15 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
15 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

MORE GOV stupidity!

by seasoned
12 replies
  • OFF TOPIC
    • |
NO, Congress can NOT charge, or authorize, state sales tax. Outside of interstate commerce, and some regulated goods, they really have no authority. And online sales tax is NOT legal, as it is in the same area as mailorder which has been tax exempt since like the BEGINNING! And HOW do we determine PRESENCE in a reasonable fashion? YEAH, their answer is "AFFILIATES", but that isn't reasonable. HECK, that would mean local mailers would also be subject and render much of the mailorder TAXABLE!

Their response NOW?

By an overwhelming 75-24 vote, Senators, late Friday, approved an amendment to the budget draft that would authorize states to compel merchants to collect sales taxes on on-line purchases. The amendment itself is non-binding, but it signals broad support for legislation dubbed The Marketplace Fairness Act. Action on that legislation could come later this year.

Techincally, on-line purchases are subject to sales tax. A landmark Supreme Court decision, however, limits states ability to compel merchants to collect the tax, unless the merchant has a substantial “physical presence” in the state. Under current law, consumers are expected to report their on-line purchases to the state and remit the taxes they owe. Unsurprisingly, almost no one does this.

The Court made clear in its ruling that only Congress could authorize states to force merchants to collect any applicable sales tax. States are afraid that, as e-commerce continues to grow, they will face a significant erosion in their sales tax base. Brick and mortar merchants worry that, without the imposition of sales taxes, on-line products and services will have a price advantage over traditional purchases
BTW regarding the shifting of tax reporting burden? ****EVERY**** US retailer does this! If Bezos decides to bring a computer home from his warehouse, is it tax free? ****NOPE****! AMAZON is expected to pay a USE tax(The standard company term for a sales tax paid VOLUNTARILY BY THEM to USE the product. It is as if they went outside, and paid sales tax elsewhere, even if it IS on the COST rather than the price).

How many of THEM pay that tax? And what happens with SPOILAGE that never has to be paid for?

Oh well, expect nation wide vat taxes!

BTW many online retailers have retail shops, and lose sales due to lead time. I would have paid $1600 a month ago, but the lead time was unpredictable. I have decided that I will likely get it at HOME DEPOT, BRICK AND MORTAR! I have gone to amazon for reviews and research, and bought ELSEWHERE! HECK, I recently bought a product from amazon, and was ripped off! Had they been near me, I would have returned it, and demanded my money back!

And there ARE a few states that have NO sales tax!!!!!!!!

Steve
  • Profile picture of the author DynoMutt
    Actually, "affiliates" is not used as a justification to determine whether the retailer has a presence in the state. If the online retailer has an office, warehouse or nexus, then that is grounds for presence.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7922910].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author seasoned
      Originally Posted by DynoMutt View Post

      Actually, "affiliates" is not used as a justification to determine whether the retailer has a presence in the state. If the online retailer has an office, warehouse or nexus, then that is grounds for presence.
      NO, it is AFFILIATE! The presence, office, or warehouse, has been true for a long time. WHY do you think so many companies got rid of affiliates as taxes were charged? It was to REDUCE LIABILITY! Of course, NOW they figure that a sale represents a presence.

      Steve
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7923163].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author DynoMutt
        Originally Posted by seasoned View Post

        NO, it is AFFILIATE! The presence, office, or warehouse, has been true for a long time. WHY do you think so many companies got rid of affiliates as taxes were charged? It was to REDUCE LIABILITY! Of course, NOW they figure that a sale represents a presence.

        Steve
        The companies, like Amazon, dropped affiliates from their respective states because legislators in those states required Amazon and similar outfits to charge sales tax.

        Amazon took it out on affiliates for whatever reason(s) they cited. But those affiliates are not the reason why states legislators passed laws requiring the collection of taxes from online transaction based on certain criteria (i.e. the amount of sales).

        I know the physical presence of these companies, which includes an office or warehouse has been around for some time. What I am explaining to you is that physical presence allows the state to collect taxes.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7925744].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author seasoned
          Originally Posted by DynoMutt View Post

          The companies, like Amazon, dropped affiliates from their respective states because legislators in those states required Amazon and similar outfits to charge sales tax.

          Amazon took it out on affiliates for whatever reason(s) they cited. But those affiliates are not the reason why states legislators passed laws requiring the collection of taxes from online transaction based on certain criteria (i.e. the amount of sales).

          I know the physical presence of these companies, which includes an office or warehouse has been around for some time. What I am explaining to you is that physical presence allows the state to collect taxes.
          NO, they didn't pass the laws for the affiliates. They used the affiliates to try to build aa case for the law.

          I've soken about physical presence here for maybe close to a decade, and the history of the laws proposed, and other actions bear e out.

          Your CLAIM that amazon and other companies threatened to drop affiliates in an area because of the law and not because of the effects of it makes NO sense! After all, it would then not increase amazons costs AT ALL, but a new york affiliate could EASILY sell in the UK.

          Steve
          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7927169].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author HeySal
    Our congress is spending money like drunken college kids and they will drain every damned dime we put in our pockets if they can get away with it. People are losing homes, going hungry just because their taxes are taking so much they can't live anymore. It's really time to get in line and stop them. Our gov was able to survive at one time without all this money - but they didn't spend it all on their own luxury and any frivolous BS that their crony companies wanted it for. We need to get rid of career politicians, and tell them no more illegal taxes. If the congress was limited back to its original authority, it wouldn't need all that damned money. States are where the money needs to go - not to the Feds to distribute inside of the states.
    Signature

    Sal
    When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
    Beyond the Path

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7923025].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author whateverpedia
      Originally Posted by HeySal View Post

      People are losing homes, going hungry just because their taxes are taking so much they can't live anymore.
      I thought they were losing their homes because they couldn't find work, and when they do, the wage is so pitiful they can't afford to live on it.

      Actually it's probably a combination of both. Being paid a pauper's wage and then being taxed on that.
      Signature
      Why do garden gnomes smell so bad?
      So that blind people can hate them as well.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7923183].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author HeySal
        Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

        I thought they were losing their homes because they couldn't find work, and when they do, the wage is so pitiful they can't afford to live on it.

        Actually it's probably a combination of both. Being paid a pauper's wage and then being taxed on that.
        It is both. But when you figure hidden taxes, licenses, etc and so on - we're already paying one huge chunk of our pay into taxes......and wait for a few of the Obamacare taxes to hit. We're in for soup lines real soon.
        Signature

        Sal
        When the Roads and Paths end, learn to guide yourself through the wilderness
        Beyond the Path

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7924405].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author seasoned
        Originally Posted by whateverpedia View Post

        I thought they were losing their homes because they couldn't find work, and when they do, the wage is so pitiful they can't afford to live on it.

        Actually it's probably a combination of both. Being paid a pauper's wage and then being taxed on that.
        NO!!!!!!!!!


        Government gets inolved, increases taxes, regulation, and minimum wage....

        Salespeople, cooks, forklift operators, etc.... get laid off, because the employer can't afford them, because the minimum wage is increased. This also means unemployment costs more, pushing the next cycle. MEANWHILE, these companies don't need to buy as many computers, etc... EVENTUALLY, it hits those that make MORE money and they must take a pay cut, or get laid off. SO, you see, taxes, regulations, and even the minimum wage HURTS employment. NOW, they have placed a NEW tax on US employees of $600/year! THAT is hurting employment!

        Steve
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7927261].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author LeeLee
    I think we need government by sortition. That would end career politicians and bring the voice of all the people to the table.
    Signature
    The wisdom of life consists in the elimination of nonessentials. ~ Lin Yutang
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7923047].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SandraLarkin
    Banned
    They are not stupid, they are criminal. They want every single dime from us "serfs". That is all it is, expanding government hegemony.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7928119].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    Yeah, eventually, people in the US will be BEGGING to ONLY pay vat. Some of the "ideas" they have floated are INCREDIBLE! And they ALWAYS claim it is a low meaningless amount and then raise it SKY HIGH!

    Yesterday, I actually heard a woman say "When is the last time YOU heard of the government doing ...." to show how STUPID the idea is! The problem? That was EXACTLY what she was suggesting and what the government was deciding.

    Of course, such an OBVIOUS reply would have been lost on that idiot, so one of the hosts picked a recent example from her own state, and stated that "Surely you must know that". She STILL played dumb!

    Seriously, it has gotten so INCREDIBLY dumb, I wonder about those people. If they were idiots from another planet that figured it would NEVER affect them and THEY would get ALL benefit, it might begin to make sense, but how could they believe any of THAT?

    BTW the US has no VAT tax, but it IS one of the things they are considering! It will probably be ON TOP of sales tax!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7929205].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author seasoned
    OK, MORE stupidity! Pepsi, Coke, 7up, etc.... can be in plastic bottles, but they are banning WATER in plastic! You know, what they COULD do is provide shredding machines, maybe like the vending machines they had at some markets to refund money for the bottle, and grind it down to pellets that can be reused.

    ALSO, the US government is saying that preventing education is not a violation of human rights! They are using this to send a family, that seems nice, They came here legally, applied legally, were accepted legally, and now the federal government, with NO standing, is appealing the case!

    Federal Government Tries to Block Homeschooling Refugees » First Thoughts | A First Things Blog

    It is ironic! The US was started in part by people from britain, that did it in part for this! They were called merely, "THE PILGRIMS".

    Later, another group came from GERMANY for this reason. And they were called "AMISH".

    You would think that this family that came here simply to have educational freedom could be allowed to stay.

    ALSO, the US is putting the 2007 rules, that caused the 2008 collapse, back into place. It is LUDICROUS that supporters are saying the problem is "securitizing" them. They have been doing that since the beginning! They are called BONDS, and banks, corporations, cities, and GOVERNMENTS do it! In the US, the federal government puts out savings BONDS, TBILLS, GNMA BONDS, FNMA BONDS, FHLMC BONDS, etc.... Even if they DIDN'T do that, WHERE do people think the banks get the money? It is from depositors, or the government!

    Steve
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7943760].message }}

Trending Topics