Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Taxes are already due on online purchases. They just aren't collecting it at the time of purchase.
That's right. The onus is on the purchaser to pay the appropriate sales tax in their jurisdiction, though not many do. The States don't enforce that, because they know what an impossible nightmare that would be, and how it would likely cost more to enforce than what might be collected.
So, the liberal mind has a solution ... put the onus on every mom & pop web business to deal with the nightmare for all 50 of those states! This is so bloody ignorant as to defy adequate definition. If the states don't have the resources to deal with that for their own damned revenue in their own damned state, the small business in Podunk USA does ... and for all 50 states?
Of course, the legal ramifications are also endless, as are the opportunities for antitrust abuse. One hypothetical example comes to mind ..... let's say the moment an e-commerce site located in Texas gains enough sales revenues that might be perceived by a competing business in North Carolina as impacting their business revenues .... they might utilize their connections to local authorities to have them go after that competitor with tax audits. So the poor slob in Texas, running a small business on line now has the North Carolina Comptroller after them this month ... maybe a few months later it will be Utah ... maybe next year, Nebraska .... who knows, maybe you might get real lucky and have all three coming after you at the same time? Oh Boy! And just how would that work legally? There are constitutional questions here too ..... do you even have one stinking clue as to why the constitution dealt specifically with this type of scenario by forbidding import/export excise taxes between states? Well, by what ever name you might call it ... forcing someone in Texas to collect taxes for another state would offer the same opportunity for abuse in stifling out of state competition, via taxation of goods from other states, including legal enforcement actions.
This isn't just a bad idea ... it's an asinine idea that hasn't been subjected to even a moment's worth of rational analysis.
Jack .. of course you do! I have yet to see one rotten idea pass by you that you didn't hug like a long lost brother. One can set their watch by this. If nothing else, you are consistent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough
There are some relevant points to make that many people seem to be ignoring, misunderstanding, or intentionally distortgin.
First, this is not a proposal for a new tax. This is a proposal for interstate vendors to collect a sales tax for goods shipped into states that already have sales taxes. The customers in those states are already required by state law to report their interstate purchases and pay the sales and use tax on those purchases; they just don't do it.
No one objecting to this BIG BROTHER lunacy is missing any points Jack ... it's precisely the ones who support such craziness who can't find a clue. And you even highlight the biggest issue yourself, without actually realizing why it makes the idea so bloody foolish, as well as very dangerous for civil liberties. That the states haven't figured out a way to enforce this is because they have no way of tracking every out of state purchase by each of it's millions and millions of citizens ... partially due to privacy issues ... you know, like the local authorities monitoring and tracking your every move on line and through the mail ... JACK ..... of course, Uncle Sam already does this, and I suppose the FEDS could establish the mechanisms to notify the state tax man every time one of it's citizens make an online purchase out of state, then they could send a letter to the offender, demanding that $5.83 in sales tax ... which would probably only cost the state $50 to do. And then, if they didn't comply, they could spend another $5,000 to SWATT team them for not paying that $5.83 they owe in sales tax ... but they don't do it now, probably because it's just not good business to spend $50 (or $5,000) to collect $5 ... JACK. But we know how much fun it is for authorities and authoritarian statists to exercise the jackboot whenever possible, but there are practical matters to consider also.
No ... the much better idea is to not just stop at the point of forcing everyone to be a tax payer ... but now force them to be a tax collector too, and for every state in the union no less! Wow ... some of you ought to run for office .... you'd be so at home there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough
Second, this proposal is probably being driven as much by small businesses, who are now losing sales to internet vendors who do not collect sales taxes as by anyone else. Why should those internet vendors gain a pricing advantage based merely on their customers' willingness to evade the law?
Not hardly, Jack .... at least no small business run by anyone with a lick of common sense. No one really buys online to avoid paying sales tax They buy online for several reasons, none of which includes saving $5 in sales tax while spending $12 for shipping ... unless you're the government or a liberal, in which case, common sense does not apply.
They buy online because often, it's more convenient, or the product is just not available locally. Omaha Steaks don't have a store everywhere Jack, unless you're in Omaha ..... MY STORE is only here in Austin .... I don't have a retail chain of stores, Jack, so if someone wants one of my handmade items, their ONLY CHOICE is to buy online. And that is precisely why I buy the few things I do online. Another reason is competitive price .... and I know how competition really rankles the monopolistic sensibilities of the big corporations, but I had no idea that the liberals were also so allergic to competition too? I guess all that championing of the glory of competition only pertains to foreign competition, huh Jack? We aren't supposed to get worked up about that, and just get with the program since we're all just one big family on the Globalization Plantation, and the flood of foreign made goods that are killing the domestic economy is a good thing!! But God Forbid (no offense intended if you're offended by the word God) we should allow competition domestically. And that is who is behind all of this stuff Jack .... the big retailers .... that's who wants to kill the little guy Jack ..... it's always the big guys that pick on the little guys ... it never works the other way ... the little guy NEVER says ... hey Uncle Sam ... make my life more difficult ... charge me higher taxes and make me jump through more hoops as I grind to make a decent living. The point you seem to miss here is that sane people just don't do those types of things, Jack. They like lower taxes ... less government edicts .... more freedom .... that's what smart people embrace.
But surely you should be able to find something to like about promoting domestic e-commerce ..... hey, I can do a little google search, find a product, purchase it on line, and have it delivered, or I could drive all over town, shopping and looking at several stores, and maybe not even finding what I wanted ... burning gasoline, and generating all of that excess CO2 that frightens you liberals so much. I swear, you just cannot please you people!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough
Third, states would not be free to establish discriminatory sales taxes for internet or other out-of-state vendors: this would be a clear violation of the Commerce Clause.
US. Constitution
Article 1. Sec 9.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
Article 1 Sec 10.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress..
Does the above require my commentary, or is everyone able to understand what "SHALL NOT" means?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jackmccullough
If you live in a state with a sales tax, and you think your state government shouldn't have a sales tax, you remain free to convince your legislators to abandon the sales tax as a means of revenue collection. However, if you think that you will somehow convince your state legislators to forgo any sales tax revenue the state is already receiving without making it up somewhere else you are kidding yourself.
Totally irrelevant to the debate Jack .... we know how fond government is of tax revenue .... we don't require explanations of the obvious. The point really is about several issues that in the the long run is simply not good for anyone.
Nothing that hurts small business is a good idea, Jack. And such a mandate would absolutely harm small business. Furthermore, any increase in taxes, no matter what the source, is not good for economics in general or personal economics, and particularly the wrong action in an already pressured economy. The more downward pressure on economic activity, the lower tax revenues also go, Jack ... I know you liberals have been in denial about this since you exited the womb ... but it's been proven true over and over again, making such denial simply asinine stubbornness on your part, and doesn't change reality.
Then we have the intrusion of privacy, and liberty Jack .... WE do not want to become unpaid (read:slaves) labor, forced into collecting sales tax for every state comptroller across the country, and dealing with the nightmarish bureaucratic burdens that would be inevitable as a result.
And, finally ... some of us feel that we are already paying too many taxes .. and the government is already intruding into our private lives too much .. and that we do not agree with allowing more excuses to intrude further.
Isn't forcing us to pay taxes ... and forcing us to be patients of a defunct healthcare system and it's outrageous costs enough for this year Jack? Can't you statist sycophant authority worshipers just give us a break, and go find a gay couple than needs a liberal minister to marry them, and leave us the hell alone?
Is that too much to ask for, Jack?
Last edited by GuyNTexas; 04-09-2013 at 03:59 PM..
Apparently your reading comprehension is ZERO, because the very first sentence of the original post proposes EXACTLY THAT .... There's a good case to be made for the idea that applicable sales taxes should be collected by online vendors at time of payment.
What I've seen are several people who understand what an idiotic idea it is ... along with a couple of you who don't have a clue, and cannot be an online business owner. As for your feasibility study, it doesn't take much studying to realize what a bone headed idea it is.
Wrong! I have an e-commerce site, and it's a very nice one. And it collects sales tax for Texas residents, but it doesn't file my God Damned tax forms with the Texas Comptroller, or write the checks!!!! Now, dealing with Texas, and filing a quarterly sales tax statement with the state is not terribly burdensome, but doing so with all 50 states? Again, are you out of your mind? That would simply be a disaster, and literally shut down all but the big boys like Amazon, and other big retailers, and the list of issues doesn't take a group of liberal academic weenies sitting in a room somewhere to figure out .... just on the surface:
1) Thousands, and perhaps 10's of thousands of small e-commerce businesses would be crippled instantly, since they don't have the administrative or software resources to manage that type of effort, nor do very many have the expertise to do such software integration themselves, and would be required to spend thousands of dollars to achieve compliance. Another blow to the small business, and another victory for the big corp retailers who already do this because they have presence in most states and therefore must collect sales taxes.
2) No e-commerce package I'm aware of incorporates cloud, nor any cloud service providing e-commerce hosting. But I'm sure the resourceful corporations out there with the resources to capitalize on that would appear magically, and charge the daylights out of everyone for the "service". So, you as a small e-commerce business would have a choice .... cough up $10,000 to get your site into compliance, or move your storefront to a hosting service at 10 times the rate you're currently paying. Another blow to the small guy, and a victory for the big boys. (You liberals ... what a fraud you all are ... always claiming to be for the little guy, and standing against those evil republicans and the big corporations they represent, when everything you do, kills the little guys)
3) So, if you can manage the cost impact of this IDIOCY and actually stay in business, now you have 50 different states to file sales tax reports with, which means you'll need to hire staff to deal with that, since being a tax collector for 50 states is not your primary business. You'll also need a IT person to incorporate a change in your software anytime one of the 50 states might choose to change their tax rates.
4) The states will have to hire more employees to deal with the tens of thousands of new quarterly tax filings now coming in, some of which might only be a few dollars, and cost more to process than the amount being collected .... this might explain why some liberal-communist states are so freaking deep in the red. Massive overhead of lazy state workers on the publicly paid for gravy train .... and just what we need ... more of them.
5) Offshore WINS AGAIN ... for those who still want to purchase online, they can always find a foreign retailer to sell them the products they want, and Uncle Sam cannot force those entities to collect taxes and file tax reports with those 50 States. Though some of those foreign businesses might take advantage of ignorance, collect the sales tax, and pocket it. Another blow for domestic business, as if we need more bad economic policies!
6) Increase in taxes, in whatever form, ALWAYS negatively impacts economic activity, and overall tax revenues collected. It's a self feeding disaster that has been proven time and again, yet the tax and spend liberal loons NEVER seem to get how destructive their "good ideas" really are, in spite of decades of direct evidence. But to propose something like this is like swallowing cyanide, and washing it down drain cleaner. Kill off the small businesses that provide income to so many people, who in turn spend that money in their local economies and pay local sales taxes, property taxes, income taxes, etc., while adding more layers of bureaucracy to each of the 50 state agencies that collect the taxes, while the overall tax revenue declines. BRILLIANT IDEA.
An obvious commonsense approach would be to exempt small businesses below some specified annual (or monthly) sales volume, for example, $1 million per year might be a good place to draw that line,
So if I sell a $15,000 rolex watch, and give free shipping, I shouldnt pay taxes, but if I sell a $1 book, and charge $3.99 shipping, then I would pay a tax?
Whats to keep people from just offering free shipping on everything?
Thank you, I was thinking of books in the OP. Used books are often very cheap in brick and mortar stores, used bookstores have racks and carts full of 50-cent books. Imagine paying $5 online for that 50-cent book when $3.99 shipping (standard on the Internet) and 50 cents sales tax are added.
Putting aside whether or not a sales tax is good and just dealing with the fact that we have them...there should be no disputing that not having them apply to online purchases is unfair to other retailers.
They are already at a disadvance due to the expenses of a brick and mortar location and are put at more of one when they have to charge the tax.
However, how online taxes could be applied and collected is exactly why it hasn't been done.
Voluntary reporting is laughable.....putting the onus on the seller may equal out some of the expenses of B&M business and there's the possibility the cost might be defrayed by the government ( I remember we did get credit for collection since we were, in fact, performing bookkeeping services for the state)
If the solution was easy, it already would have been done.
It could come to the point that states will assess a 'use tax' based on some arbitrary percentage of income at tax time
Jack .. of course you do! I have yet to see one rotten idea pass by you that you didn't hug like a long lost brother. One can set their watch by this. If nothing else, you are consistent.
No one objecting to this BIG BROTHER lunacy is missing any points Jack ... it's precisely the ones who support such craziness who can't find a clue. And you even highlight the biggest issue yourself, without actually realizing why it makes the idea so bloody foolish, as well as very dangerous for civil liberties. That the states haven't figured out a way to enforce this is because they have no way of tracking every out of state purchase by each of it's millions and millions of citizens ... partially due to privacy issues ... you know, like the local authorities monitoring and tracking your every move on line and through the mail ... JACK ..... of course, Uncle Sam already does this, and I suppose the FEDS could establish the mechanisms to notify the state tax man every time one of it's citizens make an online purchase out of state, then they could send a letter to the offender, demanding that $5.83 in sales tax ... which would probably only cost the state $50 to do. And then, if they didn't comply, they could spend another $5,000 to SWATT team them for not paying that $5.83 they owe in sales tax ... but they don't do it now, probably because it's just not good business to spend $50 (or $5,000) to collect $5 ... JACK. But we know how much fun it is for authorities and authoritarian statists to exercise the jackboot whenever possible, but there are practical matters to consider also.
No ... the much better idea is to not just stop at the point of forcing everyone to be a tax payer ... but now force them to be a tax collector too, and for every state in the union no less! Wow ... some of you ought to run for office .... you'd be so at home there.
Not hardly, Jack .... at least no small business run by anyone with a lick of common sense. No one really buys online to avoid paying sales tax They buy online for several reasons, none of which includes saving $5 in sales tax while spending $12 for shipping ... unless you're the government or a liberal, in which case, common sense does not apply.
They buy online because often, it's more convenient, or the product is just not available locally. Omaha Steaks don't have a store everywhere Jack, unless you're in Omaha ..... MY STORE is only here in Austin .... I don't have a retail chain of stores, Jack, so if someone wants one of my handmade items, their ONLY CHOICE is to buy online. And that is precisely why I buy the few things I do online. Another reason is competitive price .... and I know how competition really rankles the monopolistic sensibilities of the big corporations, but I had no idea that the liberals were also so allergic to competition too? I guess all that championing of the glory of competition only pertains to foreign competition, huh Jack? We aren't supposed to get worked up about that, and just get with the program since we're all just one big family on the Globalization Plantation, and the flood of foreign made goods that are killing the domestic economy is a good thing!! But God Forbid (no offense intended if you're offended by the word God) we should allow competition domestically. And that is who is behind all of this stuff Jack .... the big retailers .... that's who wants to kill the little guy Jack ..... it's always the big guys that pick on the little guys ... it never works the other way ... the little guy NEVER says ... hey Uncle Sam ... make my life more difficult ... charge me higher taxes and make me jump through more hoops as I grind to make a decent living. The point you seem to miss here is that sane people just don't do those types of things, Jack. They like lower taxes ... less government edicts .... more freedom .... that's what smart people embrace.
But surely you should be able to find something to like about promoting domestic e-commerce ..... hey, I can do a little google search, find a product, purchase it on line, and have it delivered, or I could drive all over town, shopping and looking at several stores, and maybe not even finding what I wanted ... burning gasoline, and generating all of that excess CO2 that frightens you liberals so much. I swear, you just cannot please you people!
US. Constitution
Article 1. Sec 9.
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
Article 1 Sec 10.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress..
Does the above require my commentary, or is everyone able to understand what "SHALL NOT" means?
Totally irrelevant to the debate Jack .... we know how fond government is of tax revenue .... we don't require explanations of the obvious. The point really is about several issues that in the the long run is simply not good for anyone.
Nothing that hurts small business is a good idea, Jack. And such a mandate would absolutely harm small business. Furthermore, any increase in taxes, no matter what the source, is not good for economics in general or personal economics, and particularly the wrong action in an already pressured economy. The more downward pressure on economic activity, the lower tax revenues also go, Jack ... I know you liberals have been in denial about this since you exited the womb ... but it's been proven true over and over again, making such denial simply asinine stubbornness on your part, and doesn't change reality.
Then we have the intrusion of privacy, and liberty Jack .... WE do not want to become unpaid (read:slaves) labor, forced into collecting sales tax for every state comptroller across the country, and dealing with the nightmarish bureaucratic burdens that would be inevitable as a result.
And, finally ... some of us feel that we are already paying too many taxes .. and the government is already intruding into our private lives too much .. and that we do not agree with allowing more excuses to intrude further.
Isn't forcing us to pay taxes ... and forcing us to be patients of a defunct healthcare system and it's outrageous costs enough for this year Jack? Can't you statist sycophant authority worshipers just give us a break, and go find a gay couple than needs a liberal minister to marry them, and leave us the hell alone?
Is that too much to ask for, Jack?
Well, apparently a rational response that does not depend on personal attacks is too much to ask for. I should point out that I think you made a mistake and forgot to put my name in all caps a few times. I think your argument would have been much more persuasive without this glaring oversight.
I just have two comments for those who have the reasoning ability to follow them.
First, you seem to have the bizarre idea that having a retailer collect a sales tax on your purchases somehow enables the government to track your activities and whereabouts. You may not realize this, but when the retailer collects a sales tax it aggregates all the taxes collected and does not report to the government who made the purchase, what they purchased, or where they were at the time. This is true whether you make the purchase in person at a store or on line.
Second, I hardly think that your ability, as a citizen of whatever state you live in, to lobby your elected representatives for lower taxes is irrelevant to your argument that your taxes are too high.
Just received this email from ebay, normally dont post emails, but it pertains to this subject so thought I'd pass it on.
Congress is considering online sales tax legislation that is wrongheaded and unfair, and I am writing to ask for your help in telling Congress "No!" to new sales taxes and burdens for small businesses.
Whether you're a consumer who loves the incredible selection and value that small businesses provide online, or a small-business seller who relies on the Internet for your livelihood, this legislation potentially affects you. For consumers, it means more money out of your pocket when you shop online from your favorite seller or small business shop owner. For small business sellers, it means you would be required to collect sales taxes nationwide from the more than 9,600 tax jurisdictions across the U.S. You also would face the prospect of being audited by out-of-state tax collectors. That's just wrong, and an unnecessary burden on you.
Big national retailers are aggressively lobbying Congress to pass online sales tax legislation to "level the playing field" with Amazon. And, as they compete with big retail, Amazon is advocating for this legislation too, while at the same time they are seeking local tax exemptions across the country to build warehouses. This is a "big retail battle" in which small businesses and consumers have a lot to lose. But eBay is fighting, as we have for more than 15 years, to protect small online businesses and sellers and ensure healthy competition, value, and selection that benefit consumers online.
The solution is simple: if Congress passes online sales tax legislation, we believe small businesses with less than 50 employees or less than $10 million in annual out-of-state sales should be exempt from the burden of collecting sales taxes nationwide. To put that in perspective, Amazon does more than $10 million in sales every 90 minutes. So we believe this is a reasonable exemption to protect small online businesses. That's what we're fighting for, and what big companies such as Amazon are fighting against.
I hope you agree that imposing unnecessary tax burdens on small online businesses is a bad idea. Join us in letting your Members of Congress know they should protect small online businesses, not potentially put them out of business. Click here (link removed) to make your voice heard. Together, I believe our voices can make a difference.
Just received this email from ebay, normally dont post emails, but it pertains to this subject so thought I'd pass it on.
Congress is considering online sales tax legislation that is wrongheaded and unfair, and I am writing to ask for your help in telling Congress "No!" to new sales taxes and burdens for small businesses.
Whether you're a consumer who loves the incredible selection and value that small businesses provide online, or a small-business seller who relies on the Internet for your livelihood, this legislation potentially affects you. For consumers, it means more money out of your pocket when you shop online from your favorite seller or small business shop owner. For small business sellers, it means you would be required to collect sales taxes nationwide from the more than 9,600 tax jurisdictions across the U.S. You also would face the prospect of being audited by out-of-state tax collectors. That's just wrong, and an unnecessary burden on you.
Big national retailers are aggressively lobbying Congress to pass online sales tax legislation to "level the playing field" with Amazon. And, as they compete with big retail, Amazon is advocating for this legislation too, while at the same time they are seeking local tax exemptions across the country to build warehouses. This is a "big retail battle" in which small businesses and consumers have a lot to lose. But eBay is fighting, as we have for more than 15 years, to protect small online businesses and sellers and ensure healthy competition, value, and selection that benefit consumers online.
The solution is simple: if Congress passes online sales tax legislation, we believe small businesses with less than 50 employees or less than $10 million in annual out-of-state sales should be exempt from the burden of collecting sales taxes nationwide. To put that in perspective, Amazon does more than $10 million in sales every 90 minutes. So we believe this is a reasonable exemption to protect small online businesses. That's what we're fighting for, and what big companies such as Amazon are fighting against.
I hope you agree that imposing unnecessary tax burdens on small online businesses is a bad idea. Join us in letting your Members of Congress know they should protect small online businesses, not potentially put them out of business. Click here (link removed) to make your voice heard. Together, I believe our voices can make a difference.
I received the same email kinda weird a big company touting to save small online
Big companies would be just as effected. Ebay is whining because they have become the Kmart of online market amd Amazon is the Walmart.
Both Ebay and Amazon work off same principle except Amazon smoked them by having fullfillment centers and doesnt rip the sellers off.
It was only inevitable that there would be taxes for online purchases.
Online sales taxes are just going to raise the prices of online goods by whatever the tax is.
The government does not need the tax revenue from online sales to balance the budget.
I'm against it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
They buy online for several reasons, none of which includes saving $5 in sales tax while spending $12 for shipping ... unless you're the government or a liberal, in which case, common sense does not apply.
