• 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]

Dickieboy said:
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).
Click to expand...

In order to take advantage of this law, a state must agree to a Sales and Use Tax Agreement. This agreement sets out the rules stating how often and when a state can change it's rates. It also requires the state to make the new rate schedule available for downloading. The software is set to automatically check and download the new tax schedules and takes no effort on the part of the vendor. The updates are free as is the software.

The updates you refer to as annoying are software updates. These updates are not software updates. They're just downloading of a file. Piece of cake. You download data all the time (every time you open a page on the internet)
 
iguanaman said:
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?
Click to expand...
If it were about fairness (to B&M retailers, as portrayed) then small online retailers wouldn't be exempt. It's about revenue.
 
Dickieboy said:
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'.
Click to expand...

I would expect the senators from blue states feel that way yes
 
sangha said:
In order to take advantage of this law, a state must agree to a Sales and Use Tax Agreement. This agreement sets out the rules stating how often and when a state can change it's rates. It also requires the state to make the new rate schedule available for downloading. The software is set to automatically check and download the new tax schedules and takes no effort on the part of the vendor. The updates are free as is the software.
Click to expand...

All this doesn't sound free...
 
Deuce said:
So much for states' rights, mr libertarian!
Click to expand...

states can tax, i dont argue that, if they wanted to they could levy a delivery tax, ......but call it what it is!

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...

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.
Click to expand...


to me its masked as a sales taxes, becuase the people would never go for a delivery tax.

you know how Washington uses the convoluted language of law.
 
Last edited:
radcen said:
If state's rights were at issue, neither the Senate nor the House would be involved.
Click to expand...



We are witnessing the dawn of a new age of communication and the death of the age of the "book".....................
 
Dickieboy said:
All this doesn't sound free...
Click to expand...

It will cost the state to re-organize it's sales tax, but that won't cost the vendor anything. The software that handles this on the vendors end is free to the vendor.

All it takes on the vendors end is a computer and an internet connection, which presumably a business on the internet already has.
 
Henrin said:
Which high taxes do and people are aware of. The richest among us when all taxes are accounted for are at the moment paying over 70% in taxes.
Click to expand...

So completely not true its comical. Start with the fact that richest make most of their money on their money. Capital is taxed at 15%.

Its rare that anyone pays more than 40% in taxes, its almost impossible.

Henrin said:
Do the math sometime if you want.
Click to expand...

Whenever I see someone make this claim, they do so by adding a bunch of numbers that actually do not add together. For example, no one ever pays FICA tax and the highest marginal rate at the same time. By the time a dollar is taxed at the highest marginal income tax rate, you have long since past the FICA cap. So you can't tell me its 39.5%+7.65% because that never happens.

So, please, do the math... love to see it (so I can riddle it with bullets.... wait, never mind, that would bring all the gun nuts into the discussion).
 
Last edited:
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, in theory, a sales tax is really a sales & use tax. You, as the user, are legally responsible for paying the tax, but you are not going to do that and the cost of enforcement is prohibitive, so states have relied on the retailer to collect the tax (Yes, believe it or not, if you buy boots from LL Bean, you have, all along, had the obligation to report that and pay it to your state.)

The states, to date, have only required businesses doing business in the state to actually collect the tax. Retailers, not wanting to be burdened, have long since (and successfully) argued that if they have no employees nor physical locations in the state, they are not doing business there.

Frankly, states have long been after mail-order houses to collect and pay the tax, but without success. Now, in the era of the Internet, its a bit difficult to make the argument they are not doing business in a state just because they have no office. The COTUS action merely referees the issue in favor of the position states have long-held. Certainly the commerce clause allows the Feds to refer issues affecting commerce across state lines, which is all this is really about.
 
upsideguy said:
Well, in theory, a sales tax is really a sales & use tax. You, as the user, are legally responsible for paying the tax, but you are not going to do that and the cost of enforcement is prohibitive, so states have relied on the retailer to collect the tax (Yes, believe it or not, if you buy boots from LL Bean, you have, all along, had the obligation to report that and pay it to your state.)

The states, to date, have only required businesses doing business in the state to actually collect the tax. Retailers, not wanting to be burdened, have long since (and successfully) argued that if they have no employees nor physical locations in the state, they are not doing business there.

Frankly, states have long been after mail-order houses to collect and pay the tax, but without success. Now, in the era of the Internet, its a bit difficult to make the argument they are not doing business in a state just because they have no office. The COTUS action merely referees the issue in favor of the position states have long-held. Certainly the commerce clause allows the Feds to refer issues affecting commerce across state lines, which is all this is really about.
Click to expand...

i am wondering how this would play out, there are also beside the states in getting taxes, county, and city.....will they receive any money out of this.
 
ernst barkmann said:
i am wondering how this would play out, there are also beside the states in getting taxes, county, and city.....will they receive any money out of this.
Click to expand...

The software calculates local sale tax too. The money is sent to the state along with the states sales taxes. It's the responsibility of the state to distribute the local taxes to the localities that levied those taxes.
 
Moderator's Warning:
The baiting one-liners, personal attacks and off-topic crap needs to stop.
 
ernst barkmann said:
interesting?........does this mean in the future, we can have states suing citizens of other states--------> for state sales tax evasion?
Click to expand...

Evidently that's what the Senate wants to be possible.
 
sangha said:
You can see whatever you choose; It's a free country

However, the fact is that this is not a new tax. It's been around for many, many years.
Click to expand...

Again...the issue is not the tax. The issue is whether a State can compel the resident of another State to collect and deliver tax revenue. Evidently, the Senate wants them to be able to do so. I think it's a bad precedence.
 
ernst barkmann said:
question: does the congress have the power, to grant the states power to tax?
Click to expand...

The States have the power to tax...whether Congress grants it or not.

The question is...should Congress grant the States the power to compel citizens from another State to do their work for them? ie, collect and deliver sales tax revenue.
 
Mycroft said:
The States have the power to tax...whether Congress grants it or not.

The question is...should Congress grant the States the power to compel citizens from another State to do their work for them? ie, collect and deliver sales tax revenue.
Click to expand...

well the question would be, by what authority does congress have ...to try to give states a power.

congress duties are few and defined, where state power in vast.

how can congress delegate any power to states, no authority in the constitution?
 
ernst barkmann said:
well the question would be, by what authority does congress have ...to try to give states a power.

congress duties are few and defined, where state power in vast.

how can congress delegate any power to states, no authority in the constitution?
Click to expand...

If the House doesn't nip this in the bud, we very well might see the Supremes ponder that question.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom