[quote]Testy1 wrote:
Also, Internet sales certainly do use infrastructure such as roads unless someone has figured a way for purchases to magically travel without traversing roads. [/quote]
They don’t use the roads, UPS, FedEx and USPS use the roads, and those fees are figured in the shipping costs, which are typically paid by the consumer. (And if the shipping is free, that cost is included in the cost of the product. Companies aren’t losing money on shipping. They may just break even, but they might get a better deal at a “flat” monthly rate rather than track and remit payments to a carrier on a per sale basis.)
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
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.
[/quote]
So the burden isn’t entirely on the seller? interesting. This is the way I thought it worked, but I wasn’t for sure.
Are you also expected to pay the difference if your state sales tax is higher than one you buy in (8.5 in TN vs. 5 in VA for instance)? That is the way they do it with cars, at least in Maryland. Even if you pay 2% in North Dakota or whatever and then x-fer your car registration to MD, they make you pay the difference between wahtever their rate is and the ND rate.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
Seems like unfair competition to the brick and mortar stores IMO. [/quote]
You’re saying unfair competition without the sales tax, right? The internet sales tax should make the playing field more level.
[quote]
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.[/quote]
I think the argument here is that the common carriers have to pay the taxes to transport stuff on the roads, since that shipping cost is part of their profit. That is way more complicated of a tax setup than I understand and can speak intelligently too though.
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[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. [/quote]
Hmmm interesting, I did not know that.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
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.[/quote]
Why? Business evolves, shouldn’t the B&M stores have to evolve too? Their model is outdated.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
So the burden isn’t entirely on the seller? interesting. This is the way I thought it worked, but I wasn’t for sure.[/quote]
The most macro of views the burden is shared among everyone. Prices of goods are increased by the tax, and admin costs to file and remit the tax to the state. This puts burden on consumer and seller. Then, because the tax increases costs it prevents those resources from being used in other ways by the business, which puts a burden on employees in the sense it depresses earnings.
I’m not a fan of consumption taxes over income taxes, but what I’m talking about here is relative small dollars compared to other costs/opportunity costs, etc…
I believe that is the case in most states, but I’m not at all 100% sure.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
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.[/quote]
Why? Business evolves, shouldn’t the B&M stores have to evolve too? Their model is outdated.
[/quote]
so what are they evolving to? No B&M stores? Charging to touch, try on and see a product so they are not showrooms for the internet?
I’m sure if they were allowed to evolve to not paying taxes they would be fine with it.
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
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.[/quote]
Why? Business evolves, shouldn’t the B&M stores have to evolve too? Their model is outdated.
[/quote]
so what are they evolving to? No B&M stores? Charging to touch, try on and see a product so they are not showrooms for the internet?
I’m sure if they were allowed to evolve to not paying taxes they would be fine with it.
[/quote]
I don’t think B&M stores will disappear, but they will continue to trend downward. It costs too much money to maintain 100 B&M stores when you can have a couple warehouses and ship world wide w/sales via the internet.
Imo, states (or Congress) should look to eliminate the sales tax all together and opt for something more current. A flat internet sales tax could work, but not if it’s 5% on top of each states rate. So MD would be what 11% while DE would be 5%. There’s nothing fair about that so the problem really isn’t solved from that perspective. You could do an FOB shipping point tax maybe. The state from which the product ships gets the tax, but that doesn’t address companies setting up shop in China, Jamaica, or DE to avoid the tax.
Basically I’m not keen on adding a tax just because MD sales tax revenue is on the decline, for example. We did just raise the gas tax and sales tax recently. We are also being taxed on rain starting in June I believe.
“I’m sure if they were allowed to evolve to not paying taxes they would be fine with it.”
I’m not sure how this comment fits with what I’m saying. Paying taxes has nothing to do with how business has evolved in the last 20 years.
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
Seems like unfair competition to the brick and mortar stores IMO. [/quote]
You’re saying unfair competition without the sales tax, right? The internet sales tax should make the playing field more level.
[/quote]
I think it is unfair competition with the internet sales tax.
To make it fair you must make bricks and mortar stores check the id of all customers and force them to calculate and pay sales tax based on the state the customer lives in. So if somebody in California flies to Vegas for the weekend the stores in Vegas must collect California state sales tax + California local sales taxes.
You buy some smokes from a corner store while on holiday? They now have to be calculate sales tax based on where you live and then sort out giving that state/local area the taxes they have collected.
Can you see the massive burden this would place upon small businesses? Now if I only own two stores and they are both in the one area in California I have to care about collecting taxes for every other state and local area. From the article there are around 9000!
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
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.[/quote]
Why? Business evolves, shouldn’t the B&M stores have to evolve too? Their model is outdated.
[/quote]
so what are they evolving to? No B&M stores? Charging to touch, try on and see a product so they are not showrooms for the internet?
[/quote]
In my opinion the B&M stores only lose out when they are significantly more expensive than the online counterpart or where they add no value.
If you need to charge 3x the price to compete with online stores then why should I shop with you?
And if your sales staff provide less help than an Amazon review then why should I shop with you?
I buy my headphones (I get about 1 new pair each year) from a local store because the owner is knowledgeable and being able to try them out adds a lot of value. I buy my electronics online because at my local B&M shop the sales staff are always trying to sell me things I don’t need and they know less about the technology than I do.
[quote]phaethon wrote:
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
[quote]Testy1 wrote:
Seems like unfair competition to the brick and mortar stores IMO. [/quote]
You’re saying unfair competition without the sales tax, right? The internet sales tax should make the playing field more level.
[/quote]
I think it is unfair competition with the internet sales tax.
To make it fair you must make bricks and mortar stores check the id of all customers and force them to calculate and pay sales tax based on the state the customer lives in. So if somebody in California flies to Vegas for the weekend the stores in Vegas must collect California state sales tax + California local sales taxes.
You buy some smokes from a corner store while on holiday? They now have to be calculate sales tax based on where you live and then sort out giving that state/local area the taxes they have collected.
Can you see the massive burden this would place upon small businesses? Now if I only own two stores and they are both in the one area in California I have to care about collecting taxes for every other state and local area. From the article there are around 9000![/quote]
Well that’s certainly an odd way of looking at it. I suspect most people would say the current system without the sales tax is an unfair system, in that the B&M stores who actually have to pay these taxes and add them to their costs are being hammered by internet outlets that don’t.
The massive burden will come from paper work for each municipality . Not from some fabricated point of view 
[quote]VTBalla34 wrote:
Well that’s certainly an odd way of looking at it. I suspect most people would say the current system without the sales tax is an unfair system, in that the B&M stores who actually have to pay these taxes and add them to their costs are being hammered by internet outlets that don’t.
[/quote]
I see it as an enforcement issue. States typically have use/sales tax laws such that consumers have to pay taxes on out of state purchases. The consumers just don’t.
So the reasonable thing to do is to get purchase information from the online businesses and then seek out the consumers who are avoiding taxes. Of course this would be a huge burden cost wise and politically for the state and so they want to push this burden onto internet businesses.
My argument is that to make B&M and Internet based businesses compete on a level playing field then you must apply the same rules to them both. Which in this case would be to force B&M stores to ask all customers to identify themselves and collect sales taxes based on where they live. Which I’m sure will never pass because it is a massive burden (Just like it will be on Online retailers).
Anyone in favor of the internet tax is a friend of crony capitalism. It turns every single site with a shopping cart in to a tax collector for around 9000 unique taxing authorities. The cost to do this will push thousands of online shops out of business. Amazon loves this because they have almost reached the magical 'too big to fail" status.
Crawling in bed with greedy power hungry politicians to support anti competition laws makes sense from Amazon’s perspective - they can afford the new overhead. The housewife trying to sell a few e-books and/or artwork can’t.
Any law that creates a barrier to market entry is a horrible law. The free market gets a little less free every time the ignorance of DC is encouraged by an equally ignorant electorate and crony capitalists.
[quote]drunkpig wrote:
Anyone in favor of the internet tax is a friend of crony capitalism. It turns every single site with a shopping cart in to a tax collector for around 9000 unique taxing authorities. The cost to do this will push thousands of online shops out of business. Amazon loves this because they have almost reached the magical 'too big to fail" status.
Crawling in bed with greedy power hungry politicians to support anti competition laws makes sense from Amazon’s perspective - they can afford the new overhead. The housewife trying to sell a few e-books and/or artwork can’t.
Any law that creates a barrier to market entry is a horrible law. The free market gets a little less free every time the ignorance of DC is encouraged by an equally ignorant electorate and crony capitalists. [/quote]
LOL I swear to god some of you doofuses on here remind me of those videos from the Black Panthers in the 70’s, somehow seeing in your eyes every single moment of every single day SOMETHING to support your theory that the gubment is just out to get you and destroy your well being. It’s almost comical.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[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. [/quote]
I’m not saying there aren’t fringe idiots on both sides of the debate. Fuck you will never see me taking up for and defending any of that bullshit you mentioned above. The difference between the left’s fringe elements and the right’s? The left’s don’t get elected into office and completely set up shop on the wing of the major establishment party.
If you want to go tit for tat for stupid statements, beliefs, and statitics on the right vs. the left that is a shitshow I would love to engage in.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Conservatives were screaming about how Obamacare would raise premiums (even though Barackulous promised otherwise), and wow lo and behold they were right ?
[/quote]
This statement is especially stupid since not only was Obamcare a conservative plan in the 90’s, but the CBO also agreed. And the CBO is about as bi-partisan as you can get considering one side of that debate really doesn’t believe in science lol.
It’s also especially stupid since the full legislative requirements of Obamacare haven’t even kicked in yet, including the cost cutting.