• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Senate approves online sales tax bill [W:244]

Lord Tammerlain said:
No I am saying that traditionally republican states are not paying sales taxes because the sales are being made to places like Amazon. Which means that state government does not collect as much in sales taxes as it otherwise would
Click to expand...

'to places like Amazon'...still confused. Are you saying that 'traditionally republican states' are not recognizing sales tax revenue due to internet stores (like Amazon) being located in 'non-republican' states?
 
ernst barkmann said:
when you buy something from a state, by phycially being in the state, your sales tax go for roads, electricity the city or state uses, services offered by the state, this is form of representation thru tax dollars

one of the reason before a state could not tax out of state purchases was, how could and out state person get taxed, and not be represented though those goods and services offered to its citizens.

in other words in paying for their roads, electricity, services, but i dont get the opportunity to use them even though i help pay for them.
Click to expand...

But if I understand the bill correctly the 'internet store' charges sales tax at the prevailing rate of the location of shipment (customer) and then forwards tax receipts to the state of shipment location. This would alleviate the taxation/representation issue if I understand your point...?

Perhaps I do not understand the bill correctly...?
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Walmart, and other large retail stores are supporting this bill heavily. Walmart can outspend Ebay and Amazon (much higher revenues and profits) in buying politicians, so they can buy the "no tax" republicans.
Click to expand...
Walmart is supporting this for one reason and one reason only... as a matter of their own practical reality. Period. They have a literal physical presence in all 50 states, so they already have to do this. They either want everybody else to be burdened just as they are, or they want the same ability to do an end-run around having to charge sales tax. And since they cannot get the latter, the former is their best available option.
 
Mycroft said:
This whole issue has nothing to do with whether online sales and brick and mortar sales should be taxed the same or not. States are free to tax both...or neither.

This Senate bill is about whether one State can require a company that doesn't reside in their State to COLLECT the tax. This is about whether a State can exert control over the citizen of another State.

It's a bad bill.
Click to expand...

interesting?........does this mean in the future, we can have states suing citizens of other states--------> for state sales tax evasion?
 
Dickieboy said:
'to places like Amazon'...still confused. Are you saying that 'traditionally republican states' are not recognizing sales tax revenue due to internet stores (like Amazon) being located in 'non-republican' states?
Click to expand...

Currently a state does not collect sales taxes for internet and mail order sales made by a retailer in other states

Ie a purchase of a computer from Amazon in say Georgia, when Amazon's office is in another state, that sale does not generate any sales tax revenue for Georgia (nor for the state in which Amazon is based, but given the economic activity generated by the sale, I would consider it a win for the state Amazon is based in. Given that the larger internet sales companies are based outside of traditional republican states, those state are losing money in sales taxes that are not being generated (because of internet sales).
 
ernst barkmann said:
when you buy something from a state, by phycially being in the state, your sales tax go for roads, electricity the city or state uses, services offered by the state, this is form of representation thru tax dollars

one of the reason before a state could not tax out of state purchases was, how could and out state person get taxed, and not be represented though those goods and services offered to its citizens.

in other words in paying for their roads, electricity, services, but i dont get the opportunity to use them even though i help pay for them.
Click to expand...



But, then, you also support tax exempt status for "special" entities, don't you ?..............................
 
Dickieboy said:
But if I understand the bill correctly the 'internet store' charges sales tax at the prevailing rate of the location of shipment (customer) and then forwards tax receipts to the state of shipment location. This would alleviate the taxation/representation issue if I understand your point...?

Perhaps I do not understand the bill correctly...?
Click to expand...

well i was stating how laws have been looked at in the past, which is why out of state sales could not be taxed.....(past tense)

now they are saying becuase you used you PC and made the exchange in your state, the state can tax it.

but i submit, that even though i had the sales on my PC, the web site itself was created, and maintained in another state as well as the goods are stored their.

what happens if a state feels a vendor across the u.s. has cheated them, shall we now have states suing citizens of other state for tax evasion?....becuase you have to think this question is going to arise, when you dealing in lots of money.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
Currently a state does not collect sales taxes for internet and mail order sales made by a retailer in other states

Ie a purchase of a computer from Amazon in say Georgia, when Amazon's office is in another state, that sale does not generate any sales tax revenue for Georgia (nor for the state in which Amazon is based, but given the economic activity generated by the sale, I would consider it a win for the state Amazon is based in. Given that the larger internet sales companies are based outside of traditional republican states, those state are losing money in sales taxes that are not being generated (because of internet sales).
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know all this but I still can't figure out how you tie this to Republicans supporting this. I mean it is not like blue states are benefiting from no sales taxes more that red states. Or were you just being facetious?
 
ernst barkmann said:
well i was stating how laws have been looked at in the past, which is why out of state sales could not be taxed.....(past tense)

now they are saying becuase you used you PC and made the exchange in your state, the state can tax it.

but i submit, that even though i had the sales on my PC, the web site itself was created, and maintained in another state as well as the goods are stored their.

what happens if a state feels a vendor across the u.s. has cheated them, shall we now have states suing citizens of other state for tax evasion?....becuase you have to think this question is going to arise, when you dealing in lots of money.
Click to expand...

States have always been able to sue people in any state if that person has broken one of their laws in their state.

If a business does not want to be sued by a state, there's a simple solution - Don't sell to anyone in that state

But if they choose to do business in any state, then they have to abide the laws of that state
 
ernst barkmann said:
...what happens if a state feels a vendor across the u.s. has cheated them, shall we now have states suing citizens of other state for tax evasion?....becuase you have to think this question is going to arise, when you dealing in lots of money.
Click to expand...

You're right, I do see hazards with this (but not the representation issue previously discussed). In effect it would be tax evasion which commonly currently occurs with regards to payroll tax withholdings by out of state companies. I also wonder about the taxes beyond state. Many counties and cities have additional sales taxes thus the burden for an online vendor to keep with it will be quite the burden. Sure some online software update on demand could be formulated but this just adds another expense dimension to businesses.
 
Dickieboy said:
Yeah, I know all this but I still can't figure out how you tie this to Republicans supporting this. I mean it is not like blue states are benefiting from no sales taxes more that red states. Or were you just being facetious?
Click to expand...

I think that they see the extra tax dollars their state government can collect and see it as a good thing, considering that money is also leaving the state even better.


In other words the republicans see money that is leaving the state rather then staying within that state. So the state government is losing revenue and the state economy loses the money to a different state. Money spent at the local walmart provides more economic benefits then money spent at Amazon in a different state
 
Last edited:
Bonzai said:
But, then, you also support tax exempt status for "special" entities, don't you ?..............................
Click to expand...

can you tell my how my state in the southwest, should get tax money for a pair of boots bought from LL Bean in Maine which they are created there and stored for sale?

becuase the LL Bean site was created and is maintained (serviced) in Maine. and so who say its a tax on my delivery, sounds more like a delivery tax to me and not a sales tax.
 
sangha said:
States have always been able to sue people in any state if that person has broken one of their laws in their state.

If a business does not want to be sued by a state, there's a simple solution - Don't sell to anyone in that state

But if they choose to do business in any state, then they have to abide the laws of that state
Click to expand...

i see this as new ground, and a series of problems to arise, with taxes.
 
ernst barkmann said:
well i was stating how laws have been looked at in the past, which is why out of state sales could not be taxed.....(past tense)

now they are saying becuase you used you PC and made the exchange in your state, the state can tax it.

but i submit, that even though i had the sales on my PC, the web site itself was created, and maintained in another state as well as the goods are stored their.

what happens if a state feels a vendor across the u.s. has cheated them, shall we now have states suing citizens of other state for tax evasion?....becuase you have to think this question is going to arise, when you dealing in lots of money.
Click to expand...


They are saying that when you purchase something and it is delivered to your State for use in your State it is subject to State Sales tax. It has nothing to do with the internet. It seems logical and States do need the money but I would agree that a system that avoids litigation is needed.
 
Dickieboy said:
I also wonder about the taxes beyond state. Many counties and cities have additional sales taxes thus the burden for an online vendor to keep with it will be quite the burden. Sure some online software update on demand could be formulated but this just adds another expense dimension to businesses.
Click to expand...

The software also calculates the local sales taxes that apply based on the address that the goods are being shipped to. There's no added expense
 
ernst barkmann said:
can you tell my how my state in the southwest, should get tax money for a pair of boots bought from LL Bean in Maine which they are created there and stored for sale?

becuase the LL Bean site was created and is maintained (serviced) in Maine. and so who say its a tax on my delivery, sounds more like a delivery tax to me and not a sales tax.
Click to expand...

Transactions are considered to take place at the time and place when it is completed. In the case of online sales, this doesn't take place until the goods are delivered. Therefore, the transaction is considered to have taken place at the location the goods were delivered to.
 
Lord Tammerlain said:
I think that they see the extra tax dollars their state government can collect and see it as a good thing, considering that money is also leaving the state even better.


In other words the republicans see money that is leaving the state rather then staying within that state. So the state government is losing revenue and the state economy loses the money to a different state. Money spent at the local walmart provides more economic benefits then money spent at Amazon in a different state
Click to expand...

Ok, so can I presume Senate from blue states that do not have internet stores supported it for the same reason? If yes would this represent 'meeting in the isle'.
 
I support the tax. Better than income tax. If the government is pouring money into the economy, then market-based taxes are a small price to pay.
 
ernst barkmann said:
can you tell my how my state in the southwest, should get tax money for a pair of boots bought from LL Bean in Maine which they are created there and stored for sale?

becuase the LL Bean site was created and is maintained (serviced) in Maine. and so who say its a tax on my delivery, sounds more like a delivery tax to me and not a sales tax.
Click to expand...



It's a valid point. My point is that the tax on internet sales became a foregone conclusion once the amount of online sale/size of online sales reached a certain tipping point. I think the Left supports the taxation becuse it is protaxation and the Right supports taxation because it hates the idea of anything being out of it's clutches.....................
 
ernst barkmann said:
can you tell my how my state in the southwest, should get tax money for a pair of boots bought from LL Bean in Maine which they are created there and stored for sale?

becuase the LL Bean site was created and is maintained (serviced) in Maine. and so who say its a tax on my delivery, sounds more like a delivery tax to me and not a sales tax.
Click to expand...
Well, because you had money to spend, and that's simply not acceptable. You two must be separated.
 
sangha said:
The software also calculates the local sales taxes that apply based on the address that the goods are being shipped to. There's no added expense
Click to expand...

What with the changing local tax rates nearly annually (at least)software updates will be necessary OR the rates for an order location could be checked at the time of sale to ensure the rate is correct. But of course that would necessitate that all municipalities have internet assessable data. Neither of these are 'no added expense'. It has been my experience with such software that the updates are annoying AND expensive (comparatively).
 
ernst barkmann said:
can you tell my how my state in the southwest, should get tax money for a pair of boots bought from LL Bean in Maine which they are created there and stored for sale?

becuase the LL Bean site was created and is maintained (serviced) in Maine. and so who say its a tax on my delivery, sounds more like a delivery tax to me and not a sales tax.
Click to expand...

How is your "internet" item any different from an identical one purchased locally? None, except you screwed your State on the tax it would have received if you bought it at a store. That's not really fair is it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom