RE: Internet Marketplace Fairness Act

RE: Internet Marketplace Fairness Act (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Internet Marketplace Fairness Act (11/21/2011 6:58:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Internet Marketplace Fairness Act I see nothing "fair" about it... if taxes are to be charged, they should go to the State where the item is SOLD/ORIGINATES, not purchased. Disagree. Sales taxes are considered to be paid by the buyer, the merchant is just the collector and remitter, so its the buyers situs that determines what state they would go to.

tj444 -> RE: Internet Marketplace Fairness Act (11/21/2011 8:05:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Internet Marketplace Fairness Act I see nothing "fair" about it... if taxes are to be charged, they should go to the State where the item is SOLD/ORIGINATES, not purchased. Disagree. Sales taxes are considered to be paid by the buyer, the merchant is just the collector and remitter, so its the buyers situs that determines what state they would go to. But as far as fairness goes.. if it were truly fair, it would apply to all businesses, not just those over $500,000 in sales.. I am not complaining, mind you (who wants to pay tax???).. but of course if the price is the same, most people will buy from the seller that is not required to collect sales tax.. I do find some laws have names that are in reality the exact opposite. Who are they trying to fool??? [8\|]

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Internet Marketplace Fairness Act (11/21/2011 8:44:09 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Internet Marketplace Fairness Act I see nothing "fair" about it... if taxes are to be charged, they should go to the State where the item is SOLD/ORIGINATES, not purchased. Disagree. Sales taxes are considered to be paid by the buyer, the merchant is just the collector and remitter, so its the buyers situs that determines what state they would go to. But as far as fairness goes.. if it were truly fair, it would apply to all businesses, not just those over $500,000 in sales.. I am not complaining, mind you (who wants to pay tax???).. but of course if the price is the same, most people will buy from the seller that is not required to collect sales tax.. I do find some laws have names that are in reality the exact opposite. Who are they trying to fool??? [8\|] Well, in truth it would be more fair than the current system, so the name isnt as bad as some, like the "Affordable Care Act" or the "American Jobs Act of 2011". I also don't think that a minimum threshhold is inherently unfair, because at some point it costs more to collect and remit than the actual taxes paid. I dont know that 500k is right, but considering that amount would be spread over 50 states youre talking $10,000 in sales and $500-$600 in sales tax per state on average, so it doesnt seem unreasonable.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Internet Marketplace Fairness Act (11/21/2011 8:49:58 AM)
Wilbur, at this point states can only collect sales tax on internet sales shipped to residents of that state if the business has a physical presence in their state. That is why I have to pay sales tax on Amazon purchases, while others don't. There was a supreme court case on this. The purpose of the law is to change that, so that states can levy taxes. They aren't required to do so, although I don't know why they wouldn't. quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy FR The OP is misworded. It will REQUIRE, not allow, them to collect state sales tax. They are already allowed to and most do. Amazon will begin collecting sales tax on sales to California in 11 months under a deal the struck with the state. They had dropped all of their affiliates so their was no indirect B&M presence, but that wasnt stopping CA from trying to sue them.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Internet Marketplace Fairness Act (11/21/2011 9:00:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Wilbur, at this point states can only collect sales tax on internet sales shipped to residents of that state if the business has a physical presence in their state. That is why I have to pay sales tax on Amazon purchases, while others don't. There was a supreme court case on this. The purpose of the law is to change that, so that states can levy taxes. They aren't required to do so, although I don't know why they wouldn't. quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy FR The OP is misworded. It will REQUIRE, not allow, them to collect state sales tax. They are already allowed to and most do. Amazon will begin collecting sales tax on sales to California in 11 months under a deal the struck with the state. They had dropped all of their affiliates so their was no indirect B&M presence, but that wasnt stopping CA from trying to sue them. Yes, I know. Thats why I pointed out that Amazon dropped their Ca affiliates, so they had no B&M presence in Ca.

tj444 -> RE: Internet Marketplace Fairness Act (11/21/2011 9:13:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Well, in truth it would be more fair than the current system, so the name isnt as bad as some, like the "Affordable Care Act" or the "American Jobs Act of 2011". I also don't think that a minimum threshhold is inherently unfair, because at some point it costs more to collect and remit than the actual taxes paid. I dont know that 500k is right, but considering that amount would be spread over 50 states youre talking $10,000 in sales and $500-$600 in sales tax per state on average, so it doesnt seem unreasonable. Yes, i agree, there is a cost to collect and remit taxes.. I guess my definition of fairness is that it applies equally to everyone, regardless.. maybe my definition is wrong.. [&:]

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Internet Marketplace Fairness Act (11/21/2011 9:16:31 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy Well, in truth it would be more fair than the current system, so the name isnt as bad as some, like the "Affordable Care Act" or the "American Jobs Act of 2011". I also don't think that a minimum threshhold is inherently unfair, because at some point it costs more to collect and remit than the actual taxes paid. I dont know that 500k is right, but considering that amount would be spread over 50 states youre talking $10,000 in sales and $500-$600 in sales tax per state on average, so it doesnt seem unreasonable. Yes, i agree, there is a cost to collect and remit taxes.. I guess my definition of fairness is that it applies equally to everyone, regardless.. maybe my definition is wrong.. [&:] No need to change your definition, just apply it to the total burden not just the taxes themselves.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Internet Marketplace Fairness Act (11/21/2011 12:49:11 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Internet Marketplace Fairness Act I see nothing "fair" about it... if taxes are to be charged, they should go to the State where the item is SOLD/ORIGINATES, not purchased. Disagree. Sales taxes are considered to be paid by the buyer, the merchant is just the collector and remitter... Right, but if i went to the Seller's place of business (in this case, the state where the business domain -- i.e., www. BusinessName. com -- is registered), they'd charge/collect THEIR state's taxes and those funds would go the THEIR state. In the case of Amazon/California, the tax revenues are NOT going to the Seller's state, but the Buyer's state. I don't believe that to be "fair" to the state where the goods are being manufactured in/distributed from/warehoused at/shipped from -- and feel those tax dollars should STAY in the Seller's state. Example: I live in California... assume I travel to Ohio and find the absolute BESTEST superchaged pink vibrator (with a kick-start, no less) and purchase it -- the sales tax/revenues goes to the state of Ohio. It doesn't matter that I actually live in California. I see internet transactions in the same way. The tax revenues should go to the Seller's state, not the Buyer's state. Anyway, that's how I view it. =)

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Internet Marketplace Fairness Act (11/21/2011 1:24:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Internet Marketplace Fairness Act I see nothing "fair" about it... if taxes are to be charged, they should go to the State where the item is SOLD/ORIGINATES, not purchased. Disagree. Sales taxes are considered to be paid by the buyer, the merchant is just the collector and remitter... Right, but if i went to the Seller's place of business (in this case, the state where the business domain -- i.e., www. BusinessName. com -- is registered), they'd charge/collect THEIR state's taxes and those funds would go the THEIR state. In the case of Amazon/California, the tax revenues are NOT going to the Seller's state, but the Buyer's state. I don't believe that to be "fair" to the state where the goods are being manufactured in/distributed from/warehoused at/shipped from -- and feel those tax dollars should STAY in the Seller's state. Example: I live in California... assume I travel to Ohio and find the absolute BESTEST superchaged pink vibrator (with a kick-start, no less) and purchase it -- the sales tax/revenues goes to the state of Ohio. It doesn't matter that I actually live in California. I see internet transactions in the same way. The tax revenues should go to the Seller's state, not the Buyer's state. Anyway, that's how I view it. =) Actually that isnt correct. If you buy any item out of state that would be taxable in California while a resident of California, you are supposed to pay a "use tax" (the same as the Ca sales tax) and get a credit from the state you purchased it for the sales tax paid there. That doesnt happen in practice except for big ticket items for cars, but you are violating the law if you dont pay the use tax.

MasterSlaveLA -> RE: Internet Marketplace Fairness Act (11/21/2011 3:56:58 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Internet Marketplace Fairness Act I see nothing "fair" about it... if taxes are to be charged, they should go to the State where the item is SOLD/ORIGINATES, not purchased. Disagree. Sales taxes are considered to be paid by the buyer, the merchant is just the collector and remitter... Right, but if i went to the Seller's place of business (in this case, the state where the business domain -- i.e., www. BusinessName. com -- is registered), they'd charge/collect THEIR state's taxes and those funds would go the THEIR state. In the case of Amazon/California, the tax revenues are NOT going to the Seller's state, but the Buyer's state. I don't believe that to be "fair" to the state where the goods are being manufactured in/distributed from/warehoused at/shipped from -- and feel those tax dollars should STAY in the Seller's state. Example: I live in California... assume I travel to Ohio and find the absolute BESTEST superchaged pink vibrator (with a kick-start, no less) and purchase it -- the sales tax/revenues goes to the state of Ohio. It doesn't matter that I actually live in California. I see internet transactions in the same way. The tax revenues should go to the Seller's state, not the Buyer's state. Anyway, that's how I view it. =) Actually that isnt correct. If you buy any item out of state that would be taxable in California while a resident of California, you are supposed to pay a "use tax" (the same as the Ca sales tax) and get a credit from the state you purchased it for the sales tax paid there. That doesnt happen in practice except for big ticket items for cars, but you are violating the law if you dont pay the use tax. Seriously?!! Well... then I've been quite the happy little law breaker for some time now. Shhhhhhhhhh... don't tell. [8D]

willbeurdaddy -> RE: Internet Marketplace Fairness Act (11/21/2011 4:02:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy quote: ORIGINAL: MasterSlaveLA quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Internet Marketplace Fairness Act I see nothing "fair" about it... if taxes are to be charged, they should go to the State where the item is SOLD/ORIGINATES, not purchased. Disagree. Sales taxes are considered to be paid by the buyer, the merchant is just the collector and remitter... Right, but if i went to the Seller's place of business (in this case, the state where the business domain -- i.e., www. BusinessName. com -- is registered), they'd charge/collect THEIR state's taxes and those funds would go the THEIR state. In the case of Amazon/California, the tax revenues are NOT going to the Seller's state, but the Buyer's state. I don't believe that to be "fair" to the state where the goods are being manufactured in/distributed from/warehoused at/shipped from -- and feel those tax dollars should STAY in the Seller's state. Example: I live in California... assume I travel to Ohio and find the absolute BESTEST superchaged pink vibrator (with a kick-start, no less) and purchase it -- the sales tax/revenues goes to the state of Ohio. It doesn't matter that I actually live in California. I see internet transactions in the same way. The tax revenues should go to the Seller's state, not the Buyer's state. Anyway, that's how I view it. =) Actually that isnt correct. If you buy any item out of state that would be taxable in California while a resident of California, you are supposed to pay a "use tax" (the same as the Ca sales tax) and get a credit from the state you purchased it for the sales tax paid there. That doesnt happen in practice except for big ticket items for cars, but you are violating the law if you dont pay the use tax. Seriously?!! Well... then I've been quite the happy little law breaker for some time now. Shhhhhhhhhh... don't tell. [8D] I have your IP address. Send me 1/2 of all of the use taxes youve avoided and I'll negotiate on your behalf with the state, keeping whatever excess there is. ;)

tolovetolaugh -> RE: Internet Marketplace Fairness Act (11/21/2011 5:08:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tj444 i would say the states that dont have any sales tax wont.. like oregon, not sure about any other states, its not something i follow.. Delaware! Where you pay exactly what it says on the sticker!

SternSkipper -> RE: Internet Marketplace Fairness Act (11/21/2011 5:26:11 PM)
quote: situs that determines what state they would go to. You're not supposed to open Rosetta Stone Latin till Christmas.

SternSkipper -> RE: Internet Marketplace Fairness Act (11/21/2011 5:30:34 PM)
quote: Delaware! Where you pay exactly what it says on the sticker! That gif in you're using as an avatar is hysterical... where'd you get it?

thishereboi -> RE: Internet Marketplace Fairness Act (11/22/2011 6:06:52 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Iamsemisweet Wilbur, at this point states can only collect sales tax on internet sales shipped to residents of that state if the business has a physical presence in their state. That is why I have to pay sales tax on Amazon purchases, while others don't. There was a supreme court case on this. The purpose of the law is to change that, so that states can levy taxes. They aren't required to do so, although I don't know why they wouldn't. quote: ORIGINAL: willbeurdaddy FR The OP is misworded. It will REQUIRE, not allow, them to collect state sales tax. They are already allowed to and most do. Amazon will begin collecting sales tax on sales to California in 11 months under a deal the struck with the state. They had dropped all of their affiliates so their was no indirect B&M presence, but that wasnt stopping CA from trying to sue them. In Michigan there is a spot on the tax forms for you to fill in all your online and out of state purchases so you can pay tax on them. Now I am not sure how many people actually do this, but it's there.

Iamsemisweet -> RE: Internet Marketplace Fairness Act (11/22/2011 7:24:03 AM)
I live in a town that is right across the border from no sales tax Oregon. Obviously people go to Oregon for all their big ticket purchases, except things that are titled. The State patrol waits right across the bridge to stop people who are carrying appliances in the back of their trucks, so they can cite them if they don't pay use tax. WA has no other way to insure use tax is paid, since therebis no income tax. You are supposed to file a use tax declaration, but no one does.

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.03125