Internet sales tax? yea or nay?

[Skull Pilot]

Of course each state will receive it's own filing. Not what I said.

Online services are already available that manage tax collections based on the tax rules, they already exists because online retailers already have to manage those items because they are are required to charge sales tax when the destination is in a state where the seller has a "nexus".




Seems like you missed the point, the point was a previously complex form was simplified, the data captured once manually, and then electronically tracked and transferred.




I know, there are so many variables to keep track of that I doubt Amazon will ever be able to create a Tax Collection Service and offer it, there are so many variables and so many different people they'll never have the ability to create a national distribution system.


............. Oh wait, they've done both those things.



>>>>

The amazon web retailers so called tax collection service is intrastate not interstate. Just like sales taxes are intrastate not interstate.

From their website: "Registration. If you are a Marketplace Professional seller or Webstore seller, you may register for tax collection services by providing to Amazon, in the format and manner we require, collection settings for the jurisdictions for which you wish to collect taxes or other transaction-based charges that we support for your Marketplace Professional or Webstore transactions, and any related information we request"

Their service covers multiple jurisdictions, note the plural.

Then of course if Amazon Tax Collection Services provides collections individually for NY, MA, CT, VA, GA, NC, SC, AL, FL, MS, LA, TX, CA, OR, AL, AK, MN, MT, MO, IW, IA, OH, etc, etc. what would prevent them from applying the same rules they are already using to transactions based on States to which they are already supplying services?



They already supply services across multiple jurisdictions and in multiple states. Eventually it wouldn't matter what state the seller is in, it will matter what state the delivery is.

Add to that tracking individual purchases by state and then integrating all the tax laws of all 50 states not to mention local sales taxes into the mix and you have a system that will hobble business.

They already do it.

As I said there is a simple way to solve the problem but you are hell bent on red tape bureaucracy, complexity and high costs.

I don't necessarily disagree that it wouldn't be a simpler solution (understanding that just because something is complex doesn't mean it can't be done), however the States aren't going to buy into it. The reason? The states who are the consumers of the purchase will not get the revenue stream form the sale/use taxes for sales in their state. And yes you can piss and moan that the sale is in the state where the seller is, but that is not the construction of the law. The sale is in the state of the purchaser.


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

BTW - The last I head while driving, there was some amendment issues and so the Senate vote has been delayed. Possibly later tonight.


>>>>

So your answer is that all retailers either have to sell via amazon or create their own ridiculously expensive software to do the same thing?

It's ridiculous.

It's needlessly complex, expensive and labor intensive.

Just treat internet and catalog sales as an in state purchase and let business owners do what they do best; take care of their customers.


Problem solved with no bureaucracy no extra expense.

 

[WorldWatcher]

The amazon web retailers so called tax collection service is intrastate not interstate. Just like sales taxes are intrastate not interstate.

From their website: "Registration. If you are a Marketplace Professional seller or Webstore seller, you may register for tax collection services by providing to Amazon, in the format and manner we require, collection settings for the jurisdictions for which you wish to collect taxes or other transaction-based charges that we support for your Marketplace Professional or Webstore transactions, and any related information we request"

Their service covers multiple jurisdictions, note the plural.

Then of course if Amazon Tax Collection Services provides collections individually for NY, MA, CT, VA, GA, NC, SC, AL, FL, MS, LA, TX, CA, OR, AL, AK, MN, MT, MO, IW, IA, OH, etc, etc. what would prevent them from applying the same rules they are already using to transactions based on States to which they are already supplying services?



They already supply services across multiple jurisdictions and in multiple states. Eventually it wouldn't matter what state the seller is in, it will matter what state the delivery is.



They already do it.

As I said there is a simple way to solve the problem but you are hell bent on red tape bureaucracy, complexity and high costs.

I don't necessarily disagree that it wouldn't be a simpler solution (understanding that just because something is complex doesn't mean it can't be done), however the States aren't going to buy into it. The reason? The states who are the consumers of the purchase will not get the revenue stream form the sale/use taxes for sales in their state. And yes you can piss and moan that the sale is in the state where the seller is, but that is not the construction of the law. The sale is in the state of the purchaser.


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

BTW - The last I head while driving, there was some amendment issues and so the Senate vote has been delayed. Possibly later tonight.


>>>>

So your answer is that all retailers either have to sell via amazon or create their own ridiculously expensive software to do the same thing?

It's ridiculous.

Your right it is ridiculous and a perfect example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

I've specifically NOT said what you claim in your attempt at reduction to absurdity.

On one hand the argument is that the concept of online retailers being able to calculate the tax for different states, Amazon as a large retailer that ALREADY calculates the tax for different states shows that is untrue.

On the other hand you then present an absurdity that each and every internet seller would have to program independent software specifically for their business, which is not what I've said.

Read back in the thread, I've oft posited that large retailers such as Amazon and Overstocked.com are examples that the concept can be achieved. Now since they've proved the concept, smaller independent developers will be able to take the tax tables provided by the states and will develop 3rd party applications. Those applications will be integrated into existing marketing/accounting/bookkeeping applications or they may supply a service similar to companies that act as clearing houses for credit card transactions.

It's needlessly complex, expensive and labor intensive.

2012 internet sales were over $220 Billion Dollars and with a growing market share, at 5% Sales/User Tax (just to say on average) that would be $11 Billion dollars in revenue. Take Virginia for example, as a percentage of US population, that would be about $284,664,536.74 ($284.7 Million) in additional revenue recovering taxes that are already owed.

If you think states are not going to move to tap that revenue stream - well - all I can say is that in my opinion you are in error.

Just treat internet and catalog sales as an in state purchase and let business owners do what they do best; take care of their customers.

States already treat them as in-state purchases, the state were the customer is. The problem is that the current method of recovery requires the individual tax payer to keep track of their liability and to then remit that individually to the state. Of course that doesn't occur. So instead of collecting the tax on the honor system at the back-end, the movement will be to implement a system concept similar to that already used by Brick & Mortar stores - collect it at the time of sale.


You have mentioned shopping trips to MA, when the purchases on such a trip exceed $25 - let me ask you, how often have you contacted the CT department of taxation and paid the tax that you owed under current CT law?

Problem solved with no bureaucracy no extra expense.

And no revenue to that states where taxes are owed.


>>>>

 

[Skull Pilot]

From their website: "Registration. If you are a Marketplace Professional seller or Webstore seller, you may register for tax collection services by providing to Amazon, in the format and manner we require, collection settings for the jurisdictions for which you wish to collect taxes or other transaction-based charges that we support for your Marketplace Professional or Webstore transactions, and any related information we request"

Their service covers multiple jurisdictions, note the plural.

Then of course if Amazon Tax Collection Services provides collections individually for NY, MA, CT, VA, GA, NC, SC, AL, FL, MS, LA, TX, CA, OR, AL, AK, MN, MT, MO, IW, IA, OH, etc, etc. what would prevent them from applying the same rules they are already using to transactions based on States to which they are already supplying services?



They already supply services across multiple jurisdictions and in multiple states. Eventually it wouldn't matter what state the seller is in, it will matter what state the delivery is.



They already do it.




I don't necessarily disagree that it wouldn't be a simpler solution (understanding that just because something is complex doesn't mean it can't be done), however the States aren't going to buy into it. The reason? The states who are the consumers of the purchase will not get the revenue stream form the sale/use taxes for sales in their state. And yes you can piss and moan that the sale is in the state where the seller is, but that is not the construction of the law. The sale is in the state of the purchaser.


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

BTW - The last I head while driving, there was some amendment issues and so the Senate vote has been delayed. Possibly later tonight.


>>>>

So your answer is that all retailers either have to sell via amazon or create their own ridiculously expensive software to do the same thing?

It's ridiculous.

Your right it is ridiculous and a perfect example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

I've specifically NOT said what you claim in your attempt at reduction to absurdity.

On one hand the argument is that the concept of online retailers being able to calculate the tax for different states, Amazon as a large retailer that ALREADY calculates the tax for different states shows that is untrue.

On the other hand you then present an absurdity that each and every internet seller would have to program independent software specifically for their business, which is not what I've said.

Read back in the thread, I've oft posited that large retailers such as Amazon and Overstocked.com are examples that the concept can be achieved. Now since they've proved the concept, smaller independent developers will be able to take the tax tables provided by the states and will develop 3rd party applications. Those applications will be integrated into existing marketing/accounting/bookkeeping applications or they may supply a service similar to companies that act as clearing houses for credit card transactions.



2012 internet sales were over $220 Billion Dollars and with a growing market share, at 5% Sales/User Tax (just to say on average) that would be $11 Billion dollars in revenue. Take Virginia for example, as a percentage of US population, that would be about $284,664,536.74 ($284.7 Million) in additional revenue recovering taxes that are already owed.

If you think states are not going to move to tap that revenue stream - well - all I can say is that in my opinion you are in error.

Just treat internet and catalog sales as an in state purchase and let business owners do what they do best; take care of their customers.

States already treat them as in-state purchases, the state were the customer is. The problem is that the current method of recovery requires the individual tax payer to keep track of their liability and to then remit that individually to the state. Of course that doesn't occur. So instead of collecting the tax on the honor system at the back-end, the movement will be to implement a system concept similar to that already used by Brick & Mortar stores - collect it at the time of sale.


You have mentioned shopping trips to MA, when the purchases on such a trip exceed $25 - let me ask you, how often have you contacted the CT department of taxation and paid the tax that you owed under current CT law?

Problem solved with no bureaucracy no extra expense.

And no revenue to that states where taxes are owed.


>>>>

States do not treat ALL internet sales as in state sales.

The simple fact is that the transaction actually takes place at the POS of the retailer not in the home of the buyer therefore any sale initiated from a buyer out of state should be subject to the state sales tax of the home state of the retailer.

I fail to see what it is you don't understand about this.

 

[WorldWatcher]

So your answer is that all retailers either have to sell via amazon or create their own ridiculously expensive software to do the same thing?

It's ridiculous.

Your right it is ridiculous and a perfect example of the reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

I've specifically NOT said what you claim in your attempt at reduction to absurdity.

On one hand the argument is that the concept of online retailers being able to calculate the tax for different states, Amazon as a large retailer that ALREADY calculates the tax for different states shows that is untrue.

On the other hand you then present an absurdity that each and every internet seller would have to program independent software specifically for their business, which is not what I've said.

Read back in the thread, I've oft posited that large retailers such as Amazon and Overstocked.com are examples that the concept can be achieved. Now since they've proved the concept, smaller independent developers will be able to take the tax tables provided by the states and will develop 3rd party applications. Those applications will be integrated into existing marketing/accounting/bookkeeping applications or they may supply a service similar to companies that act as clearing houses for credit card transactions.



2012 internet sales were over $220 Billion Dollars and with a growing market share, at 5% Sales/User Tax (just to say on average) that would be $11 Billion dollars in revenue. Take Virginia for example, as a percentage of US population, that would be about $284,664,536.74 ($284.7 Million) in additional revenue recovering taxes that are already owed.

If you think states are not going to move to tap that revenue stream - well - all I can say is that in my opinion you are in error.



States already treat them as in-state purchases, the state were the customer is. The problem is that the current method of recovery requires the individual tax payer to keep track of their liability and to then remit that individually to the state. Of course that doesn't occur. So instead of collecting the tax on the honor system at the back-end, the movement will be to implement a system concept similar to that already used by Brick & Mortar stores - collect it at the time of sale.


You have mentioned shopping trips to MA, when the purchases on such a trip exceed $25 - let me ask you, how often have you contacted the CT department of taxation and paid the tax that you owed under current CT law?

Problem solved with no bureaucracy no extra expense.

And no revenue to that states where taxes are owed.


>>>>

States do not treat ALL internet sales as in state sales.

Not ALL States do ALL things the same.

However a State that taxes online sales treats all sales as instate sales, or more accurately put, subject to that states tax laws. Now some states may exempt some types of items (for example not taxing food items), that doesn't mean they don't consider the transaction as falling under the law.

The simple fact is that the transaction actually takes place at the POS of the retailer not in the home of the buyer therefore any sale initiated from a buyer out of state should be subject to the state sales tax of the home state of the retailer.

No, that is not a fact, that is your opinion. An equally valid argument is that the transaction takes place where the customer pays for and/or takes delivery of the item(s).

The fact remains it is up to the State legislature to define, for tax purposes how that is viewed and whether it's called a "Sales Tax" or "Use Tax" is pretty irrelevant, it's still the collection of a tax.

You have mentioned that you are in CT and have traveled to MA and while there shopped and purchased goods. I've previously supplied the link showing CT law requires that if you buy $25 or more in goods from out-of-state, they charge you a Use Tax and you are supposed to remit that tax to CT. Irregardless of the location, under those conditions you still owe CT the tax.

I fail to see what it is you don't understand about this.

Having a difference of opinion about a point does not mean I don't understand your point.

Opinion = tax should be charged at the location of the seller.

Fact = Many states charge tax based on location of use.​

Recognizing the difference is not the same as not understanding the difference.



>>>>

 

[Skull Pilot]

People who have never run a business and dealt with the strangling entanglement of government red tape always seem to think that more red tape is the answer.

I'm done here.

 

[WorldWatcher]

>

During the Presidential race last year the Democrat solution to government spending was to increase tax rates to increase revenues and increase spending. Our plan (Republican) called for keeping rates the same (or reducing them) and closing loopholes that allowed for tax avoidance - along with budget cuts.

States for years have had Sales Tax/User Tax provisions in the law, but these taxes were routinely avoided because there was no means of collecting the taxes due. The law (if it passes) provides a framework where states will have a vehicle to collect the taxes already due.

Have a nice day.


>>>>

 

[JWBooth]

Feed the leviathan, that's the ticket.
Maintain the growth of the state and damn the private sector.
All hail the tax collectors for the welfare state.

 

[Dot Com]

the taxes were payed pre- amazon so whats the BFD if they are paid post- amazon? Just like returning the top tax-rate to where it was previously under Clinton is not an increase, it is merely returning it to where it was.

Many here just seem to want to continually starve government YET continue using all the services & infrastructure provided by said government.

 

[eflatminor]

the taxes were payed pre- amazon so whats the BFD if they are paid post- amazon? Just like returning the top tax-rate to where it was previously under Clinton is not an increase, it is merely returning it to where it was.

So, by your own reasoning, if we took the top tax rate to where it was previously under Wilson (7%), it's not an decrease, it is merely returning it to where it was.

What's the BFD, right?

I'm on board with that.

Many here just seem to want to continually starve government YET continue using all the services & infrastructure provided by said government.

Some government programs we have NO CHOICE but to use because of laws requiring usage or because the government has a monopoly. Try not contributing to Social Security and see how that works out. Try finding private AFFORDABLE education and see how far you get. Try opting out of Obamacare!

The point is we don't want these damn services, we want the federal government to live within its means and within the limitations of the Constitution.

 

[peach174]

the taxes were payed pre- amazon so whats the BFD if they are paid post- amazon? Just like returning the top tax-rate to where it was previously under Clinton is not an increase, it is merely returning it to where it was.

Many here just seem to want to continually starve government YET continue using all the services & infrastructure provided by said government.

Starve Government?
You can't have high unemployment, almost half of the nation on government assistance, slow growth and continued higher taxes at Fed or State level and expect it to work.
Trying to get more taxes will never work, until we get economic growth back and get less on government assistance.
More jobs and businesses is what brings in government revenue.
I'm a very against taxing the internet.
Everything that the Dems are doing, prohibits growth in our private sector of business.

 

[Dot Com]

its already the law of the land (like Boehner (R) said in re: Obamacare). We're just quibbling over the particulars.

 

[Montrovant]

the taxes were payed pre- amazon so whats the BFD if they are paid post- amazon? Just like returning the top tax-rate to where it was previously under Clinton is not an increase, it is merely returning it to where it was.

Many here just seem to want to continually starve government YET continue using all the services & infrastructure provided by said government.

Sorry, that's nothing but political BS. Using that logic we'd need to go back to the tax rates at the founding of the country, not arbitrarily stop at the Clinton administration.

Besides, if returning to previous levels raises taxes, then it still is an increase. The reason for the increase doesn't change the fact of an increase.

When you say silly things like that, it's hard to take anything else in the post seriously.

 

[eflatminor]

its already the law of the land

Uh, no, it's not. An internet tax is not law, not yet, and hopefully not ever.

We're just quibbling over the particulars.

No, we're showing just how ridiculous your arguments are.

But please, tell us again how returning to higher tax rates is not an increase...but returning to lower tax rates IS a decrease.

 

[Dot Com]

the taxes were payed pre- amazon so whats the BFD if they are paid post- amazon? Just like returning the top tax-rate to where it was previously under Clinton is not an increase, it is merely returning it to where it was.

Many here just seem to want to continually starve government YET continue using all the services & infrastructure provided by said government.

Sorry, that's nothing but political BS. Using that logic we'd need to go back to the tax rates at the founding of the country, not arbitrarily stop at the Clinton administration.

Besides, if returning to previous levels raises taxes, then it still is an increase. The reason for the increase doesn't change the fact of an increase.

When you say silly things like that, it's hard to take anything else in the post seriously.

you got me. I just wanted to get one of the President's 2nd-term economic accomplishments into the thread.

As to the OP- no wonder Main St., Mom & Pop shops are shutting down w/ all the conservative views posted on this thread. Sheesh.

 

[Montrovant]

the taxes were payed pre- amazon so whats the BFD if they are paid post- amazon? Just like returning the top tax-rate to where it was previously under Clinton is not an increase, it is merely returning it to where it was.

Many here just seem to want to continually starve government YET continue using all the services & infrastructure provided by said government.

Sorry, that's nothing but political BS. Using that logic we'd need to go back to the tax rates at the founding of the country, not arbitrarily stop at the Clinton administration.

Besides, if returning to previous levels raises taxes, then it still is an increase. The reason for the increase doesn't change the fact of an increase.

When you say silly things like that, it's hard to take anything else in the post seriously.

you got me. I just wanted to get one of the President's 2nd-term economic accomplishments into the thread.

As to the OP- no wonder Main St., Mom & Pop shops are shutting down w/ all the conservative views posted on this thread. Sheesh.

Ok, that's funny.

 

[eflatminor]

But please, tell us again how returning to higher tax rates is not an increase...but returning to lower tax rates IS a decrease.

Crickets.

Shocking, to be sure...

 

[S.J.]

Taxes should not be imposed on the internet merchants for the purpose of helping mom & pop b&m businesses. Those who prefer to walk into a store are free to do so. Drop the romantic notion of making things "fair". The government is not considering a tax for the purpose of helping anyone but themselves.

 

[BillyV]

A business in one state should not be subject to the laws of other states any more than Gibson Guitars should be subject to the laws of India. It's really the same concept. You may recall the Justice Department raided Gibson for that very reason last year.

From a statement by Henry Juszkiewicz, Chairman and CEO of Gibson Guitar Corp.:

“The Federal Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. has suggested that the use of wood from India that is not finished by Indian workers is illegal, not because of U.S. law, but because it is the Justice Department’s interpretation of a law in India. (If the same wood from the same tree was finished by Indian workers, the material would be legal.)”

The only way you can make a case for internet sales taxes is by making it a Federal tax.

 

[Montrovant]

Taxes should not be imposed on the internet merchants for the purpose of helping mom & pop b&m businesses. Those who prefer to walk into a store are free to do so. Drop the romantic notion of making things "fair". The government is not considering a tax for the purpose of helping anyone but themselves.

While I agree completely that those in government are unlikely, to say the least, to impose any tax for altruistic reasons, is this really a new tax? It sounds as though it's more finding a way to collect a tax that currently isn't paid.

Not that politicians are likely to be trying to find a way to collect it because they are worried about the mom & pop businesses, either.

 

[shikaki]

I'm a little confused, I thought the federal government taxed based on Income, not on day to day purchases. I agree this is a ridiculous proposition. If businesses are selling products they will be taxed already as a business. If individuals are selling, they have probably already paid tax on the item they are selling, the first time when they purchased it.