Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
Old 04-25-2013, 06:25 PM
 
Location: M I N N E S O T A
14,773 posts, read 21,529,411 times
Reputation: 9263

Advertisements

Bunch of paranoid Anon kids are invading city-data i see
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-25-2013, 06:32 PM
 
3,599 posts, read 6,789,500 times
Reputation: 1461
States (republican and democrat) are desperate for tax revenue.

It's going to be passed with bi partisan support.

I have amazon prime. So obviously we benefit a lot from no paying taxes. Will probably end up costing us $200-400 extra in sales taxes a year. We buy anywhere between $2000-5000 a year on online sales.

Let's get it pass but let's also hold the states responsible for what they actually do with the online sales tax revenue instead of dumping it straight into the general funds pot.

Tie it into public schools or useful program. But knowing states like California they will just funnel the sales tax money revenue straight to try to cover their pension deficit. Like throwing good money into a fire pit that won't help the state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2013, 06:46 PM
 
2,366 posts, read 2,643,761 times
Reputation: 1788
Quote:
Originally Posted by All American NYC View Post
This will kill online businesses.
Not really. The convenience of buying things online remains. You do not have to go to the store and/or if that store does not carry the product you are looking for you can still purchase it online. Most of these stores are willing to add free shipping due to lack of quantity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2013, 06:57 PM
 
8,483 posts, read 6,943,543 times
Reputation: 1119
Quote:
Originally Posted by aneftp View Post
States (republican and democrat) are desperate for tax revenue.

It's going to be passed with bi partisan support.

I have amazon prime. So obviously we benefit a lot from no paying taxes. Will probably end up costing us $200-400 extra in sales taxes a year. We buy anywhere between $2000-5000 a year on online sales.

Let's get it pass but let's also hold the states responsible for what they actually do with the online sales tax revenue instead of dumping it straight into the general funds pot.

Tie it into public schools or useful program. But knowing states like California they will just funnel the sales tax money revenue straight to try to cover their pension deficit. Like throwing good money into a fire pit that won't help the state.
Every CAFR I have viewed has plenty of money in it. The govt should have thought of that before sending the jobs to China. The BK's that are occurring have to do with wanting to cut pensions so they can maintain the lifestyle they are accustomed to and cut that future expense that they see no benefit in.

CAFR's are public info, but people simply do not view them and instead read the BS headlines put out by the same companies shareholder controlled through govt. Why would they spoil a good thing when people fall for the game every time.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2013, 07:48 PM
 
41,110 posts, read 25,781,871 times
Reputation: 13868
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero View Post
because if you buy something from cali..but live in texas...do you pay the SALES tax for where it is being bought from, or where you may or may not use it

too many hands want your money
That is really going to hurt NYC businesses. They pay over 8% sales tax.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2013, 11:02 PM
 
137 posts, read 136,245 times
Reputation: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by DoD Guy View Post
Obama backs it because black people don't usually buy off the internet. Mostly white folk do.
That sounds ignorant.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2013, 11:04 PM
 
137 posts, read 136,245 times
Reputation: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltine View Post
this will certainly hamper the smallest fry selling used already taxed items on the internet... its sounds like the big fish are about to eat all the small fish.
How so?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-25-2013, 11:08 PM
 
137 posts, read 136,245 times
Reputation: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751 View Post
Yep, they convinced the uneducated liberals that an "income" of $200K is the big banker and rich. That was a big hit against small business. Now if this get passed, small business will be hurt again. The customer will also have to pay it so it effects you, you will have to pay the tax remember.

If you ever dreamed of starting and running a business online was your opportunity, kiss the American dream goodbye.
It's been mentioned numerous times in this thread that this is not a new tax. It appears that you have comprehension issues as you keep suggesting this is a new tax. The customer is effected, but in a positive way. They no longer have to track their receipts as the tax is collected at the time of the transaction.

I suggest you start here: //www.city-data.com/forum/polit...sales-tax.html and read the entire thread. Hope this helps.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2013, 03:09 AM
 
8,483 posts, read 6,943,543 times
Reputation: 1119
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tenured View Post
It's been mentioned numerous times in this thread that this is not a new tax. It appears that you have comprehension issues as you keep suggesting this is a new tax. The customer is effected, but in a positive way. They no longer have to track their receipts as the tax is collected at the time of the transaction.

I suggest you start here: //www.city-data.com/forum/polit...sales-tax.html and read the entire thread. Hope this helps.
From what I can see this is indeed a new tax. Read the bill. It describes that it is specifically. It is a tax on a remote sale. A whole new category, that current laws would not previously allow is being created.

S.336 - 113th Congress (2013-2014) - A bill to restore States' sovereign rights to enforce State and local sales and use tax laws, and for other purposes. - Summary | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
quote:
Defines "remote sale" as a sale of goods or services into a state in which the seller would not legally be required to pay, collect, or remit state or local sales and use taxes unless provided by this Act.

Also small vendors that sell through marketplaces may very likely have to pay this because it will be on the vendor now to enforce dependent on software. The logistics of weeding out small vendors from large marketplaces will likely be too big of a headache. This has been shown to be the trend in the past with sales collection.

Last edited by CDusr; 04-26-2013 at 03:19 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-26-2013, 03:37 AM
 
137 posts, read 136,245 times
Reputation: 74
Quote:
Originally Posted by CDusr View Post
From what I can see this is indeed a new tax. Read the bill. It describes that it is specifically. It is a tax on a remote sale. A whole new category, that current laws would not previously allow is being created.

S.336 - 113th Congress (2013-2014) - A bill to restore States' sovereign rights to enforce State and local sales and use tax laws, and for other purposes. - Summary | Congress.gov | Library of Congress
quote:
Defines "remote sale" as a sale of goods or services into a state in which the seller would not legally be required to pay, collect, or remit state or local sales and use taxes unless provided by this Act.

Also small vendors that sell through marketplaces may very likely have to pay this because it will be on the vendor now to enforce dependent on software. The logistics of weeding out small vendors from large marketplaces will likely be too big of a headache. This has been shown to be the trend in the past with sales collection.
It replaces use tax. Right now, when you purchase an item online, the seller does not collect sales tax and as a result you must pay use tax (which is the same percentage rate). With this new proposal, the seller collects sales tax, and you are no longer liable for use tax. Neither sales tax nor use tax is new and the consumer will not pay any more taxes than they used to.

A vendor with $1 million in sales is large enough to use a service provider that will update their software.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:16 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top