Senators trying to rush through massive online sales tax hike

[Gdizzle]

http://gizmodo.com/5995187/senators...ssive-online-sales-tax-hike?utm_source=feedly

 

[Go4Broke]

http://gizmodo.com/5995187/senators...ssive-online-sales-tax-hike?utm_source=feedly

It's about time. It should have happened years ago.

 

[station19]

Terrible Bill.

Sales taxes should be controlled by the states but they should be the same for internet sales as they are for brick and mortar store sales.

 

[...]

Terrible Bill.

Sales taxes should be controlled by the states but they should be the same for internet sales as they are for brick and mortar store sales.

Agreed, I've never understood why they would be different for online or brick and mortar, and I certainly don't understand why states that charge sales tax on brick and mortar sales would have to charge it on online sales.

 

[Go4Broke]

Terrible Bill.

Sales taxes should be controlled by the states but they should be the same for internet sales as they are for brick and mortar store sales.

Wrong. A hodge-podge of state sales taxes on internet sales would be extremely difficult for the average consumer and small business owner to understand and almost impossible for the states to administer fairly. There needs to be a one national sales tax for internet sales that provides a fair and equitable system for distributing the proceeds to the states.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Conceptual Issues

There are many conceptual issues involved in the determination of which of several jurisdictions have the authority to tax the Internet, or transactions on it, in some way. Internet taxation has essentially been banned in the United States since 1998, except for those jurisdictions that were grandfathered under existing federal law. Most of which involves Internet access taxes, franchise taxes, and telecommunications taxes, although a smattering of other taxes currently exist.

This taxation is not prohibited by federal statute, but rather by a series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions including Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (1992).[6] Those cases held that state taxation of in-state sales by vendors with no significant physical presence in the state violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Because of this constitutional prohibition on collecting sales tax from so-called "remote" sales on the Internet, the issue of local jurisdictions taxing goods and services purchased from out of state by their residents using the Internet has not yet raised the conceptual questions discussed below. See tax-free shopping.

Location

The issue of location—of the Internet user, the user's counterparties in a commercial transaction, the headquarters facilities of any involved commercial entities, and even the servers and switches—is important for tax purposes. For example, of the nine U.S. states that currently tax access in some manner, four make reference to location. In each case, both the provision of service and the billing must take place within the state.

In general, there is no simple way to determine location, owing largely to the Internet's lack of boundaries. Users can and routinely do access their accounts from remote locations; providers are almost always located in multiple taxing jurisdictions; and the data traffic itself, via the Internet's packet-switched architecture, is routed through myriad locations.

Such issues are important not only for practical reasons of determining the incidence of the tax and its enforcement, but also because the U.S. Constitution requires that a state or taxing sub-jurisdiction have "nexus" with the transaction in order to exert its taxing power, and that determination rests precisely upon such considerations.[7]

Setup v. Monthly fee

In the United States, some states and taxing authorities distinguish between the initial setup fee for Internet access and the monthly, hourly, or per-minute billing fee for actual access. Nebraska taxes the initial setup, but only if software is provided. It does not tax subsequent monthly billing. Tennessee, on the other hand, taxes both.

Goods vs. Service

A basic issue in determining whether Internet access and Internet usage of various kinds is subject to sales tax, use tax, telecommunications tax, a combination of these taxes, or no taxes at all, is whether Internet access and usage is determined to be a "good" or a "service." If access to the Internet or usage is deemed a service, in general no sales or use taxation applies, while the rates and variants of telecommunications taxes that apply can be different. However, if access requires downloading of user software, some U.S. states (e.g., Massachusetts) may deem that to be a "taxable sale" of goods for their residents.

Collection of Internet Taxes

Collection of Internet taxes presents a complex array of issues. These include whether states themselves should collect the tax; whether the burden instead should be placed on the Internet service provider; the extent to which retailers or value-added intermediaries can be required to perform collection duties; and in all cases, the ways in which this collection can be accurately and meaningfully enforced by the taxing jurisdiction.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_taxes

 

[bga1]

FairTax- one national sales tax rate on everything. Adios the IRS. Goodbye Broke, goodbye socialists, goodbye polictical influence based on tax favors. Hello to jobs and prosperity.

 

[diehard]

Amen Brother beeg!

 

[Dr.Don]

I do not order things over the internet. I do NOT shop WalMart because of sweatshops in China and other cheap assed nations. (Except for Wallets). I shop our local merchants, negotiate is fair price, and save tax because of a lower price. The Mom and Pop stores are our salvation.

I don't even go to a car dealer for automobiles. I buy from local independent used car guys, whom I know. My mechanic is the guy who with one partner do a whale of a job on my car maintenance. I save money in the long run, plus I can count on them if I need them to come to my home and tow me to their shop.

Some of you argue about sales tax crap. Penny wise and pound foolish.

 

[Costa Rican Gopher]

Rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Not surprising that G4B would be in favor of this . Great news for the mega-corporations & fat-cat politicians. Bad news for small businesses & middle class consumers.

 

[Costa Rican Gopher]

I do not order things over the internet. I do NOT shop WalMart because of sweatshops in China and other cheap assed nations. (Except for Wallets). I shop our local merchants, negotiate is fair price, and save tax because of a lower price. The Mom and Pop stores are our salvation.

I don't even go to a car dealer for automobiles. I buy from local independent used car guys, whom I know. My mechanic is the guy who with one partner do a whale of a job on my car maintenance. I save money in the long run, plus I can count on them if I need them to come to my home and tow me to their shop.

Some of you argue about sales tax crap. Penny wise and pound foolish.

The real losers here are the mom & pop businesses that you support. Thanks to the internet they've been able to compete against the mega-corporations since they don't need to pay retail space & can offer their goods for less online by not tacking on sales tax. It's no coincidence that Wal-Mart is one of the main groups lobbying for this bill. On average a consumer (mostly middle-class) can buy goods at 12% cheaper on the internet than at Wal-Mart. This new mandate puts Wal-Mart and the other mega-corporations back in the drivers seat in a classic example of "Government Regulation", funded by Wall St. http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/07/wal-mart-is-lobbying-for-taxes-on-internet-based-sales/

 

[BarnBurner]

Rich get richer, the poor get poorer. Not surprising that G4B would be in favor of this . Great news for the mega-corporations & fat-cat politicians. Bad news for small businesses & middle class consumers.

And yet you love your R's.

Just like beeg, more for cRRRRRRRRRRRRg, less for middle class.

 

[Costa Rican Gopher]

And yet you love your R's.

Just like beeg, more for cRRRRRRRRRRRRg, less for middle class.

Idiots will be idiots.

 

[BarnBurner]

Idiots will be idiots.

And cRRRRRRRRRg will be cRRRRRRRRRRRRRRg.

Nothing changes, no matter how many times you say it.

 

[Costa Rican Gopher]

And cRRRRRRRRRg will be cRRRRRRRRRRRRRRg.

Nothing changes, no matter how many times you say it.

Try to follow along. Republicans & Democrats alike support this bill, I do not. It's a truly "Non-partisan" bill since both parties are on the corporate dole & are colluding (read: Government Regulation) against small business owners & the Middle Class. Curious to know your position on this one? You support Wal-Mart & the bourgeois politicians or the Free Market & the little guy?

 

[tinyarch]

The real losers here are the mom & pop businesses that you support. Thanks to the internet they've been able to compete against the mega-corporations since they don't need to pay retail space & can offer their goods for less online by not tacking on sales tax. It's no coincidence that Wal-Mart is one of the main groups lobbying for this bill. On average a consumer (mostly middle-class) can buy goods at 12% cheaper on the internet than at Wal-Mart. This new mandate puts Wal-Mart and the other mega-corporations back in the drivers seat in a classic example of "Government Regulation", funded by Wall St. http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/07/wal-mart-is-lobbying-for-taxes-on-internet-based-sales/

This is an excellent point.