Hous Repblicns Wrong On Intrnet Sales Tax Bill!

[Quantum Windbag]

Not "gung ho" on the bill, as a consumer it means more dollars out of my pocket.

Shooting down inaccuracies about how a law functions does not equal being "gung ho" about a bill. It more indicates discussion from a detached logical basis instead of making an emotional decision and then using false premises presented to others as to why something "can't" work.

In the early 1900's people told the Wright brothers that flying "can't be done". People said we couldn't put a man on the moon because it "can't be done". Some people confuse "complex" with "can't be done". The requirements of the law that states simplify the taxing requirements, that they provide a single access point for resellers so that don't have to deal with 9,600 jurisdictions, that the software electronically prepare and submit the reporting requirements means that the retailer is going to be insulated from the "complexity".

Emotionally? Ya, paying more taxes sucks.

Logically? People are breaking the law by not remitting taxes ALREADY required because the current system is the "honor system" after the fact. This closes the loophole and shifts the paradigm to time of sale. The same method already applied to B&M sellers.



>>>>

It is entirely possible to turn the entire planet into a radioactive wasteland.

In other words, just because we can do something does not mean we should.

I do appreciate you trying to make this about people hating progress instead of what it really is about though. It shows how desperate you are.

That's what you got out of that really? The point was that "complex" does not mean impossible, nothing about "hating progress".

What is this really about? Is about states wanting the remittance of tax revenue that is legally owed and a shift from the "honor system" which is unenforceable to a "time of sale" model just like B&M stores. The whole "marketplace fairness" portion is a political bullshit screen, what this is really about is states wanting the revenue for sales occurring in their state (which is based on the purchasers location).


>>>>

I see the problem here, you are so stupid you think that this is about taxes.

It is about rent seeking, I suggest you look up the term.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What it means is that the individual e-commerce retailer WILL NOT have to be interfacing with thousands of different agencies, the law specifically prevents that.

What will happen, per the law, is the the e-commerce retailer will interface with ONE entity per state. That entity will provide the software that returns the proper tax rate based on the address of delivery. Saying that the retailer is "responsible for collecting taxes for thousands of different agencies" is incorrect, they collect taxes for ONE agency. That state level agency is then responsible for dispersing the taxes to the local taxing entities.



>>>>

Once again, do businesses get to pretend there is only one tax? If not, what the **** is your point? Are you arguing that the states won't actually distribute the taxes?

Probably not. The software will take the delivery address and return the appropriate rate.

What the **** are you talking about with the "won't actually distribute the taxes?" I implied no such thing.


>>>>

I have been trying to figure out why you keep repeating the nonsense about the requirements for the states make it easy on the businesses.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I made no attempt to "speak for you", I was talking about the position of the Republican Party during the last election. Since I'm a Republican the "We" was me and the party. What your personal opinion is is irrelevant.

It's a loophole because you are not remitting the required tax required under Texas law. When you make such a purchase, you are required under Texas law (or the person that is receiving the package) to then remit the Use Tax to Texas.

It's a "loophole" because it is a means used by individual to illegally pay ZERO taxes. The shift is simply taking the "honor system" back-end method and shifting it to the time of purchase method. Same as B&M.



>>>>

If you are not speaking for me do not say we.

I'll use "we" when ever I damn well please.

The context of the usage was "we" as in the Republican position during the last election as posited by the Republican Presidential Candidate and the Speaker of the House. If you don't like that position (i.e. closing loopholes) then don't consider yourself a Republican then you will not be part of the "we".


>>>>

Because you are the KING OF THE INTERNET.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Don't know how to read either, how wonderful. It does explain why you think this bill is a great thing though.

I don't think the bill "is a great thing" as it will take more money out of my pocket.

That doesn't mean I can't discuss what the law actually does.

Just to point out the obvious, that site has nothing to do with where a business ships to, it is telling business that they have to pay sales taxes based upon where they are located.

I guess you missed the point "and where the products are delivered." Texas businesses providing e-commerce to Texan's in Texas have to account for different tax rates based on where the products are delivered.



>>>>

I really don't have time to educate you on how sales taxes work.

By the way, speaking of what the bill actually says, and to prove that you have not actually read it, what happens if the state where the seller is located refuses to join the consortium? Are you aware that, if that happens, not only would the people in those states not have to pay any sales taxes, anyone that buys something from a business in those would be legally exempt from paying taxes in their home state.

Think about how that will go over with the people, like you, who think the government is owed those taxes simply because you say they are.

Can't help but make it personal uh?

It's not that "I" say they are owed the tax, it's the law of those states that say they are owed the tax.

Secondly, if a state doesn't join the program, that doesn't mean that their sales/use tax structure doesn't exist anymore. In-state sellers will still be required to collect and remit sales tax when the seller and purchaser are in the same state. This provision has to do with inter-state commerce, not intra-state commerce.


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

In state retailers already have to figure out where you live and remit the correct tax for the locality where the item is received, retailers providing e-commerce to customers within the same state. VA is easy, we have one rate that applies statewide. New York on the other hand has different local sales taxes for different cities and counties, in New York e-commerce providers already have to account for that.



>>>>

Let me see if I can settle this once and for all.

STORES COLLECT TAXES AT THE POINT OF SALE. IF THEY SHIP TO ANOTHER PLACE IN THE STATE THEY COLLECT THE SAME TAX AS IF YOU WALK OUT THE DOOR WITH IT.

If that is too complicated, you are wrong.

Let me see if I can settle this once and for all.

DEPENDING ON THE STATE, E-COMMERCE RETAILERS COLLECT TAXES BASED ON THE ADDRESS OF DELIVERY FOR INSTATE SALES.

I hope that is not to complicated for you.



>>>>

Which is the only place that happens, yet you keep telling me there is a loophole that gives etailers a way to skip out of paying taxes.

 

[WorldWatcher]

It is entirely possible to turn the entire planet into a radioactive wasteland.

In other words, just because we can do something does not mean we should.

I do appreciate you trying to make this about people hating progress instead of what it really is about though. It shows how desperate you are.

That's what you got out of that really? The point was that "complex" does not mean impossible, nothing about "hating progress".

What is this really about? Is about states wanting the remittance of tax revenue that is legally owed and a shift from the "honor system" which is unenforceable to a "time of sale" model just like B&M stores. The whole "marketplace fairness" portion is a political bullshit screen, what this is really about is states wanting the revenue for sales occurring in their state (which is based on the purchasers location).


>>>>

I see the problem here, you are so stupid you think that this is about taxes.

It is about rent seeking, I suggest you look up the term.

This is about revenue, pure and simple. States are losing sales tax because of a loophole established under the SCOTUS ruling of Quill v. North Dakota when they said that taxes could not be collected outside of the state because Congress had not provided any guidance. Now they are. (If it passes the House.)



>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

Once again, do businesses get to pretend there is only one tax? If not, what the **** is your point? Are you arguing that the states won't actually distribute the taxes?

Probably not. The software will take the delivery address and return the appropriate rate.

What the **** are you talking about with the "won't actually distribute the taxes?" I implied no such thing.


>>>>

I have been trying to figure out why you keep repeating the nonsense about the requirements for the states make it easy on the businesses.

Because I've read the law, participation in the program requires simplification and that a participating state provide the software to compute the tax and file the required tax forms.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

If you are not speaking for me do not say we.

I'll use "we" when ever I damn well please.

The context of the usage was "we" as in the Republican position during the last election as posited by the Republican Presidential Candidate and the Speaker of the House. If you don't like that position (i.e. closing loopholes) then don't consider yourself a Republican then you will not be part of the "we".


>>>>

Because you are the KING OF THE INTERNET.

Nope, I'm not.

However Congress is exercising their Constitutional power under Article I Section 8.


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

That's what you got out of that really? The point was that "complex" does not mean impossible, nothing about "hating progress".

What is this really about? Is about states wanting the remittance of tax revenue that is legally owed and a shift from the "honor system" which is unenforceable to a "time of sale" model just like B&M stores. The whole "marketplace fairness" portion is a political bullshit screen, what this is really about is states wanting the revenue for sales occurring in their state (which is based on the purchasers location).


>>>>

I see the problem here, you are so stupid you think that this is about taxes.

It is about rent seeking, I suggest you look up the term.

This is about revenue, pure and simple. States are losing sales tax because of a loophole established under the SCOTUS ruling of Quill v. North Dakota when they said that taxes could not be collected outside of the state because Congress had not provided any guidance. Now they are. (If it passes the House.)



>>>>

The businesses in those states are complaining that they can't compete, and demanding that the government fix it.

AKA rent seeking.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Let me see if I can settle this once and for all.

STORES COLLECT TAXES AT THE POINT OF SALE. IF THEY SHIP TO ANOTHER PLACE IN THE STATE THEY COLLECT THE SAME TAX AS IF YOU WALK OUT THE DOOR WITH IT.

If that is too complicated, you are wrong.

Let me see if I can settle this once and for all.

DEPENDING ON THE STATE, E-COMMERCE RETAILERS COLLECT TAXES BASED ON THE ADDRESS OF DELIVERY FOR INSTATE SALES.

I hope that is not to complicated for you.



>>>>

Which is the only place that happens, yet you keep telling me there is a loophole that gives etailers a way to skip out of paying taxes.

Correct, it is a loophole. The State of North Dakota attempted to collect such taxes in the past. Quill (IIRC a large mail order office supply retailer) challenged the law and won. The SCOTUS ruling limited the ability to require the collection of taxes to those entities that had a "nexus" in the same state as the purchaser. They SCOTUS said that was the case lacking such law to permit collection of inter-state sales tax from the Congress.

IIRC the case was in the early 90's.

>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

I see the problem here, you are so stupid you think that this is about taxes.

It is about rent seeking, I suggest you look up the term.

This is about revenue, pure and simple. States are losing sales tax because of a loophole established under the SCOTUS ruling of Quill v. North Dakota when they said that taxes could not be collected outside of the state because Congress had not provided any guidance. Now they are. (If it passes the House.)



>>>>

The businesses in those states are complaining that they can't compete, and demanding that the government fix it.

AKA rent seeking.

Politicians are seeking $$$$$$$, which is what all taxes boil down to.



>>>>

 

[Immanuel]

Probably not. The software will take the delivery address and return the appropriate rate.

What the **** are you talking about with the "won't actually distribute the taxes?" I implied no such thing.


>>>>

I have been trying to figure out why you keep repeating the nonsense about the requirements for the states make it easy on the businesses.

Because I've read the law, participation in the program requires simplification and that a participating state provide the software to compute the tax and file the required tax forms.


>>>>

Sorry, that is almost laughable.

Simplication? Do we need another 2700 page bill that no one who votes on it reads to "simplify" the sales tax collection in this country? When the hell (please excuse the French) did the government ever simplify anything?

Immie

 

[Quantum Windbag]

This is about revenue, pure and simple. States are losing sales tax because of a loophole established under the SCOTUS ruling of Quill v. North Dakota when they said that taxes could not be collected outside of the state because Congress had not provided any guidance. Now they are. (If it passes the House.)



>>>>

The businesses in those states are complaining that they can't compete, and demanding that the government fix it.

AKA rent seeking.

Politicians are seeking $$$$$$$, which is what all taxes boil down to.



>>>>

If that is what it is actually about who is joining the consortium voluntary? Why does not joining the consortium actually exempt the customers of those businesses from any tax liability?

 

[WorldWatcher]

The businesses in those states are complaining that they can't compete, and demanding that the government fix it.

AKA rent seeking.

Politicians are seeking $$$$$$$, which is what all taxes boil down to.



>>>>

If that is what it is actually about who is joining the consortium voluntary? Why does not joining the consortium actually exempt the customers of those businesses from any tax liability?

They are not exempt from the tax liability.

If you live in a State that does not join the consortium (or your state does not comply with the alternative) you still owe the tax liability, it's just that the State will not get to have the seller collecting it. The liability still exists, the costumer is still responsible for remitting the tax liability directly to the state.

Let's say I live in VA and I buy a $1000 T.V. through Dicks Internet TV Sales and VA does not comply with the requirements of the law to have Dicks Internet TV Sales out of FL then collect the sales tax. Currently, because it's an out-of-state e-commerce transaction, ZERO sales tax is collected at the time of sale - none for FL and none for VA. I as the consumer still have the tax liability and under VA law I'm required to remit a 5% sales/use tax directly to VA.

But because there is no transaction or tax reported to VA there is no record for them to pursue, therefore it requires the consumer to function post-sale on the "honor system". A system that has not worked for States in terms of collecting sales/use tax for the years these laws have been in place. The first time I ran into out-of-state purchases requiring state sales tax was 1984.


>>>>

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Politicians are seeking $$$$$$$, which is what all taxes boil down to.



>>>>

If that is what it is actually about who is joining the consortium voluntary? Why does not joining the consortium actually exempt the customers of those businesses from any tax liability?

They are not exempt from the tax liability.

If you live in a State that does not join the consortium (or your state does not comply with the alternative) you still owe the tax liability, it's just that the State will not get to have the seller collecting it. The liability still exists, the costumer is still responsible for remitting the tax liability directly to the state.

Let's say I live in VA and I buy a $1000 T.V. through Dicks Internet TV Sales and VA does not comply with the requirements of the law to have Dicks Internet TV Sales out of FL then collect the sales tax. Currently, because it's an out-of-state e-commerce transaction, ZERO sales tax is collected at the time of sale - none for FL and none for VA. I as the consumer still have the tax liability and under VA law I'm required to remit a 5% sales/use tax directly to VA.

But because there is no transaction or tax reported to VA there is no record for them to pursue, therefore it requires the consumer to function post-sale on the "honor system". A system that has not worked for States in terms of collecting sales/use tax for the years these laws have been in place. The first time I ran into out-of-state purchases requiring state sales tax was 1984.


>>>>

Let me get this straight, even without this law states can actually collect sales taxes? Why do we need the law again?

Can you explain why New York businesses should be paying California taxes in the first place? And Why New York should collect them for California?

Do you know who benefits from this law?

Why is the group behind this law trying to change the tax laws in every single state?

 

[Darkwind]

Somebody needs to tell House Republicans that their job is to do the right thing when it comes to voting on bills and it is a no brainer that the right thing is that this bill become law.

What part is a no brainer?? are you suggesting they should pass all bills presented?? Or just the ones you like?

We give enough money to and states,there is a huge difference between need and want.

What?

You think it is a no-brainer that small mom and pop I-net businesses should have to be subjected to 1000+ tax authorities to prove they never had a sale to a specific region or tax authority while giving the so called 'harmed' brick and mortar business who has to pay taxes on ONLY ONE tax authority a fair deal?

Are you brain dead?

this bill needs to be investigated and the authors of the bill charged with a crime.

1. Small Mom & Pop I-net businesses are exempt. Any business with $1,000,000 in sales during the previous tax years is exempt for the next year.

2. Incorrect again on your second point. Out-of-state online sellers are not subject to 1000+ taxing authorities, the law requires that out-of-state online sellers interact with only a SINGLE taxing administration entity for each state.



>>>>

Point two is incorrect. Every licensed business will have to provide filing on each tax authority through the entire country. Even if the filing is 'zero sales', it is a requirement. The overhead will be brutal.

Do you remember when obamacare was actually going to cost only one-half billion dollars?

Do you understand now?

 

[WorldWatcher]

If that is what it is actually about who is joining the consortium voluntary? Why does not joining the consortium actually exempt the customers of those businesses from any tax liability?

They are not exempt from the tax liability.

If you live in a State that does not join the consortium (or your state does not comply with the alternative) you still owe the tax liability, it's just that the State will not get to have the seller collecting it. The liability still exists, the costumer is still responsible for remitting the tax liability directly to the state.

Let's say I live in VA and I buy a $1000 T.V. through Dicks Internet TV Sales and VA does not comply with the requirements of the law to have Dicks Internet TV Sales out of FL then collect the sales tax. Currently, because it's an out-of-state e-commerce transaction, ZERO sales tax is collected at the time of sale - none for FL and none for VA. I as the consumer still have the tax liability and under VA law I'm required to remit a 5% sales/use tax directly to VA.

But because there is no transaction or tax reported to VA there is no record for them to pursue, therefore it requires the consumer to function post-sale on the "honor system". A system that has not worked for States in terms of collecting sales/use tax for the years these laws have been in place. The first time I ran into out-of-state purchases requiring state sales tax was 1984.


>>>>

Let me get this straight, even without this law states can actually collect sales taxes? Why do we need the law again?

States collect Sales or Use Tax. Sales taxes are collected at the time of sale based on the location of the purchaser by the business and remitted to the taxing authroity. Use taxes are collected after the sale, normally are the same amount as the sales tax, and are supposed to be collected on the "honor system" (since there is no way to enforce it for most items) after the sale when the buyer has the item delivered or returns it to the state of residence (normally with some exceptions for time (like six months) and for the payment of another states sales tax).

The argument is the people under the honor system do not comply with the User Tax and therefore politicians are shifting from that to the time of sale paradigm used for Sales Tax.

Can you explain why New York businesses should be paying California taxes in the first place? And Why New York should collect them for California?

Businesses don't pay the tax the purchaser pays the tax.

So the real question is why a purchaser in New York should be paying a New York tax or a Californian paying a California tax? The answer is that the purchaser uses the services provided by that State, since nothing is free those services cost money, and the purchaser (under that States laws) is required to remit a tax based on the transaction within that State. And yes when a person lives in a state, has the item delivered to that state, and pays for it from that state (electronically) - that transaction from the consumers standpoint occurred in that State.

Do you know who benefits from this law?

1. The States themselves as they will see an increase in revenue as consumers are currently using the loophole created by the Quill v. North Dakota decision to pay ZERO sales tax on e-commerce transactions. Having a mechanism to close that loophole will increase revenue to the State and allow those with budget shortfalls one means of closing the gap (and the other should be reduced spending, but that is the subject for a different thread).

2. All citizens in the State in question as the increased revenue would mean that a general increase in the sales tax rate would not be needed or other increases in other revenue streams - such as real estate, other personal property taxes, and income tax rates.

3. Brick and Mortar stores will see their competitive disadvantage regarding Sales Tax collection reduced (it isn't eliminated because all B&M retailers must collect sales tax, while only online e-commerce retailers with over one million in sales will be required to collect sales tax). They will still have, in general, other competitive disadvantages, such as: higher cost of retail space v. warehouse space, higher employee costs, higher training costs for customer service, volume discount purchasing which might not be as great as a specialized online retailer, lower property taxes (prime retail v. non-retail business space), etc. The other gap reduction fact is that e-commerce retailers have to charge shipping (whether it is "included" free hidden in the purchase price or whether it is included as a separate line in the transaction). In general though the cost of operations for an e-retailer will still be lower than for a B&M retailer meaning they can still offer better prices.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

What?

You think it is a no-brainer that small mom and pop I-net businesses should have to be subjected to 1000+ tax authorities to prove they never had a sale to a specific region or tax authority while giving the so called 'harmed' brick and mortar business who has to pay taxes on ONLY ONE tax authority a fair deal?

Are you brain dead?

this bill needs to be investigated and the authors of the bill charged with a crime.

1. Small Mom & Pop I-net businesses are exempt. Any business with $1,000,000 in sales during the previous tax years is exempt for the next year.

2. Incorrect again on your second point. Out-of-state online sellers are not subject to 1000+ taxing authorities, the law requires that out-of-state online sellers interact with only a SINGLE taxing administration entity for each state.



>>>>

Point two is incorrect. Every licensed business will have to provide filing on each tax authority through the entire country. Even if the filing is 'zero sales', it is a requirement. The overhead will be brutal.

Do you remember when obamacare was actually going to cost only one-half billion dollars?

Do you understand now?

Point two is correct, there are something like 9,600 taxing authorities in the United States. The business will not be required to remit tax payments to each authority. They will have to interface with only ONE authority in each State. The State will then allocate the tax revenue to each of it's local jurisdictions. The State in question will be required to provide the software that calculates the tax (most likely based on address) and then the software will prepare and file electronically the appropriate return. Each state also has an online payments system when the business has to actually transfer the funds to that States SINGLE tax administration authority.

The law specifically says that an out of state seller DOES NOT have to interface with each local taxing jurisdiction.



>>>>

 

[paulitician]

Just another Corporate Welfare Entitlement. The large Brick & Mortar lobbyists got to the phony Conservative Republicans and got them to go along. I'm sure lot's of cash exchanged hands. But the only ones who really pay in this, are good decent American Taxpayers. Do they really represent the People at this point? I'm leaning towards no.

 

[nitroz]

Internet tax is such a bad thing on so many levels.