 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: pedrop357: BarkingUnicorn: Sigh. Mr. Out-of-State Seller, the service my State provides for you is customers. If I spend money to raise fish, you are damned well going to pay me for the privilege of catching them, even if it's only a fin that you slice off the fish that you catch.

My state does not provide ME to someone else.  The state's money comes from me.
The state does not magically come into money that it  then lavishes on me so that it can present me to others.

Even though you are in one of the poorest States, you would not live a year without its services.


You didn't address my point.  I pay for those services now via property (paid by my landlord, passed on to me), fuel, payroll (collected by my employer, passed on to me).  My state does not provide anything to Newegg to ship me stuff that Newegg isn't already paying for and passing on to me.

My state does not own me in any sense and no entity is obligated to pay my state because they interacted with me as you suggested with your statement  "the service my State provides for you is customers."
 
2013-05-07 02:08:22 AM  
Jesus fark, people. If a sales tax is going to kill you, just buy less shiat.
 
2013-05-07 02:11:18 AM  
on one hand, I'm like "fark!!! internet sales tax"
on the other hand I'm like "umm, fark sales tax"
 
2013-05-07 02:18:14 AM  
I've said it before, and I'll say it again; Democracy, simply, does not work. -_-
 
2013-05-07 02:20:16 AM  

pedrop357: What services has my state provided to justify these taxes?

They didn't service any stores, build anything around them, didn't license, inspect, etc. any retail outlets.

The delivery vehicles used paid fuel and other road taxes, warehouse operators paid property taxes, etc.

Brick and mortar stores receive services that warehouses do not, and they pay sales taxes accordingly.


And the states don't run any courts to sue anyone's butt in when there is a sales contract issue too?
 
2013-05-07 02:23:53 AM  

ModernLuddite: Jesus fark, people. If a sales tax is going to kill you, just buy less shiat.



1.bp.blogspot.com
Thanks for the advice
 
2013-05-07 02:24:45 AM  

pedrop357: BarkingUnicorn: pedrop357: BarkingUnicorn: Sigh. Mr. Out-of-State Seller, the service my State provides for you is customers. If I spend money to raise fish, you are damned well going to pay me for the privilege of catching them, even if it's only a fin that you slice off the fish that you catch.

My state does not provide ME to someone else.  The state's money comes from me.
The state does not magically come into money that it  then lavishes on me so that it can present me to others.

Even though you are in one of the poorest States, you would not live a year without its services.

You didn't address my point.  I pay for those services now via property (paid by my landlord, passed on to me), fuel, payroll (collected by my employer, passed on to me).  My state does not provide anything to Newegg to ship me stuff that Newegg isn't already paying for and passing on to me.

My state does not own me in any sense and no entity is obligated to pay my state because they interacted with me as you suggested with your statement  "the service my State provides for you is customers."


You don't seem to like being a State resource, but you are.  Maybe farmed fish think they're free as wild ones, too.
 
2013-05-07 02:26:28 AM  

dumbobruni: pedrop357: Hopefully amazon.com starts putting more of those lockers and similar delivery receptacles in states like Montana, Oregon, New Hampshire, etc.

I'll plan my big purchases and have them waiting for me.  I'll visit Oregon once to twice a year to pick up expensive things.  Even if it doesn't quite work out money wise, the spite/fark you factor to my state will make it worth it to me.

in order to avoid paying more sales tax to your state, you will just pay more gas tax to your state.

makes perfect sense.


The key word you're overlooking is "principle".
 
2013-05-07 02:27:17 AM  

pedrop357: BarkingUnicorn: pedrop357: BarkingUnicorn: Sigh. Mr. Out-of-State Seller, the service my State provides for you is customers. If I spend money to raise fish, you are damned well going to pay me for the privilege of catching them, even if it's only a fin that you slice off the fish that you catch.

My state does not provide ME to someone else.  The state's money comes from me.
The state does not magically come into money that it  then lavishes on me so that it can present me to others.

Even though you are in one of the poorest States, you would not live a year without its services.

You didn't address my point.  I pay for those services now via property (paid by my landlord, passed on to me), fuel, payroll (collected by my employer, passed on to me).  My state does not provide anything to Newegg to ship me stuff that Newegg isn't already paying for and passing on to me.

My state does not own me in any sense and no entity is obligated to pay my state because they interacted with me as you suggested with your statement  "the service my State provides for you is customers."


in Nevada, you are supposed to be self-reporting use taxes.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/nevada-internet-sales-tax.htm l

this is a tax you were supposed to be paying all along, not a new one.
 
2013-05-07 02:40:16 AM  

TuteTibiImperes: Realistically, you realize, almost no one actually pays the the use tax.


I do, everyone I work with does. People who obey the law pay their taxes.

I bet the lawyers and CPAs you know do.

We have enough laws, prosecute those who violate them.
 
2013-05-07 02:42:13 AM  

Thoguh: I don't have a problem with this.  It'll cut down on really blatant tax evasion, that's it.  And smaller companies won't have to "deal with 9,000 tax codes" or anything like that.  Some vendor will see a business opportunity to run all that stuff for a small surcharge and all the small businesses will just contract through them.


The firm I work for sees 600-900 million dollars in business helping companies comply with this. We don't even work for companies with under $250MM in revenue. Small companies are screwed.
 
2013-05-07 02:44:41 AM  

feckingmorons: Thoguh: I don't have a problem with this.  It'll cut down on really blatant tax evasion, that's it.  And smaller companies won't have to "deal with 9,000 tax codes" or anything like that.  Some vendor will see a business opportunity to run all that stuff for a small surcharge and all the small businesses will just contract through them.

The firm I work for sees 600-900 million dollars in business helping companies comply with this. We don't even work for companies with under $250MM in revenue. Small companies are screwed.


Sounds like your company's screwed.
 
2013-05-07 02:47:55 AM  

ArgusRun: Bullcrap.  Software and apps exist now to do the calculations and filing for you.


You have no idea what you are talking about. The granularity of this goes to street address, even zip codes can cross taxing jurisdictions. There are more than 167K local taxing jurisdictions in the US, there are 21879 in New York York State alone.

This is not some excel plug in, this is a high maintenance, high cost service. Yes there will be plenty of vendors who will help you incorporate this into you existing systems, but for large businesses that sell books and other stuff the cost for consultancy and deployment will absolutely exceed $22MM in the first year.
 
2013-05-07 02:49:25 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: feckingmorons: Thoguh: I don't have a problem with this.  It'll cut down on really blatant tax evasion, that's it.  And smaller companies won't have to "deal with 9,000 tax codes" or anything like that.  Some vendor will see a business opportunity to run all that stuff for a small surcharge and all the small businesses will just contract through them.

The firm I work for sees 600-900 million dollars in business helping companies comply with this. We don't even work for companies with under $250MM in revenue. Small companies are screwed.

Sounds like your company's screwed.


Well we had revenues of more than $31B last year so I think we're OK.
 
2013-05-07 02:49:47 AM  
Anybody that walks up to a cop with a camera in hand to pitch a fit about something stupid is asking for trouble and clearly trying to be a YouTube hero.   I bet that cop has written exactly ZERO tickets for people parking bikes on the side walk so they don't take up limited street parking.
 
2013-05-07 02:51:56 AM  

feckingmorons: BarkingUnicorn: feckingmorons: Thoguh: I don't have a problem with this.  It'll cut down on really blatant tax evasion, that's it.  And smaller companies won't have to "deal with 9,000 tax codes" or anything like that.  Some vendor will see a business opportunity to run all that stuff for a small surcharge and all the small businesses will just contract through them.

The firm I work for sees 600-900 million dollars in business helping companies comply with this. We don't even work for companies with under $250MM in revenue. Small companies are screwed.

Sounds like your company's screwed.

Well we had revenues of more than $31B last year so I think we're OK.


Ah, I see.  That explains why you're not concerned enough to read the farking bill, which explains why you've been spouting so much ignorant bullshiat about it.
 
2013-05-07 02:55:38 AM  

WireFire2: Anybody that walks up to a cop with a camera in hand to pitch a fit about something stupid is asking for trouble and clearly trying to be a YouTube hero.   I bet that cop has written exactly ZERO tickets for people parking bikes on the side walk so they don't take up limited street parking.


Hmmm... wrong thread?
 
2013-05-07 02:55:51 AM  

optikeye: Seriously? Do you save every receipt from a online purchase; a book or a dongle or something rather incidental.And claim that toal  up and pay taxes on those when you fill out fed and state taxes?


Yes I save the receipts and file quarterly use tax returns are required. In Florida you can file and pay on line.

I work for the largest accountancy firm in the world, and I have to swear annually that I have complied with all my tax obligations to keep my job. Even if I didn't have to do that it is the ethical thing to do.

I last filed in 4.12.2013 and paid $257.88. That is about average for my quarterly filings.

The record keeping and filing take less than an hour every three months.

You can choose to pay your taxes or not, it is your conscience.
 
2013-05-07 02:57:01 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: feckingmorons: BarkingUnicorn: feckingmorons: Thoguh: I don't have a problem with this.  It'll cut down on really blatant tax evasion, that's it.  And smaller companies won't have to "deal with 9,000 tax codes" or anything like that.  Some vendor will see a business opportunity to run all that stuff for a small surcharge and all the small businesses will just contract through them.

The firm I work for sees 600-900 million dollars in business helping companies comply with this. We don't even work for companies with under $250MM in revenue. Small companies are screwed.

Sounds like your company's screwed.

Well we had revenues of more than $31B last year so I think we're OK.

Ah, I see.  That explains why you're not concerned enough to read the farking bill, which explains why you've been spouting so much ignorant bullshiat about it.


Exactly what part of the proposed legislation differs from what I have said? You want to call me out, call me out on specifics.
 
2013-05-07 03:01:33 AM  

Captain Steroid: I've said it before, and I'll say it again; Democracy, simply, does not work. -_-


And that would matter here if this were up to the voters.  It's not.  It's limited to those in the Federal Congress to decide on this, which is why the U.S. is a republic and not a true democracy.
 
2013-05-07 03:03:54 AM  

Bisu: feckingmorons: You already have to pay tax on the items you buy from out of state vendors that do not collect sales tax if those items would be taxable in your state. Use tax, not sales tax is what it is called. I file my return and pay the tax quarterly as required by my state of residence, Florida.

If you live in Deleware, Montana or Oregon you have no state sales or use tax. All others should be paying their use tax as the law requires unless the vendor collects it.

This will not raise your tax burden one cent. It will however create an accounting nightmare for the sellers and many smaller sellers will simply close. Those that remain open will have higher tax compliance costs and will pass those costs along to the consumer.

If you people had paid your taxes all along like you're supposed to you wouldn't be facing this problem. Quill v. North Dakota was not litigated to save you from paying the tax you rightfully owe, it was litigated so Quill and retailers similarly situated wouldn't be required to comply with tax laws in jurisdictions in which they have no nexus.

TLDR version - you already owe these taxes, you don't pay them. Now they want businesses to collect them because you won't pay voluntarily and prices will go up. Pay your taxes deadbeats.

Incorrect.

Use tax collection varies by state. In some states, they only require you pay the full percentage on very large purchases (e.g. over $1000). If you don't make any large purchases, you can either itemize your use tax or pay a fixed amount based on your income. So say I earn minimum wage and make $15,000 in 2013 and spend $999,000 in out-of-state, online purchases. If this was in the form of one thousand transactions at $999 each, I could either pay (assuming 6% sales tax) $59,940 in use tax by itemizing, or $12 if I go based on income. BOTH ARE LEGAL. It's just like you have the option of the standard deduction or itemizing your deductions. You can CHOOSE to pay more if you want, but ...


So your argument is that you can calculate it different ways based on jurisdiction so you don't owe the tax?

Is that what you're saying? That is wrong. While tax compliance methodology may varyby jurisdiction, the compliance requirement still exists.

We're discussing reality not some alternative world in which you can scheme to defraud the state by structuring your transactions to be serially below some threshold, that is generally a felony in and of itself.
 
2013-05-07 03:05:53 AM  
If you're thinking this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause, your an idiot.
 
2013-05-07 03:16:57 AM  

MadSkillz: Start a war with the largest holder of government debt, China, a war your country cannot afford.


Technically the biggest holder of government debt is the American public. China only has around 8%.

Not commenting one way or another one the particular tax scheme being proposed, just clarifying.
 
2013-05-07 03:24:57 AM  
You know who led the charge against it, Fark Independents?

Ted Cruz.

TED CRUZ.


Seeing how Dems have farked up your health care and social security (read: you are never going to see it) you might want to start to re-evaluate your voting habits. That is, unless, you enjoy peeing on your own shoes, as many of you seemingly do ...

/Thank God there's a Republican House
 
2013-05-07 03:27:05 AM  

feckingmorons: BarkingUnicorn: feckingmorons: BarkingUnicorn: feckingmorons: Thoguh: I don't have a problem with this.  It'll cut down on really blatant tax evasion, that's it.  And smaller companies won't have to "deal with 9,000 tax codes" or anything like that.  Some vendor will see a business opportunity to run all that stuff for a small surcharge and all the small businesses will just contract through them.

The firm I work for sees 600-900 million dollars in business helping companies comply with this. We don't even work for companies with under $250MM in revenue. Small companies are screwed.

Sounds like your company's screwed.

Well we had revenues of more than $31B last year so I think we're OK.

Ah, I see.  That explains why you're not concerned enough to read the farking bill, which explains why you've been spouting so much ignorant bullshiat about it.

Exactly what part of the proposed legislation differs from what I have said? You want to call me out, call me out on specifics.


Page 1 and your Boobies:  " It will however create an accounting nightmare for the sellers and many smaller sellers will simply close."

You've been hyping the complexities and expenses of sales tax software and services but completely ignoring the fact that the States will have to provide them  to sellers for free.
 
2013-05-07 03:44:06 AM  

IronTom: basemetal: I thought you guys liked taxes....

That was when the $250k and up were paying them.  This here tax affects everybody who buys stuff on the internet.




www.nyc.gov
Hurray for us.
 
2013-05-07 04:23:21 AM  

pippi longstocking: It just farking amazes me that things like minor gun control, equal pay for women, and healthcare do not pass, but a tax on everything passes without a problem...man you guys really need to start getting pissed about the way they run this place.


Here's a hint: the side that blocks those things doesn't have the letter D next to their names.
 
2013-05-07 04:30:58 AM  
Speaking as a bleeding heart liberal from Washington State (The state with the most regressive tax code in the nation. Ha! Eat it Mississippi!), I say fark this. An initiative here tried to get a state income tax going instead of the insane 9.8% sales tax and it was rejected because the ads basically said, "If rich people have to pay taxes, they'll come for you next!" and all the idiots fell for it because, you know, "taxes," "job creators," "tree of liberty," and all that. Sales taxes hurt the poor and middle class. I have to say, on this one, I'm totally rooting for... HOUSE REPUBLICANS?!? *etthhiicckkkkaaaaadhhfffhdggghhhhhhh* Sorry, almost swallowed my tongue there for a second.
 
2013-05-07 04:42:29 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Page 1 and your Boobies:


I thought the boobies were to be found on page 3?
 
2013-05-07 05:09:34 AM  

AdolfOliverPanties: This is another example of why we are farked.
Politicians do not do what constituents want.
They do what big money wants, or they do something that will allow them to take in more of our cash so they can spend it on shiat constituents don't want.


"Big money", really? What, pray tell, is big money? Just rich people in general. This is going directly to the states whose citizens should already being paying sales tax on items purchased online but are not because they can get away with it.

I sure don't like paying sales tax but I realize this is right and fair. If not for this those states that rely on sales tax would just have to raise some other taxes to make up for revenue shortfalls.
 
2013-05-07 05:15:46 AM  

Vodka Zombie: basemetal: I thought you guys liked taxes....

I like society and civilization and all the wonderful trappings that come along with it.

Like roads and bridges and, yes, parks.


Yeah, because we won't have roads, bridges, and parks if we don't spend $6.8 trillion per year on things like:
• $75,000 to promote awareness about the role Michigan plays in producing Christmas trees & poinsettias.
• $15.3 million for one of the infamous Bridges to Nowhere in Alaska.
• $113,227 for video game preservation center in New York.
• $550,000 for a documentary about how rock music contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
• $48,700 for 2nd annual Hawaii Chocolate Festival, to promote Hawaii's chocolate industry.
• $350,000 to support an International Art Exhibition in Venice, Italy.
• $10 million for a remake of "Sesame Street" for Pakistan.
• $35 million allocated for political party conventions in 2012.
• $765,828 to subsidize "pancakes for yuppies" in the nation's capital.
• $764,825 to study how college students use mobile devices for social networking.
http://www.coburn.senate.gov/public//index.cfm?a=Files.Serve&File_id =b 69a6ebd-7ebe-41b7-bb03-c25a5e194365


 
2013-05-07 05:22:26 AM  
GLORY TO THE STATE!!!
 
2013-05-07 05:59:50 AM  

clancifer: Good.


This.

/how 'bout that fark store?
 
2013-05-07 06:11:06 AM  

libranoelrose: If local governments didn't waste so much money they wouldn't be in this situation.


Govt doesn't waste money, it all goes to roads, bridges and parks. I read that upstream.
 
2013-05-07 06:34:52 AM  
No new taxes!  We'll let the country BURN before any tax increases!

Oh, a sales tax you say?  Regressive tax that hits regular people the most, you say?  Well then, carry on.  All glory to the hypnotoad job creators.
 
2013-05-07 06:48:56 AM  

Rindred: So, if I buy something online. The vendor/store isn't in my state. The company that I have my credit card with doesn't reside in my state. The company that processes the credit card to pay the vendor doesn't reside in my state. Question: what entitles my state to even one penny of that transaction? If I cross a state border and buy a sandwich, I don't pay my home state sales tax on it. This isn't the same thing how?


This is also my question.
 
2013-05-07 06:49:01 AM  

homeschooled: Raise your hand if you answered $0 when your state tax return asked the dollar amount of out of state or online purchases that you owed taxes on.

*raises hand*

Now, how many of you were willing to pay those taxes, but just had no f*cking clue how to go about figuring out exactly what you need to pay, therefore you broke the law and evaded the taxes because you know you'll never get caught?

*raises hand*

This is why I'm OK with business collecting them. Because if you leave it up to me, sh*t isn't going to get done. I'm lazy and unorganized. But I am willing to pay it if it doesn't involve another step in filing my tax returns, and possibly getting audited.


MA has a safe harbor amount based off your...AGI(?) that you can add to cover all your out of state purchases under $1000. You have to report any single purchases over that amount separately.

/why yes, I do pay it
 
2013-05-07 06:50:43 AM  

thenumber5: i wonder how this affects amazon marketplace sellers (like my self)

i am not a mega seller and only do ~30k a year in sales

will i now have to deal with sales tax laws and fill out 50 different forms a month concerning my sales all the states because i use Amazon as a store front or will marketplace sellers be considered business separate from amazon


This is beneficial to you, unless you have more than 50 employees to make those $30k in sales, which seems unlikely. You can ignore it, but Amazon will start charging sales tax, as well as the bigger marketplace sellers, so you become cheaper for anyone in a state with a sales tax (well technically you just still enable them to evade the tax due on their purchase if they want to, rather than being cheaper).
 
2013-05-07 07:04:58 AM  

penguinfark: Rindred: So, if I buy something online. The vendor/store isn't in my state. The company that I have my credit card with doesn't reside in my state. The company that processes the credit card to pay the vendor doesn't reside in my state. Question: what entitles my state to even one penny of that transaction? If I cross a state border and buy a sandwich, I don't pay my home state sales tax on it. This isn't the same thing how?

This is also my question.


yep, taxing based on TCP/IP location i guess

how do states determine whether you bought something within their borders?

what if i buy something from another country?
 
2013-05-07 07:19:12 AM  

Fark Me To Tears: shifty lookin bleeder: Teufelaffe: Here's the thing I have never understood about sales tax:  It's a tax on the merchant, not the consumer,

Nope. It's a tax on the purchaser. The merchant is just collecting it.


No. It's a tax on the merchant. Here's why: (we're ignoring shipping charges in this grossly simplified example)

A consumer has one dollar of discretionary money to spend...

Without the tax: The consumer goes online and finds that a merchant has the perfect item for one dollar. The consumer buys that item. The merchant gets the whole dollar.

With the tax: The same consumer still has just the one dollar to spend. The merchant still has the same item online, still priced at a dollar. The tax on that item will push the price to, say, $1.05. The consumer doesn't have $1.05 to spend. He has a dollar.

OPTION 1: The consumer doesn't buy the item. The merchant does not get this consumer's dollar in that case.

OPTION 2: The merchant can bring his price down to $0.95 so that, with tax, it comes out to a dollar (or just charge a dollar and back out the tax from that). The consumer pays his dollar to the merchant.

With or without the tax, the consumer has spent only the one dollar he had.

The merchant got the dollar from the consumer, but now he is required to hand over 5 cents of it to the government.
The merchant got $0.95.

Before you get all "Bullsh*it! The consumer would just suck it up and spend $1.05!" just stop and think about this in the aggregate: Consumers are only going to have so much to spend online. If the government decides to add a tax to online purchases, the consumers aren't magically going to have additional money to pay the taxes. They're simply going to spend less to offset those taxes. The amount of money the consumers pay out won't change, but the actual sales coming from that amount will be less because of the tax. The consumer still spent what he could, but part of it got pulled out because of the new tax. That fi ...


Let's add a little bit to the mix, since there is one thing you forget: the merchant has to "buy" the item to sell. Let's say this item costs $0.90, and now the merchant makes $0.10 profit. Slap a $0.05 cent tax, and that can eat into the little profit the merchant has. Nine times out of ten the merchant will pass the tax to the consumer.
 
2013-05-07 07:22:26 AM  
I thought it was a constitutional requirement that all bills that have anything to do with taxes and expenditures are required to initiate in the House?
 
2013-05-07 07:25:21 AM  

feckingmorons: So your argument is that you can calculate it different ways based on jurisdiction so you don't owe the tax?

Is that what you're saying? That is wrong. While tax compliance methodology may varyby jurisdiction, the compliance requirement still exists.

We're discussing reality not some alternative world in which you can scheme to defraud the state by structuring your transactions to be serially below some threshold, that is generally a felony in and of itself.



No, retard. It's actually legal. I thought you were just dumb but obviously now you're a stupid troll. Itemizing your taxes is illegal? LOL? Ignored.
 
2013-05-07 07:27:19 AM  
Stuff costs money. Get over it, teabaggers.
 
2013-05-07 07:34:02 AM  
Wait there are people that seriously thought the govt would vote against giving itself moar money? Let me laugh even harder.
 
2013-05-07 07:36:41 AM  

snuffy: de money


Dat taxx?
 
2013-05-07 07:41:31 AM  

MrHappyRotter: This is good news for web developers in foreign countries who will be hired for a fraction of the cost of U.S. web developers to update various merchants' stores to be compliant with the new tax regulations if this becomes law!


If the locality wants their tax, then they should be responsible for entering and updating their tax information into a secure database that is publicly available to merchants.  A tiny fraction of the taxes go towards maintaining that database.
 
2013-05-07 07:41:55 AM  
I don't see why people have a problem with this, it's not like this is some new tax, before internet commerce came along a few years ago you most likely paid sales tax on all your purchases anyway. Besides it's not like it's some federal tax that will pay for god knows what, it all goes to your state and local city to pay for schools, roads, etc.
 
2013-05-07 07:42:40 AM  

AdolfOliverPanties: This is another example of why we are farked.
Politicians do not do what constituents want.
They do what big money wants, or they do something that will allow them to take in more of our cash lets them tax the general populace without subjecting themselves to their fair share of the tax burden so they can spend it on shiat constituents don't want.


FTFY. Sales taxes are intentionally regressive. A poor person has no choice but to spend most of their income just to get by, so the sales tax applies taxation to most of their income. A rich person spends at best a few percent of their earnings on stuff that is taxed locally. They bank the rest, or use it to buy big-ticket things in such a way that they avoid paying sales taxes. Hence only a fraction of their income is subject to the double taxation burden of sales tax.

Sales tax exists to do precisely one thing: shaft the little guy and let the rich guy (ie. the guy who writes the law, and his buddies) off essentially scot free. Any politician who supports sales tax -- instead of simply raising the income tax on *everybody* by an equal amount to raise the same sum -- is a greedy, unscrupulous asshole who only thinks of himself, and who should be voted out at the first available opportunity.

Unfortunately, if we did that we wouldn't have a system of government, because our government is populated exclusively by greedy, unscrupulous assholes who should never have been given one iota of power in the first place.
 
2013-05-07 07:47:11 AM  
The Senate always was The House of Lords, representing the aristocracy, the House is theater for you plebes, the real business is in the Senate, where there are virtually no party lines.
 
2013-05-07 07:47:11 AM  

Nullav: This doesn't concern me one. Anyone who has ever shopped around for a laptop charger should know where I'm coming from. Taxes won't come close to closing the gap between online and brick/mortar retailers, for all but the heaviest items.


This is very true. I tried to buy one locally because I needed it in a hurry. It turns out I didn't need it that bad.  I am against this on principle. We don't need any more taxes. I would be for it if local taxes were lowered. But this is not about fairness. It is about the government taking more of peoples' money.
 
2013-05-07 07:50:33 AM  
States lost a total of $23 billion last year because they couldn't collect taxes on out-of-state sales

You didn't lose a Goddamn thing. You can't collect state taxes on out of states sales because it's not being sold in your farking state. It's not yours. That's like  me saying I lost $200 million everytime I don't win the lottery.
 
2013-05-07 07:50:59 AM  

badhatharry: The democrat's answer to brick & mortar businesses getting screwed...... Screw the internet businesses too!

That'll help the economy.  Just farking brilliant.


Smeggy Smurf: Democrats passed it.  Because paying more for everything is a great idea.


FTFA: "The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 69 to 27, getting support from Republicans and Democrats alike. "

Republicans passed it too, because rich people.
 
2013-05-07 07:54:07 AM  

AdamK: penguinfark: Rindred: So, if I buy something online. The vendor/store isn't in my state. The company that I have my credit card with doesn't reside in my state. The company that processes the credit card to pay the vendor doesn't reside in my state. Question: what entitles my state to even one penny of that transaction? If I cross a state border and buy a sandwich, I don't pay my home state sales tax on it. This isn't the same thing how?

This is also my question.

yep, taxing based on TCP/IP location i guess

how do states determine whether you bought something within their borders?

what if i buy something from another country?


The sales tax jurisdiction is determined by

1.  delivery address specified by buyer
2.  buyer's address if no delivery address is specified
3.  seller's address if buyer's address cannot be determined
 
2013-05-07 07:59:29 AM  

tkwasny: I thought it was a constitutional requirement that all bills that have anything to do with taxes and expenditures are required to initiate in the House?


Federal taxes and expenditures.  This bill simply authorizes States to pursue collection of their sales taxes across State lines.
 
2013-05-07 08:02:11 AM  
I think I may be the only person in my home state (Michigan) who actually complies with the use tax.  Every year, I go through all my online receipts and actually hand tally what I owe in "Use" tax.  I used to just use their formula for an estimated use tax based on gross income, but I found it overestimated my tax burden by a couple hundred every year, so now I actually go through the hassle of figuring it out by hand (which is considerable).  I figured I didn't want to jeopardize my license by getting nabbed (no matter how remote the chance) on some minor little tax issue.

I would still shop online for 80% of my non-grocery goods - it's just easier and still significantly cheaper.
 
2013-05-07 08:03:05 AM  
This is why the consumption tax will work.

gweilo8888: FTFY. Sales taxes are intentionally regressive. A poor person has no choice but to spend most of their income just to get by, so the sales tax applies taxation to most of their income. A rich person spends at best a few percent of their earnings on stuff that is taxed locally. They bank the rest, or use it to buy big-ticket things in such a way that they avoid paying sales taxes. Hence only a fraction of their income is subject to the double taxation burden of sales tax.

Sales tax exists to do precisely one thing: shaft the little guy and let the rich guy (ie. the guy who writes the law, and his buddies) off essentially scot free. Any politician who supports sales tax -- instead of simply raising the income tax on *everybody* by an equal amount to raise the same sum -- is a greedy, unscrupulous asshole who only thinks of himself, and who should be voted out at the first available opportunity.

Unfortunately, if we did that we wouldn't have a system of government, because our government is populated exclusively by greedy, unscrupulous assholes who should never have been given one iota of power in the first place.


This is why we need to vote libertarian!  Garry Johnson's consumption based tax will solve everything, because rich people consume more. *pftch- BHWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA* I'm sorry I can't keep a straight face though that. I've tried to explain this to so many libertarians and they just don't farking get it.
 
2013-05-07 08:05:01 AM  
For you Canadians purchasing here, just throw out the box and/or make it look used.

CSB. A friend mine from Ontario visits once a year. 3 years ago while visiting here he bought a 3 wood from Dick's Sporting Goods. We go out golfing and he hands it to me. "Nick that bad boy up Jay. I don't want this shiat to look new when I get back to the border cause I'll be damned if I'm gonna pay the toll on it."
 
2013-05-07 08:06:31 AM  

ArgusRun: feckingmorons: You already have to pay tax on the items you buy from out of state vendors that do not collect sales tax if those items would be taxable in your state. Use tax, not sales tax is what it is called. I file my return and pay the tax quarterly as required by my state of residence, Florida.

If you live in Deleware, Montana or Oregon you have no state sales or use tax. All others should be paying their use tax as the law requires unless the vendor collects it.

This will not raise your tax burden one cent. It will however create an accounting nightmare for the sellers and many smaller sellers will simply close. Those that remain open will have higher tax compliance costs and will pass those costs along to the consumer.

If you people had paid your taxes all along like you're supposed to you wouldn't be facing this problem. Quill v. North Dakota was not litigated to save you from paying the tax you rightfully owe, it was litigated so Quill and retailers similarly situated wouldn't be required to comply with tax laws in jurisdictions in which they have no nexus.

TLDR version - you already owe these taxes, you don't pay them. Now they want businesses to collect them because you won't pay voluntarily and prices will go up. Pay your taxes deadbeats.

Bullcrap.  Software and apps exist now to do the calculations and filing for you.  Way esier for the seller to do this than for individual purchasers.

All this does is help to ever so slightly level the playing field between brick and mortar retailers and online only stores.  those cheap prices come at the expense of retail jobs, property taxes and commerical rents.

And the warehouse jobs are notoriously bad even when compared to other warehouse jobs.


AND the law is setting a $1 million a year revenue limit for collection. If you are a small business you don't have to collect sales tax.  Trust me companies that sell web cart software will be offering sales tax calculation addins very soon.
 
2013-05-07 08:07:22 AM  
I can literally stand in the doorway of the Pheasant Lane Mall in Tax-free Nashua, NH...whip out my weiner and piss literally into 6.25% sales tax Tyngsboro, MA...while I say Fark You to Massachusetts tax collectors...so there!!
 
2013-05-07 08:17:57 AM  

ArkAngel: Thoguh: I don't have a problem with this.  It'll cut down on really blatant tax evasion, that's it.  And smaller companies won't have to "deal with 9,000 tax codes" or anything like that.  Some vendor will see a business opportunity to run all that stuff for a small surcharge and all the small businesses will just contract through them.

Smaller companies won't have to deal with it at all. It excuses all companies with less than one million in online sales.


So once again, punish success, and do everything to make businesses less efficient. Brilliant.
 
2013-05-07 08:18:59 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: AdamK: penguinfark: Rindred: So, if I buy something online. The vendor/store isn't in my state. The company that I have my credit card with doesn't reside in my state. The company that processes the credit card to pay the vendor doesn't reside in my state. Question: what entitles my state to even one penny of that transaction? If I cross a state border and buy a sandwich, I don't pay my home state sales tax on it. This isn't the same thing how?

This is also my question.

yep, taxing based on TCP/IP location i guess

how do states determine whether you bought something within their borders?

what if i buy something from another country?

The sales tax jurisdiction is determined by

1.  delivery address specified by buyer
2.  buyer's address if no delivery address is specified
3.  seller's address if buyer's address cannot be determined


could i theoretically have everything shipped to a post office in a neighboring state just to pay a lower sales tax?

personally i live in a state that already has an internet sales tax, it hasn't killed off internet purchasing in any way, even if the prices were higher - there's just a great deal of stuff that's not available at brick and mortar stores, so this bill doesn't affect me much - was just curious
 
2013-05-07 08:23:40 AM  

homeschooled: Also, I uhhhh.... I live in Texas. Yeah, Texas.

My name is Judy and I was just giving an example and definitely didn't just admit to tax evasion.


we know where you live, Judy.
 
2013-05-07 08:25:17 AM  

AdamK: BarkingUnicorn: AdamK: penguinfark: Rindred: So, if I buy something online. The vendor/store isn't in my state. The company that I have my credit card with doesn't reside in my state. The company that processes the credit card to pay the vendor doesn't reside in my state. Question: what entitles my state to even one penny of that transaction? If I cross a state border and buy a sandwich, I don't pay my home state sales tax on it. This isn't the same thing how?

This is also my question.

yep, taxing based on TCP/IP location i guess

how do states determine whether you bought something within their borders?

what if i buy something from another country?

The sales tax jurisdiction is determined by

1.  delivery address specified by buyer
2.  buyer's address if no delivery address is specified
3.  seller's address if buyer's address cannot be determined

could i theoretically have everything shipped to a post office in a neighboring state just to pay a lower sales tax?

personally i live in a state that already has an internet sales tax, it hasn't killed off internet purchasing in any way, even if the prices were higher - there's just a great deal of stuff that's not available at brick and mortar stores, so this bill doesn't affect me much - was just curious


Yes, you could.  But check your State's use tax law before you go to that trouble.  It may say you owe your State the difference between its use tax (which is usually the same as the sales tax) and the lower sales tax that you paid in the other State. IDK if crossing State lines to pick up your stuff makes evasion of State taxes a federal crime.
 
2013-05-07 08:28:58 AM  

AdamK: penguinfark: Rindred: So, if I buy something online. The vendor/store isn't in my state. The company that I have my credit card with doesn't reside in my state. The company that processes the credit card to pay the vendor doesn't reside in my state. Question: what entitles my state to even one penny of that transaction? If I cross a state border and buy a sandwich, I don't pay my home state sales tax on it. This isn't the same thing how?

This is also my question.

yep, taxing based on TCP/IP location i guess

how do states determine whether you bought something within their borders?

what if i buy something from another country?


It's based on shipping address. Online retailers already collect sales tax if they have a physical presence in a state anyway (why I pay sales tax on Amazon purchases here in KY); now they just do it for all states with a sales tax. Previously, the purchaser was supposed to file this. This will cost a little bit to implement on the retailer side, but it's pretty simple software.

There is the issue of sales taxes being regressive, but that's separate from collection.
 
2013-05-07 08:32:18 AM  
Next up, immigration bill that sets wages for immigrants and offers "special rights" to immigrants who are snow boarder or skii instructors... maybe we should pass it to see whats in it... again.

/corrupt stupidity... this is how is works
 
2013-05-07 08:34:17 AM  
I don't get why people are upset about paying sales taxes on the internet.  We have to pay a sales tax when we buy something in a "brick and mortar" store, how is paying a sales tax when buying something on the internet any different?

On a related note, I'd like to see a law requiring that prices must be displayed with the tax included.
 
2013-05-07 08:36:22 AM  

ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: There is the issue of sales taxes being regressive, but that's separate from collection.


Yep, income taxes aren't pulling their weight.  Problem is that rich people are mobile and States are whores.

taxfoundation.org
 
2013-05-07 08:36:39 AM  
Pls Correct me if Im Wrong. But I thought all bills "that generate revenue" MUST BE WRITTEN AND PASSED IN THE HOUSE FIRST. Thus This bill will be deemed unconstitutional
 
2013-05-07 08:40:22 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: I don't get why people are upset about paying sales taxes on the internet.  We have to pay a sales tax when we buy something in a "brick and mortar" store, how is paying a sales tax when buying something on the internet any different?

On a related note, I'd like to see a law requiring that prices must be displayed with the tax included.


I always see the total cost including sales tax before I decided to buy something. If you want Amazon to calculate sales tax on every item you merely look at, you're being unreasonable.  Try asking for that at Walmart.

People are upset about losing the petty but thrilling pleasure of sticking it to The Man by evading sales and use taxes.
 
2013-05-07 08:45:11 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: ZZ9 Plural Z Alpha: There is the issue of sales taxes being regressive, but that's separate from collection.

Yep, income taxes aren't pulling their weight.  Problem is that rich people are mobile and States are whores.

[taxfoundation.org image 350x363]


 The problem is too much spending, not too little taxes.
 
2013-05-07 08:46:40 AM  
I wonder if Citibank (ND) and Capitol One (DE) know this is going to open them up to state usury laws.

What happens if you order from a large business that is only in a state that has no sales tax at all?
 
2013-05-07 08:48:40 AM  
Democrats increasing taxes?  I'm shocked, SHOCKED I tell you!
 
2013-05-07 08:49:10 AM  

Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: I don't get why people are upset about paying sales taxes on the internet.  We have to pay a sales tax when we buy something in a "brick and mortar" store, how is paying a sales tax when buying something on the internet any different?

On a related note, I'd like to see a law requiring that prices must be displayed with the tax included.


Why don't you check out the tax rates of places that do that and get back to us?  Here is a hint, they tend to go from 10% to 12.5% to 15% to 17% to 19% to 21% and attempt 22%.   Having the tax put after the price keeps the politicians from running the rate up whenever they feel like it as it causes immediate outrage.
 
2013-05-07 08:50:07 AM  

cornfedokie: Pls Correct me if Im Wrong. But I thought all bills "that generate revenue" MUST BE WRITTEN AND PASSED IN THE HOUSE FIRST. Thus This bill will be deemed unconstitutional


Would you put down that old bit of paper and get with the times?
 
2013-05-07 08:51:40 AM  

Rindred: So, if I buy something online. The vendor/store isn't in my state. The company that I have my credit card with doesn't reside in my state. The company that processes the credit card to pay the vendor doesn't reside in my state. Question: what entitles my state to even one penny of that transaction? If I cross a state border and buy a sandwich, I don't pay my home state sales tax on it. This isn't the same thing how?


The simple answer is that you live in your state. It's a sales and use tax. It's where the item will be used. That's the basis for what the sales tax rate is. You didn't use the sandwich in your home state, so you don't pay your home state's sales tax on it. You paid the sales tax on where you ate the sandwich at.
 
2013-05-07 08:53:27 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: AdolfOliverPanties: This is another example of why we are farked.
Politicians do not do what constituents want.
They do what big money wants, or they do something that will allow them to take in more of our cash so they can spend it on shiat constituents don't want.

I haven't studied the issue thoroughly here, but neither of those two things seem to apply. Big money would rather transactions be tax free so the price is lower and they, in theory, sell more. And the politicians that passed this (at the national level) will never see any of this money, so they don't get to spend it.

Their constituents might not like it, but it doesn't seem like they had big money or their own spending proclivities in mind either.


Big businesses decided a long time ago that customers would pay sales tax, instead of the people who make the titular sales.
 
2013-05-07 08:55:39 AM  
How is this even constitutional? This is a clear violation of Article 1 Section 7.
 
2013-05-07 09:01:29 AM  

cornfedokie: Pls Correct me if Im Wrong. But I thought all bills "that generate revenue" MUST BE WRITTEN AND PASSED IN THE HOUSE FIRST. Thus This bill will be deemed unconstitutional


Were you under the impression this bill is connected to a federal tax?
 
2013-05-07 09:03:36 AM  
moothemagiccow:

Big businesses decided a long time ago that customers would pay sales tax, instead of the people who make the titular sales.

That is in the USA.  In other places, import and duties are common today.  20 years ago a tool sold by an importer in Australia had a 22% tax at that point of sale.  Throw in the wholesale and retail margins and the results were tools cost a fortune.  Now there is a 10% tax on each level of sales with credits.  The system still takes in a higher percentage than the US system but it is much better than the old system.  Europe switched to the same type of system with their VAT as well.  Both areas now tax services as well as goods so if you fortune teller, they have to add tax to their performance just like the guy selling shoes.
 
2013-05-07 09:05:55 AM  
In other news, finally enforcing existing tax laws constitutes a "tax increase" in the eyes of the derp brigade.
 
2013-05-07 09:18:19 AM  

whidbey: your an idiot


Perfect. Especially from you.
 
2013-05-07 09:28:08 AM  

DON.MAC: Cloudchaser Sakonige the Red Wolf: I don't get why people are upset about paying sales taxes on the internet.  We have to pay a sales tax when we buy something in a "brick and mortar" store, how is paying a sales tax when buying something on the internet any different?

On a related note, I'd like to see a law requiring that prices must be displayed with the tax included.

Why don't you check out the tax rates of places that do that and get back to us?  Here is a hint, they tend to go from 10% to 12.5% to 15% to 17% to 19% to 21% and attempt 22%.   Having the tax put after the price keeps the politicians from running the rate up whenever they feel like it as it causes immediate outrage.


There should be a law to seperately list the gasoline and tobacco tax.
 
2013-05-07 09:44:19 AM  

Rindred: So, if I buy something online. The vendor/store isn't in my state. The company that I have my credit card with doesn't reside in my state. The company that processes the credit card to pay the vendor doesn't reside in my state. Question: what entitles my state to even one penny of that transaction? If I cross a state border and buy a sandwich, I don't pay my home state sales tax on it. This isn't the same thing how?


Because YOU didnt cross the border.
 
2013-05-07 09:47:24 AM  
for everyone hoping that the bill dies in the House:

it was introduced by a Republican. At the moment it has 65 cosponsors: 41 Democrats and 24 Republicans

http://beta.congress.gov/bill/113th-congress/house-bill/684/cosponso rs
 
2013-05-07 10:01:16 AM  

cmunic8r99: Durbin (D-IL)


He farks up everything he touches.
 
2013-05-07 10:04:13 AM  
So set up purchasing department in a state with no sales tax, it only 5 but better than nothing.
 
2013-05-07 10:09:01 AM  

Sam Malone: I'm totally rooting for... HOUSE REPUBLICANS?!? *etthhiicckkkkaaaaadhhfffhdggghhhhhhh* Sorry, almost swallowed my tongue there for a second.


Help us Obi Wan JohnBoehnor, you're our only hope. The very thought makes me want to puke

tkwasny: I thought it was a constitutional requirement that all bills that have anything to do with taxes and expenditures are required to initiate in the House?


It doesn't generate revenue nor is it a new tax. This is the senate putting the job of enforcing an existing law (use tax) on the retailer rather than on the people via self-reporting. Despite all the high and mightiness in this thread self reporting what you owe to the gov't will always be massively abused.

Oldiron_79: Wait there are people that seriously thought the govt would vote against giving itself moar money? Let me laugh even harder.


This.. so very this.

MythDragon: That's like  me saying I lost $200 million every time I don't win the lottery.



My company pulled that line and did it with a straight face (so to speak). They told us our 20,000,000.00 profit this quarter was really a loss because the shareholders/management wanted to make 30mil. So there will be no bonuses.
 
2013-05-07 10:10:55 AM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: pedrop357: What services has my state provided to justify these taxes?

They didn't service any stores, build anything around them, didn't license, inspect, etc. any retail outlets.

The delivery vehicles used paid fuel and other road taxes, warehouse operators paid property taxes, etc.

Brick and mortar stores receive services that warehouses do not, and they pay sales taxes accordingly.

And the states don't run any courts to sue anyone's butt in when there is a sales contract issue too?


Courts don't work for free.  There are all sorts of fees to sue, respond, etc.

Also, warehouse owners get those services without paying/collecting sales taxes.
 
2013-05-07 10:15:33 AM  
My problem isn't so much with the tax, which should have been paid anyway (heathens). My problem is that Now that the gov't has started messing with the internet they won't stop.
 
2013-05-07 10:15:56 AM  
I completely understand that it is "fair" for me to pay local sales tax on items I buy online, but this will not save retailers.

I typically buy my supplements from drugstore.com rather than GNC.com because they don't charge sales tax and shipping like GNC.com does. Some products are only available on the GNC website for higher prices, so I will occasionally go that route.

Making me pay the sales tax at drugstore.com will not get me into a local GNC store because of convenience and avoiding douchey sales clerks. It will instead cause me to stop buying from the chain althogether.
 
2013-05-07 10:49:12 AM  

msbav8r: • $113,227 for video game preservation center in New York.


Keep yer mitts off the ICHEG, because it's awesome. It's also part of the National Museum Of Play at the Strong Museum *glare*

/donated marketing materials to the collection
//still need to take them up on the free tour
 
2013-05-07 11:11:50 AM  
This would be a tax nightmare. All the states are slightly different in taxation, have different tax rates, not to mention localities have differences too. This ridiculous on the face of it.
 
2013-05-07 11:31:17 AM  

Majick Thise: My problem isn't so much with the tax, which should have been paid anyway (heathens). My problem is that Now that the gov't has started messing with the internet they won't stop.


What makes you think the Internet isn't subject to regulation?
 
2013-05-07 11:33:37 AM  

DeathCipris: This would be a tax nightmare. All the states are slightly different in taxation, have different tax rates, not to mention localities have differences too. This ridiculous on the face of it.


You don't hire 10's of thousands of IRS agents and not use them!
 
kab
2013-05-07 11:40:07 AM  

RembrandtQEinstein: 3 steps to fixing the country

1. repeal all current sales and income taxes
2. impose a tax on all currency leaving the country (napkin math says ~10-15%)
3. impose an annual tax on all assets of value, including IP (napkin math again says ~3.4% to match current state and federal revenues).


I'm in the "get rid of sales tax" corner, but how are you going to enforce #3 exactly?
 
2013-05-07 11:49:29 AM  

BarkingUnicorn: Yep, income taxes aren't pulling their weight.  Problem is that rich people are mobile and States are whores.


That, or maybe we could try not to spend more than we take in.
 
2013-05-07 11:50:38 AM  

IronTom: DeathCipris: This would be a tax nightmare. All the states are slightly different in taxation, have different tax rates, not to mention localities have differences too. This ridiculous on the face of it.

You don't hire 10's of thousands of IRS agents and not use them!


I know you are being tongue-in-cheek, but the onus isn't on the IRS. It is the businesses that must bear the burden of some new goofy tax scheme and being in compliance with different localities. In the end, it will be the consumer that gets screwed.
 
2013-05-07 12:04:32 PM  
You can't just sell the Internet, it's not like a big truck...
 
2013-05-07 12:05:47 PM  

The Irresponsible Captain: [i0.kym-cdn.com image 483x352]

The purpose of the tax break was to encourage Internet sales. Internet retailers are doing well, so we end the tax break. We now move on with life.

People get some advantage and then whine like spoiled brats when they no longer get special treatment.

If anyone is asking why Amazon is supporting this, it's because they have distribution centers in many states. They also had problems in the past with affiliate programs and taxes. They want a level playing field with other internet retailers.


It's easy to understand how the public wouldn't have all the facts about this bill, it was introduced and voted on in a matter of days without adequate debate and before anyone had time to learn what's it's really all about.  Calling it a tax break makes it sound like there was a sales tax before but it was delayed for a while; this is a new tax.  If you look at the corporate supporters and opponents of this bill it becomes obvious the bill isn't about leveling the playing field but about stacking the deck.  Small businesses can't afford to manage the sales tax which eliminates them from selling things online and competing with gigantic corporations like Amazon, iTunes or Google.  It's not a tax on businesses that make billions, it's a tax on regular people like you and me.  As Senator Ron Wyden (D) says...

The Online Sales Tax:

1. violates state sovereignty by forcing one state to enforce the laws of other states
2. is discriminatory. Internet businesses are required to get information on where products will be used - brick & mortar stores aren't
3. is coercive and burdensome. Internet businesses would be forced to collect taxes for over 9000 tax jurisdictions
4. undermines successful small businesses - requiring them to spend time and money playing tax-collector instead of growing
5. threatens Internet freedom by forcing e-businesses to enforce laws from jurisdictions where they aren't located
 
2013-05-07 12:11:24 PM  

whidbey: Majick Thise: My problem isn't so much with the tax, which should have been paid anyway (heathens). My problem is that Now that the gov't has started messing with the internet they won't stop.

What makes you think the Internet isn't subject to regulation?


It isn't subject to very much content regulation right now. My ISP can't block the websites of their competition. I am not charged differently for some sites than others (internet long distance charges). Porn tax anyone? Most of us would be bankrupt in a week if there was a porn tax.

Do you think the gov't wouldn't jump at the chance top part more of us from our money? Once the precedent is set they will try to tax anything they can online. I'm sorry that would be a porn access fee/long distance access fee... tax is not a word they like to use.
 
2013-05-07 12:21:55 PM  

HotWingConspiracy: Stuff costs money. Get over it, teabaggers.


Ever consider the government might have enough "stuff"?
Ever think the people who earn a living might like some "stuff" for themselves?
 
2013-05-07 12:31:12 PM  

DeathCipris: IronTom: DeathCipris: This would be a tax nightmare. All the states are slightly different in taxation, have different tax rates, not to mention localities have differences too. This ridiculous on the face of it.

You don't hire 10's of thousands of IRS agents and not use them!

I know you are being tongue-in-cheek, but the onus isn't on the IRS. It is the businesses that must bear the burden of some new goofy tax scheme and being in compliance with different localities. In the end, it will be the consumer that gets screwed.


I agree with you whole-heartedly, DeathCipris. It already feels like we are getting screwed, look at the grocery prices. It seems that some inflation has been going on.
 
2013-05-07 12:33:04 PM  

DeathCipris: IronTom: DeathCipris: This would be a tax nightmare. All the states are slightly different in taxation, have different tax rates, not to mention localities have differences too. This ridiculous on the face of it.

You don't hire 10's of thousands of IRS agents and not use them!

I know you are being tongue-in-cheek, but the onus isn't on the IRS. It is the businesses that must bear the burden of some new goofy tax scheme and being in compliance with different localities. In the end, it will be the consumer that gets screwed.


It is sort of like that cockamamie law they tried to get passed where every sale of anything from anyone to anyone over $200 or $600 or something had to be reported to the gvmt.
 
2013-05-07 12:34:33 PM  

dbrunker: The Online Sales Tax:

1. violates state sovereignty by forcing one state to enforce the laws of other states The law already exists and as a consumer of goods over the internet, you should have been keeping track of, and paying this tax already; this just shifts the burden from the consumer to the merchant
2. is discriminatory. Internet businesses are required to get information on where products will be used - brick & mortar stores aren't Where the product(s) will be used are irrelevant and have no bearing on this law.  Only where they are purchased from matters, and you bet your ass brick & mortar stores have to keep track of that (for businesses with brick & mortar stores in multiple cities or states)
3.  is coercive and burdensome. Internet businesses would be forced to collect taxes for over 9000 tax jurisdictions Using software that will be provided free of charge
4. undermines successful small businesses - requiring them to spend time and money playing tax-collector instead of growing Again, they get free software for this.  It's just additional administrative that can be mostly automated, ffs
5. threatens Internet freedom by forcing e-businesses to enforce laws from jurisdictions where they aren't located Now you're just being (more) stupid

 
2013-05-07 12:42:53 PM  

Majick Thise: whidbey: Majick Thise: My problem isn't so much with the tax, which should have been paid anyway (heathens). My problem is that Now that the gov't has started messing with the internet they won't stop.

What makes you think the Internet isn't subject to regulation?

It isn't subject to very much content regulation right now. My ISP can't block the websites of their competition. I am not charged differently for some sites than others (internet long distance charges). Porn tax anyone? Most of us would be bankrupt in a week if there was a porn tax.

Do you think the gov't wouldn't jump at the chance top part more of us from our money? Once the precedent is set they will try to tax anything they can online. I'm sorry that would be a porn access fee/long distance access fee... tax is not a word they like to use.


I'm not much of a fan of regressive taxation, but you really seem to hate ANY taxes.

Which is unrealistic, frankly, given our revenue shortfalls.
 
2013-05-07 12:49:59 PM  

dbrunker: The Irresponsible Captain: [i0.kym-cdn.com image 483x352]

The purpose of the tax break was to encourage Internet sales. Internet retailers are doing well, so we end the tax break. We now move on with life.

People get some advantage and then whine like spoiled brats when they no longer get special treatment.

If anyone is asking why Amazon is supporting this, it's because they have distribution centers in many states. They also had problems in the past with affiliate programs and taxes. They want a level playing field with other internet retailers.

It's easy to understand how the public wouldn't have all the facts about this bill, it was introduced and voted on in a matter of days without adequate debate and before anyone had time to learn what's it's really all about.  Calling it a tax break makes it sound like there was a sales tax before but it was delayed for a while; this is a new tax.  If you look at the corporate supporters and opponents of this bill it becomes obvious the bill isn't about leveling the playing field but about stacking the deck.  Small businesses can't afford to manage the sales tax which eliminates them from selling things online and competing with gigantic corporations like Amazon, iTunes or Google.  It's not a tax on businesses that make billions, it's a tax on regular people like you and me.  As Senator Ron Wyden (D) says...

The Online Sales Tax:

1. violates state sovereignty by forcing one state to enforce the laws of other states
2. is discriminatory. Internet businesses are required to get information on where products will be used - brick & mortar stores aren't
3. is coercive and burdensome. Internet businesses would be forced to collect taxes for over 9000 tax jurisdictions
4. undermines successful small businesses - requiring them to spend time and money playing tax-collector instead of growing
5. threatens Internet freedom by forcing e-businesses to enforce laws from jurisdictions where they aren't located


I don't see how this is sudden. They've been debating this tax for years; it's been in the news for years. There's been lots of public debate and comment on it.

For instance, this wikipedia article has:
Amazon says it would support a federal solution to the sales tax problem as long as such legislation was fair and simple. As of May 2011 legislation has been introduced in Congress to allow states to impose sales taxes on sales to their residents from out-of-state. Amazon has not stated a public position on the bill. Amazon's competitors say it is insincere. Similar legislation, called the  Main Street Fairness Act, failed in committee in 2010. Several earlier versions of the bill also failed to advance. Amazon lobbyists met four times with members of Congress or their aides in 2010 regarding the Main Street Fairness Act. The company spent $610,000 on lobbying in 2010, although these expenses also covered other bills discussed at the same time. Amazon has increased political contributions to federal lawmakers.

Or, look at this 2008 NY Times article.

Or look up the Streamlined Sales Tax Project that was founded in 2000.

If you haven't been paying attention to this for the last decade or so, then I'm sorry. It wasn't in a bathroom with a sign on the door saying "Beware of Leopard".
 
2013-05-07 01:21:02 PM  

whidbey: i'm not much of a fan of regressive taxation, but you really seem to hate ANY taxes.

Which is unrealistic, frankly, given our revenue shortfalls.


Funny that I am as far from a tea bagger as one can be and you accuse me of hating all taxes. Their hasn't been a congress controlled by either party that has had ANY fiscal responsibility at all since Nixon took us off the gold standard. I don't hate taxes per se... I like roads and other infrastructure, national defense and national parks. I like the protection of law.... or at least I did. It seems this congress and many before it have decided that the protection of law only applies to whoever lobbies them with the most money. They also seem to feel that they are protected from the law. As for the rest of us they seem, by their actions, to feel that the law is there to control the masses and of course, to part the masses from any money they might have. They are spend happy fools, they and their predecessors have dug this hole. If our country and its citizens weren't being drug down as well I would say they dug the hole and we should let them bury themselves in it.

Yeah I REALLY have a bad opinion of congress
 
2013-05-07 01:22:19 PM  

pedrop357: Vlad_the_Inaner: pedrop357: What services has my state provided to justify these taxes?

They didn't service any stores, build anything around them, didn't license, inspect, etc. any retail outlets.

The delivery vehicles used paid fuel and other road taxes, warehouse operators paid property taxes, etc.

Brick and mortar stores receive services that warehouses do not, and they pay sales taxes accordingly.

And the states don't run any courts to sue anyone's butt in when there is a sales contract issue too?

Courts don't work for free.  There are all sorts of fees to sue, respond, etc.

Also, warehouse owners get those services without paying/collecting sales taxes.


Courts have fees.  So you think it's ok not to pay to maintain their existence until you need them.  The judge's salary is on a fee basis,huh?  Everyone else's saleray too? Let me guess. You feel the same way about the fire department.  The court was just one example.   Maintaining a civil society in the region the warehouse wants to operate entails a cost.   See many mail order companies working out of Somalia?

And if you know warehouses that doesn't pay taxes when they purchase the local supplies they need to run, please tell me so I can rat them out for a finder's fee on those tax cheats.  (And if you do a retail order from the state that the warehouse resides in, they will indeed collect your sales tax during the purchase)

For that matter, they get building inspections, etc, too, even if they are not a retail outlet  Or maybe you're one of those guys who thinks it's OK to warehouse a 1000 tons of ammonium nitrate without oversight.
 
2013-05-07 01:24:25 PM  

whidbey: I'm not much of a fan of regressive taxation, but you really seem to hate ANY taxes.


I may be jaded since I come from Chicago, but I thoroughly believe at least 50% of my hard earned tax money is being stolen, never to build a road, a park, pay a teacher, or help old people get around town. I'd sooner clean things up than add a tax.
 
2013-05-07 01:30:55 PM  

kab: RembrandtQEinstein: 3 steps to fixing the country

1. repeal all current sales and income taxes
2. impose a tax on all currency leaving the country (napkin math says ~10-15%)
3. impose an annual tax on all assets of value, including IP (napkin math again says ~3.4% to match current state and federal revenues).

I'm in the "get rid of sales tax" corner, but how are you going to enforce #3 exactly?



Obviously people will lie if asked to self-report, as shown with use taxes. People are also notoriously skeptical of the federal government.

So you're proposing that all citizens have to allow periodic entrance to their homes by both federal and state employees to inspect and determine the value of all possessions in order to assess tax liability? Based on arbitrary estimations of an item's worth, while accounting for depreciation or loss of functionality due to damage or normal wear and tear?

This may possibly be the stupidest suggestion that I have ever heard in my entire life, for at least five reasons I can think of off the top of my head. Congratulations!
 
2013-05-07 01:31:22 PM  

Majick Thise: whidbey: i'm not much of a fan of regressive taxation, but you really seem to hate ANY taxes.

Which is unrealistic, frankly, given our revenue shortfalls.

Funny that I am as far from a tea bagger as one can be and you accuse me of hating all taxes. Their hasn't been a congress controlled by either party that has had ANY fiscal responsibility at all since Nixon took us off the gold standard. I don't hate taxes per se... I like roads and other infrastructure, national defense and national parks. I like the protection of law.... or at least I did. It seems this congress and many before it have decided that the protection of law only applies to whoever lobbies them with the most money. They also seem to feel that they are protected from the law. As for the rest of us they seem, by their actions, to feel that the law is there to control the masses and of course, to part the masses from any money they might have. They are spend happy fools, they and their predecessors have dug this hole. If our country and its citizens weren't being drug down as well I would say they dug the hole and we should let them bury themselves in it.

Yeah I REALLY have a bad opinion of congress


I don't blame you. Bush and Company really jacked up the deficits wasting trillions of dollars in two stupid "wars" and tax cuts for the richest people and businesses in America.

And because of that irresponsible fiscal meltdown, pretty much all of the 4 years the Democrats have been in office, they've been forced to divert whatever resources we have to addressing those failures.

But that has little to do with whether the Internet is subject to regulation. It's only begun to be a huge source of commerce in this country, if not worldwide, and we will see taxes and duties at some point in the near future.

Though granted, regressive taxes suck and we should oppose them no matter.
 
2013-05-07 01:36:11 PM  

RembrandtQEinstein: most theoretical research is done w/ public funds now anyway so nothing would change there


You can't possibly be this stupid. I've obviously been drawn in by the best trolling I've seen today.
 
2013-05-07 01:39:59 PM  

R.A.Danny: whidbey: I'm not much of a fan of regressive taxation, but you really seem to hate ANY taxes.

I may be jaded since I come from Chicago, but I thoroughly believe at least 50% of my hard earned tax money is being stolen, never to build a road, a park, pay a teacher, or help old people get around town. I'd sooner clean things up than add a tax.


Well I wouldn't know about that. Seems like where the revenue goes would be a separate issue.

Agreed that we probably wouldn't have to raise taxes (much) if huge multi-billion corporations actually paid them.
 
2013-05-07 02:08:23 PM  
So who wants to take bets on when they next law comes out that says teh 5 states that dont have sales tax must institute one because its unfair to those that do?
 
2013-05-07 02:24:56 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: You've been hyping the complexities and expenses of sales tax software and services but completely ignoring the fact that the States will have to provide them  to sellers for free.


The states have to provide tax compliance tools for free?

What dreamworld do you live in?
 
2013-05-07 02:26:59 PM  

Bisu: feckingmorons: So your argument is that you can calculate it different ways based on jurisdiction so you don't owe the tax?

Is that what you're saying? That is wrong. While tax compliance methodology may varyby jurisdiction, the compliance requirement still exists.

We're discussing reality not some alternative world in which you can scheme to defraud the state by structuring your transactions to be serially below some threshold, that is generally a felony in and of itself.


No, retard. It's actually legal. I thought you were just dumb but obviously now you're a stupid troll. Itemizing your taxes is illegal? LOL? Ignored.



You're going to ignore me because you're too stupid to realize tax fraud is a crime. OK.
 
2013-05-07 02:39:22 PM  

Rindred: So, if I buy something online. The vendor/store isn't in my state. The company that I have my credit card with doesn't reside in my state. The company that processes the credit card to pay the vendor doesn't reside in my state. Question: what entitles my state to even one penny of that transaction? If I cross a state border and buy a sandwich, I don't pay my home state sales tax on it. This isn't the same thing how?


Because the transportation network to deliver your goods and system of trade laws to protect your transaction need funding.

Welcome to civilization where the infrastructure to provide modernity and stability needs a funding source.

Want no taxes? Try Darfur, The Congo, or Afghanistan.
 
2013-05-07 02:43:58 PM  

Joe Blowme: So who wants to take bets on when they next law comes out that says teh 5 states that dont have sales tax must institute one because its unfair to those that do?


Who wants to take bets that retards like Joe here will continue to not understand what this bill actually does?
 
2013-05-07 02:48:53 PM  

lohphat: Because the transportation network to deliver your goods and system of trade laws to protect your transaction need funding.


I guess the fuel taxes and various vehicle and mileage taxes that shipping companies pay and pass along to the consumer don't count?
 
2013-05-07 03:00:36 PM  

feckingmorons: BarkingUnicorn: You've been hyping the complexities and expenses of sales tax software and services but completely ignoring the fact that the States will have to provide them  to sellers for free.

The states have to provide tax compliance tools for free?

What dreamworld do you live in?


I have a dream.  I have a dream that one day, people will read the article before commenting on it, especially when commenting several hours after the story is posted.  I have a dream that people who call other people morons with their very name don't act like morons themselves.  I have a dream of people who are well informed rather than completely ignorant.

Who am I kidding, it's Fark.
 
2013-05-07 03:17:03 PM  

Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Joe Blowme: So who wants to take bets on when they next law comes out that says teh 5 states that dont have sales tax must institute one because its unfair to those that do?

Who wants to take bets that retards like Joe here will continue to not understand what this bill actually does?


So you didnt know there are 5 states that charge no sales tax? Sorry to hear that, learn something new everyday huh.
 
2013-05-07 03:38:39 PM  

homeschooled: Also, I uhhhh.... I live in Texas. Yeah, Texas.

My name is Judy and I was just giving an example and definitely didn't just admit to tax evasion.


Be expecting a knock...Judy

4.bp.blogspot.com
 
2013-05-07 04:15:44 PM  

Joe Blowme: Harbinger of the Doomed Rat: Joe Blowme: So who wants to take bets on when they next law comes out that says teh 5 states that dont have sales tax must institute one because its unfair to those that do?

Who wants to take bets that retards like Joe here will continue to not understand what this bill actually does?

So you didnt know there are 5 states that charge no sales tax? Sorry to hear that, learn something new everyday huh.


I learned that your ability to form an intelligent comeback is entirely non-existent.

Senate: "Hey, people haven't been self-reporting or paying sales taxes on Internet purchases as already required by law.  We should do something about that."
You: "HERP, SLIPPERY SLOPE, DERP."
 
2013-05-07 04:16:15 PM  
Can't wait to see the great State of Alabama try to prosecute an online merchant based in New Hampshire for failing to collect sales tax for the great State of Alabama.  Hilarious hijinks will indeed ensue!
 
2013-05-07 04:40:54 PM  

Pangea: I completely understand that it is "fair" for me to pay local sales tax on items I buy online, but this will not save retailers.

I typically buy my supplements from drugstore.com rather than GNC.com because they don't charge sales tax and shipping like GNC.com does. Some products are only available on the GNC website for higher prices, so I will occasionally go that route.

Making me pay the sales tax at drugstore.com will not get me into a local GNC store because of convenience and avoiding douchey sales clerks. It will instead cause me to stop buying from the chain althogether.


How can GNC's price be higher than drugstore.com's if the latter doesn't carry the product?  Is drugstore.com displaying  a page that says,  "This is what we would charge IIF we sold this stuff?"

This bill isn't about leveling the playing field between online sellers.
 
2013-05-07 04:52:28 PM  

MikeM: Can't wait to see the great State of Alabama try to prosecute an online merchant based in New Hampshire for failing to collect sales tax for the great State of Alabama.  Hilarious hijinks will indeed ensue!


Because they have not gotten ready to?

http://www.taxrates.com/blog/2011/10/27/alabama-and-the-streamlined- sa les-and-use-tax-agreement/
 
2013-05-07 04:57:13 PM  

BarkingUnicorn: This bill isn't about leveling the playing field between online sellers.


Not the strongest card to play when debating a bill called "The Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 "
 
2013-05-07 04:58:28 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: BarkingUnicorn: This bill isn't about leveling the playing field between online sellers.

Not the strongest card to play when debating a bill called "The Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 "


You should see what th violence against women act  is about.
 
2013-05-07 05:19:15 PM  

dbrunker: Senator Ron Wyden (D) says...

The Online Sales Tax:

1. violates state sovereignty by forcing one state to enforce the laws of other states
2. is discriminatory. Internet businesses are required to get information on where products will be used - brick & mortar stores aren't
3. is coercive and burdensome. Internet businesses would be forced to collect taxes for over 9000 tax jurisdictions
4. undermines successful small businesses - requiring them to spend time and money playing tax-collector instead of growing
5. threatens Internet freedom by forcing e-businesses to enforce laws from jurisdictions where they aren't located


Wyden is a ludicrous liar and anyone who cites his lies is a ludicrous tool who hasn't read or chooses to ignore the bill.

1. no State is forced to collect sales tax from remote sellers or lift a finger to help another State do so.  The bill "authorizes" such collaboration; it does not mandate it.
2. no seller has to collect a delivery address if he doesn't need to; if none, buyer's address or seller's address is used
3. the States have to deal with their 9600 tax jurisdictions & sellers are immune from State errors
4. the burden is so trivial that whining about it makes a million-dollar online seller look as ridiculous as one who says, "OMG! I have to actually DELIVER products!"
5. "Internet freedom" is not more important that social responsibility.  All affected sellers are located in the goddam United States.  All of them gross at least a million a year through interstate commerce.  They don't deserve a free ride just because they're doing it over the Internet.
 
2013-05-07 06:39:40 PM  

I created this alt just for this thread: dbrunker: The Online Sales Tax:

1. violates state sovereignty by forcing one state to enforce the laws of other states The law already exists and as a consumer of goods over the internet, you should have been keeping track of, and paying this tax already; this just shifts the burden from the consumer to the merchant Some states do not have this law, and prefer the Feds to take care of it.
2. is discriminatory. Internet businesses are required to get information on where products will be used - brick & mortar stores aren't Where the product(s) will be used are irrelevant and have no bearing on this law.  Only where they are purchased from matters, and you bet your ass brick & mortar stores have to keep track of that (for businesses with brick & mortar stores in multiple cities or states) If that's the case, then charge the sale tax from where it originates, much like the brick-n-mortar. A small business located solely in Oregon should not have to pay taxes in Texas because they sold "Bubba" some derp-wipes.
3.  is coercive and burdensome. Internet businesses would be forced to collect taxes for over 9000 tax jurisdictions Using software that will be provided free of charge requiring someone to actually charge more to figure out their taxes, instead of a flat rate.
4. undermines successful small businesses - requiring them to spend time and money playing tax-collector instead of growing Again, they get free software for this.  It's just additional administrative that can be mostly automated, ffs Again, small business would be hurt more come Tax Time, even with the "free" software. Don't you ever file with the IRS via something other than Taxcut?
5. threatens Internet freedom by forcing e-businesses to enforce laws from jurisdictions where they aren't located  Now you're just being (more) stupid

How is it stupid? After all, eBay is against it, so it must affect them. Why not just tax anyone selling off the classifieds, or garage sales, or auctions?
 
2013-05-07 06:55:42 PM  

People_are_Idiots: Why not just tax anyone selling off the classifieds, or garage sales, or auctions?


because some people acually consider the cost of enforcement as part of a tradeoff?

Technically all those case do owe appropriate tax.  Is it a good use of public funds to chase down those that neglectfully.

In my town, you are not pestered if you rent a table at the flea market only rarely.   If you do it on a weekly basis, the state tax guy who watches the flea market makes you aware of what is expected.

/I never heard if he talks to the business license people too or not.
 
2013-05-07 07:16:08 PM  

Nabb1: I'd rather have this than my income taxes going up. At least everyone pays this.


People with lower incomes spend a higher percentage of their income on sales taxes.  This is a tax that hurts the poor.
 
2013-05-07 07:24:59 PM  
I remember when candidate Obama promised that Americans making under $200k per year would "not pay another dime in taxes."

So i have faith he will veto this if it gets through Congress.