On 11/23/2011 8:59 AM, George Herold wrote:

Yup, I always put down a little something ~$10-20. All internet
purchases, but less in recent years since I've just been checking the
box on the order form to have the vendor pay my sales tax.

Good for you. It's interesting that people that would not even dream of
sampling a grape at a supermarket, have no qualms about stealing in
other ways, and will often laugh at people that don't break the same
laws they are breaking.

SMS scharf.steven geemail.com wrote:

George Herold wrote:

Yup, I always put down a little something ~$10-20. All
internet purchases, but less in recent years since I've just
been checking the box on the order form to have the vendor pay
my sales tax.

Good for you. It's interesting that people that would not even
dream of sampling a grape at a supermarket, have no qualms about
stealing in other ways, and will often laugh at people that
don't break the same laws they are breaking.

And everyone in your world is so eager to pay taxes, they do not
even have to be told... At least in my state, the state never
tells anyone that they are supposed to pay a "usage" tax on
out-of-state purchases. I seem to recall someone working for the
state telling me that the state has a usage tax but that nobody
pays those taxes.

Another reason for not sampling a grape at the supermarket is
because others might be putting their grubby hands all over the
grapes too.
--















Path: news.astraweb.com!border6.newsrouter.astraweb.com!
npeer03.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-
me.highwinds-media.com!news.glorb.com!news-xfer.nntp.sonic.net!
posts.news.sonic.net!nnrp1.nntp.sonic.net!not-for-mail
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2011 11:47:44 -0800
From: SMS scharf.steven geemail.com
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:8.0)
Gecko/20111105 Thunderbird/8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups:
sci.electronics.design,alt.home.repair,rec.crafts. metalworking
Subject: OT Amazon to begin charging state sales tax
References: 4ecc61a7$0$6552$c3e8da3$b1356c67 news.astraweb.com
cf2c4e21-5257-4ebd-9ba0-9cb6fc95ea61 w1g2000vba.googlegroups.com
63342a76-3116-4119-a3a7-cbf9551c7d98 p9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
ru3qc7pqbue2sq346at7h1rqn9jh3vmab2 4ax.com 954a8321-db7c-4073-
93b5-e017965f8420 n6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com
In-Reply-To: 954a8321-db7c-4073-93b5-e017965f8420
n6g2000vbg.googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 111123-1, 11/23/2011), Outbound message
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
Lines: 10
Message-ID: 4ecd4de1$0$1716$742ec2ed news.sonic.net
Organization: Sonic.Net
NNTP-Posting-Date: 23 Nov 2011 19:47:45 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 37cc7615.news.sonic.net
X-Trace: DXC=F5YL7hoPfiJSnELGIHMgOm4K\QM1CV^ 1OYf0H`?;XAb;H HW?b?]
AOCIU1RcED9H6PJ1_[E5GVc9=oX^o:J
X-Complaints-To: abuse sonic.net

PeterD wrote:

Years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for
states to collect sales tax on out of state sales. I wonder what has
changed?


What has changed is your understanding of sales tax, the law, and the
ruling by the courts.

Absolutely nothing has changed - the forced collection of sales tax by one state
against a purchase in another state is still unconstitutional. Quiill vs. ND is
still the legal authority and there have been no rulings by any courts that have
reversed this.

What has changed is that states are atttempting to get around the SCOTUS ruling
by stretching the definition of nexus beyond the breaking point, claiming that
"affiliates" and separate legal entities owned by the parent in that state are
sufficient to create a nexus.

In the case of affiliates, Amazon and others have told the states to pound sand
and stopped paying affiliates in those states. In the case of distribution
centers and separate legal entities (read: software development centers), Amazon
has chosen to negotiate collection terms with those states. Fine as far as it
goes.

The legislation that someone referenced earlier in this thread is an attempt to
create a new national sales tax that would be applied to transactions that are
not currently taxed at by states. And if you think it would stay that way, I
have a bridge I'd like to show you.

On 23 Nov., 17:41, John Larkin
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 11:32:28 -0500, "Percival P. Cassidy"









wrote:
On 11/23/11 09:34 am, George Herold wrote:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/InternetSalesTa

They are "not raising taxes" they are "just helping to collect
taxes". There is a big difference...

Hmm, here in 'tax-happy' New York State there is a line on the state
tax return where you are 'required' to add in all the state tax that
you did not
pay on 'out of state' purchases.

In MI, one is required to report out-of-state purchases in excess of
$1000 (per item). Purchases for lesser amounts may either be itemized if
one has the receipts or else assessed automatically on the basis of the
taxable income (I *think* that's the basis). But one is supposed to pay
only the difference between the sales tax actually paid elsewhere (if
any) and the MI tax. So we don't pay MI "use tax" on the items that we
bought in IL where the tax rate is 8.xx (varies from county to county).

Perce

These states are missing an opportunity to charge double sales tax.
What *were* they thinking?

John

it seem ok enough that amazon have the unfair advantage, of paying no
saletax,
over local shops just because they sell stuff over the internet and
not over the counter


-Lasse

On 11/23/11 03:10 pm, Robert Neville wrote:

Years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that it was unconstitutional for
states to collect sales tax on out of state sales. I wonder what has
changed?


What has changed is your understanding of sales tax, the law, and the
ruling by the courts.

Absolutely nothing has changed - the forced collection of sales tax by one state
against a purchase in another state is still unconstitutional. Quiill vs. ND is
still the legal authority and there have been no rulings by any courts that have
reversed this.

What has changed is that states are atttempting to get around the SCOTUS ruling
by stretching the definition of nexus beyond the breaking point, claiming that
"affiliates" and separate legal entities owned by the parent in that state are
sufficient to create a nexus.

In the case of affiliates, Amazon and others have told the states to pound sand
and stopped paying affiliates in those states. In the case of distribution
centers and separate legal entities (read: software development centers), Amazon
has chosen to negotiate collection terms with those states. Fine as far as it
goes.

The legislation that someone referenced earlier in this thread is an attempt to
create a new national sales tax that would be applied to transactions that are
not currently taxed at by states. And if you think it would stay that way, I
have a bridge I'd like to show you.

But the tax that Michigan, for example, expects people to pay on
out-of-state purchases is not a "Sales Tax" but a "Use Tax," and I
assume that there is a Michigan law that establishes such a tax.

Perce

On Nov 23, 5:42*am, Nate Nagel wrote:
On 11/23/2011 03:02 AM, Caesar Romano wrote:





On Tue, 22 Nov 2011 21:14:04 -0800 (PST),
wrote Re OT Amazon to begin charging state sales tax:

On Nov 22, 9:59 pm, John *wrote:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/InternetSalesTa

They are "not raising taxes" they are "just helping to collect
taxes". There is a big difference...

That initiative is well under way nationwide.

The states have quietly joined together to create this entity (below),
whose purpose is to create a system to collect sales tax for your
state on all your purchases, no matter whose goods you buy:
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/

Here's current legislation:
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/i...cntnt01,detail....

It's coming, folks.

Bricks& *Mortar retailers are big supporters of that legislation. But
it won't matter. *On-line retail merchants will still beat the B&M
sellers in price/selection/convenience.

yup... whatever scheme they come up with I'm OK with so long as it's
fair and doesn't put anyone at a disadvantage. *The only reason that
there's such a huge issue w/ sales taxes is because the B&M stores are
so incredibly overpriced that people are flocking to online merchants in
droves. *Even if you add 5% or whatever to online prices to allow for
sales tax on many items it's still not worth driving to the store. *Just
one example would be cables - I just bought a lot of HDMI, optical
S/PDIF, and RCA cables online for about what just three HDMI cables
would cost me in a store - and for the same cost as store prices...
alternately if I were going high end for about the same as what a B&M
store charges for generic stuff I could get the real high end stuff from
Blue Jeans Cable. *This isn't a unique example... it's true for a lot of
items.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

It's not so much that the B&M stores are overpriced as it is they have
a huge overhead that the internet stores don't have. It's really
about time that the internet retailers paid into the sales tax system
along with the local B&M retailers. I don't like paying the sales tax
but can't for the life of me justify letting the internet retailers
have that much of an advantage at everyone expense.

On Nov 23, 5:52*am, G. Morgan wrote:
wrote:
That initiative is well under way nationwide.

The states have quietly joined together to create this entity (below),
whose purpose is to create a system to collect sales tax for your
state on all your purchases, no matter whose goods you buy:
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/

Here's current legislation:
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/i...s,cntnt01,deta....
ntnt01articleid=3D121&cntnt01origid=3D15&cntnt01r eturnid=3D74

It's coming, folks.

**** 'em. *I'm in Texas and will only collect tax for Texas. *What a
bunch of convoluted nonsense. *How are online stores supposed to keep up
with all that?


That is not an excuse for any online store. It only takes a computer
and a relative small database to keep track of the sales tax by zip
code. That excuse just doesn't cut it in the internet age.

--

"I don't like to discriminate against terrorists based on nationality.
If you declare war on the United States and you want to kill us,
We're going to kill you first, period."

October 19, 2011 - Ali Soufan *(Colbert Report)

On Nov 23, 7:57*am, "HeyBub" wrote:
Peter wrote:
On 11/23/2011 6:52 AM, G. Morgan wrote:

**** 'em. *I'm in Texas and will only collect tax for Texas. *What a
bunch of convoluted nonsense. *How are online stores supposed to
keep up with all that?

It's called software. *It will be automatic, similar to the way the
on-line web sites calculate shipping costs based on destination zip
code, package weight, and choice of shipping method.

It's considerably more complicated than dropping in a sales tax calculator.

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 07:57:41 -0600, "HeyBub"
wrote:

Peter wrote:
On 11/23/2011 6:52 AM, G. Morgan wrote:


**** 'em. I'm in Texas and will only collect tax for Texas. What
a bunch of convoluted nonsense. How are online stores supposed to
keep up with all that?



It's called software. It will be automatic, similar to the way the
on-line web sites calculate shipping costs based on destination zip
code, package weight, and choice of shipping method.

It's considerably more complicated than dropping in a sales tax
calculator. First, there are about 11,000 sales tax jurisdictions in
the U.S. Second, the boundaries of these jurisdictions change on an
almost daily basis, for example, when a city with a sales tax
enlarges its corporate limits or changes its tax rate. The "drop-in"
software will require periodic updates. It's not for nothing that
tax lawyers are often called "loose-leaf lawyers." Several hours a
week their associates are tasked with updating the tax law reference
books with tax law changes that took place in just the past few days.

But these confusions pale into insignificance when compared to two
other considerations:

1. What is taxed is highly variable. In New York, magazines are tax
exempt while newspapers are subject to the sales tax. It's the exact
reverse in California (that's why the NY Post has a staple - it's
thereby permantly bound, exempt from the tax, and has a 9%
competitive advantage over its competitors). Just in my state, a
single donut is taxable, but six or more are not! This oddity,
alone, could require 11,000 possible taxing flags (plus quantity
modifiers) for each item the company sells. In some places,
prescription drugs are exempt while OTC drugs are taxed. What about
an OTC drug on a prescription? (See the recent changes to Medical
Savings Accounts regarding drug purchases.)

2. The reporting requirements are staggering. Imagine sending several
hundred or thousand reports - and checks - monthly, quarterly,
semiannually, or yearly depending on the reporting requirements of
each taxing authority.

It's more than a body can bear!

Brick & Mortar stores have one competitive advantage: the
convenience of immediacy. Just like your neighborhood Stop & Rob,
you can get your merchandise right now. If the B&M stores can't make
it with this advantage, they should hire an 11-year old male as a
web master and start selling online.

Aside: There IS an alternative: Amazon, or whoever, could simply
provide a list of each purchaser's name, address, and amount to each
state comptroller and let the STATE struggle with trying to collect
the taxes. If it's too big a job, or financially imprudent, to do
so, what makes anyone think that putting that burden on hundreds of
thousands of merchants is better?


All of this is extremely simple on the software/comm side.
Already being done.
Ever think about the mechanics of walking a step?
You can write a thousand pages to make that look complicated too.
And it is. Sales tax is trivial in comparison.
Of course taxes are man-made.


Yep. Anything is simple if all you have to do is pay for it.

A short internet reconnaissance reveals one company - Service Objects DOTS
Fast Tax - has a module you can incorporate in your web-based marketing
system. It costs $1,428.00 per year for up to 5,000 transaction per month.
(The cost goes up to almost $6,000.00 per year as the transaction count
increases.)

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:13:28 -0600, "
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:16:33 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

I think the legislators aren't allowed to consider
the cost of implementing. Just to consider the
revenue benfits from the taxes. So, the people
who write the law don't have any concern for
how much it costs private industry to comply
with their new law.

No, it's really simpler than that. If they don't see it, it doesn't exist.
IOW, legislators are stupid, but you knew that.

I have difficulty placing all the blame on the legislators when we
(collectively) are stupid enough to keep re-electing the grifters.
Term limits are here now- Just vote against all incumbents.
--
Mr.E

On Nov 23, 8:00*am, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article , Peter
wrote:

On 11/23/2011 6:52 AM, G. Morgan wrote:

**** 'em. *I'm in Texas and will only collect tax for Texas. *What a
bunch of convoluted nonsense. *How are online stores supposed to keep up
with all that?

It's called software. *It will be automatic, similar to the way the
on-line web sites calculate shipping costs based on destination zip
code, package weight, and choice of shipping method.

But taxes don't work like that, especially sales taxes. YOu have state
taxes, but many places also have local sales taxes, and often more than
one. There was an area around O'Hare at one point (don't know if it
still exists) where there was state, city, airport authority and some
other entity sales tax.
* * *This is very similar to a vinter I was talking to. He said there
are counties where UPS refuses to accept wine shipments because a person
on one side of the road may be legal and the other side not.


Sorry but I have been working with software for 40 years and it's a no
brainer. Just more excuses.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Nov 23, 9:40*am, Peter wrote:
On 11/23/2011 9:00 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:





In ,
wrote:

On 11/23/2011 6:52 AM, G. Morgan wrote:

**** 'em. *I'm in Texas and will only collect tax for Texas. *What a
bunch of convoluted nonsense. *How are online stores supposed to keep up
with all that?

It's called software. *It will be automatic, similar to the way the
on-line web sites calculate shipping costs based on destination zip
code, package weight, and choice of shipping method.

But taxes don't work like that, especially sales taxes. YOu have state
taxes, but many places also have local sales taxes, and often more than
one. There was an area around O'Hare at one point (don't know if it
still exists) where there was state, city, airport authority and some
other entity sales tax.
* * * This is very similar to a vinter I was talking to. He said there
are counties where UPS refuses to accept wine shipments because a person
on one side of the road may be legal and the other side not.

I'm amazed that so many technically sophisticated posters consider the
issue of automated software managing the sales tax calculation for
on-line business to be unworkable. *We probably all have been exposed to
essentially real time updating of huge relational databases. *We're not
computing in the 1980s folks. *Look how long it takes google to
accomplish a search with their custom algorithms, even for arcane
keywords. *I think you over-estimate the difficulty. *I suspect some
company, maybe even a start-up, could make a bundle by developing the
software accompanied by a user subscription charge for ongoing
auto-updates of the database (analogous to the auto-updates of the
signature files for our anti-virus programs).- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Right! Just give me their address and not only can I locate them
within 30 feet I can probably pull up a photo of their house showing
the cars in the driveway along with a photo of the front of the
house. Now you are going to try and tell me that its too hard to
determine what sales tax district they are in. Give me a break, it
isn't rocket science.

On Nov 23, 10:13*am, "
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:16:33 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"

wrote:
I think the legislators aren't allowed to consider
the cost of implementing. Just to consider the
revenue benfits from the taxes. So, the people
who write the law don't have any concern for
how much it costs private industry to comply
with their new law.

No, it's really simpler than that. *If they don't see it, it doesn't exist.
IOW, legislators are stupid, but you knew that.

Yes, most legislators are rather stupid but then you are showing a few
signs of the same problem.

Oh, and the problem has already been solved many times over.

On 11/23/2011 11:09 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:25:11 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 07:57:41 -0600,
wrote:

Peter wrote:
On 11/23/2011 6:52 AM, G. Morgan wrote:


**** 'em. I'm in Texas and will only collect tax for Texas. What a
bunch of convoluted nonsense. How are online stores supposed to
keep up with all that?



It's called software. It will be automatic, similar to the way the
on-line web sites calculate shipping costs based on destination zip
code, package weight, and choice of shipping method.

It's considerably more complicated than dropping in a sales tax calculator.
First, there are about 11,000 sales tax jurisdictions in the U.S. Second,
the boundaries of these jurisdictions change on an almost daily basis, for
example, when a city with a sales tax enlarges its corporate limits or
changes its tax rate. The "drop-in" software will require periodic updates.
It's not for nothing that tax lawyers are often called "loose-leaf lawyers."
Several hours a week their associates are tasked with updating the tax law
reference books with tax law changes that took place in just the past few
days.

But these confusions pale into insignificance when compared to two other
considerations:

1. What is taxed is highly variable. In New York, magazines are tax exempt
while newspapers are subject to the sales tax. It's the exact reverse in
California (that's why the NY Post has a staple - it's thereby permantly
bound, exempt from the tax, and has a 9% competitive advantage over its
competitors). Just in my state, a single donut is taxable, but six or more
are not! This oddity, alone, could require 11,000 possible taxing flags
(plus quantity modifiers) for each item the company sells. In some places,
prescription drugs are exempt while OTC drugs are taxed. What about an OTC
drug on a prescription? (See the recent changes to Medical Savings Accounts
regarding drug purchases.)

2. The reporting requirements are staggering. Imagine sending several
hundred or thousand reports - and checks - monthly, quarterly, semiannually,
or yearly depending on the reporting requirements of each taxing authority.

It's more than a body can bear!

Brick& Mortar stores have one competitive advantage: the convenience of
immediacy. Just like your neighborhood Stop& Rob, you can get your
merchandise right now. If the B&M stores can't make it with this advantage,
they should hire an 11-year old male as a web master and start selling
online.

Aside: There IS an alternative: Amazon, or whoever, could simply provide a
list of each purchaser's name, address, and amount to each state comptroller
and let the STATE struggle with trying to collect the taxes. If it's too big
a job, or financially imprudent, to do so, what makes anyone think that
putting that burden on hundreds of thousands of merchants is better?


All of this is extremely simple on the software/comm side.
Already being done.

Huh? If this is so easy, why do I always get directed to web pages for a city
fifty miles from here?

After you furnish your address? You are totally confusing web sites
trying to guess where you are vs doing a database look up to determine
something such as applicable taxes after you tell them where you are.





Ever think about the mechanics of walking a step?
You can write a thousand pages to make that look complicated too.
And it is. Sales tax is trivial in comparison.

Bull****.

Of course taxes are man-made.

...and made as complicated as man can.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 08:14:24 -0500, "Stormin Mormon"
wrote:

You know, "fair" is such a variable word. To liberals, it's
fair when millionaires and billionaires pay 60% income tax
rate, and the poor get tax credits. To a conservative,

That not because they are conservative, it's because they are mean
spirited cheap *******s who don't give a crap about anyone but
themselves. It takes at least $40.000 to have any kind of decent
living per year. Someone who makes that much and pays 15 % is getting
hurt one whole hell of a lot more then a millionaire who pays the same
15%. All it means to the millionaire is he'll have to keep his
Mercedes 600SL for 3 years instead of 2.

it's
fair when millionaires pay 15% income tax, billionaires pay
15% income tax, and the poor pays 15% income tax.

So, what's fair for sales tax? In your own words, please.
Lean into the microphone, and speak clearly.....

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
.


"Nate Nagel" wrote in message
...


yup... whatever scheme they come up with I'm OK with so long
as it's
fair and doesn't put anyone at a disadvantage. The only
reason that

nate

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:12:13 -0600, "
wrote:




A friend lived in one town but had an address for the city next to it. I
lived a couple of blocks closer to the city (same subdivision) but had a town
address. The tax rates were substantially different. How does your simple
model handle this?


Simple. They don't care what the town address is. They are
collecting STATE sales tax, not city or down or other districts. The
city is SOL

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 15:47:44 -0700, Robert Neville
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

They are charging STATE taxes. Some have no tax, so it is maybe 48 or
so to collect.

Not even close. While most states have a base rate that applies across the
state, almost all of those states have additional amounts added from hundreds of
different taxing entities.

So the little village is SOL. The state gets their money and the local
has to figure out a better way. Once the state get their share, they
won't much give a damn about the small local taxing authorities
either.





You're missing the point. When a store opens, the company knows the location of
the store and the tax rates that apply to the store's location. What you want to
implement is not to know the rates that apply to that store, but to every
potential customer. You're talking orders of magnatude greater number of
possible rates.

Some chains have 3000 or 4000 stores. It is easier to setup a
computer at one location for 50 state than to set up 4000 local
systems. I think you have it backwards.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:41:52 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:


Aside from the fact that donuts will probably not be sold mailorder
often, how do the big stores do it now? They have stores in every
state, yet manage to do all of this already. Sure, it will be some
expense, but it is merely adapting existing software. Some Internet
sellers collect tax in multiple states already.

Because of the physical presence thing. They charge sales taxes
because of where they are. It is one place that doesn't have to ask if
the person they are selling to is in one of the weird districts. The
sales taxes for the Internet, at least as currently being discussed, are
not based on where one building is, but rather where the building they
are sending it to is. Whole other ball of wax.

Yes, an easier to handle ball of was. Now they will have 50 states to
deal with from one computer rather than the different ones in their
3000 local stores. The state for the shipping address with determine
the tax. Look up charts are easy.

Take a look at the withholding tax on your pay stub. Does every
employee where you work pay the same tax every week? No, the computer
looks at the gross pay and references a chart for the proper tax for
the number of exemptions. Many more possibilities doing payroll than
shipping to 50 states.

If you can make a simple spreadsheet, you can do the sales tax thing.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 16:50:08 -0600, "
wrote:




Bull****. Sales tax jurisdictions are a *lot* finer that states, or even
cities. It's often difficult (to impossible) to tell what tax jurisdiction
one is in.

End of quarter report. State of Euphoria sales $9999999. Tax due is
sales X 6%. Send it in.

What do you do with the taxes for the town of E. Bumb**** or the City of E.
Bumb****?

Nothing. You don't have them. YOU only have the state tax so you
send it in. Less the processing fee, of course. When I used to
collect sales tax years ago, it was 1%.

I think you are making a bigger deal of this than exists.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:38:14 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:




End of quarter report. State of Euphoria sales $9999999. Tax due is
sales X 6%. Send it in.
But what about the City of Miniscule Heights and it's tax and the MH
Stadium fund that gets sales taxes from part of MH, part of the
unincorporated part of Miniscule County, and a sliver of the next county
over.
If there was a way to say we were just going to collect only state
sales taxes, you'd have a point.


I guess I have a point. Did Amazon say they would collect for every
tax district or just the states?

Notat Home not home.com wrote:

John Doe wrote:

http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/InternetSalesTa

They are "not raising taxes" they are "just helping to collect
taxes". There is a big difference...

Years ago, the US Supreme Court ruled that it was
unconstitutional for states to collect sales tax on out of state
sales. I wonder what has changed?

After listening to a little bit of the Senate discussion...
Maybe what has changed is the technology for Amazon and others
(over a certain size) to charge the tax and have the tax instantly
credited to the appropriate state. In that way, Amazon will not be
technically collecting the tax because it won't actually receive
the tax, it might not see any benefit like cash flow or whatever.

Sales tax is complicated in that different places (states,
counties, cities, etc.) have different rates and different
definitions of what can be taxed. I know in Ohio, there is a
use tax, identical to the sales tax, that people have to pay
themselves when they buy something out of state, but because of
complexity and ignorance, I think few people pay it. The states
lose a ton of revenue because they can't effectively collect the
sales or use tax on out of state purchases.

Yup.
--







It would certainly be fairer to all to have the same tax for
in-state and out of state purchases.

On 11/23/2011 4:14 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:42:29 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:




It's not so much that the B&M stores are overpriced as it is they have
a huge overhead that the internet stores don't have. It's really
about time that the internet retailers paid into the sales tax system
along with the local B&M retailers. I don't like paying the sales tax
but can't for the life of me justify letting the internet retailers
have that much of an advantage at everyone expense.

Pretty much my stance too. If you save $5 not paying sales tax, that
means someone else is going to pay more to make up your share. If
half the sales were untaxed over the Internet, the state would have to
double the tax rate on granny, who does not have a computer.

The ability to tax is the ability to control. Not that we don't need
this and that but there was a time when the individual citizen wasn't
the source of revenue, it was commerce through tariffs and taxes on
on items being moved across borders. I recall a proposal to have a
millage tax, a small tax put on every transaction between business
in and out of the country that would do away with individual income
taxes and bring in the same or more revenue. Sort of like the "Fair
Tax" proposal that has been discussed as a national sales tax in recent
years. The tax would follow The Gross National Product and it makes
sense in the way that some genius embezzler figured out to round off
amounts of all the money passing through a bank and getting pennies
from each transaction, it added up to a great deal of money until it
became a large enough amount to be noticed. I read about the idea years
ago and don't recall where I came across it but it was an intriguing
concept. Gee, I wish I could find the source, perhaps someone else is
familiar with it and may know more about the proposal and who came up
with the idea. ^_^

TDD

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 23:11:06 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:12:13 -0600, "
wrote:




A friend lived in one town but had an address for the city next to it. I
lived a couple of blocks closer to the city (same subdivision) but had a town
address. The tax rates were substantially different. How does your simple
model handle this?


Simple. They don't care what the town address is. They are
collecting STATE sales tax, not city or down or other districts. The
city is SOL

That's not reality. The state collects the tax and remits it to the other
taxing authorities.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:36:26 -0500, George wrote:

On 11/23/2011 5:46 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


You don't have to show how little you know with every post. We got it!

Not sure why you behave as childishly as you do with the constant ad
hominem attacks. If you have nothing to offer an ad hominem attack only
makes you look silly.

After a while, we get it. You can't read. No ad hominem at all; just the
facts.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 23:51:38 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 16:50:08 -0600, "
wrote:




Bull****. Sales tax jurisdictions are a *lot* finer that states, or even
cities. It's often difficult (to impossible) to tell what tax jurisdiction
one is in.

End of quarter report. State of Euphoria sales $9999999. Tax due is
sales X 6%. Send it in.

What do you do with the taxes for the town of E. Bumb**** or the City of E.
Bumb****?

Nothing. You don't have them. YOU only have the state tax so you
send it in. Less the processing fee, of course. When I used to
collect sales tax years ago, it was 1%.

I think you are making a bigger deal of this than exists.

No, you're not in the real world. These things *do* matter today. You
haven't looked at the world in a *long* time.

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 23:53:20 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:38:14 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:




End of quarter report. State of Euphoria sales $9999999. Tax due is
sales X 6%. Send it in.
But what about the City of Miniscule Heights and it's tax and the MH
Stadium fund that gets sales taxes from part of MH, part of the
unincorporated part of Miniscule County, and a sliver of the next county
over.
If there was a way to say we were just going to collect only state
sales taxes, you'd have a point.


I guess I have a point. Did Amazon say they would collect for every
tax district or just the states?

They will be *required* to. It's more of a mess than several here will admit.

In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:12:13 -0600, "
wrote:




A friend lived in one town but had an address for the city next to it. I
lived a couple of blocks closer to the city (same subdivision) but had a town
address. The tax rates were substantially different. How does your simple
model handle this?


Simple. They don't care what the town address is. They are
collecting STATE sales tax, not city or down or other districts. The
city is SOL
I would have no problem if all we are talking is the state sales
taxes. But all of the other jurisdictions are demanding their cut, too
and therein lies the rub.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:38:14 -0500, Kurt Ullman
wrote:




End of quarter report. State of Euphoria sales $9999999. Tax due is
sales X 6%. Send it in.
But what about the City of Miniscule Heights and it's tax and the MH
Stadium fund that gets sales taxes from part of MH, part of the
unincorporated part of Miniscule County, and a sliver of the next county
over.
If there was a way to say we were just going to collect only state
sales taxes, you'd have a point.


I guess I have a point. Did Amazon say they would collect for every
tax district or just the states?

They are concerned that if they do one they have to do all, or at least
defend the suits in Court. You think MH is gonna sit back and let the
state have all the fun and just let that rev source alone? That is one
of the reasons they have been trying to get the Feds involved so that
any legislation can specifically say they don't have to mess with MH,
only the state.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:15:56 -0600, The Daring Dufas
wrote:



The ability to tax is the ability to control. Not that we don't need
this and that but there was a time when the individual citizen wasn't
the source of revenue, it was commerce through tariffs and taxes on
on items being moved across borders. I recall a proposal to have a
millage tax, a small tax put on every transaction between business
in and out of the country that would do away with individual income
taxes and bring in the same or more revenue. Sort of like the "Fair
Tax" proposal that has been discussed as a national sales tax in recent
years. The tax would follow The Gross National Product and it makes
sense in the way that some genius embezzler figured out to round off
amounts of all the money passing through a bank and getting pennies
from each transaction, it added up to a great deal of money until it
became a large enough amount to be noticed. I read about the idea years
ago and don't recall where I came across it but it was an intriguing
concept. Gee, I wish I could find the source, perhaps someone else is
familiar with it and may know more about the proposal and who came up
with the idea. ^_^

TDD

I recall something like that too. There have been different VATs
proposed too. Some of that type of tax sounds good to the uneducated
because they think the consumer will no longer pay the tax, but
businesses will instead. It all comes out in the cost of goods sold.
We should be more concerned about government spending.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:21:13 -0600, "
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 23:11:06 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:12:13 -0600, "
wrote:




A friend lived in one town but had an address for the city next to it. I
lived a couple of blocks closer to the city (same subdivision) but had a town
address. The tax rates were substantially different. How does your simple
model handle this?


Simple. They don't care what the town address is. They are
collecting STATE sales tax, not city or down or other districts. The
city is SOL

That's not reality. The state collects the tax and remits it to the other
taxing authorities.

If it is not collected for them, there is nothing to remit. Let each
town bring its own law suite against Amazon.

In article ,
Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 00:21:13 -0600, "
wrote:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 23:11:06 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:12:13 -0600, "
wrote:




A friend lived in one town but had an address for the city next to it. I
lived a couple of blocks closer to the city (same subdivision) but had a
town
address. The tax rates were substantially different. How does your
simple
model handle this?


Simple. They don't care what the town address is. They are
collecting STATE sales tax, not city or down or other districts. The
city is SOL

That's not reality. The state collects the tax and remits it to the other
taxing authorities.

If it is not collected for them, there is nothing to remit. Let each
town bring its own law suite against Amazon.

Which is pretty much exactly what they are trying to avoid.

--
People thought cybersex was a safe alternative,
until patients started presenting with sexually
acquired carpal tunnel syndrome.-Howard Berkowitz

On 11/24/2011 7:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:


I recall something like that too. There have been different VATs
proposed too. Some of that type of tax sounds good to the uneducated
because they think the consumer will no longer pay the tax, but
businesses will instead. It all comes out in the cost of goods sold.
We should be more concerned about government spending.

The problem with a VAT is that is a great cover for weasel politicians
who don't want anyone to realize how badly they are doing their job. As
you noted many would simply think that the business is paying and not them.

A tax that is totally obvious and applied in one place (example, no
other taxes except a 38% sales tax) is a great thing because it would
make people do a lot more thinking on election day.

On 11/23/2011 11:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 18:41:52 -0500, Kurt
wrote:

In ,
Ed wrote:


Aside from the fact that donuts will probably not be sold mailorder
often, how do the big stores do it now? They have stores in every
state, yet manage to do all of this already. Sure, it will be some
expense, but it is merely adapting existing software. Some Internet
sellers collect tax in multiple states already.

Because of the physical presence thing. They charge sales taxes
because of where they are. It is one place that doesn't have to ask if
the person they are selling to is in one of the weird districts. The
sales taxes for the Internet, at least as currently being discussed, are
not based on where one building is, but rather where the building they
are sending it to is. Whole other ball of wax.

Yes, an easier to handle ball of was. Now they will have 50 states to
deal with from one computer rather than the different ones in their
3000 local stores. The state for the shipping address with determine
the tax. Look up charts are easy.

Absolutely, there is nothing at all complicated. If you can quantify
something you can have a computer look up process that can use that
information.




Take a look at the withholding tax on your pay stub. Does every
employee where you work pay the same tax every week? No, the computer
looks at the gross pay and references a chart for the proper tax for
the number of exemptions. Many more possibilities doing payroll than
shipping to 50 states.

If you can make a simple spreadsheet, you can do the sales tax thing.

On 11/23/2011 11:11 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:12:13 -0600, "
wrote:




A friend lived in one town but had an address for the city next to it. I
lived a couple of blocks closer to the city (same subdivision) but had a town
address. The tax rates were substantially different. How does your simple
model handle this?


Simple. They don't care what the town address is. They are
collecting STATE sales tax, not city or down or other districts. The
city is SOL

Typically the state sales tax agency acts as the agent for other sales
tax collection. In my state it is the department of revenue. If you are
a merchant in my state you collect 6% sales tax, if you are a merchant
in Philadelphia or Allegheny counties you collect 1% more and remit it
to the state. There are line items on the submittal to indicate which
county gets the additional funds.

Folks seem to not realize how much data is available and how powerful
modern databases are. As I mentioned in another post my little town is
actually represented bu three legislative districts. I can go to the
government web site and pump in my address and it will instantly tell me
what district I am in and contact info for the appropriate rep.

George wrote in :

On 11/24/2011 7:52 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:


I recall something like that too. There have been different VATs
proposed too. Some of that type of tax sounds good to the uneducated
because they think the consumer will no longer pay the tax, but
businesses will instead. It all comes out in the cost of goods sold.
We should be more concerned about government spending.

The problem with a VAT is that is a great cover for weasel politicians
who don't want anyone to realize how badly they are doing their job.
As you noted many would simply think that the business is paying and
not them.

One of the real problems with instituting a VAT is that merchants,
anxious thata they may not recoup the taxes they'd have to pay, increase
their prices to cover any possible shortfall. That means there will be
instant 10% or higher inflation. At least that is what was experienced
in Holland upon instituting the VAT. (European VAT can go higher than
20% depending on the "luxury" status of the merchandise).

A tax that is totally obvious and applied in one place (example, no
other taxes except a 38% sales tax) is a great thing because it would
make people do a lot more thinking on election day.

Whom do you think will get hit by a 38% more than others? WHo will be
able to afford it best?


--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

On 11/23/2011 5:27 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 17:06:34 -0500, wrote:


I (and several others) have already explained why the postal address is
useless for accurately determining sales tax jurisdiction. If you don't care
to read (or can't) that's not my problem.

Really, please identify where I claimed a ZIP code is sufficient.

Are you actually capable of a dialogue or just juvenile insults?

On 11/24/2011 6:52 AM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
Ed wrote:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 10:12:13 -0600, "
wrote:




A friend lived in one town but had an address for the city next to it. I
lived a couple of blocks closer to the city (same subdivision) but had a town
address. The tax rates were substantially different. How does your simple
model handle this?


Simple. They don't care what the town address is. They are
collecting STATE sales tax, not city or down or other districts. The
city is SOL
I would have no problem if all we are talking is the state sales
taxes. But all of the other jurisdictions are demanding their cut, too
and therein lies the rub.


So whats the difference? The unfairness is that brick and mortar
businesses are mandated to be tax collectors. If you buy something from
them they are mandated to collect whatever taxes are applicable. So if
the state is say 5%, and the county is 2% the merchant must collect 7%.
Why should another merchant no need to do that?

On 11/23/2011 6:38 PM, Kurt Ullman wrote:
In ,
Ed wrote:

On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 05:52:41 -0600, G. Morgan
wrote:



It maybe a big deal for a small guy, but for Amazon, it is merely a
computer program that can be easily added. It is more trouble to
compute shipping costs that the fixed sales tax for a given state.

End of quarter report. State of Euphoria sales $9999999. Tax due is
sales X 6%. Send it in.
But what about the City of Miniscule Heights and it's tax and the MH
Stadium fund that gets sales taxes from part of MH, part of the
unincorporated part of Miniscule County, and a sliver of the next county
over.

So what is the problem? Did you ever consider the powerful databases
that exist today and how much information is in them? My little town can
definitely fit in the miniscule category and it is divided up into three
different districts. I can go to the government web site and pump in my
address and it will instantly tell me what district I am in. If I pump
in an address one block away it correctly tells me that location is in a
different district.

And even the days of being anonymous because you live in a rural area
are largely gone. I border on a rural area and previously folks had an
address such as PO Box 222, Smithville where Smithville happened to be
ten miles away. Under e911 each building now has a physical street
address that is verified by GPS and recorded in a shared database. So
even the tiny little dirt road in the middle of nowhere has a name and
the one property on that road has an address. All can be instantly
located by government agencies.

If there was a way to say we were just going to collect only state
sales taxes, you'd have a point.

On 11/24/2011 1:22 AM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 19:36:26 -0500, wrote:

On 11/23/2011 5:46 PM, zzzzzzzzzz wrote:


You don't have to show how little you know with every post. We got it!

Not sure why you behave as childishly as you do with the constant ad
hominem attacks. If you have nothing to offer an ad hominem attack only
makes you look silly.

After a while, we get it. You can't read. No ad hominem at all; just the
facts.

Who is the "we" you use? You are notably the only one in this group who
specializes in name calling and personal attacks instead of actual adult
dialogue.

On 11/24/2011 9:21 AM, George wrote:
On 11/23/2011 11:46 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Yes, an easier to handle ball of was. Now they will have 50 states to
deal with from one computer rather than the different ones in their
3000 local stores. The state for the shipping address with determine
the tax. Look up charts are easy.

Absolutely, there is nothing at all complicated. If you can quantify
something you can have a computer look up process that can use that
information.

Agreed, most places will likely subscribe to a service that maintains
an up-to-date sales tax database, just as many companies do for payroll
taxes.

There is a line on my state's income tax form where you're supposed to
be reporting all of these out-of-state purchases and cough up the sales
tax you owe. I'm pretty sure most people ignore it, besides, that would
be a lot of purchases to keep track of.

Reality is that the states can't just ignore it anymore. It's a lot of
revenue lost.

nancy