Hous Repblicns Wrong On Intrnet Sales Tax Bill!

[WorldWatcher]

And no one has yet mentioned how this tax would be unfair the the five states who have no sales tax...

It will have not impact on the 5 states that have no sales taxes. They don't receive tax revenue now from sales tax, they will not receive revenue afterward from sales tax.



>>>>

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

I've already contacted my reps to vote against this bill.

Why? So you can continue to evade the use tax?

 

[Desperado]

just to remind you that Obama was against it before he was for it
"I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."
Barack Obama

 

[JWBooth]

oh and fyi; this is the dems that are sticking it to the working class

AGAIN

It could not have cleared the Senate without GOP support/votes

 

[WorldWatcher]

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.

Sorry, but there's nothing the slightest bit right about it. It's just another tax increase. the argument of "fairness" is bullshit. Only demagogues argue that fairness is a justification for increasing your taxes. Only fools swallow such arguments.

Out of state retailers may not pay a sales tax, but their customers do have to pay for delivery. The result of both is pretty much a wash in terms of total price. There's nothing stopping local retailers from marketing their wares on the internet. This is just another revenue grab by Democrats.

On this we agree, it is not about "fairness", it's about states not receiving taxes that are already on the books. Current the collection of sales or use taxes which have been on the books for years has been on the "honor system" for most things. As interstate commerce has grown because of the internet a lot of sales tax revenue is now going to online sales. The individuals were required (in many cases) to report and pay the appropriate tax, but they don't.

In VA there is a line item on our state tax returns for the remittance of sales tax on out of state purchases. Wanna bet how often it's used?

The states are trying to close the loophole so taxes that aren't being collected after the fact are shifted to tax collection at the time of sale. Not supprising really.


****************************


Remember last year when we were running against the Dem's, their position was increase rates to increase revenue. Our (Republican plan) was to maintain rates and cut spending and to increase revenues be closing loopholes. Well, now it's happening and people are whining because a loophole is being closed. Surprising isn't it?



>>>>

 

[MikeK]

[...]

John if you make the effort to hear past the clanging of chains which shackle your caucus' colleagues you'll hear grass roots America proclaiming loudly and clearly the message "John Grow A Spine And Pass This Legislation"!!!

Rather than advocate for another tax on average citizens you should be agitating for a substantial tax on the super-rich. And if you need a good reason for that, here's just one:

(Excerpt)

A new report finds that around the world the extremely wealthy have accumulated at least $21 trillion in secretive offshore accounts. That’s a sum equal to the gross domestic products of the United States and Japan added together. The number may sound unbelievable, but the study was conducted by James Henry, former chief economist at the consultancy McKinsey, an expert on tax havens and offshoring. It was commissioned by Tax Justice Network, a British activist group.

Super Rich Hide $21 Trillion Offshore, Study Says - Forbes

(Close)

In view of this revelation the idea of burdening the working class with an Internet sales tax is insulting.

 

[WorldWatcher]

just to remind you that Obama was against it before he was for it
"I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."
Barack Obama

Obama's a lying politican.


But I don't understand the point, these are state sales/use taxes that are owed not federal taxes.



>>>>

 

[MikeK]

just to remind you that Obama was against it before he was for it
"I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."
Barack Obama

Obama's a lying politican.


But I don't understand the point, these are state sales/use taxes that are owed not federal taxes.>>>>

But the bottom line is it's a tax on the ordinary person while the enormous legal tax evasion by the One Percent is ignored.

 

[Desperado]

just to remind you that Obama was against it before he was for it
"I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."
Barack Obama

Obama's a lying politican.


But I don't understand the point, these are state sales/use taxes that are owed not federal taxes.
>>>>

True, but it became a federal matter since Congress took up the matter. Which in the end means that Barrack will have the choice to sign it into law.

 

[JWBooth]

just to remind you that Obama was against it before he was for it
"I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."
Barack Obama

Obama's a lying politican.


But I don't understand the point, these are state sales/use taxes that are owed not federal taxes.
>>>>

True, but it became a federal matter since Congress took up the matter. Which in the end means that Barrack will have the choice to sign it into law.

As if that isn't a given...

 

[JWBooth]

just to remind you that Obama was against it before he was for it
"I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."
Barack Obama

Obama's a lying politican.


But I don't understand the point, these are state sales/use taxes that are owed not federal taxes.



>>>>

Owed?
Taxation large and small is a confiscation of wealth regardless of the level of government, ability to pay, or benefit (a weak premise at best) produced by its end use.

 

[bendog]

A sales tax is justifiable because people use roads and sewers to access the store. It costs a city to provide the brick and morter store. This is true whether the city where I make purchases is my home city or not. Consequently, a sales tax actually increases econ activity by allowing customers to access stores.

If I can buy an item without the store, at a cheaper price, my doing so actually benefits the overall economy because I will have money to spend on more stuff and increase econ activity.

If a city needs to raise more revenue for something, it can get that via property taxes or even raising fees, such as water and garbabe.

 

[WorldWatcher]

just to remind you that Obama was against it before he was for it
"I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."
Barack Obama

Obama's a lying politican.


But I don't understand the point, these are state sales/use taxes that are owed not federal taxes.
>>>>

True, but it became a federal matter since Congress took up the matter. Which in the end means that Barrack will have the choice to sign it into law.

Regulations pertaining to interstate commerce are a federal matter. The reason that Quill v. North Dakota (in ability to charge sales tax on interstate purchases) was decided the way it was was because the Congress hadn't addressed it.


>>>>

 

[Desperado]

On this we agree, it is not about "fairness", it's about states not receiving taxes that are already on the books. >>>>

So you won't have a problem when state and federal gas taxes are raised because the states and the fed are losing money with more efficient cars on the road.
or
The cigarette tax. Fewer smokers means less taxes.
After all it's about states not receiving taxes that are already on the books. Right?

 

[WorldWatcher]

just to remind you that Obama was against it before he was for it
"I will cut taxes - cut taxes - for 95 percent of all working families, because, in an economy like this, the last thing we should do is raise taxes on the middle class."
Barack Obama

Obama's a lying politican.


But I don't understand the point, these are state sales/use taxes that are owed not federal taxes.



>>>>

Owed?
Taxation large and small is a confiscation of wealth regardless of the level of government, ability to pay, or benefit (a weak premise at best) produced by its end use.

If I make a $1.00 purchase and the law imposes a 5% sales/use tax and I don't pay, then ya legally it's "owed". IIRC 45 of 50 states have sales/use taxes. Those that don't have decided on other revenue streams - which still are effectively taxes. I think the State of Alaska uses oil for that. Deleware uses a Business tax, although there the business pays the tax directly - that cost is still passed to consumers. So I'm talking practical application here, not high philosophy.

If people don't want to "owe" the tax, then they need to elect politicians that will repeal the law.

At the end of the day the citizens demand certain services as part of living in a modern society: roads, water, sewer, emergency services (police, fire, medical, disaster), then want schools, safe food, etc. TANSTAAFL (There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch), you can't demand services and then not provide revenue to supply them.


>>>>

 

[hjmick]

And no one has yet mentioned how this tax would be unfair the the five states who have no sales tax...

It will have not impact on the 5 states that have no sales taxes. They don't receive tax revenue now from sales tax, they will not receive revenue afterward from sales tax.



>>>>

Yes, but forty-five other states will get all this new revenue from a federal law that five will not. So you've now got a law that treats five states unfairly.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The easy way to do this is for each state that charges sales tax to charge that tax on all internet purchases made from businesses in their state.

For example I live in CT if i sell on line and a person buys a taxable item from me I add the 6.35% state sales tax to his bill just as if he was standing at my register in person.

This way the business owner is only obliged to collect, record and disburse the sales taxes of one state just as it is now.

It's a no brainer.

 

[WorldWatcher]

On this we agree, it is not about "fairness", it's about states not receiving taxes that are already on the books. >>>>

So you won't have a problem when state and federal gas taxes are raised because the states and the fed are losing money with more efficient cars on the road.
or
The cigarette tax. Fewer smokers means less taxes.
After all it's about states not receiving taxes that are already on the books. Right?

Your confusing two different issues: One payment of taxes owed and two being happy about paying more taxes. Discussing what the law is actually about (replacing revenue lost to reduced local (as in local & state sales/use tax) revenues) is different then being happy about having more money leave someones pocket.

I'm smart enough, from a logical non-emotional standpoint, to be able to step back and see that the dramatic increase in online sales over the last 10 years (or so) have cut into revenue streams because people are evading paying taxes that were due. I'm a Dresden Files (Jim Butcher) fan. His last book was "Cold Days". In the past I would have bought the hard cover book at a local Barnes & Nobles at - say - a cost of $25.00. My out of pocket cost would have been $26.25 with tax with $1.25 going to support local services.

Now B&N maintains a nice retail space (which costs more by volume), they have more employees, they have higher material costs per unit, they have to have employees trained in customer service, they have higher overhead, their property tax basis is higher - but they don't charge shipping (the transportation cost is built into the price instead of being a separate charge). Now an online retailer who has no retail space is: (a) able to use industrial space (which is cheaper than retail space), (b) they have fewer employees per unit sold, they don't need a lot of customer service training, there property tax basis is lower (again industrial v. retail). But they have to include shipping costs. Even with all that instead of $25.00 per unit they can sell the book (including shipping) $20.00.

For the Brick & Mortar store the state receives $1.25 for the transaction, for the out of state online sale the state receives $0.00. All other factors remaining the same with the new bill I could pay $26.25 at the Brick & Mortar store or pay $21.00 at the online store. As a consumer I'm still receiving the book at a much cheaper cost then at the B&M store. Yet now my state gets $1.00 toward state services that I as a resident want my state to provide.

As a person that has effectively seen no raise in the last 5-years because of the economy - I'm not happy about spending more money out of pocket.


>>>>

 

[OriginalShroom]

Here is why I am against the internet tax bill.

When I go to Ohio and buy something I pay Ohio Sales tax.

When I go to Tennessee and buy something I pay Tennessee Sales tax.

When I go to Arizona, I pay Arizona Sales tax.

My home state doesn't get anything when I buy from out of State.

If a company is in a State that has a sales tax, I don't mind paying their sales tax if they have one. But that company should not be expected to collect my home State's sales tax also.

 

[WorldWatcher]

And no one has yet mentioned how this tax would be unfair the the five states who have no sales tax...

It will have not impact on the 5 states that have no sales taxes. They don't receive tax revenue now from sales tax, they will not receive revenue afterward from sales tax.



>>>>

Yes, but forty-five other states will get all this new revenue from a federal law that five will not. So you've now got a law that treats five states unfairly.

It's not "new revenue", it's revenue that is currently owed. The difference is that it will be collected at the time of sale instead of using the honor system. Imagine if you will that a State said, sales tax will not be collected by merchants any longer. All citizens are expected to simply remit any tax owed on items purchased by writing a check and sending it to the states taxing authority on a monthly basis. Think that would work well?

Those states are not treated unfairly, they choose a different revenue stream (other than sales transactions). They are free to maintain those systems if it works for them. They can also implement a sales tax and comply with the interstate commerce requirements and join the other 45. They choice is theirs.



>>>>