Moderator: Community Team
DoomYoshi wrote:I read to page 2. Too much repetition. I can drive to Buffalo, pay New York sales tax and then get refunded that tax when I cross back into Canada.
Now, if I order something online from Buffalo, I would have to pay Ontario sales tax.
Night Strike is right, this system is so different from anything that it replaces or updates.
Night Strike wrote:Bruceswar, why can't your company sell your products online also and reap those same benefits when selling to other states? That's the facet that's ignored in this entire debate: brick and mortar stores aren't stuck only selling things in person.
Night Strike wrote:TGD, even if a seller doesn't directly charge a customer for the sales tax, they're still required to pay it. Most businesses put it as a separate line item, but some places include it in the posted price (concession stands most typically).
Evil Semp wrote:Night Strike wrote:Bruceswar, why can't your company sell your products online also and reap those same benefits when selling to other states? That's the facet that's ignored in this entire debate: brick and mortar stores aren't stuck only selling things in person.
One of the biggest differences between a brick and mortar store and a store on the internet is the cost of inventory in the store. A brick and mortar store has to have inventory on hand to sell. Many internet stores don't even have a shed with product they use drop shippers. Without the higher overhead the internet store already has a price advantage than add the fact that the consumer doesn't pay sales tax just makes it more favorable for the internet.
danco wrote:Hell No !!!! The gov. has far to much say in things they do not understand like the real world they should take some of the money the steal now and provide instruction of basic arithmetic to congress and the executive especially the later they all seem to have forgotten the job is to allocate limited resources not just wistle up new dollars everytime they want to provide for some new idiot son or brother in law i feel for the brick and mortor people i deal with some of their issues myself but the tax code to help business poppycock you want real help for the country on these items load congress up with farmers,shopkeepers,contractors.folks who can count because they have to everyday .....
thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Pre-internet tax world:
The prices of goods provided by brick-and-mortar companies is 10% higher due to the 10% sales tax.
The prices of goods provided by internet companies is 10% lower due to the 0% sales tax.
By raising the prices of goods provided by internet companies (by imposing a 10% tax), then you reduce their competitiveness--relative to the brick-and-mortar companies.
That's what I'm talking about. Therein is the motive to restricting the competitiveness of internet companies.
Consder the following:
Pre-internet tax world:
The prices of goods provided by brick-and-mortar companies are 10% higher due to the 10% sales tax.
The prices of goods provided by internet companies are 10% lower due to the 0% sales tax.
By raising the price of goods provided by internet companies (by imposing a 10% tax), then you increase the competitveness of brick and mortar stores relative to internet companies.
The motive could be to level the playing field, or to use your words, increase the competitiveness of brick-and-mortar stores.
It didn't work out that way, and that wasn't the motive, so why are you making stuff up?
It will work out that way (or, rather, it would work out that way if there was in any way in Hades the House would pass this bill).
It was the stated motive.
I'm not making anything up.
thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:thegreekdog wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
Because they obviously use less state-provided resources.
What economic distortions? Customers save more money? The internet market creates a demand for the delivery of such goods--and those delivery companies buy stuff, which is taxed? Looks like a self-correcting 'distortion'.
Seems to me(using your TGD example) things being automatically 10% cheaper online would cause more people to buy things online, for no other reason than the tax loophole. Maybe I'm misusing the term "economic distortion" but the situation seems to be distorting the market in favour of online. In other words without the tax loophole online stores wouldn't be as competitive versus brick and mortar.
I'm no economist but that seems to make sense to me.
Online retailers do actually exist somewhere. They use roads, are protected by police/fire departments, they take advantage of information networks which may be publicly funded, they use electricity often publicly funded/subsidized, their children go to school, their customers possibly use state assistance. However as the tax is charged to the consumer that's all irrelevant, as the consumer is without a doubt using state resources.
The other problem with BBS's example is that the products are not actually cheaper online. The purchaser is REQUIRED to pay use tax on the purchase if sales tax is not paid. Consider the following pre-Internet sales tax scenario:
Bob purchases a book from Sally's Bookstore in Pennsylvania. Bob pays $10 for the book and 60 cents sales tax which Sally's Bookstore pays to the state of Pennsylvania. Cost of the transaction - $10.60
The next day, Bob purchases a book from Amazon online. Bob pays $10 for the book and does not pay any sales tax. Bob is required, by law, to pay use tax to Pennsylvania in the amount of 60 cents. Cost of the transaction - $10.60
Hey, lemme make up prices in my counter-example, and I can 'prove' you wrong too.
Wait, what? I'm just telling you the tax is the same if the item is priced the same (pre-tax). This is not an arguable point. It is and remains fact. But Cthullu forbid I prove you, Odin amongst men, wrong. I urgently look forward to your more than one sentence reply (preferably with links to books that I will never read... related aside - I actually thought about linking to Walter Hellerstein's continuously updated works on state taxation, just to troll you a little).
thegreekdog wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Yeah, no one's arguing against that, except maybe TGD.
WTF? Are you Serbia? I mean drunk?
Seriously though. You're conflating my explanations for this proposal with the idea that I, in any way, support sales taxes. I hate them with the fire of a thousand suns. If internet companies are forced to pay sales tax it will absolutely make brick-and-mortar stores more competitive. Abso-fucking-lutely.
Bruceswar wrote:Let me just say this as a small business owner I fully support an equal playing field. I have a brick a mortar store and have been there for 33 years. Let me break it down for you.
BigBallinStalin wrote:Bruceswar wrote:Let me just say this as a small business owner I fully support an equal playing field. I have a brick a mortar store and have been there for 33 years. Let me break it down for you.
Imposing the internet sales tax is not egalitarian because it places a disproportionate burden on online sellers' who use significantly less government-provided resources--relative to the brick-and-mortar stores.
Why do you support such an inegalitarian policy?
Baron Von PWN wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Baron Von PWN wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:
Because they obviously use less state-provided resources.
What economic distortions? Customers save more money? The internet market creates a demand for the delivery of such goods--and those delivery companies buy stuff, which is taxed? Looks like a self-correcting 'distortion'.
Seems to me(using your TGD example) things being automatically 10% cheaper online would cause more people to buy things online, for no other reason than the tax loophole. Maybe I'm misusing the term "economic distortion" but the situation seems to be distorting the market in favour of online. In other words without the tax loophole online stores wouldn't be as competitive versus brick and mortar.
I'm no economist but that seems to make sense to me.
Yeah, no one's arguing against that, except maybe TGD.Baron Von PWN wrote: Online retailers do actually exist somewhere. They use roads, are protected by police/fire departments, they take advantage of information networks which may be publicly funded, they use electricity often publicly funded/subsidized, their children go to school, their customers possibly use state assistance. However as the tax is charged to the consumer that's all irrelevant, as the consumer is without a doubt using state resources.
Sure dude, that's why they pay taxes on other items, or on their income--e.g. corporate tax, or income tax.
When considering the minimal amount of government-provided/controlled resources that these people use, your kind of justification is grasping at straws. For infrastructure, the proportion of taxes justified is less than 5% of total tax revenue of the US. The overwhelming amount of taxes doesn't go to the more useful things (cuz without free prices, there's no rational planning), and most of it doesn't go to anything relevant to purchasing books on the internet.
The argument in support of additional taxes is based on imagined 'strain' of government-provided resources. They get enough money as is for the services people actually used.
So your argument seems to be more against sales taxes period/ against taxes in general. "the state provides very few services therefore there should be no new taxes".
I don't buy the argument that they don't use/benefit from state resources and therefore should not be taxed. Again though that is irrelevant as the tax is on the consumer not the business.
rdsrds2120 wrote:BigBallinStalin wrote:Bruceswar wrote:Let me just say this as a small business owner I fully support an equal playing field. I have a brick a mortar store and have been there for 33 years. Let me break it down for you.
Imposing the internet sales tax is not egalitarian because it places a disproportionate burden on online sellers' who use significantly less government-provided resources--relative to the brick-and-mortar stores.
Why do you support such an inegalitarian policy?
Which burden(s), specifically, are disproportionate?
BMO
rdsrds2120 wrote:The tax isn't given by the business, though(?) If it's paid by the consumer who does use those government resources (the same amount of tax that they'd pay at a brick/mortar),
rdsrds2120 wrote: how does the venue in which that tax money goes to that respective government matter? It sounds like the same ends with different means.
BMO
BigBallinStalin wrote:rdsrds2120 wrote:The tax isn't given by the business, though(?) If it's paid by the consumer who does use those government resources (the same amount of tax that they'd pay at a brick/mortar),
So, to be clear: yeah, the sales tax is imposed on the customer while the business serves as the tax collector. The purpose of taxation is to provide for government goods. The justification for taxation is basically: since you use these government-provided services, you must pay for them.
Question: As an online consumer, what government-provided services did I use--but did not pay for?rdsrds2120 wrote: how does the venue in which that tax money goes to that respective government matter? It sounds like the same ends with different means.
BMO
I don't find the sales tax on online businesses to be justifiable.
The venue through which the taxes are funneled matters because the customers of X (online sellers) do not use nearly as many government goods as the customers of Y (brick-and-mortar). So, it's disproportionate taxation. It's nonsensical--other than the motive of restricting competition (hence Amazon fully supporting this tax).
It's another way of government taking your money, which as always I'm against, but even from a "government must provide goods A, B, and C" stance, this tax is unnecessary and unfair.
rdsrds2120 wrote:The tax isn't given by the business, though(?) If it's paid by the consumer who does use those government resources (the same amount of tax that they'd pay at a brick/mortar), how does the venue in which that tax money goes to that respective government matter? It sounds like the same ends with different means.
BMO
BigBallinStalin wrote:Bruceswar wrote:Let me just say this as a small business owner I fully support an equal playing field. I have a brick a mortar store and have been there for 33 years. Let me break it down for you.
Imposing the internet sales tax is not egalitarian because it places a disproportionate burden on online sellers' who use significantly less government-provided resources--relative to the brick-and-mortar stores.
Why do you support such an inegalitarian policy?
Phatscotty wrote:This is the beginning of the government exerting power over the internet. There will be more and more regulations as time goes on, more and more restrictions. That is kind of how it works in America when a new sector of the economy is created. People get to make a bunch of money off it, and the market is free for a while, and there is tons of competition and you will see 2 competitors with stores right across from each other and tons of jobs. Then over time it will be consolidated by the sector player who is the most in bed with the government, and use the gov't to get to the top, and then after the founders of the new technology have passed on and the families are rich beyond rich, the government ends up controlling the whole sector by including it as the newest basic human right.
Cell phones are further along than the internet, and high speed cable is further along than cell phones (Comcast/Msnbc Universal/GE)
Bruceswar wrote:rdsrds2120 wrote:The tax isn't given by the business, though(?) If it's paid by the consumer who does use those government resources (the same amount of tax that they'd pay at a brick/mortar), how does the venue in which that tax money goes to that respective government matter? It sounds like the same ends with different means.
BMO
Me and rds to not always agree but this is one area we agree on. I mean I am not a big fan of being taxed to death, but why should where you buy an item determine if you pay taxes or not.
Bruceswar wrote:rdsrds2120 wrote:The tax isn't given by the business, though(?) If it's paid by the consumer who does use those government resources (the same amount of tax that they'd pay at a brick/mortar), how does the venue in which that tax money goes to that respective government matter? It sounds like the same ends with different means.
BMO
Me and rds to not always agree but this is one area we agree on. I mean I am not a big fan of being taxed to death, but why should where you buy an item determine if you pay taxes or not.
Bruceswar wrote:DoomYoshi wrote:I read to page 2. Too much repetition. I can drive to Buffalo, pay New York sales tax and then get refunded that tax when I cross back into Canada.
Now, if I order something online from Buffalo, I would have to pay Ontario sales tax.
Night Strike is right, this system is so different from anything that it replaces or updates.
There is no system. Something needs to be done to even the playing field. It should not matter if you buy a guitar online or in a store. Tax should still apply.
Return to Practical Explanation about Next Life,
Users browsing this forum: No registered users