Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29
  1. #11  
    Senior Member DumbAss Tanker's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    2,590
    I agree with Janice. It's a megacorporation welfare plan that will screw small businesses; now, if you order on-line from out of state (And the business doesn't have a physical presence in your state), you pay price plus shipping. If you buy locally, you pay price plus tax. It's pretty much a wash for the buyer. This is huge overhead burden for truly small businesses that would have to deal with literally thousands of different tax rates.

    There are several approaches that would make this less onerous, if it has to be at all. It could simply impose the tax at the sending state end (Which is similar to how in-state internet sales are taxed in most states now, the business pays the rate applicable to its own location, not the rate applicable at the receiving end, which within my State could be anywhere from about 4.5 % to over 8%), which would be simple and not require an army of accountants. Or, each participating state could be required to have a single tax rate for out-of-state internet sales. Or, for that matter, it could be made to apply to businesses that only do a large dollar value of internet business, such as a million dollars in gross internet sales per year.

    Any State that even has a sales tax would be nuts to opt out of this as it stands, since that State's own population isn't benefited by the State standing out of it, they already have to pay sales tax on in-state sales and the people there would now be paying taxes to 49 other States but nothing extra coming in, a variety of the "Spanish prisoner" dilemma so popular in psych experiments, as taxpayers being forced to pay taxes through another state strike back by returning the favor.

    It won't produce nearly as much revenue as is being touted for it, and it will put another barrier in front of truly-small and start-up businesses, losing them the one tiny advantage over pervasive megacorporations in overhead costs that they presently enjoy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #12  
    PORCUS MAXIMUS Rockntractor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    oklahoma
    Posts
    41,873
    Quote Originally Posted by Janice View Post
    I would like to add that the 'brick-and-mortar' shop owners receive numerous benefits from sales taxes ie: local police and fire protection, infrastructure improvements, etc. If local stores are losing business, then perhaps the taxes should be lowered to reduce the penalty of shopping locally.

    Spreading the misery is no solution.
    +1
    How is obama working out for you?
    http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/5d569df9-186a-477b-a665-3ea8a8b9b655_zpse9003e54.jpg
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #13  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,615
    Let's deal with the actual text of the bill instead of some WSJ opinion piece, mmmkay?




    Quote Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker View Post
    I agree with Janice. It's a megacorporation welfare plan that will screw small businesses;
    Actually, no; rather it specifically protects small businesses. All businesses that do less than one million dollars in internet revenue (not total corporate revenue) per year are excluded from having to collect these taxes. So, Joe's Fish and Tackle selling their miracle flies guaranteed to catch trout anywhere aren't going to get hit with this, but Amazon.com is.

    Quote Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker View Post
    now, if you order on-line from out of state (And the business doesn't have a physical presence in your state), you pay price plus shipping. If you buy locally, you pay price plus tax. It's pretty much a wash for the buyer.
    No, sorry, you can't say that the shipping just gets to offset taxes due. One is revenue that is validly due to the state where the transaction occurs. The other goes to UPS or FedEx. Not comparable. Not at all.

    Quote Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker View Post
    This is huge overhead burden for truly small businesses that would have to deal with literally thousands of different tax rates.
    No, they don't. There is very simple, very inexpensive software (~$200-$400 or less) out there that will handle this very easily and transparently. Someone puts in the ZIP code of the shipping address, and the program calculates the sales tax for that area. The bill specifically states that any state that opts to engage in collecting sales taxes from online sales in their state must have a simple, one-stop-shop for that state's sales tax compliance. A few hundred bucks on a business with a million dollars in internet revenue is not in any way an undue burden, and certainly not "huge."

    Quote Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker View Post
    There are several approaches that would make this less onerous, if it has to be at all. It could simply impose the tax at the sending state end (Which is similar to how in-state internet sales are taxed in most states now, the business pays the rate applicable to its own location, not the rate applicable at the receiving end, which within my State could be anywhere from about 4.5 % to over 8%), which would be simple and not require an army of accountants.
    Any site that is doing that right now is acting illegally. Current federal law specifically forbids the practice you describe for any sales that have any part of the transaction outside of the state's borders. Since it's virtually impossible to have an internet transaction actually stay in the same country, much less the same state, this effectively never happens legally. L. L. Bean got their butts sued off over doing just this about twenty years ago.

    Quote Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker View Post
    Or, each participating state could be required to have a single tax rate for out-of-state internet sales. Or, for that matter, it could be made to apply to businesses that only do a large dollar value of internet business, such as a million dollars in gross internet sales per year.
    Well, you're in luck....

    Quote Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker View Post
    Any State that even has a sales tax would be nuts to opt out of this as it stands, since that State's own population isn't benefited by the State standing out of it, they already have to pay sales tax on in-state sales and the people there would now be paying taxes to 49 other States but nothing extra coming in, a variety of the "Spanish prisoner" dilemma so popular in psych experiments, as taxpayers being forced to pay taxes through another state strike back by returning the favor.
    Probably, but each state may find their own reason to have a different rate for internet sales, or none at all. This bill specifically returns that decision to the states, exactly the opposite of present federal law.

    Quote Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker View Post
    It won't produce nearly as much revenue as is being touted for it,
    Maybe, maybe not. Tennessee depends almost entirely on sales tax for revenue (no state income tax, other than certain investments in certain circumstances), so there's the potential for a pretty sizable revenue here. Either way, it's not the fed's business to decide that for the states.

    Quote Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker View Post
    and it will put another barrier in front of truly-small and start-up businesses, losing them the one tiny advantage over pervasive megacorporations in overhead costs that they presently enjoy.
    Except that those businesses you describe are specifically exempted from this, with the federal government forbidding states from attempting to collect sales tax from those businesses.




    Look, what's happening right now is effectively quasi-legalized tax evasion. This is a loophole that was created in the early days of the internet before anyone know how much revenue this would cost states. There really is no excuse for the federal government picking winners and losers this way, particularly by making that choice for the sovereign states. There's no good reason that some things should get taxed and others shouldn't. If a widget sold to me at Target down the street incurs sales tax, then there's no valid reason that the same widget sold to me at target.com when I'm sitting in Tennessee when the sale occurs and the widget gets shipped to my door in Tennessee should be subject to the same tax. I'm a conservative, and that means that I believe in equal treatment under the law, and that means that if you're going to tax sales in a state, then you tax all sales in that state.
    Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #14  
    Ancient Fire Breather Retread's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I came to Texas as soon as I could
    Posts
    4,693
    I care a whole lot less about the sales taxes than I do about "S&H" that usually appears to be about 3-4 times what I would expect it to be. For many of those companies it really is 'added profits'.

    I haven't read the text and am not going to - does this also have to pass the house as well?

    If a state wants the taxes collected regardless of where the company is located, where the warehouse is located, etc. they can get'r'dun. Texas already has.
    It's not how old you are, it's how you got here.
    It's been a long road and not all of it was paved.
    Live every day as if it were your last, because one of these days, it will be.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #15  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,615
    Quote Originally Posted by Retread View Post
    I care a whole lot less about the sales taxes than I do about "S&H" that usually appears to be about 3-4 times what I would expect it to be. For many of those companies it really is 'added profits'.

    I haven't read the text and am not going to - does this also have to pass the house as well?

    If a state wants the taxes collected regardless of where the company is located, where the warehouse is located, etc. they can get'r'dun. Texas already has.
    Yes. Actually, this still has yet to actually pass the Senate, so far as I know.
    Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #16  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    15,895
    Quote Originally Posted by Rockntractor View Post
    As long as the brainwashed American public votes fools into office we will get more of this. Laws and taxes don't seem to ever go away even when conservatives are elected once again, it would seem the money is already spent long before the tax revenue arrives.
    French revolution anyone?
    The French Revolution happened in 2006 then in 2008. Right now we're in the middle of the Reign of Terror which will be full steam ahead if the Dems regain the House in 2014. Also, the French Revolution was about taking away from the wealthy by force then killing them for sport. What we need is another American Revolution. That was about freedom.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #17  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    15,895
    Quote Originally Posted by Bailey View Post
    I know I am going to get blasted here but isn't everything we buy in a store taxed? So why should the internet be different? or are people just pissed they have to pay more?
    Not in all states. New Hampshire and Delaware don't have sales tax.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #18  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2009
    Posts
    2,615
    Quote Originally Posted by NJCardFan View Post
    Not in all states. New Hampshire and Delaware don't have sales tax.
    Then they won't pay sales tax under this legislation.

    So why does anyone there worry about it?
    Olde-style, states' rights conservative. Ask if this concept confuses you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #19  
    Power CUer NJCardFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    15,895
    Quote Originally Posted by Janice View Post
    I would like to add that the 'brick-and-mortar' shop owners receive numerous benefits from sales taxes ie: local police and fire protection, infrastructure improvements, etc. If local stores are losing business, then perhaps the taxes should be lowered to reduce the penalty of shopping locally.

    Spreading the misery is no solution.
    Here in NJ our sales tax rate is 7% but we have what's called Urban Enterprise Zones or UEZ for short. There the rate is 50% or 3.5%. This is designed to entice people in certain towns to buy locally. They are usually economically depressed areas like Camden, Jersey City, Cumberland county(where I live). It's not on all goods, however. I bought a car last year and it was not given UEZ status hence I paid the full 7% on a $29,000 car.
    The Obama Administration: Deny. Deflect. Blame.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #20  
    Sin City Moderator RobJohnson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    16,358
    Quote Originally Posted by DumbAss Tanker View Post
    I agree with Janice. It's a megacorporation welfare plan that will screw small businesses; now, if you order on-line from out of state (And the business doesn't have a physical presence in your state), you pay price plus shipping. If you buy locally, you pay price plus tax. It's pretty much a wash for the buyer. This is huge overhead burden for truly small businesses that would have to deal with literally thousands of different tax rates.

    There are several approaches that would make this less onerous, if it has to be at all. It could simply impose the tax at the sending state end (Which is similar to how in-state internet sales are taxed in most states now, the business pays the rate applicable to its own location, not the rate applicable at the receiving end, which within my State could be anywhere from about 4.5 % to over 8%), which would be simple and not require an army of accountants. Or, each participating state could be required to have a single tax rate for out-of-state internet sales. Or, for that matter, it could be made to apply to businesses that only do a large dollar value of internet business, such as a million dollars in gross internet sales per year.

    Any State that even has a sales tax would be nuts to opt out of this as it stands, since that State's own population isn't benefited by the State standing out of it, they already have to pay sales tax on in-state sales and the people there would now be paying taxes to 49 other States but nothing extra coming in, a variety of the "Spanish prisoner" dilemma so popular in psych experiments, as taxpayers being forced to pay taxes through another state strike back by returning the favor.

    It won't produce nearly as much revenue as is being touted for it, and it will put another barrier in front of truly-small and start-up businesses, losing them the one tiny advantage over pervasive megacorporations in overhead costs that they presently enjoy.

    It should be easy to comply. Amazon is pushing for this law and they just happen to now sell its own tax compliance service to other merchants.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •