Senator Wyden Takes A Stand Against Overbroad Tax On Internet Transactions
from the the-shop-canada-and-shop-mexico-bill dept
Last month, we noted that the Senate was coming closer to forcing a sales tax on all internet purchases -- something the big brick-and-mortar retailers have wanted for years to burden online competitors. State governments also love the idea because they're all dying for tax revenue. However, it's unclear why this makes any sense, in particular because it puts a huge burden on anyone selling goods online. And yet, the Senate is pushing forward with S. 743, or what it has euphemistically called the Marketplace Fairness Act. It sounds like Senator Harry Reid is pushing for a vote on it as early as Monday.Senator Ron Wyden has now stepped up to argue vehemently against the bill, noting that the burden on innovation is way too high, for little clear benefit.
Others have pointed out that this bill would also have a massive impact on privacy because it requires retailers to turn over the addresses of buyers to state authorities to figure out where to allocate the tax revenue.
Let’s say a seller of naughty toys were audited by the tax authority in another state. To prove that it has remitted all the taxes due in that state, it woud have to turn over, at the least, data reflecting the amount of its sales by geographical location. There are something like 30,000 state and local jurisdictions with authority to impose sales and use taxes, more than 7,500 of which have already adopted this kind of tax. If not ZIP+4, then the actual address of recipients would have to be turned over. Could they turn over non-identifying summaries? The point of an audit is to check the honesty and accuracy of summary filings, so the answer is no.The more you dig into this bill, the worse it gets. Just the fact that it's suggesting that internet firms should enforce taxation laws that are outside of their own jurisdiction (i.e, "taxation without representation") raises significant due process questions at a time when lots of countries are looking to try to regulate internet companies outside of their own borders. Passing this law will give fodder to other countries to claim jurisdiction over American companies, and provide them with direct evidence that even in the US we don't take jurisdiction and due process seriously.
So state tax authorities would get troves of data about online purchases delivered into their state. The standard misuses apply. It might be transferred to other organs of government, legally or not, for investigation and examination. Curious state bureaucrats might look up the purchasing habits of ex-spouses, famous names, and political figures. The list goes on and on
On top of that, the bill will apply to not just physical goods, but services as well. While those are often not taxed by states, this could also provide more incentive for them to be taxed, which doesn't seem good for anyone.
Honestly, the biggest question in all of this is why it's even necessary in the first place -- other than the fact states who misused existing revenue are now hungry for more. Perhaps they should focus on getting their own houses in order before just demanding more cash from internet companies (and, more directly, their users).
A bunch of anti-tax groups have also put together a petition against the bill. Whether or not you support their general anti-tax position, it does seem ridiculous to put all the burden on anyone selling goods online to have to collect and distribute taxes in states where they have no presence at all. As a site that has its own small store, the idea of having to figure out how to deliver cash to 50 separate states is terrifying.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: due process, internet taxes, marketplace fairness act, privacy, retailers, senator wyden, state taxes
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Let's back him up - But don't call until Monday
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Thank goodness one of our senators has a brain."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfair burden?
Any good shopping cart should already be able to choose sales tax rates based on ZIP codes, and from there it's a simple matter to account for sales tax by state on the accounting side.
Yes, you mail an extra 49 checks a year, but any reasonably large e-tailer is already mailing out hundreds of checks a month, so I don't get how this is some huge burden.
Now if you're going to say that charging sales tax at all is a burden, and that we should get our products tax-free if we buy them from another state, I can't agree with that: I don't know how many other states have this particular bit of tax code, but mine certainly requires me to pay use tax on my tax return.
So, since all law-abiding citizens are already tracking their out of state purchases and paying their proper taxes at the end of the year, and collecting the taxes isn't exactly a logistics nightmare... where's the problem?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfair burden?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unfair burden?
All they need is the ZIP code of where I live. They send tax payments to the Franchise Tax Board of my state. Anyone that can figure out his income tax can figure out where to mail a tax payment.
And I'm willing to bet that your accounting program already has a "print and mail a sales tax check" feature built right in. If it doesn't, it will soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unfair burden?
Plus, what you are describing is called regulatory capture. Sure big etailers aren't hurt by this. Amazon used to be against it, but is now in favor of an internet tax. Why? Not because they feel sorry for the lost tax revenue of states. It's because it's easy for them and hard for little upstarts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfair burden?
The closest CITY to me has a .5% sales tax on top of the state tax. So let's call it 8.5%.
I am looking at cars right now. I've been told by several people that if I walk in to the car dealer with my driver's license that shows my county address, I will get the lower sales tax rate of 8%.
I've also been told that you should be able to do this at any retailer, but that most retailers either can't or won't adjust sales tax because the cashiers don't know how or because their registers aren't capable of charging different tax rates.
So I wouldn't be surprised or mind at all if one day I walked in to WalMart, they ask for my ZIP, and I end up paying half a percent less. That adds up to quite a bit of money over the course of a year.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfair burden?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unfair burden?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfair burden?
Actually, boy, you'd end up mailing several hundred thousand checks.
State taxes, city taxes, county taxes, district taxes.
Hell, in some cities (Chicago, for example), the sales tax is different if your address is downtown or uptown!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unfair burden?
I pay the STATE tax. I do not get charged county or city add-ons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unfair burden?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfair burden?
Here's the agreement:
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/Archive/SSUTA/SSUTA%20As%20Amended% 205-24-12.pdf
And if a state doesn't use the agreement, they're required to "Provide a uniform sales and use tax base among the State and the local taxing jurisdictions within the State pursuant to paragraph(1)."
So kindly STFU and go troll elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unfair burden?
If the federal government wants to make internet sales taxed the simply thing to do would be to start a federal on-line sales tax for purchases where the ship to and ship-from states are different (interstate trade). The requirements of online retailers would be then to collect the federal tax, and report the ship-to state. The feds then take some % of the sales tax and pass the rest to the state.
For example; Federal internet sales tax is 10%. I buy a $100 widget from www.widgets.com. www.widgets.com charges me $110+shipping and send the $10 in tax and the state on the ship to label to the feds. The feds take 3% or $0.30 and send the remaining $9.70 to the state.
The federal law states that these payments are to be treated exactly like state sales tax collected in the state. If a state doesn't want to collect sales tax for physical locations in the state they simply need to en-act a state law that says the tax rate in the state is 0% and what to do with any money that comes from that. No change to people that live there and shop at a physical store, since the state collects no sales tax.
What this would likely encourage is major on-line retailers to set up distribution in each state and to simply move inventory between distribution centers to ensure that the ship-from address matches the ship-to state. Though I'm not sure if there already rules in place at the federal/state level to make those inventory exchanges tax-able.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unfair burden?
Not yet.
It'll change.
Then what?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unfair burden?
State taxes, city taxes, county taxes, district taxes.
Hell, in some cities (Chicago, for example), the sales tax is different if your address is downtown or uptown!
You really are a fucking idiot. That's not how it works. It's STATE sales tax only. Go crawl back under your rock and overdose on something.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unfair burden?
You obviously didn't read the text of the bill.
(Now THAT'S a "fucking idiot".)
It's to create "equality", so it's a match to ALL sales taxes for your zip code (including local).
Feel free to prove otherwise with an exact quote from the bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfair burden?
One uses the streamlined system that apparently lets the seller remit taxes to his own state, and the states then hash it out. The other method requires states to charge a "Single tax base" for all purchasers in the state.
So, in other words, at most, retailers only need to calculate taxes for the 50 states and send checks to 50 states. However, the real situation will be better, because states that use the streamline system will reduce the number of checks you have to write.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfair burden?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfair burden?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfair burden?
Actually not so simple. You can't just mail a check to the tax authority...they would have no idea what it is for. To collect sales tax for a state you will have to register to the tax authority for a tax ID number and most likely apply/register your business in that state. Multiply that across 50 states with 50 different sets of tax rules and registration requirements...doesn't sound so easy anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unfair burden?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unfair burden?
Add the cities, then the districts/bouroughs/business districts/whatever they call them within the city limits (for example, NY State/New York City/Brooklyn) who also charge sales tax and it becomes a nightmare!
As someone pointed out, Chicago charges two DIFFERENT sales taxes, higher for the downtown area, lower for outside downtown!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfair burden?
Every time the subject of sales tax comes up, all I can think is thank god I live in a region that doesn't have sales tax.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unfair burden?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfair burden?
Technically true since you qualified it with 'law abiding' citizens, but a majority of people don't, because they aren't even aware that it's a requirement, let alone how to comply if they do know. As I hear it, its a chronic problem that legislators complain about, yet make no effort to educate people about or to enforce compliance on average citizens.
Case in point, I literally only found out about this in general today based on comments in the article. So now I have to worry about whether I have outstanding sales taxes because I sometimes pick up some groceries in Ohio or Kentucky on my way home from work to my home in Indiana.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unfair burden?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unfair burden?
If you paid sales tax in the other state and that sales tax was equal or greater to your state's tax then usually the law would be that you do not owe anything in USE TAX to your state.
Since groceries aren't generally taxable, there's no burden of use tax there.
However, if you buy a new hard drive at a store in Ohio and pay 5% sales tax on it, but use it at home in Indiana and the sales tax is 6%, then generally it'd be written you owe Indiana the difference in the sales tax but they'd call it "use tax" instead...although it's the same darn thing.
Now, think about them apples when it's a car and you move from say Delaware to Maryland...yea...Oops.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfair burden?
Switching the burden to retailers, whether in general or for specific businesses (e-tailers and catalogs) makes it more enforceable, but as you point out down thread, it's a huge burden on retailers, especially smaller ones, for the reasons you give. Amazon.com could handle it easily (and practically already does in many ways), but Ma and Pa's Yard and Garden Crafts wouldn't be able to.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfair burden?
First, zip codes are merely a convenience for the Post Office, merely indicate what delivery routes an address is on, are not static, and should not be treated as being more meaningful than that. Zip codes sometimes cross state lines, county lines, and municipal borders.
Second, sales taxes are not necessarily uniform statewide. States may have sales taxes, counties may have additional sales taxes, municipalities may have additional sales taxes, and while I can't think of any examples offhand, the boundaries of areas where sales taxes are levied may not correspond to political boundaries at all, much less mail delivery routes. In fact, they may not even correspond to an address, in the case of a person who lives on a parcel of land that crosses tax boundaries and has a house in a different jurisdiction than their mailbox. The areas may also change at random times, as in the case of a family I know who lived in the county, and eventually had the city annex their land so that they could live in the city jurisdiction without having to move.
And the sales taxes for different places may apply to different types of goods or services, and may have different rates for specific types. For example, in Massachusetts, some types of shoes are taxed, and others are not, unless the price of the untaxed shoes is over a certain amount, and then the excess is; meanwhile, in Florida, IIRC, all shoes are taxed.
And the authorities that levy the taxes may arbitrarily declare tax holidays, often in late summer before school starts. But they may also choose not to. And it's not uncommon for this to be a last minute decision, and the holiday may only apply to some items, and not others, and up to varying limits.
Knowing what taxes to apply based on the location of the purchaser, rather than the seller, is a huge logistical nightmare in the US. And you dare not make even a tiny mistake, or else you're in serious trouble for not paying taxes!
The only way this will work is if the taxes to be charged are made extremely simple, and even then, it will have a lot of problems. Frankly, I'd rather just eliminate sales taxes, on the grounds that they're regressive taxes, and enjoy the side effect of putting online and physical stores on a more even footing in a simpler manner. Let's increase progressive taxes on income, capital gains, and wealth to make up for the problem instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unfair burden?
This is a difficult problem, but I agree with your last paragraph and especially last line: "Let's increase progressive taxes on income, capital gains, and wealth to make up for the problem instead."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unfair burden?
gotta love the way the the right and left think....no true logic or objective facts can change their viewpoints....
i feel both sides are a bit retarded....:P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfair burden?
Just like OotB!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfair burden?
HAHA! This is great. More like the truth would be you're sending tax statements to the states, every quarter.
See you're going to have to register to collect sales tax in each state. Here in FL it is the same form you are supposed to use to report "use tax" which is basically sales tax.
Oh and if the city you are in, or presumably the city the buyer is in, you could end up paying a muni tax as well - but this varies widely state to state.
See once you do that registration they have you, and you are required to file every quarter no matter if you have any sales tax to remit or not.
So yea it isn't just once a year. Get that notion out of your head right quick.
I would argue if you put this law into place then no state would really have the standing to also demand use tax as well. Which, by the way many if not all states have - and yes us lowly consumers are technically supposed to pay it on all of our online purchases since by buying out of state we've robbed our poor home state of that tax revenue...at least in their eyes.
But alas, I'd think the states will still think you owe another tax even if this does pass.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfair burden?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So let's tax internet sales, but when I have to order parts. The store that doesn't sell, has to pay the internet tax. I'm fine with that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lemme guess, if it passes, US citizens will finally see advertisements to "Licence the song on iTunes" not "Buy this song" since surely licences don't count for this tax?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not even the government wins.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not even the government wins.....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lots of brick and mortar businesses pay that tax and are doing just fine.
And individuals pay taxes on their income all the time, yet I don't feel burdened and crushed by 'crippling' taxes that are actually rather low compared to most of the 1st world nations (and are probably too low when consider our 16 trillion dollar national debt, you can't fix a problem that massive on spending cuts alone).
Also, all the government should really need to audit an internet company to make sure they're paying the internet sales tax to the right people is to see the dollar amount of the goods bought and go "$100 in goods plus shipping and handling with a 6% sales tax means they owe $6 sales tax".
But foreign companies and the sales tax could be an issue yes, the law should be rewritten in such a way to make sure foreign businesses also pay the tax on any goods Americans purchase from them/any goods that the buyer has shipped to America.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Since when did congress have sovereignty over other countries?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The problem is that it's not just the state's sales tax, boy.
It'll also the city, district, etc. sales taxes that ALL have to be added in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Of course, this simply means that every etailer would move to Florida.
Seriously, though: I am sure that if this passes, we'll quickly see on-line databases of zip codes and sales tax amounts. For that matter, I'd be extremely surprised if there's not already some sort of streamlined system to collect sales tax in 50 states. If there's not, then there will be very soon. After all, if this is a huge burden, someone will gladly take retailers' money i order to make things simpler.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
amazon charges for all states, in part because they plan to or already have offices in every state.
this law wouldnt harm amazon and other large operations, the ones it would screw over are small businesses who really cant afford to take the hit trying to track online sales tax for 50states with many counties and cities in each....
services will pop up to deal with this, BUT they will also take a sizeable chunk of the profits much as medical billing companies do(i work at a chiropractors office i see it all the time)
honestly, the way i see it, if they want to do something like this, make it a single tax set as a median rate(average of sales taxes across the nation), then distribute the tax based on purchases per location to the states/counties/cities/exct.
but the people behind this have a goal, its to put small time entailers out of business, make it not worth the trouble to sell online.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Ding ding ding. That's right. It's only state tax, and it's super simple for them to collect and remit. Only tech-apologists like Mike and Ron can try and spin this as being a bad thing. Anything that hurts the bottom line of tech is "bad."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
If you bothered to read the bill, you'd see that's not the case.
Feel free to provw otherwise with a quote from the bill...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It'll also the city, district, etc. sales taxes that ALL have to be added in.
Nope. You're still wrong. And still a complete moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
It'll also the city, district, etc. sales taxes that ALL have to be added in."
"Nope. You're still wrong. And still a complete moron."
Feel free to quote the exact text in the bill that proves otherwise.
Oh, you haven't read the actual bill?
Now THAT'S a "complete moron".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Fact of the matter is, it's not that simple, because (in part) those drafting it don't want it to be that simple, and partially because such e-tailers don't have physical sales location. Where will the taxes go? Where the retailer's corporate HQ is? Where their servers are located? Where the customers are located? Where the customer picks up their mail(if their personal address and mailing address of different)? All of the above (and if so, how will it be calculated)? If foreign retailers are included in this, how will it be enforced? Can foreign governments similarly impose such a tax on US retailers who do business with foreign citizens? It's a can of worms, made worse by an already rather complicated and expansive tax law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Compare this to the on-line sales tax proposals, where the burden of figuring out what tax is owed to who is placed on the merchant instead of the customer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
In the case of on-line transactions, this is presumed to be the billing or shipping address of the buyer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
What if Online retailers decide to find the highest sales tax in the country and make everyone pay that on top of the shipping and handling just to cover their bases?
Sure, it's all what-ifs right now, but...
Sometimes what-ifs become reality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And let's also separate what you WANT (to save money) from what's RIGHT (to pay your state the taxes you owe them.)
The most likely scenario is going to be that retailers collect tax at the state level, ignoring county and city taxes. This also happens to be the easiest to implement; it's not trivial, but it is definitely a "first year programming student" kind of task. I really don't see the huge burden here.
The second most likely scenario is that etailers end up having to calculate taxes per ZIP code. I can guarantee you that by the time this legislation actually is in force, there will be several companies with products that will provide a tax amount based on ZIP code. In fact, the code to do so is identical to tax-by-state; the only difference is that your database is a few thousand rows, rather than 50.
In that second scenario, I could even see this being part of already existing billing solutions from payment processors: you already process CC transactions through webservice calls; adding a simple webservice call to determine the sales tax is simple.
And, again, this is something that several states already require, so any large etailer is already doing this. Yes, it's a job for the smaller guys, but I can guarantee that someone will take up the task. Hell, if nobody else does, maybe I'll do it.
Now the IDEAL solution here would be for the Fed (as in the company that handles electronic money transactions through the entire country) to build a clearing house that works much like the ACH already does; but this would be a clearing house for state tax transactions. Allow retailers to post their tax payments directly to this ACH-ST system at the time of sale. Let the ACH-ST system then send the money where it needs to go.
Again, none of this will present a tremendous burden to the e-tailer. Yes, they'll all spend some time implementing a little extra code on their shopping carts, but this is all just software design, and again - it's really VERY simple stuff for anyone who has any background in programming and databases. This is the kind of stuff a programming teacher would use as a class project, not something that will bring Internet sales to its knees.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, but that is not consistent with the Mike Masnick narrative. So you are not allowed to say it here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Will the programming teacher or the students contact every business district in the country to get their tax rates?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
If I am paying sales tax on something I buy online, then that retailer must have a brick & mortar presence in my state. If not, then I pay no sales tax. However, in that case I still owe USE TAX which most people either do not know about or do not pay. And if you're a business you're going to have to register with the state to pay it, and once you do...you're on the hook to report it regularly even if there's nothing to pay.
In Florida if you collect more than $1000 in sales tax you must report/remit it monthly. If only $100 then annual. There's a nice little chart for that which I am sure most states have.
The big problem is that unless the bill manages to normalize all sales tax code nationwide, it's a failure because despite what you think, it's going to be a nightmare for smaller outfits to set up to collect & remit the taxes, not to mention all of the various filing requirements. Sure eventually there might be software for that but for a small outfit, trying to account for tax changes in 50 states? Come on.
So while it does matter where the transaction takes place, it is not just a matter of IF there is a sales tax in play at the customer's location, as that's true in all states but 5 IIRC, there is also the matter of the actual business having a presence there.
I sell a software license to someone in a state I don't operate in, I am not required to collect sales tax for that state.
What they'd do in this bill is essentially kill that, so no matter where you sell you are required to collect it. IF it is made simple enough that A) Remit only once or twice per year B) Only collect the primary state tax (no munis etc) then it could possibly work. It is still a burden on the retailers, so you can expect prices to go up or discounts to thin.
I know you don't think it's much of a burden, but it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Other states have a 2.5% sales tax. And others have 8%, some have none.
See how it gets tricky quickly?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A retailer's shopping cart software has a data table that lists tax rates by state or by ZIP code. When a user enters a ZIP code and the system calculates S&H, it also calculates sales tax.
The software then records the sales tax paid by state. At the end of the month, your accounting module spits out the sales tax paid per state. A good accounting package will print the checks automatically. All you need to do is lick and stamp the envelopes.
I've done this for a living. I know exactly how it works on a competently built system.
And like I've already mentioned, I'm sure that the established vendors of shopping cart software will be adding ZIP code to Sales Tax databases very quickly, assuming this passes.
So ALL of this is simply an exercise in software engineering. The only thing that retailers need to do is install the upgrades that will be coming from their vendors.
(If you rolled your own sales software, then you get to roll some new code. Hopefully, someone will be distributing a downloadable list of sales tax by ZIP code. As to the specific who & how, I admit I have no idea yet.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Exce;;emt!
So you're qualified to prepare the code for EVERY city, business district, bourough, etc. in the country when this law goes into effect?
Let me know when you're done, son.
I'll buy it from you on the condition that it covers every known sales tax from every civic location.
Miss one and I'll demand a full refund.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Two problems. First, the US can't (or shouldn't) impose it's laws on other nations. Second, the burden of paying sales tax technically falls on the buyer, not the seller.
If there's an issue with sales taxes not being paid, the states should chase the actual lawbreaker: the person who made the purchase.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Besides, all of those groups you name pay taxes anyway, unless their employer is a tax cheat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That's easy. This is Pirate Mike and Sen. Wyden, so you know that whatever they're touting is good for tech--fuck everyone else. All they come up with is "Innovation!" and "Privacy!" But this is really only about tech's bottom line, and Mike and Ron and the rest don't give a shit about anything else. It's so transparent and dishonest that it hurts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turn it around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turn it around
A ten year-old kid walks into a Dollar Store, buys a couple of toys for a buck each, doesn't remember his zip code (and doesn't have ID)
What sales tax do you charge him/her?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Turn it around
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
'Passing this law will give fodder to other countries to claim jurisdiction over American companies'.
this should make the DoJ rethink the stupid idea whereby it's trying to get the law changed so it can go after organisations and companies that have no USA address. if that happens, it's going to reinforce the reverse happening too. i bet that wont go down very well when US companies start getting sued in foreign countries. the DoJ name will be associated with crap even more than it is now!!
i wonder why it is that those that have the power to make changes that will affect 1,000s of people, in the main, seem to have less common sense than a rocking horse?? the fuck ups they make are unbelievable! is it a 'limelight' thing, do you think? have to get some attention? have to have their name associated with something, even if it is a disaster? beats me!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ever the drama queen? There are plenty of stores with brick and mortar presence who have to submit taxes to various states. Most accounting programs will do it for you. So spare us the theatrics. From the sound of it, you can just put a couple of ones in an envelope and mail it, covering yourself in most every state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is it being suggested that there is an inability to "innovate" a solution to avoid sellers being terrified?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about they fix the broken tax laws that allow major corporations to pay tax rates lower than people who make under the poverty line before demanding more people pony up cash for the coffers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
How would corpses pay taxes?
They're dead!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Because this was easier than just removing tax breaks giant corporations enjoy?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
One is to call your local senator/legislator who supports this stupid idea (or any stupid idea) telling them they are making a mistake in your opinion. Make them invest their time and recourses on your legitimate claims as a real constituent.
The more time they spend on listening to legitimate constituent concerns the less time and resources they have at their disposal to actually articulate such bad legislation. Of course no donation will be made to this person.
Two. Send a few bucks with a SHORT note of appreciation and support about the issue of concern to any local/state/national legislator. Money speaks its own language.
A politically active person would easily spend a few hundred of their precious dollars a year. Sending 5-20 dollars to several different candidates/legislators might be a good way to divide up the pot.
On the obvious level taxation is complicated enough. Why make it worse and why involve ordinary mom and pop stores in pointless jurisdictional battles with the usually intractable IRS? �Tracking out of state purchases� Most ordinary people don't even �track� anything at all let alone the drinks purchased at a bar visited on vacation in another state!
Such a nightmare of legal tax violations would potentially curtail any foreign travel. It would just be to dangerous.
If remembering correctly it was SUPPOSED to be an incentive for each state to keep its taxes low or purchases would naturally go out of state. Free market values have slipped a lot.
There is no legal basis for your local towns sales tax to apply to anything one purchases outside of it. None. This includes state taxes also. If one wants to purchase a camera in a duty free store inside an airport so what? Its a viable business strategy. Sales tax is a locally derived compensation for the local infrastructure.
If one wants to purchase cigarettes from another state that does not have ruinous vice taxes so high it encourages a black market then kudos to them for still obeying the law and purchasing from a legitimate store.
Stupid taxation policies only help to tear apart society along various social boundaries.
Reactionary.
�law abiding citizen� is an becoming an oxymoron. Since everyday eating, breathing and gossiping at the back fence is quickly becoming a felony offense there is no basis in 'fair and just' application of the law. Current law seems definitely un-abiding.
ZIP codes will not be enough to exactly identify a tax as many straddle several town and county boundaries depending on population.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Internet taxation
Making unsupported (and unsupportable - the current Reagan-era madness about "needing better bridges, better roads, safer foods and water, but not paying for them" is stupid on its face (as the elder Bush pointed out, initially) statements like that kills your whole argument. I am reversing my first decision - I want internet taxes!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Internet taxation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Internet taxation
Please explain that to the Republicans who refuse to raise taxes on the undertaxed corporations to pay for the infrastructure that bolsters their wealth.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Internet taxation
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
basically, currently e-tailers are at an unfair competitive advantage (I'm not talking about the advantage of not needing to pay for a physical store, that's a legitimate competitive advanatge, I'm talking things like taxes)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]