Do we support the Internet Sales Tax?

[Phatscotty]

They have no respect for the people or our property when it comes to a government "need", and I don't blame them, because we don't give them any reason to respect us.

True, you do keep voting for Republicans, out of fear.

False: you are a miserable liar

You need to change everything else to fit your perspective, now you are creating a voting record for me?

Is Ralph Nader a Republican? Is Jesse Ventura a Republican? Is Ron Paul a standard Republican? Are you so sure that my vote for Romney was a vote for Republicans, rather than a vote against Obama? (hint: I've pointed out repeatedly it was a vote against Obama). But you have habit of spewing bullshit, don't you?

WE CAN'T LET OBAMA WIN!!!!!

That is my voting record, and all your post shows is you are a complete moron who continually demonstrates you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

DON'T LET THE DEMOCRATS WIN!!!!!

Were you ever going to respond to any of my discussion points where you didn't think you had a "gotcha" moment, or do you just want to stick with the gotchas?

I notice you have changed the subject from lying about who I vote for, and resorted to shouting moronic babble about Democrats now.

"Discussion points"? you aren't even close. And how can you even ask someone who you constantly troll and tell lies about to take you seriously? what the hell is wrong with you?! Do you have to derail every single thread you touch?

[Woodruff]

They have no respect for the people or our property when it comes to a government "need", and I don't blame them, because we don't give them any reason to respect us.

True, you do keep voting for Republicans, out of fear.

False: you are a miserable liar

You need to change everything else to fit your perspective, now you are creating a voting record for me?

Is Ralph Nader a Republican? Is Jesse Ventura a Republican? Is Ron Paul a standard Republican? Are you so sure that my vote for Romney was a vote for Republicans, rather than a vote against Obama? (hint: I've pointed out repeatedly it was a vote against Obama). But you have habit of spewing bullshit, don't you?

WE CAN'T LET OBAMA WIN!!!!!

That is my voting record, and all your post shows is you are a complete moron who continually demonstrates you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

DON'T LET THE DEMOCRATS WIN!!!!!

Were you ever going to respond to any of my discussion points where you didn't think you had a "gotcha" moment, or do you just want to stick with the gotchas?

I notice you have changed the subject from lying about who I vote for, and resorted to shouting moronic babble about Democrats now.

"Discussion points"? you aren't even close. And how can you even ask someone who you tell lies about to take you seriously? what the hell is wrong with you?!

As often as you've intentionally mischaracterized things others have said, Phatscotty, you really should try not to go down that path.

As far as "how you've voted", I don't know how I could possibly be lying when I don't have any way of knowing who you MAY CLAIM WHEN IT'S HANDY FOR YOU to have voted in the past. What I DO KNOW is that since the two of us have been active in these fora, you have only loudly and longly proclaimed against one Barack Obama and Democrats at large. You can CLAIM THE HANDINESS OF OTHER VOTES, I suppose, but it really gets defeated in the enormous glacier of evidence to the contrary.

Aside from all of that, were you going to respond to any of my actual discussion points, or did you just want to stick with your "gotcha moments" and hide from the rest?

[Baron Von PWN]

Woodruff, Phatscotty. Believe it or not but I don't think the forum wants to see another of your pissing contests. Perhaps PMS would be a better venue?

[thegreekdog]

Woodruff, Phatscotty. Believe it or not but I don't think the forum wants to see another of your pissing contests. Perhaps PMS would be a better venue?

I'm actually kind of pissed people won't get to read my awesome post on the last page. Woodruff should probably stop engaging with Phatscotty.

[Baron Von PWN]

Woodruff, Phatscotty. Believe it or not but I don't think the forum wants to see another of your pissing contests. Perhaps PMS would be a better venue?

I'm actually kind of pissed people won't get to read my awesome post on the last page. Woodruff should probably stop engaging with Phatscotty.

I saw it, I found it most excellent. I think it would be cool if there was a rating system for people's posts, similar to how you rate people after a game.

[thegreekdog]

Woodruff, Phatscotty. Believe it or not but I don't think the forum wants to see another of your pissing contests. Perhaps PMS would be a better venue?

I'm actually kind of pissed people won't get to read my awesome post on the last page. Woodruff should probably stop engaging with Phatscotty.

I saw it, I found it most excellent. I think it would be cool if there was a rating system for people's posts, similar to how you rate people after a game.

Like Saxbucks.

[saxitoxin]

I don't see him referring to Amazon and other big companies at all.

And how many times does this need to be said?

To start collecting online taxes through the bill, states will need to ... pass legislation that creates a central authority for tax collection, provides free tax software to online sellers, and limits the liability businesses would face if they make mistakes based on bad information from a software provider or state official.

"Free" doesn't exist. It's ironic...the sales taxes being collected will be used to fund the "free" programs used to collect them. Why not skip the bigger government and let people keep more of their own money?

This isn't a "free program" in the sense of things like food stamps or welfare phones. This is the state assuming operational costs for tax collection and is as much a free program as the IRS buying a package of Bic pens for the supply closet at the Fresno Processing Center is a "free program" for IRS agents or the police department buying bullets for their guns is a "free program" for police officers. Those, like the software, are customary operational expenses.

In any case, while I voted YES I support, TGD's post has swayed me into the NO I don't support column.

[saxitoxin]

Woodruff, Phatscotty. Believe it or not but I don't think the forum wants to see another of your pissing contests. Perhaps PMS would be a better venue?

I'm actually kind of pissed people won't get to read my awesome post on the last page. Woodruff should probably stop engaging with Phatscotty.

I saw it, I found it most excellent. I think it would be cool if there was a rating system for people's posts, similar to how you rate people after a game.

Like Saxbucks.

[tzor]

If you are purchasing online isn't your point of sale you PC? and therefore presumably your home? You would therefore be paying whatever the sales tax is in your state.

Why isn't the point of sale on the "PC" of the store owner?

What is the difference between using the internet and driving ... and don't give me that crap about state roads; one could easily pass through several states to get to the store and none of them would get the revenue. That's what "toll" roads are for.

The key is that if I owned a single brick and mortar store I am only responsible for paying one tax to one regulatory agency.

If I own a online service I would be responsible for paying a plethora of taxes (because sales tax differs on local levels) to 50 different regulatory agencies. If you are large enough you can afford to eat those costs, but not if you are a small business.

(Unless the law also included a one stop shop to pay your taxes to which would then redistribute those funds to appropriate states.)


Oh and if you really want to know the Internet, when I connect my laptop at work, I'm technically not in the US at all; I register as somewhere in the middle of Europe! I have to remember not to shop at one online store because they only ship to the US and if you log in from outside the US they assume someone is hacking your account and immediately suspend it.

So If I log in from New York, to a store in Florida and ship to my friend in North Carolina ...

[BigBallinStalin]

I didn't say that I support the specific taxes involved, just that I support enforcing the collection of the taxes that exist.

Right, I understand that, but why?

Why wouldn't I?

The purpose of a sales tax is to allegedly pay for government-controlled and/or owned enterprises (e.g. streets). The internet doesn't have streets, the transaction costs are gladly undertaken by various financial intermediaries, and it's not like the businesses which make the deliveries do not pay their taxes for using the government-owned streets.

It's an unnecessary tax whose main purpose is to restrict competition, thereby enriching the embedded businesses.

The consumer is using those resources though and they are the one paying the tax.

Oh, but what of the State's property tax? Or federal taxes for federal highways? Or DMV fees and drivers permits for direct usage of city roads--not someone else's use, like delivery companies, which hey by the way pay taxes for those resources?

I'm not finding any compelling argument for taxing internet transactions.

[BigBallinStalin]

Personally, it just makes sense to me to charge sales tax on internet sales. Why should the internet be able to avoid that sort of thing these days? To not charge them sales tax is essentially a harm against brick-and-mortar stores, as people will go to the places that charge less (including sales tax).

Because the internet business may not have a footprint in that location, so it's not using local resources.

The internet business isn't paying the freaking tax! It's collecting it from someone who uses local resources.

TGD, a tax is a deadweight loss which cuts into consumer and producer surplus, so it doesn't matter who does the collecting.

I see, so you think roads and infrastructure just magically appear, then?

Pretending costs don't exist is an old game, and one that always fails in the long run.

Already dealt with this:

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=190403&start=75#p4164698
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=190403&start=45#p4164344
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=190403&start=45#p4164346

[Woodruff]

Woodruff should probably stop engaging with Phatscotty.

I despise disinformation, and he makes me feel like a better person.

[Lootifer]

Just in case anyone didn't know, I am a tax attorney specializing in state taxes. I know what I'm talking about. Here's what you need to know:

(0) The sales tax is a state and/or local tax that applies to the sale of enumerated taxable products and services. It is a tax PAID BY THE CONSUMER and merely collected by the seller. The seller does not pay any tax out of pocket.

(1) In order to be required to collect sales tax from customers, a company has to have nexus in the state in which it makes sales.

(2) Prior to and including the 1992 Quill decision, the US Supreme Court has held that in order for a company to have nexus in a state, it must have some minimum connection and physical presence (among other things that aren't immediately relevant).

(3) Sales of product over the internet started to become big business. Like a company selling product through catalogs, an internet company avoided nexus by having products deliverd by common carrier; the internet company would never set foot in the state and therefore not have nexus.

(3b) Every state that has a sales tax also has a corresponding use tax. The use tax requires that a purchaser who does not pay sales tax on a taxable product (for whatever reason; like the seller doesn't have nexus in the purchaser's state). Therefore the state should always get it's tax. However, most individuals don't actually pay use tax. So on internet sales where the seller doesn't have nexus, no sales tax is collected and the purchaser isn't paying use tax on the purchaser; so the state gets zero tax.

(4) States began to assert the concept of "economic nexus" whereby if a company merely advertised into a state over the internet, it would have nexus and therefore a sales tax collection responsibility. In my opinion, states did this because it was more cost-effective than auditing every individual that didn't pay use tax on the purchaser.

(5) Amazon (and other companies) started getting audits from states where they did not have nexus under a theory of "economic nexus."

(6) Internet Sales Tax is passed.

So, again, the bulk of the burden here does not fall on Amazon or any other inernet companies. The bulk of the burden falls on the consumers. If you are against this tax, you should not be against it because it hurts internet companies. Because it doesn't really hurt internet companies.

Thank you TGD. Good public service

[Phatscotty]

Woodruff, Phatscotty. Believe it or not but I don't think the forum wants to see another of your pissing contests. Perhaps PMS would be a better venue?

I'm actually kind of pissed people won't get to read my awesome post on the last page. Woodruff should probably stop engaging with Phatscotty.

I'm on board

[Woodruff]

Woodruff, Phatscotty. Believe it or not but I don't think the forum wants to see another of your pissing contests. Perhaps PMS would be a better venue?

I'm actually kind of pissed people won't get to read my awesome post on the last page. Woodruff should probably stop engaging with Phatscotty.

I'm on board

Any excuse to dodge is a good excuse to dodge, eh?

[Baron Von PWN]

If you are purchasing online isn't your point of sale you PC? and therefore presumably your home? You would therefore be paying whatever the sales tax is in your state.

Why isn't the point of sale on the "PC" of the store owner?

What is the difference between using the internet and driving ... and don't give me that crap about state roads; one could easily pass through several states to get to the store and none of them would get the revenue. That's what "toll" roads are for.

The key is that if I owned a single brick and mortar store I am only responsible for paying one tax to one regulatory agency.

If I own a online service I would be responsible for paying a plethora of taxes (because sales tax differs on local levels) to 50 different regulatory agencies. If you are large enough you can afford to eat those costs, but not if you are a small business.

(Unless the law also included a one stop shop to pay your taxes to which would then redistribute those funds to appropriate states.)


Oh and if you really want to know the Internet, when I connect my laptop at work, I'm technically not in the US at all; I register as somewhere in the middle of Europe! I have to remember not to shop at one online store because they only ship to the US and if you log in from outside the US they assume someone is hacking your account and immediately suspend it.

So If I log in from New York, to a store in Florida and ship to my friend in North Carolina ...

My thinking was as the customer is the one who bears responsibility to pay the tax, we could view their PC as point of sale. (they bare responsibility considering common legislation that they are supposed to pay tax on good purchased online anyway).

However you make a very good point about IP address' being very malleable. I suppose one solution would be to charge the sales tax based on the shipping address.

The discussed legislation should theoretically make the cost to the business negligible by providing the software for sales tax enforcement free of charge. In other words the government software should do the work of figuring out the taxes for businesses.

Another interesting thought would be to have the Feds collect a national Internet sales tax and then distribute that to the states on a population basis(considering how us law is I'm pretty sure that wouldn't fly).

[Baron Von PWN]

I didn't say that I support the specific taxes involved, just that I support enforcing the collection of the taxes that exist.

Right, I understand that, but why?

Why wouldn't I?

The purpose of a sales tax is to allegedly pay for government-controlled and/or owned enterprises (e.g. streets). The internet doesn't have streets, the transaction costs are gladly undertaken by various financial intermediaries, and it's not like the businesses which make the deliveries do not pay their taxes for using the government-owned streets.

It's an unnecessary tax whose main purpose is to restrict competition, thereby enriching the embedded businesses.

The consumer is using those resources though and they are the one paying the tax.

Oh, but what of the State's property tax? Or federal taxes for federal highways? Or DMV fees and drivers permits for direct usage of city roads--not someone else's use, like delivery companies, which hey by the way pay taxes for those resources?

I'm not finding any compelling argument for taxing internet transactions.

I don't see the difference between a sale at a brick and mortar location and a sale at a digital location.In my opinion both are theoretically using state resources. Besides since when are taxes tied to useage? Governments can levy taxes as they please(and face the resultant public outcry). Regardless this legislation is about enforcing taxes already in place, but are not currently enforceable.

Why should the Internet be tax exempt while all other retailers pay sales taxes? In my mind this would cause some pretty serious economic distortions.

[thegreekdog]

My thinking was as the customer is the one who bears responsibility to pay the tax, we could view their PC as point of sale. (they bare responsibility considering common legislation that they are supposed to pay tax on good purchased online anyway).

However you make a very good point about IP address' being very malleable. I suppose one solution would be to charge the sales tax based on the shipping address.

The discussed legislation should theoretically make the cost to the business negligible by providing the software for sales tax enforcement free of charge. In other words the government software should do the work of figuring out the taxes for businesses.

Another interesting thought would be to have the Feds collect a national Internet sales tax and then distribute that to the states on a population basis(considering how us law is I'm pretty sure that wouldn't fly).

One of the bigger state tax issues (and a controversial one) is determining what state's tax to charge. I'm still not sure a solution is immediately relevant.

BvP makes the point (and one that holds true for sales tax purposes) that tax should be charged in the state where the product is delivered. Prior to this unconstitutional law, it would be problematic if the seller didn't have nexus and therefore did not have a collection responsibility in the state where the product was delivered (at that point, it would fall on the purchaser to pay the use tax and he/she would just not pay the use tax).

The other issue is with respect to the sale of digital products, which don't have a delivery address (except an IP address). And, just as an example, I sit here in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (8% sales tax rate) and purchase i-tunes with an IP address in Florida (6% sales tax rate) and I will use those i-tunes in New Jersey (7% sales tax rate). To make matters more confusing, Florida and Pennsylvania arguably don't subject i-tunes to sales tax, while New Jersey does. I believe Apple assumes I'm in Florida and doesn't charge me sales tax.

[thegreekdog]

I don't see the difference between a sale at a brick and mortar location and a sale at a digital location.In my opinion both are theoretically using state resources. Besides since when are taxes tied to useage? Governments can levy taxes as they please(and face the resultant public outcry). Regardless this legislation is about enforcing taxes already in place, but are not currently enforceable.

Why should the Internet be tax exempt while all other retailers pay sales taxes? In my mind this would cause some pretty serious economic distortions.

One of the many reasons I despise the sales tax is the economic distortions it causes; not just among delivery avenues, but among different products and services.

BBS is correct, in my opinion, but it's really a constitutional argument, not an economic one.

[Baron Von PWN]

I don't see the difference between a sale at a brick and mortar location and a sale at a digital location.In my opinion both are theoretically using state resources. Besides since when are taxes tied to useage? Governments can levy taxes as they please(and face the resultant public outcry). Regardless this legislation is about enforcing taxes already in place, but are not currently enforceable.

Why should the Internet be tax exempt while all other retailers pay sales taxes? In my mind this would cause some pretty serious economic distortions.

One of the many reasons I despise the sales tax is the economic distortions it causes; not just among delivery avenues, but among different products and services.

BBS is correct, in my opinion, but it's really a constitutional argument, not an economic one.

I'm sorry if I've missed t elsewhere in the thread. What are the constitutional issues?

[thegreekdog]

I don't see the difference between a sale at a brick and mortar location and a sale at a digital location.In my opinion both are theoretically using state resources. Besides since when are taxes tied to useage? Governments can levy taxes as they please(and face the resultant public outcry). Regardless this legislation is about enforcing taxes already in place, but are not currently enforceable.

Why should the Internet be tax exempt while all other retailers pay sales taxes? In my mind this would cause some pretty serious economic distortions.

One of the many reasons I despise the sales tax is the economic distortions it causes; not just among delivery avenues, but among different products and services.

BBS is correct, in my opinion, but it's really a constitutional argument, not an economic one.

I'm sorry if I've missed t elsewhere in the thread. What are the constitutional issues?

It was in my sort-of-lengthy post. Essentially, in order to be able to tax a company, a state must show that the company has physical contact (although that is up for debate as states have asserted that non-physical contact is enough). Internet companies that don't have physical contact in a state don't have nexus (is my argument and most tax professionals' argument). That being said, I did finally read the law and it indicates something like "normal nexus laws and standards apply." I'm not sure what that means practically, but for my purposes, it means that internet companies without physical presence in the state don't have nexus in the state and therefore don't have to collect sales tax from customers in that state.

The constitutional issue that BBS refers to is the idea, under Due Process, that a company must avail itself of the resources of a state (the best example being court systems) with the idea that it is unfair for a state to tax a company that does not avail itself of that state's resources. State taxes come under the provisions of the Due Process clause and the Commerce clause. The argument in the previous paragraph is from the Commerce clause and is the argument most litigated.

[jimboston]

My opinion on sales taxes is the same as my opinion on condoms. I don't personally support them, however, if you're going to use them they should be airtight.

I support the IST.

I agree with Saxi here.

I am not a fan of taxes... but I don't see why a citizen should pay a tax for items purchase locally but NOT for items bought online.

Technically in Massachusetts it's a "Sales & Use" tax. I am guessing it's technically the same everywhere.

So (technically) if you are a resident of Mass. and you buy something online and don't pay a tax then you are committing a criminal act.

[jimboston]

Take whatever the politicians name a bill and realize the text of the bill does the exact opposite. There's nothing that makes this a fair playing field. It actually reverses who is being "punished" because now the businesses that only exist in one location will have to figure up the exact tax rate for every single jurisdiction in the nation and submit payments to those jurisdictions. Furthermore, every single jurisdiction will have the ability to audit and force licensure for businesses that sell to their residents. The entire point of a sales tax is to fund the local government. If a business isn't located in that jurisdiction, why should they be forced to pay taxes there? Also, this is quite plainly taxation without representation. A business in Tennessee has no representation in what the tax rates are in Oregon, so why are they collecting and paying taxes in Oregon?

Computers make these calculations easy.

I'm not sure that the bill grants every jurisdiction the right to audit every company that collects taxes.
I'm assuming there is some other mechanism for that.

Furthermore it's not likely to happen anyway.
The State of Mass. isn't going to send an auditor to Oklahoma to audit some company that collected $1500 in taxes form Mass. residents.

[jimboston]

Ironically (to Night Strike mostly), this supposedly levels the playing field for small businesses. If a mom-and-pop book store is required to collect sales tax, how can it compete with Amazon, which does not have to charge sales tax?

The problem with this thinking is that (1) the mom-and-pop book store is not paying sales tax, it's collecting sales tax, so there should be no great burdern and (2) the purchaser, if he or she does not pay sales tax, should be remitting use tax to the state anyway. The issue that states struggle with is that they have no desire to audit someone like Night Strike to get $5,000 of unpaid use tax when they can audit Amazon, make a completely unconstitutional argument that Amazon should be collecting sales tax in the state, and then make a deal with Amazon.

Essentially, this law is about getting online retailers to collect sales tax (unconstitutionally) so that the states don't have to audit individual taxpayers or try to (unconstitutionally) get the online retailers to collect sales tax on their own.

Did I mention this is unconstitutional?

You may be right.

There are lots of things that are unconstitutional.

If I have a residence in Mass. and a vacation home in New Hampshire I have to pay taxes to both states, but can only vote in one.

I am therefore being taxed without representation. This is unconstitutional too... no?

[Night Strike]

Computers make these calculations easy.

So? This bill still doesn't treat e-commerce the same as in-person commerce. If they want to be treated the same, then I should be charged my local sales tax no matter where I shop in the US, whether it be online or in a store. As it stands currently, I have to pay their sales tax if I go shop in a store anywhere outside my home area while if I shop online, I may my home sales tax. That's not equal tax treatment as this bill claims to enact.