This topic is locked from further discussion.
It was only a matter of time. Texas has something similar where no matter where you live, if you order online from Texas, you have to pay their tax. If states all have their own internet tax ontop of that, ordering from TX will be really expensive (double tax). :P
Texas is a good state, but the weather seems to target a lot of people (Galveston, DFW).:P Plus I've driven there, and it's a killer when you see the sign "El Paso - 900 miles".:lol:It was only a matter of time. Texas has something similar where no matter where you live, if you order online from Texas, you have to pay their tax. If states all have their own internet tax ontop of that, ordering from TX will be really expensive (double tax). :P
Pirate700
[QUOTE="Pirate700"]Texas is a good state, but the weather seems to target a lot of people (Galveston, DFW).:P Plus I've driven there, and it's a killer when you see the sign "El Paso - 900 miles".:lol:Oh I love TX. I'm just saying... :PIt was only a matter of time. Texas has something similar where no matter where you live, if you order online from Texas, you have to pay their tax. If states all have their own internet tax ontop of that, ordering from TX will be really expensive (double tax). :P
topsemag55
I have no problem with this in theory, but I'm not sure how it can practically be enforced.
worlock77
Um... If legislation is passed that allows them to tax online retailers it will be enforced the same way local retailers are taxed... If they wish to remain incorporated and provide services in that state they will charge tax on products and pay the government...
Same way you're taxed when you buy in a physical store...I have no problem with this in theory, but I'm not sure how it can practically be enforced.
worlock77
This is so dumb. Eventually there will be a time where every single little thing you do is taxed. Why should we have pay for s*** like this when it was our dumb governement's fault for screwing up the budget anyway?
Well fortunately for me, voters in Oregon think that property taxes are a better way to get tax revenue than sales taxes, so I'm not effected :D
That raises the number of good things about Oregon to the astounding total of... One.
One way or another you pay property tax...or your parents do but eventually that will be your problem as well.Well fortunately for me, voters in Oregon think that property taxes are a better way to get tax revenue than sales taxes, so I'm not effected :D
That raises the number of good things about Oregon to the astounding total of... One.
MetroidPrimePwn
I live in Kentucky,
were behind on many things, but not taxes:(
I had to pay the +6% on amazon for years now.
dercoo
How close to bordering states do you live? Could always get a PO box there :P
I live in southern Ohio, and a weapon I bought recently couldn't be shipped to Ohio... So I just moseyed on down to Newport, Kentucky, rented a PO box... Had it shipped to Kentucky, picked it up, moseyed on back across the river... :D
Same way you're taxed when you buy in a physical store...[QUOTE="worlock77"]
I have no problem with this in theory, but I'm not sure how it can practically be enforced.
LJS9502_basic
No kidding? Yes, I understand the concept. Here's the thing though: say Online Retailer A is based in Tennessee. They ship an order to a resident in alaska, but decide to not charge that person sales tax. How do authorities in Alaska enforce this sales tax? Do they file charges against the retailer? If that's the case are the charges filed in Alaska, or Tennessee or in a Federal court? Is it even worth the time, effort and expense to do so?
[QUOTE="dercoo"]
I live in Kentucky,
were behind on many things, but not taxes:(
I had to pay the +6% on amazon for years now.
Buttons1990
How close to bordering states do you live? Could always get a PO box there :P
I live in southern Ohio, and a weapon I bought recently couldn't be shipped to Ohio... So I just moseyed on down to Newport, Kentucky, rented a PO box... Had it shipped to Kentucky, picked it up, moseyed on back across the river... :D
.
Well, derp, Big Corporate Lobbyists will automatically have this shut out because they know alot of people prefer online services for shopping because of the traditional No Tax/ Free Shipping that keeps people flocking to their websites.
One way or another you pay property tax...LJS9502_basicYou got that right - I dread it every time it comes in the mail.:lol:
Same way you're taxed when you buy in a physical store...[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
I have no problem with this in theory, but I'm not sure how it can practically be enforced.
worlock77
No kidding? Yes, I understand the concept. Here's the thing though: say Online Retailer A is based in Tennessee. They ship an order to a resident in alaska, but decide to not charge that person sales tax. How do authorities in Alaska enforce this sales tax? Do they file charges against the retailer? If that's the case are the charges filed in Alaska, or Tennessee or in a Federal court? Is it even worth the time, effort and expense to do so?
Because copies of transactions have to be kept for tax purposes of the corporation. So while they might not show every purchase they'd have to have some verification of business. And if x state requires tax....they'll hand it over. In the state I live in we have two different sales tax amounts. There is a 1% difference. But if you buy an automobile in another county....you still get charged the tax for this county. Most businesses aren't going to hide sales tax in total. Some...yeah. But they also have to report.Here's a new concept....stop spending money that you don't have. And the population needs to stop holding their hands out for the money as well.LJS9502_basicPoliticians can't continually cut tax revenue and then throw their hands up and say, "Obviously we're spending too much. Let's cut spending some more and, BTW, throw in additional tax cuts while we're at it."
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Here's a new concept....stop spending money that you don't have. And the population needs to stop holding their hands out for the money as well.mattbbplPoliticians can't continually cut tax revenue and then throw their hands up and say, "Obviously we're spending too much. Let's cut spending some more and, BTW, throw in additional tax cuts while we're at it." They can get rid of some of the billions in worthless entitlement programs. They still have them running all the way back to the '60s. They've piled up and helped cripple the government financially. Legalizing Marijuana would be nice too, since as a tax revenue it's projected to easily earn just as much as this proposed tax, and it'd create so many jobs, and the hemp and paper industry would boom again, etc.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Here's a new concept....stop spending money that you don't have. And the population needs to stop holding their hands out for the money as well.mattbbplPoliticians can't continually cut tax revenue and then throw their hands up and say, "Obviously we're spending too much. Let's cut spending some more and, BTW, throw in additional tax cuts while we're at it." Really is too much money spent on non necessities. And they do need to stop spending. You can't keep taxing and taxing while spending and spending. Eventually something will give.
If brick and mortars are taxed, then internet stores should be taxed as well. Only taxing one of them creates an unfair competitive advantage that unbalances the market.
I have to disagree. If I buy from an internet company based in California and I live in Montana, I don't owe California any tax since I don't live there, and I don't owe Montana any tax because I didn't buy it from a Montana store.If brick and mortars are taxed, then internet stores should be taxed as well. Only taxing one of them creates an unfair competitive advantage that unbalances the market.
Archon_basic
Different states have different tax bases. If I went to a state with a lower tax base to purchase I wouldn't be charged my rate. Which internet stores do. And if the government is for opening up between state lines then the first thing they should do is allow medical insurance to be bought.If brick and mortars are taxed, then internet stores should be taxed as well. Only taxing one of them creates an unfair competitive advantage that unbalances the market.
Archon_basic
The only good thing about this tax is that it affects everyone. For all those clamoring about getting more and more services, now they are going to feel a little of that. If you want to have good social services, you have to pay for them. Not rely on everyone else. If this helps benefit the states, then I dont mind paying the sales tax.
I find it ironic that Wal-Mart is complaining about something that they themselves have pulled. While I do shop at Wally World sometimes, I prefer to spend my money elsewhere, even if it does cost me a bit more for the product and usually, it's a better product. One has to laugh at them now that the shoe is on the other foot.
[QUOTE="Archon_basic"]I have to disagree. If I buy from an internet company based in California and I live in Montana, I don't owe California any tax since I don't live there, and I don't owe Montana any tax because I didn't buy it from a Montana store.You bought something online instead of buying it at a Montana store, so it's not unreasonable to pay Montana a sales tax. I don't really care about a states rights to collect a tax, but the uneven sales tax laws put owners of traditional businesses at a severe disadvantage.If brick and mortars are taxed, then internet stores should be taxed as well. Only taxing one of them creates an unfair competitive advantage that unbalances the market.
topsemag55
[QUOTE="Archon_basic"]Different states have different tax bases. If I went to a state with a lower tax base to purchase I wouldn't be charged my rate. Which internet stores do. And if the government is for opening up between state lines then the first thing they should do is allow medical insurance to be bought.Of course you'll be charged a different tax rate for buying something in another state, but that's a fairly unusual occurrence. However, online retailers are essentially a loophole to avoid sales tax all together. Why pay $3 in sales tax to buy a game at my local store when Amazon can sell it to me without any tax? The local store is at a severe disadvantage that is caused by unequal taxation laws. As for insurance, I agree with you completely. That's another example of the government disrupting the free market, though in a different way than the sales tax issue.If brick and mortars are taxed, then internet stores should be taxed as well. Only taxing one of them creates an unfair competitive advantage that unbalances the market.
LJS9502_basic
Different states have different tax bases. If I went to a state with a lower tax base to purchase I wouldn't be charged my rate. Which internet stores do. And if the government is for opening up between state lines then the first thing they should do is allow medical insurance to be bought.Of course you'll be charged a different tax rate for buying something in another state, but that's a fairly unusual occurrence. However, online retailers are essentially a loophole to avoid sales tax all together. Why pay $3 in sales tax to buy a game at my local store when Amazon can sell it to me without any tax? The local store is at a severe disadvantage that is caused by unequal taxation laws. As for insurance, I agree with you completely. That's another example of the government disrupting the free market, though in a different way than the sales tax issue.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Archon_basic"]
If brick and mortars are taxed, then internet stores should be taxed as well. Only taxing one of them creates an unfair competitive advantage that unbalances the market.
Archon_basic
You're going to pay for shipping however, which is probably going to be just as much, if not more than the tax you'd pay at your local retailer.
Different states have different tax bases. If I went to a state with a lower tax base to purchase I wouldn't be charged my rate. Which internet stores do. And if the government is for opening up between state lines then the first thing they should do is allow medical insurance to be bought.Of course you'll be charged a different tax rate for buying something in another state, but that's a fairly unusual occurrence. However, online retailers are essentially a loophole to avoid sales tax all together. Why pay $3 in sales tax to buy a game at my local store when Amazon can sell it to me without any tax? The local store is at a severe disadvantage that is caused by unequal taxation laws. As for insurance, I agree with you completely. That's another example of the government disrupting the free market, though in a different way than the sales tax issue. No that isn't what I said. I said you're charged your home tax rate even thought the site is not in your state And they aren't at a disadvantage since online requires shipping fees for the most.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Archon_basic"]
If brick and mortars are taxed, then internet stores should be taxed as well. Only taxing one of them creates an unfair competitive advantage that unbalances the market.
Archon_basic
[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Here's a new concept....stop spending money that you don't have. And the population needs to stop holding their hands out for the money as well.LJS9502_basicPoliticians can't continually cut tax revenue and then throw their hands up and say, "Obviously we're spending too much. Let's cut spending some more and, BTW, throw in additional tax cuts while we're at it." Really is too much money spent on non necessities. And they do need to stop spending. You can't keep taxing and taxing while spending and spending. Eventually something will give. I'm not arguing that we can't cut anything. But when we cut taxes to historic lows and then propose a bill that guts Medicare while implementing FURTHER tax cuts, I found the argument logically and morally bankrupt.Under such a circumstance, mixing tax raises in with spending cuts seems to be pragmatic and logical stance - not the ideological extreme the Republicans have proposed.
Of course you'll be charged a different tax rate for buying something in another state, but that's a fairly unusual occurrence. However, online retailers are essentially a loophole to avoid sales tax all together. Why pay $3 in sales tax to buy a game at my local store when Amazon can sell it to me without any tax? The local store is at a severe disadvantage that is caused by unequal taxation laws. As for insurance, I agree with you completely. That's another example of the government disrupting the free market, though in a different way than the sales tax issue.[QUOTE="Archon_basic"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Different states have different tax bases. If I went to a state with a lower tax base to purchase I wouldn't be charged my rate. Which internet stores do. And if the government is for opening up between state lines then the first thing they should do is allow medical insurance to be bought.worlock77
You're going to pay for shipping however, which is probably going to be just as much, if not more than the tax you'd pay at your local retailer.
Good point, but online retailers enjoy other cost cutting advantages, such as savings from not maintaining as many physical locations and employees. These factors are natural consequences of the respective business models. The sales tax laws, on the other hand, are giving an unnatural advantage to one business model over another. By taxing online retailers differently, the government is essentially helping one model succeed at the expense of the other.Of course you'll be charged a different tax rate for buying something in another state, but that's a fairly unusual occurrence. However, online retailers are essentially a loophole to avoid sales tax all together. Why pay $3 in sales tax to buy a game at my local store when Amazon can sell it to me without any tax? The local store is at a severe disadvantage that is caused by unequal taxation laws. As for insurance, I agree with you completely. That's another example of the government disrupting the free market, though in a different way than the sales tax issue. No that isn't what I said. I said you're charged your home tax rate even thought the site is not in your state And they aren't at a disadvantage since online requires shipping fees for the most.Sorry, I misunderstood your statement. Charging sales tax on the buyer makes the most sense, as that will ensure a proportional collection of taxes for each state. It works different than purchasing goods at a brick and mortar in a different state, but that's an unusual circumstance that the government has no business trying to control. As for the shipping cost issue, see my last post.[QUOTE="Archon_basic"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Different states have different tax bases. If I went to a state with a lower tax base to purchase I wouldn't be charged my rate. Which internet stores do. And if the government is for opening up between state lines then the first thing they should do is allow medical insurance to be bought.LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="worlock77"]
[QUOTE="Archon_basic"]Of course you'll be charged a different tax rate for buying something in another state, but that's a fairly unusual occurrence. However, online retailers are essentially a loophole to avoid sales tax all together. Why pay $3 in sales tax to buy a game at my local store when Amazon can sell it to me without any tax? The local store is at a severe disadvantage that is caused by unequal taxation laws. As for insurance, I agree with you completely. That's another example of the government disrupting the free market, though in a different way than the sales tax issue.
Archon_basic
You're going to pay for shipping however, which is probably going to be just as much, if not more than the tax you'd pay at your local retailer.
Good point, but online retailers enjoy other cost cutting advantages, such as savings from not maintaining as many physical locations and employees. These factors are natural consequences of the respective business models. The sales tax laws, on the other hand, are giving an unnatural advantage to one business model over another. By taxing online retailers differently, the government is essentially helping one model succeed at the expense of the other.Oh I don't disagree with taxing online retailers. I just don't think it's a factor for most people in deciding whether to buy online or at the local brick-and-morter.
[QUOTE="mattbbpl"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Here's a new concept....stop spending money that you don't have. And the population needs to stop holding their hands out for the money as well.LJS9502_basicPoliticians can't continually cut tax revenue and then throw their hands up and say, "Obviously we're spending too much. Let's cut spending some more and, BTW, throw in additional tax cuts while we're at it." Really is too much money spent on non necessities. And they do need to stop spending. You can't keep taxing and taxing while spending and spending. Eventually something will give.
This makes absolutely NOsense when the taxes we have paid for the past decade rivals that of the Truman era... The only raising in taxes that have been even SUGGESTED have been of 90's levels..
This won't work and has been tried before in other states. Amazon will just cut their subsidaries in the said state, which will ensure that they have 0 physical presence in the state. This will cause the state to LOSE JOBS and lose tax revenue. This is such a stupid idea that it could only be encouraged by politicians. Source :http://chicagoist.com/2011/01/08/the_bad_math_of_the_amazon_tax.php
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment