Internet Sales Tax

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

…there are many states with laws on the books that state “abortion is illegal and murder” (or shades of the foregoing). These laws are unconstitutional per Roe v. Wade, but still sit on the books.

Similarly, there are laws against homosexual sodomy and a host of other things that sit on state books, but which cannot be enforced.

There are lots of reasons states leave such laws on the books, from simple stubborness of the state leglisature, to political posturing, to laziness, or, more commonly, because a statute is only partially invalid and re-writing it causes a series of other problems (e.g., ex post facto laws).

[/quote]

Or was this the “substantiative” “discussion” you were harping on?

All I see is you equating arcane, not-enforced laws and statutes that happen to still be on the books with the modern day tax code of Virginia. Simple litmus test here:

Does Virginia, or does Virginia not, actually enforce the collection of taxes for those out-of-state businesses that meet the criteria of above?

We aren’t talking about prosecuting people for butt fucking here, or saying people can’t get abortions when really they can. The Commonwealth collects these taxes on the regular. To compare it to laws that are “just on the books” just shows you are at the end of your rope grasping for threads.

62

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

…there are many states with laws on the books that state “abortion is illegal and murder” (or shades of the foregoing). These laws are unconstitutional per Roe v. Wade, but still sit on the books.

Similarly, there are laws against homosexual sodomy and a host of other things that sit on state books, but which cannot be enforced.

There are lots of reasons states leave such laws on the books, from simple stubborness of the state leglisature, to political posturing, to laziness, or, more commonly, because a statute is only partially invalid and re-writing it causes a series of other problems (e.g., ex post facto laws).

[/quote]

Or was this the “substantiative” “discussion” you were harping on?

All I see is you equating arcane, not-enforced laws and statutes that happen to still be on the books with the modern day tax code of Virginia. Simple litmus test here:

Does Virginia, or does Virginia not, actually enforce the collection of taxes for those out-of-state businesses that meet the criteria of above?

We aren’t talking about prosecuting people for butt fucking here, or saying people can’t get abortions when really they can. The Commonwealth collects these taxes on the regular. To compare it to laws that are “just on the books” just shows you are at the end of your rope grasping for threads.
[/quote]

I see legal analysis by analogy is lost on you.

The question you present is: “can Virginia collect sales tax from sellers that do not have a physical brick-and-mortar building in Virgia because of this (or any other) statute on the books in Virgina?”

The answer is “No. Not even if Virginia has a statute authorizing it. Such a statute would be uncontitutional. The fact that the statute remains on the books is unremarkable, and, indeed, typical. Other kinds of taxes (e.g., franchise or income taxes) might be collectable, but that is a different analysis not applicable here.”

63

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
And just to be clear, the reason I seem to hate conservatism is because the “conservatives” that speak their mind so much recently are so full of shit, it starts to stink. What with the Obama birther bit, that you can pay for shit without some form of taxes because of the charitable goodwill of people, and that global warming is not a scientific consensus. There is so much stupidity coming out of the party that represents the conservative fan base, I would be embarrassed to even begin to support it. And that’s just the establishment Republicans I’m talking about–the Tea Party is a whole 'nother realm of stupidity that I barely feel worthy of mentioning in a serious discussion.[/quote]

You want to discuss the mega-stupidity behind the Liberal propaganda suggesting that our government wanted the 9-11 attacks to happen ?

Or the notion that keeping track of maybe 200 years worth of temperatures means we can predict the weather of a planet that is 4.5 BILLION years old ?

Or “we must save the guns to protect the children”… yet we legalize abortion ?

Conservatives were screaming about how Obamacare would raise premiums (even though Barackulous promised otherwise), and wow lo and behold they were right ?

Government spending always has more pork than anything else, it’s nothing more than political kickbacks to friends/investors/colleagues/family/etc ?

Hey Belly Flop, guess who won the bid to build the multi-BILLION dollar California High Speed Rail ? Dianne Feinstein’s husband ! Oh I know, pure “coincidence.”

Both sides play the roll, Conservatives are not innocent by any means on this either.

64

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

…there are many states with laws on the books that state “abortion is illegal and murder” (or shades of the foregoing). These laws are unconstitutional per Roe v. Wade, but still sit on the books.

Similarly, there are laws against homosexual sodomy and a host of other things that sit on state books, but which cannot be enforced.

There are lots of reasons states leave such laws on the books, from simple stubborness of the state leglisature, to political posturing, to laziness, or, more commonly, because a statute is only partially invalid and re-writing it causes a series of other problems (e.g., ex post facto laws).

[/quote]

Or was this the “substantiative” “discussion” you were harping on?

All I see is you equating arcane, not-enforced laws and statutes that happen to still be on the books with the modern day tax code of Virginia. Simple litmus test here:

Does Virginia, or does Virginia not, actually enforce the collection of taxes for those out-of-state businesses that meet the criteria of above?

We aren’t talking about prosecuting people for butt fucking here, or saying people can’t get abortions when really they can. The Commonwealth collects these taxes on the regular. To compare it to laws that are “just on the books” just shows you are at the end of your rope grasping for threads.
[/quote]

I see legal analysis by analogy is lost on you.

The question you present is: “can Virginia collect sales tax from sellers that do not have a physical brick-and-mortar building in Virgia because of this (or any other) statute on the books in Virgina?”

The answer is “No. Not even if Virginia has a statute authorizing it. Such a statute would be uncontitutional. The fact that the statute remains on the books is unremarkable, and, indeed, typical. Other kinds of taxes (e.g., franchise or income taxes) might be collectable, but that is a different analysis not applicable here.”[/quote]

There is jack shit lost on me here. You are (or should I say, WERE, since you are obviously back-peadling on that) equating laws that are ON THE BOOK BUT NOT ENFORCED to laws that ON THE BOOK AND ARE ENFORCED. I’m sure you can see why that analogy is stupid. This says nothing to the constitutionality of it, which is somewhat of a more valid argument, I was just wondering why you were choosing to focus on the obviously false analogy when there is supposedly a constitutional argument that is more persuasive.

And Quill explicitly stated that Congress can overrule the decision through legislation, which is what it’s doing with the Internet Sales Tax Bill, which you bizarelly still claim is unconstitutional. Though I suspect that is because you really weren’t all that familiar with Quill when you made that statement and will likely gracefully ‘evolve’ your tune to be less critical of it, at least as far as its constitutionality.

65

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
You are (or should I say, WERE, since you are obviously back-peadling on that) equating laws that are ON THE BOOK BUT NOT ENFORCED to laws that ON THE BOOK AND ARE ENFORCED. I’m sure you can see why that analogy is stupid. [/quote]

No, I am not back-peddling on anything. Again, if there is a sales-tax law in Virgina that says what you claim on the books in Virginia, it is not enforceable.

You need to read what you wrote.

Further, you need to read the Circuit Court cases underlying Quill. It is doubtful that, even with Congressional action potentially left open by Quill, any inter-state sales tax would ever be Constiutional.

66

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

Further, you need to read the Circuit Court cases underlying Quill. It is doubtful that, even with Congressional action potentially left open by Quill, any inter-state sales tax would ever be Constiutional.[/quote]

Well hot damn, I guess I better get on my knees and start prayin’ to the big man in the sky that buildings start sprouting out of the ground, bridges fall from the heavens, and nice new paved roads fly out of my ass like tulips and rainbows

67

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

Further, you need to read the Circuit Court cases underlying Quill. It is doubtful that, even with Congressional action potentially left open by Quill, any inter-state sales tax would ever be Constiutional.[/quote]

Well hot damn, I guess I better get on my knees and start prayin’ to the big man in the sky that buildings start sprouting out of the ground, bridges fall from the heavens, and nice new paved roads fly out of my ass like tulips and rainbows
[/quote]

Your flip answer proves the point I’ve made all along – it’s all just about tax revenue.

If increased taxes are really neeeded, the answer, of course, is that the state seeking the revenue needs to raise taxes from its own citizens instead of trying to rob citizens from some other state.

“Taxation without representation” and all that “radical” stuff.

68

SCOTUS seemed pretty clear on allowing Congress to regulate this issue:

Indeed, in recent years Congress has considered legislation that would “overrule” the Bellas Hess rule. [n.11] Its decision not to take action in this direction may, of course, have been dictated by respect for our holding in Bellas Hess that the Due Process Clause prohibits States from imposing such taxes, but today we have put that problem to rest. Accordingly, Congress is now free to decide whether, when, and to what extent the States mayburden interstate mail order concerns with a duty to collect use taxes. [would bold the last sentence if I knew how]

The above Due Process consideration seemed to be that the Due Process requirements nexus is significantly lower than the Bella Hess test, and, accordingly, Congress could lower the bar from the Bella Hess test to the Due Process requirements. By nature of selling any product to another state, such a sale would necessarily meet the due process requirements. Or is there something I’m missing?

69

This is why we have lawyers, and they will battle it out in court. Another one for SCOTUS.

70

[quote]Jewbacca wrote:

Your flip answer proves the point I’ve made all along – it’s all just about tax revenue.[/quote]

Well that just means that you’re finally listening, since that is what I have been saying all along. You don’t exactly have to be a Hardy Boy to figure that one out.

[quote]

If increased taxes are really neeeded, the answer, of course, is that the state seeking the revenue needs to raise taxes from its own citizens instead of trying to rob citizens from some other state.[/quote]

Well, uhhh…its own citizens are the ones that are actually paying it. Regardless of how you wnat to use legalese to dance around the subject about burdens and liability and all that bullshit, I have never been given the option to not pay sales tax on things I buy, so uhhh…I guess that’s kinda what this law does…

71

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
This is why we have lawyers…[/quote]

Some might even say one or two too many…

72

[quote]TBT4ver wrote:
Or is there something I’m missing?[/quote]

Yes, that’s “dicta” (i.e., “extra” language not critical to the decision at hand — compare to the “holding” which is much more narrow).

More to the point, the dicta sentence was from a split opinion with 2 judges still on the court filing a short concurrance. (1 judge, White, went off in another direction).

In short, it’s an open issue.

73

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

Well, uhhh…its own citizens are the ones that are actually paying it. Regardless of how you wnat to use legalese to dance around the subject about burdens and liability and all that bullshit, I have never been given the option to not pay sales tax on things I buy, so uhhh…I guess that’s kinda what this law does…
[/quote]

Actually, no. The payment of sales tax by the buyer is a negotiated item.

You’ve apparently just never had the purchasing power for a merchant to vary what they traditionally push down on a typical consumer.

74

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]dmaddox wrote:
This is why we have lawyers…[/quote]

Some might even say one or two too many…[/quote]

You and I would say that.

75

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
I have never been given the option to not pay sales tax on things I buy, so uhhh…I guess that’s kinda what this law does…
[/quote]

We could both drive to DE and buy tax free goods, should MD be able to collect sales tax on those sales? What if I order a product sold in DE, but online. Then should MD be able to collect the sales tax?

Doesn’t an internet sales tax hinder competition? In the MD/DE situation, Companies in DE have a competitive advantage, goods are cheaper because there is no sales tax, over companies in MD. So to compete companies in MD have to reduce costs/improve processes. This is a brick and mortar example, but holds true if say I lived in CA and bought goods online in DE.

Also won’t companies just set up shop off shore more to avoid this tax?

76

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

We could both drive to DE and buy tax free goods, should MD be able to collect sales tax on those sales? What if I order a product sold in DE, but online. Then should MD be able to collect the sales tax?

[/quote]

Try that with a car and then try to register it with the MVA and let me know how it goes for ya…

77

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

We could both drive to DE and buy tax free goods, should MD be able to collect sales tax on those sales? What if I order a product sold in DE, but online. Then should MD be able to collect the sales tax?

[/quote]

Try that with a car and then try to register it with the MVA and let me know how it goes for ya…[/quote]

You’re right, I’ve actually been through that, but what about other goods? A $2,000 flat screen TV for example.

78

I’m asking because I’m not sure which side of the internet sales tax I fall on.

79

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

We could both drive to DE and buy tax free goods, should MD be able to collect sales tax on those sales? What if I order a product sold in DE, but online. Then should MD be able to collect the sales tax?

[/quote]

Try that with a car and then try to register it with the MVA and let me know how it goes for ya…[/quote]

You’re right, I’ve actually been through that, but what about other goods? A $2,000 flat screen TV for example. [/quote]

As far as I’m aware, most states have a “use tax” line on their individual returns, and the states without income tax have separate forms you are required to file if you buy goods from a tax free state.

You are supposed to put the sales tax you didn’t pay in other states on your home state return and give your state government their due.

Not many people comply with this, however it is the correct thing to do.

I’ve seen a woman who used to buy here cigarettes online get a 40k tax bill from the state of MA for years of avoided use tax because she purchased them from an online reservation.

80

Seems like unfair competition to the brick and mortar stores IMO.

Also, Internet sales certainly do use infrastructure such as roads unless someone has figured a way for purchases to magically travel without traversing roads. I suppose it could be argued that this is paid for by gas taxes though.