shape
carat
color
clarity

Sales Tax for Internet Sales

Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.

pricescope

Ideal_Rock
Joined
Dec 31, 1999
Messages
8,266
How do you think it would affect your buying decision?

Net taxes could arrive by this fall


State and local governments this week resumed a push to lobby Congress for far-reaching changes on two different fronts: gaining the ability to impose sales taxes on Net shopping, and being able to levy new monthly taxes on DSL and other connections. One senator is even predicting taxes on e-mail.
Let me tell you how it will be,
There’s one for you, nineteen for me,
‘Cos I’m the Taxman,....
Taxman, The Beatles
 
Well, I already pay taxes on my internet puchases, so it isn''t a huge deal. But to tax my internet emails and DSL and such? That''s pushing it too far, I think.
 
Will not make me happy. I along with everyone else already pay a TON of taxes on my phone services, and I get my DSL through my telephone provider.

As far as net shopping, I would only purchase items that couldn''t be found local. I already hate paying shipping charges, so add tax to that and it''s a no go for me.

As far as the tax on large ticket items like diamonds, the tax burden is on the purchaser for a luxury item, so I would just assume to pay the tax at the time of purchase than have to start dealing with reporting it on my tax return.

I dream of ways to get out of having to pay all the surcharges and local taxes on phones, I guess it is about to get worse. No chance of it ever getting better
40.gif
 
sales tax is pretty much going to happen eventually.
The other taxes are likely too.
 
wouldn''t affect where I buy but might affect how much I spend.
Even with equal taxes online is usually cheaper.
 

This is a personal pet peeve of mine. Taxing inter-state sales is violation of our constitutional rights, and a violation of state sovereignty. The whole point of the setup of the USA is that we are one nation of 50 sovereign states. California forcing a person who lives in Utah to pay tax on an internet purchase from a store in California is essentially the same as one country taxing the citizen of another country, when that person is not even within the boarders of the taxing country. Total violation of sovereignty. I have several internet purchases internationaly and no country has ever imposed their sales tax on me!


Sales tax levied by the Federal Government is unconstitutional anyway, as a reasonable tax on income is the only allowable tax and must be used primarily in the use of support of a military to defend the nation and the upkeep of federal property, such as interstate roads. States alone have the right to impose a sales tax, and may only do so only on their own citizens, or aliens taking delivery of the product within the taxing state''s boarders. Any involvement of the federal government in breaking down states rights, and allowing states to tax other states'' citizens is major breech of freedom by the American Government.


This is just another blood bought freedom that is being taking away from us, and unfortunately without resistance by the majority.
 
Date: 5/25/2007 11:03:29 AM
Author: icemyster

This is a personal pet peeve of mine. Taxing inter-state sales is violation of our constitutional rights, and a violation of state sovereignty. The whole point of the setup of the USA is that we are one nation of 50 sovereign states. California forcing a person who lives in Utah to pay tax on an internet purchase from a store in California is essentially the same as one country taxing the citizen of another country, when that person is not even within the boarders of the taxing country. Total violation of sovereignty. I have several internet purchases internationaly and no country has ever imposed their sales tax on me!



Sales tax levied by the Federal Government is unconstitutional anyway, as a reasonable tax on income is the only allowable tax and must be used primarily in the use of support of a military to defend the nation and the upkeep of federal property, such as interstate roads. States alone have the right to impose a sales tax, and may only do so only on their own citizens, or aliens taking delivery of the product within the taxing state's boarders. Any involvement of the federal government in breaking down states rights, and allowing states to tax other states' citizens is major breech of freedom by the American Government.



This is just another blood bought freedom that is being taking away from us, and unfortunately without resistance by the majority.


It wouldn't be California or other countries imposing, it would be YOUR state or YOUR country imposing taxes. You are currently technically required to report large purchases and pay the appropriate state sales tax if it were purchased out of state or out of the country, they just don't enforce it and most people don't do it.

It's my understanding that you would be paying your own state's sales tax, not another state's, similar to the way it is now if you purchase from an online retailer that has a physical presence in your state even if their online operation isn't in your state.
 
PS''s question was "do you think it would affect your buying decision?"

No. I live in California and they do have a use tax and internet sales are part of that. I pay the use tax. I figure these diamond purchases are far and few between and they are large enough to represent a very easy target for the state to pursue.

So no that will not affect my purchase decisions.
 
Hi Neatfreak...

You are actually correct...the breach of freedom is really more against the retailers....because the state in which the purchase resides is going to have the ability to reach into the state where the vender resides, and force them to collect tax.

Here is the quote I found on it.

"According to Enzi, the legislation would streamline the country''s more than 7,500 diverse sales tax jurisdictions. It permits states that become voluntary members of the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA) to require remote sellers to collect and remit sales and use taxes."

Unfortunately the consumer is the one that is going to get nailed. Still a breach of states rights, whether the consumers state reaches over state boarders and forces the merchant to tax, or whether the state where the vendor resides reaches in and collects tax from the purchaser...


The saddest part is the logic behind the whole thing.

"For 15 years, the Internet and other remote retailers have had an unfair tax advantage that has harmed both consumers and traditional business owners," JA president and chief executive officer Matthew A. Runci said in a statement. "We don''t believe consumers should be punished because they would rather shop on Main Street than in cyberspace." (So what is he saying...we will punish both equally?)

I know that technically you are required to report out of state purchases. The reason that is not enforeced is because they really have not "right" to enforce it...Either way it is breech of our freedom and more unconstitutional behaviour by our government.

Thanks for correcting me.
 
Date: 5/25/2007 11:24:11 AM
Author: icemyster
' JA president and chief executive officer Matthew A. Runci said in a statement. 'We don't believe consumers should be punished because they would rather shop on Main Street than in cyberspace.' (So what is he saying...we will punish both equally?)

Yes, all merchants and all consumers should all be punished equally. Imposing a burden on one type of merchant (local ones, internet ones, green ones or whatever) by forcing them to collect Sales taxes on behalf of the state while allowing their direct competitors to gain an advantage from it because the taxmen refuse to collect the related Use Tax is patently unfair and is unequal enforcement under the law. If they can’t or won't equally enforce the law, they should abolish it. If that means that the states, cities etc. need to raise their revenue by taxing something else, so be it.

Taxing bandwidth is a whole different animal and it strikes me as unlikely but not without merit. If, for example, a sender was required to send a nominal tax to send email, it would drastically reduce the abuses by the spammers. A penny per message should be sufficient to wipe out 99% of it simply by changing the economics of it. I’m reasonably confident that the slimeballs of the world would figure out a way to work around any solution that gets proposed even before it gets implemented and the resultant arms race between the tax collectors and the tax evaders would be a mess for everyone and wouldn’t actually raise much revenue. Frankly, I think this is only being proposed as a distraction to reduce resistance to enforcing the sales/use tax laws, which represents a HUGE amount of revenue. The politicians can compromise by dropping this and can come out looking like hero’s while skating something through on the sales tax thing.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver
 
I''m for abolishing sales taxes for all states. Some states have no sales tax, and they get along fine.

Why? Because we''ve already paid taxes on the income. Additionally, the expense in adminstering the collection of each of these taxes, while creating jobs, may create expense that wipes out most, or at least a significant portion of the tax funding. Consider how many departments are created to administer the collection of the taxes and the cost of office space, equipment, salaries, for each one of these.

I''m for one tax that would cover "everything". Less administration expense. Simplier accounting for both government and the taxpayer as well as businesses. ( Of course, the accounting world wouldn''t like this....)

When one considers the tax on income ( from state, federal and other entities) and then adds the additional taxes on phones, tobacco, air travel, turnpike tolls, personal property taxes,gasoline taxes, driver''s license fee, car registration fees, real estate taxes, phone bill taxes, liquor taxes, and a host of others, one wonders what percentage of our income do we actually pay? 50%? 60% 70%????

I think the tax on email, would help wipe out spam significantly, but how do you enforce it, from all the spam from non US entities? Create yet another entitiy to collect and supervise the payments ?

This is probably "wishful" thinking, but I think it is a sensible wish.


Rockdoc
 
Date: 5/25/2007 12:36:24 PM
Author: RockDoc


I'm for abolishing sales taxes for all states. Some states have no sales tax, and they get along fine.


Why? Because we've already paid taxes on the income. Additionally, the expense in adminstering the collection of each of these taxes, while creating jobs, may create expense that wipes out most, or at least a significant portion of the tax funding. Consider how many departments are created to administer the collection of the taxes and the cost of office space, equipment, salaries, for each one of these.


I'm for one tax that would cover 'everything'. Less administration expense. Simplier accounting for both government and the taxpayer as well as businesses. ( Of course, the accounting world wouldn't like this....)


When one considers the tax on income ( from state, federal and other entities) and then adds the additional taxes on phones, tobacco, air travel, turnpike tolls, personal property taxes,gasoline taxes, driver's license fee, car registration fees, real estate taxes, phone bill taxes, liquor taxes, and a host of others, one wonders what percentage of our income do we actually pay? 50%? 60% 70%????


I think the tax on email, would help wipe out spam significantly, but how do you enforce it, from all the spam from non US entities? Create yet another entitiy to collect and supervise the payments ?


This is probably 'wishful' thinking, but I think it is a sensible wish.

Rockdoc

I agree with you that it would be easier and it would work on paper. But a lot of these taxes, specifically ones like alcohol and tobacco, are to essentially make those who cause problems for society (i.e., police costs for out of control drunks and treatment costs for secondhand smoke health issues) pay for the negative externalities they cause. If we rolled it all into one, it would cause those of us who don't abuse these items to help pay for the abuse of them by others.

For example, research shows that teens make rational choices about cigarette consumption partially based by price. Since taxes on these products reduce the number of teen smokers, when the price drops, consumption goes up. I would just worry that by rolling it into one we would eliminate the positive effects of some of the specific product taxes...

If it were all in one pot there might be allocation issues too and some taxes, again for example, some state alcohol taxes, go towards drinking education programs. I would just worry that these types of allocated taxes wouldn't happen leaving a lot of things unfunded and instead using ALL the taxes to pay for more wars or something else less beneficial.
 
I have one vote :)


The single drop of water never thought it had anything to do with the flood :)


Have a great weekend my amazing friends

Coreyj
 
Neat.......

RE : Taxes on Tobacco


A few years ago the State of Florida successfully sued the tobacco companies, for the health expenses that they had to pay to people who became ill from smokiing. The State won millions ( maybe even Billiions) of dollars that were previously funded by all the taxpayers in the state.

It would make sense that the taxes previously collected, would be "refunded" by lowering the tax previously collected for this purpose, as now it was being funded by the tobacco companies......... but is it really?

That previous tax money has "dissappeared" or transferred to pay for something else. In fact since then, the state has raised tobacco taxes from those who purchase it. The tobacco companies in turn have passed along what they had to pay in increased prices, and the general population is still paying the same amount of taxes as before. Seems to me that they should rebate this somewhere as now the state gets "twice the funding".

Further, the tobacco companies aren''t really paying the funding for their loss in court. People still purchasing tobacco are, not to mention the passing the buck of their actions in other suits they have to pay. The Court saw the cover up of disclosing the "evils" they practiced, justifiable enough to make them pay, but in the final result - they aren''t paying out of their pocket, only those who choose to purchase tobacco are.

As for a deterrant for young people not to take up smoking, I think the actual proof of that is minimal. It also appears to me as an insult to our kids. It''s as if they don''t have the common sense to make an intelligent decision or choice themselves.

Same with teen age alcohol consumptioin to excess... not to mention street drugs. Maybe it''s true that young people are an easy target for drugs, alcohol, tobacco and other abuses and as such you make a good point, but I guess I am bewildered why a different way can''t be thought of that doesn''t enrich the government "tax chest".

It''s like the funding for the wars and the terrorists. We fund the armed forces to defend against the extremists, and fund the purchase and expenses of their actions, through the prices for oil. So in essence we''re paying for both sides of the deplorable situation there. I read an article when the British soldiers were held by Iran, that they benefited by millions per day, because of the increased oil prices.

Seems a lot of the people are "sheep" and government and its funding practices, don''t seem to get challenged. It''s a monster out of control.

The other "unbelievable" part of this is that the government still cries "poor mouth". The literally uncontrolled spending of money that will take eons to pay off in the future, which will have to be paid in the future, is staggering.

With all the great minds, in this country, I find it amazing that we can''t sensibly manage this better.


Rockdoc
 
Date: 5/25/2007 12:51:13 PM
Author: neatfreak


I agree with you that it would be easier and it would work on paper. But a lot of these taxes, specifically ones like alcohol and tobacco, are to essentially make those who cause problems for society (i.e., police costs for out of control drunks and treatment costs for secondhand smoke health issues) pay for the negative externalities they cause. If we rolled it all into one, it would cause those of us who don't abuse these items to help pay for the abuse of them by others.

For example, research shows that teens make rational choices about cigarette consumption partially based by price. Since taxes on these products reduce the number of teen smokers, when the price drops, consumption goes up. I would just worry that by rolling it into one we would eliminate the positive effects of some of the specific product taxes...

If it were all in one pot there might be allocation issues too and some taxes, again for example, some state alcohol taxes, go towards drinking education programs. I would just worry that these types of allocated taxes wouldn't happen leaving a lot of things unfunded and instead using ALL the taxes to pay for more wars or something else less beneficial.
hmm well then people with kids should pay more taxes not less because they use more resources.
Why should I pay more for other peoples brats?
Taxes are used as social control and its wrong.
Its not the feds place to pay for anything in the states nor too tell them what too do.
 
Date: 5/25/2007 12:36:24 PM
Author: RockDoc
When one considers the tax on income ( from state, federal and other entities) and then adds the additional taxes on phones, tobacco, air travel, turnpike tolls, personal property taxes,gasoline taxes, driver's license fee, car registration fees, real estate taxes, phone bill taxes, liquor taxes, and a host of others, one wonders what percentage of our income do we actually pay? 50%? 60% 70%????
40% according too some researchers but I think that is too low and the real number is higher....
http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=20551
 
Date: 5/25/2007 3:17:35 PM
Author: strmrdr
Date: 5/25/2007 12:51:13 PM

Author: neatfreak



I agree with you that it would be easier and it would work on paper. But a lot of these taxes, specifically ones like alcohol and tobacco, are to essentially make those who cause problems for society (i.e., police costs for out of control drunks and treatment costs for secondhand smoke health issues) pay for the negative externalities they cause. If we rolled it all into one, it would cause those of us who don't abuse these items to help pay for the abuse of them by others.


For example, research shows that teens make rational choices about cigarette consumption partially based by price. Since taxes on these products reduce the number of teen smokers, when the price drops, consumption goes up. I would just worry that by rolling it into one we would eliminate the positive effects of some of the specific product taxes...


If it were all in one pot there might be allocation issues too and some taxes, again for example, some state alcohol taxes, go towards drinking education programs. I would just worry that these types of allocated taxes wouldn't happen leaving a lot of things unfunded and instead using ALL the taxes to pay for more wars or something else less beneficial.
hmm well then people with kids should pay more taxes not less because they use more resources.

Why should I pay more for other peoples brats?

Taxes are used as social control and its wrong.

Its not the feds place to pay for anything in the states nor too tell them what too do.

The thing about kids is that society considers them a positive investment...whether you do or not! Since an educated society is theoretically positive for everyone IN the society, they make everyone pay for education. Similar reasoning to why everyone pays for highways and sidewalks. You won't use all of them, but the idea is that they make society better for everyone.

I don't disagree with you about some taxes being social control, but many have underlying reasons for their existence, like it or not.

Rock- I agree that I wish we had better deterrents for kids than taxes, but the reality is that people respond to price for goods that have high "price elasticities" (usually goods that aren't NEEDED have high elasticities meaning people are more likely to reduce consumption when price drops). We're not insulting the kids, we're actually applauding them for making rational adult choices to consume less of a "non needed good" when the price rises! Economically speaking, people (including kids) are actually acting rationally when they reduce consumption as price rises. So by taxing the heck out of products like alcohol and cigarettes, the idea is that people will drop their consumption. I don't always like this idea, or believe it works, but for kids and cigarettes and alcohol, the evidence is there.
 
Date: 5/25/2007 3:33:32 PM
Author: neatfreak


The thing about kids is that society considers them a positive investment...whether you do or not! Since an educated society is theoretically positive for everyone IN the society, they make everyone pay for education. Similar reasoning to why everyone pays for highways and sidewalks. You won''t use all of them, but the idea is that they make society better for everyone.

I don''t disagree with you about some taxes being social control, but many have underlying reasons for their existence, like it or not.

Rock- I agree that I wish we had better deterrents for kids than taxes, but the reality is that people respond to price for goods that have high ''price elasticities'' (usually goods that aren''t NEEDED have high elasticities meaning people are more likely to reduce consumption when price drops). We''re not insulting the kids, we''re actually applauding them for making rational adult choices to consume less of a ''non needed good'' when the price rises! Economically speaking, people (including kids) are actually acting rationally when they reduce consumption as price rises. So by taxing the heck out of products like alcohol and cigarettes, the idea is that people will drop their consumption. I don''t always like this idea, or believe it works, but for kids and cigarettes and alcohol, the evidence is there.
positive or not its a drain on the economy, why they make my cig prices go up according too you.
Therefore there should be a kid tax to pay for what they use just like the smoking tax.
fair is fair :}

as far as social control they are called "sin taxes" for a reason, social control by raising the price on the goods.
Its the parents responsibility too keep their kids off cigs and booze not the governments.
another example:
The feds wanted to encourage home ownership so they rigged interest rates and made them tax deductible and home sales took off.
 
Using the tax code for social engineering instead of for revenue collection is well entrenched. Look at the home mortgage deduction. This serves as a direct subsidy of the construction and lending industries because it was determined long ago that encouraging people to go into debt to buy houses was socially desirable. There are plenty of other examples of this. Europeans have long paid for roads and such by imposing comparatively high gasoline taxes while Americans have been inclined to pay for quite a bit of ours using income taxes. Among the results are that Americans like big cars and urban sprawl while Europeans tend to favor public transit and rather high density cities.

Neil Beaty
GG(GIA) ICGA(AGS) NAJA
Professional Appraisals in Denver
 
All I can say is that I agree the tax system is a monster out of control. There is so much waste of tax money that it makes my head spin. I don''t see that the public education system is doing that great of a job with the billions spent on it either. The income tax return is so complex that the vast majority of people probably are unable to do their own taxes.

Do I think taxing intenet purchases will reduce my internet buying? Probably not. It is still more convenient. But I won''t be happy about yet another tax.
 
btw just for the record I support state funding for schools and don''t mind paying for them,(would be nice if the kids got a better education out of the deal) but it is none of the federal government''s business.
But that doesn''t make social engineering taxes right or proper.
 
I would simply calculate tax into the stone price like I would at a B and M.

This topic has sparked some interesting points. I personally feel like we should only pay sales taxes. Not income taxes. And withholding should really be done away with. Most people have NO clue how much they are actually paying between withholdings and the tax person filing the taxes. Many people do not see the ''real'' number.
 
The only way you see the real number is by getting paid in cash.

First we pay income tax, then we pay tax on any income we accrue by investing the already taxed income, then when we die, we pay tax on the same already taxed money.
39.gif
38.gif
39.gif
38.gif
39.gif
38.gif
 
Status
Not open for further replies. Please create a new topic or request for this thread to be opened.
GET 3 FREE HCA RESULTS JOIN THE FORUM. ASK FOR HELP
Top