On 11/23/2011 11:12 AM, zzzzzzzzzz 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?


Are you talking about sales tax rate or school/real estate tax rate?
I'm very familiar with the latter, the former is less common.

Usually when you live in one town but have an address for the city next
to it, the town has a different zip code than the city. (That's my
circumstance as well.) It is very rare for cities large enough to
impose a sales tax to have the same zip codes as communities outside
that city's legal boundary.

My mother's house, in a different state, also has a different postal
address city/town/village than what is recorded on the property deed,
and a different zip code. Neither jurisdiction is large enough to have
imposed their own sales tax. They do have different school taxes.

In article , George
wrote:

n
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.
A database that is for one (you yourself say) small area and answering
only one question. Not really the same as one state, many counties,
untold cities, and bunches of smaller taxing districts.. and then do the
same for 50 other states. I am not saying it can't be done, I am just
saying that the burden to the company is a few orders of magnitude
different, including upkeep on your DBs. I

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

On 11/24/11 09:14 am, George 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.

I don't think I've made any significant purchases of taxable goods in
any country that has VAT, but AIUI the tax rate may vary from one kind
of item to another and the tax rate is not necessarily published in the
store or at the cash register -- the tax is already included in the
displayed price.

A student from Zambia told me that their sales taxes (varying rates) are
included in the displayed price but the receipts show the tax paid on
each item.

Perce

Vic Smith wrote:

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.

The shopping cart software I use can be configured to add a pre-set
percentage for each STATE, but that is not accurate enough. I drive 5
miles north to Montgomery Co. and there is no METRO tax of 1% like
Harris County. Sales tax by State is easy, by all the little
municipalities, it's not.

Now that I've collected taxes from the: "45 states and the District of
Columbia [that] impose sales and use taxes on the retail sale"* . What
the hell am I supposed to do, file 46 extra returns every quarter? I
don't think so. Would I have to get a sales tax certificate in each
State I sell stuff to?

I'm not doing it. Texas residents are charged 8.25% because that is the
rate at my physical location. If the other states want me to collect
taxes for them, there will have to be an incentive. It would take
considerable time, money, and effort to do that.








* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_t..._United_States
--

"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)

Nancy Young email@replyto wrote in news:4ece5b8b$0$28478$a8266bb1
@newsreader.readnews.com:

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.


I believe most states will adjust that line if there is no evidence to back
up a zero amount. I know NY and NJ would.

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

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.

Exactly.

--

"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)

"Percival P. Cassidy" wrote in
:

On 11/24/11 09:14 am, George 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.

I don't think I've made any significant purchases of taxable goods in
any country that has VAT, but AIUI the tax rate may vary from one kind
of item to another and the tax rate is not necessarily published in
the store or at the cash register -- the tax is already included in
the displayed price.

A student from Zambia told me that their sales taxes (varying rates)
are included in the displayed price but the receipts show the tax paid
on each item.

Perce

That's the way it is in Europe as well. I still find it disconcerting
here that the price you get quoted for an item is NOT the final price,
since it doesn't include taxes and fees. That is especially cumbersome
for hotels etc, where there may be lodging taxes on top of everything
else. Talkinf about taxation without representation!!!

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid

Ed Pawlowski wrote:


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

You've obviously not seen the "back-end" of shopping cart software.
There is no provision on any I seen/worked with of that lets you base
tax on the buyers exact location (only State). This is not a simple
implementation from a tech. viewpoint at all. Tax has to calculated in
real-time, not by some guy reading off a spreadsheet.

Plus, how is a one-man operation going to keep up with filing tax
returns in 45+ States? I'm not selling IN their state, just shipping TO
the state.

I'm not going out of my way to collect taxes for other states, not my
responsibility.

--

"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)

Peter wrote:

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.

Not entirely unworkable, but not as easy as typing a few lines of code
either.

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).

Still is the matter of getting the tax to the States, unless they make a
clearinghouse of some sort. How is the one-man shop (or any non-giant
like Amazon) going to file quarterly returns to states he/she does not
have a sales/use tax permit in?

--

"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)

In article , Peter
wrote:


Usually when you live in one town but have an address for the city next
to it, the town has a different zip code than the city. (That's my
circumstance as well.) It is very rare for cities large enough to
impose a sales tax to have the same zip codes as communities outside
that city's legal boundary.

Just along the border between Indy and Carmel/Fishers there are three
zips that cross the border (46240, 46256, 46055). Heck there is one zip
code that crosses Hancock, Hamilton, and Madison Counties. It isn't the
communities that count, it is the house that stuff is being delivered
to.

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

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:28:46 -0600, G. Morgan
wrote:




The shopping cart software I use can be configured to add a pre-set
percentage for each STATE, but that is not accurate enough. I drive 5
miles north to Montgomery Co. and there is no METRO tax of 1% like
Harris County. Sales tax by State is easy, by all the little
municipalities, it's not.



I know. The people saying it can be done will come up with all kinds
of computer necessary scenarios, like putting a man on the moon or
walking in outer space. They obviously are nuts. 50 sales tax rates?
No way.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:45:35 -0600, G. Morgan
wrote:

Ed Pawlowski wrote:


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

You've obviously not seen the "back-end" of shopping cart software.
There is no provision on any I seen/worked with of that lets you base
tax on the buyers exact location (only State). This is not a simple
implementation from a tech. viewpoint at all. Tax has to calculated in
real-time, not by some guy reading off a spreadsheet.

Plus, how is a one-man operation going to keep up with filing tax
returns in 45+ States? I'm not selling IN their state, just shipping TO
the state.

I'm not going out of my way to collect taxes for other states, not my
responsibility.

The states (at least for now) are not going after the one man
operation. They are going after the ones selling hundreds of millions
of dollars in product. How does Sears do it with their catalog sales?
It is not that hard. It is done now by many stores that have large
operations and a presence in many states.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:33:00 -0600, G. Morgan
wrote:

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.

Exactly.

BS. It is done already by many retailers that have catalog operations.
Sears, Monkey Ward, etc. .

Ed Pawlowski wrote:

It is done already by many retailers that have catalog operations.
Sears, Monkey Ward, etc.

Careful - you're showing your age there. Wards has been out of business for
close to 20 years now.

On 24 Nov 2011 14:29:21 GMT, Han wrote:

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).

The difference is that the European countries didn't eliminate all other taxes
at the same time. The idea behind the "Fair Tax" is that all of the hidden
taxes get eliminated so the end cost to the consumer doesn't change (much).
It'll never happen because it will make government waste evident - every day.

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?

No one. That's the point.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:30:33 -0500, George wrote:

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?

When you show that you're capable of reading, I'll stop calling you an
imbecile. Truth hurts, too bad.

On 24 Nov 2011 15:31:54 GMT, Han wrote:

Nancy Young email@replyto wrote in news:4ece5b8b$0$28478$a8266bb1
:

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.


I believe most states will adjust that line if there is no evidence to back
up a zero amount. I know NY and NJ would.

How could they possibly adjust the amount on a form and still have a form that
can hold up in a fraud case? You would be requiring people to sign a
fraudulent document.

How do you supply "evidence of a zero amount"? "OK, I have zero evidence of
the actual amount!"

....not that I would put either past those two cesspools.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 07:54:37 -0500, 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.

The *STATES* will sue Amazon. The STATES collect taxes for the lower-level
taxing authorities. They don't have to figure it out, businesses do. It's
unworkable (and constantly getting worse).

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 10:09:39 -0500, Peter wrote:

On 11/23/2011 11:12 AM, zzzzzzzzzz 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?


Are you talking about sales tax rate or school/real estate tax rate?

Sales tax. I don't think Amazon is being asked to collect real estate tax.
;-)

I'm very familiar with the latter, the former is less common.

Usually when you live in one town but have an address for the city next
to it, the town has a different zip code than the city. (That's my
circumstance as well.) It is very rare for cities large enough to
impose a sales tax to have the same zip codes as communities outside
that city's legal boundary.

He lived in a town outside the city but had a city address (and, of course,
zip code). His sales tax *should* have been charged at the town rate,
regardless of his city street address. It was very difficult to get that
through to anyone, though.

I actually lived between him and the city, in the same subdivision, yet had a
town address (and zip code, obviously). There is no rationalizing the way the
USPS works.

My mother's house, in a different state, also has a different postal
address city/town/village than what is recorded on the property deed,
and a different zip code. Neither jurisdiction is large enough to have
imposed their own sales tax. They do have different school taxes.

Different issues. BTW, it doesn't take a "large city" to have a different
sales tax rate. It can even vary within a municipal entity.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:53:39 -0500, George wrote:

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.

Everyone here, dufus. Not everyone is as stupid as you advertise.

....just stating the obvious. Sorry if it hurts your feelings.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:51:49 -0600, G. Morgan
wrote:

Peter wrote:

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.

Not entirely unworkable, but not as easy as typing a few lines of code
either.

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).

Still is the matter of getting the tax to the States, unless they make a
clearinghouse of some sort. How is the one-man shop (or any non-giant
like Amazon) going to file quarterly returns to states he/she does not
have a sales/use tax permit in?

I know! Use BMI or ASCAP! That'll solve the states' collection problems.
....for a small fee.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:27:41 -0500, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:33:00 -0600, G. Morgan
wrote:

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.

Exactly.

BS. It is done already by many retailers that have catalog operations.
Sears, Monkey Ward, etc. .

They ship to stores. Those purchases shipped to homes have the same
intractable problem and people are constantly being over/under charged. Half
object but no one cares.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:10:57 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

On Nov 24, 11:26*am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:30:33 -0500, George wrote:
On 11/23/2011 5:27 PM, 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?

When you show that you're capable of reading, I'll stop calling you an
imbecile. *Truth hurts, too bad.

I guess you pretty much answered his question. Nothing but juvenile
insults.

Ah, I hurt your feelings too. Don't worry, Barak will take care of you, too.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:12:30 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

On Nov 23, 4:30*pm, "
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:48:41 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:





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.
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?

A lot of very weak excuses but no real reason that internet and
catalogue retailers should be exempt from collecting sales tax.

Being unconstitutional is "no real reason"? *...or can't you read?

The states already maintain the database and I am sure they would be happy
to keep the retailers updated via the internet.

OK, you've proven that you're illiterate.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK, you have proven that you're a ****ing asshole. Congratulations!

Ah, I made the little kid swear. Mommy is going to be mad at me!

Oh, and you are totally and consistantly wrong.

You're too stupid to know which way is up. Democrats/progressives are like
that.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:15:15 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

On Nov 24, 11:31*am, "
wrote:
On 24 Nov 2011 15:31:54 GMT, Han wrote:

Nancy Young email@replyto wrote in news:4ece5b8b$0$28478$a8266bb1
:

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.

I believe most states will adjust that line if there is no evidence to back
up a zero amount. *I know NY and NJ would.

How could they possibly adjust the amount on a form and still have a form that
can hold up in a fraud case? *You would be requiring people to sign a
fraudulent document.

How do you supply "evidence of a zero amount"? *"OK, I have zero evidence of
the actual amount!"

...not that I would put either past those two cesspools.

Gee, how do you even get out of bed in the morning...it's impossible.

I suppose you would need help. Hint: a foot at a time, then sit up. Now,
I've doubled your IQ. That's pretty good for one day.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:05:55 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

On Nov 23, 4:33*pm, "
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:57:20 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:





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.

You've proven that you're illiterate. *Seems you should start, here, by
loaloking in the mirror.


Sorry but you are clearly clueless about the available software and
what it can do.

You're 100% wrong, but that is no surprise to anyone either. It's not what
*SOFTWARE* can do. It's what the garbage-in can do. Morons like you are
easily convinced of SMOP.

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

Oh, no, it most certainly has not. *States can't even keep it straight.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bull****.

Wrong, as always.

There are already companies that collect sales tax over the internet
and have been for years. They are required to because they have both
B&M as well as internet sales so they don't have an excuse.

....and they *all* have problems with the corner cases.

On Nov 24, 3:55*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:10:57 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:





On Nov 24, 11:26*am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:30:33 -0500, George wrote:
On 11/23/2011 5:27 PM, 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?

When you show that you're capable of reading, I'll stop calling you an
imbecile. *Truth hurts, too bad.

I guess you pretty much answered his question. *Nothing but juvenile
insults.

Ah, I hurt your feelings too. *Don't worry, Barak will take care of you, too.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You aren't capable of hurting my feelings, you have no significance.

On Nov 24, 3:56*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:12:30 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:





On Nov 23, 4:30*pm, "
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:48:41 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

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.
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?

A lot of very weak excuses but no real reason that internet and
catalogue retailers should be exempt from collecting sales tax.

Being unconstitutional is "no real reason"? *...or can't you read?

The states already maintain the database and I am sure they would be happy
to keep the retailers updated via the internet.

OK, you've proven that you're illiterate.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK, you have proven that you're a ****ing asshole. *Congratulations!

Ah, I made the little kid swear. *Mommy is going to be mad at me!


Just calls them as they are and you are clearly a ****ing asshole.

Oh, and you are totally and consistantly wrong.

You're too stupid to know which way is up. *Democrats/progressives are like
that

Like I said, consistantly wrong about everything.

On Nov 24, 4:00*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:05:55 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:





On Nov 23, 4:33*pm, "
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:57:20 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

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.

You've proven that you're illiterate. *Seems you should start, here, by
loaloking in the mirror.

Sorry but you are clearly clueless about the available software and
what it can do.

You're 100% wrong, but that is no surprise to anyone either. *It's not what
*SOFTWARE* can do. *It's what the garbage-in can do. *Morons like you are
easily convinced of SMOP.


Are you really so damn stupid that you actually believe that? I guess
you are but damn, I didn't think anyone could be that damn stupid.

I am convinced that YOU are incapable of solving this very simple
problem that just because you are stupid doesn't mean that everyone
else is. Hell, this isn't even a very difficult problem with the
information that is easily available to anyone with an honest desire
to find it and use it. Most internet companies just simply don't want
to bother, they have an advantage and they want to keep it. Well ****
THEM and you to

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

Oh, no, it most certainly has not. *States can't even keep it straight.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bull****.

Wrong, as always.

There are already companies that collect sales tax over the internet
and have been for years. *They are required to because they have both
B&M as well as internet sales so they don't have an excuse.

...and they *all* have problems with the corner cases

Then maybe they are too damn ignorant to be in business in the first
place.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:31:53 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

On Nov 24, 3:55*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:10:57 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:





On Nov 24, 11:26*am, "
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 09:30:33 -0500, George wrote:
On 11/23/2011 5:27 PM, 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?

When you show that you're capable of reading, I'll stop calling you an
imbecile. *Truth hurts, too bad.

I guess you pretty much answered his question. *Nothing but juvenile
insults.

Ah, I hurt your feelings too. *Don't worry, Barak will take care of you, too.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

You aren't capable of hurting my feelings, you have no significance.

Yet you can't resist answering. Got it.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:33:57 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

On Nov 24, 3:56*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:12:30 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:





On Nov 23, 4:30*pm, "
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:48:41 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

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.
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?

A lot of very weak excuses but no real reason that internet and
catalogue retailers should be exempt from collecting sales tax.

Being unconstitutional is "no real reason"? *...or can't you read?

The states already maintain the database and I am sure they would be happy
to keep the retailers updated via the internet.

OK, you've proven that you're illiterate.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

OK, you have proven that you're a ****ing asshole. *Congratulations!

Ah, I made the little kid swear. *Mommy is going to be mad at me!


Just calls them as they are and you are clearly a ****ing asshole.

Yet you just can't resist answering my posts.

Oh, and you are totally and consistantly wrong.

You're too stupid to know which way is up. *Democrats/progressives are like
that

Like I said, consistantly wrong about everything.

You really are that stupid.

On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 19:40:45 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

On Nov 24, 4:00*pm, "
wrote:
On Thu, 24 Nov 2011 11:05:55 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:





On Nov 23, 4:33*pm, "
wrote:
On Wed, 23 Nov 2011 13:57:20 -0800 (PST), BobR
wrote:

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.

You've proven that you're illiterate. *Seems you should start, here, by
loaloking in the mirror.

Sorry but you are clearly clueless about the available software and
what it can do.

You're 100% wrong, but that is no surprise to anyone either. *It's not what
*SOFTWARE* can do. *It's what the garbage-in can do. *Morons like you are
easily convinced of SMOP.


Are you really so damn stupid that you actually believe that? I guess
you are but damn, I didn't think anyone could be that damn stupid.

You lead one to no other conclusion, dummy.

I am convinced that YOU are incapable of solving this very simple
problem that just because you are stupid doesn't mean that everyone
else is. Hell, this isn't even a very difficult problem with the
information that is easily available to anyone with an honest desire
to find it and use it. Most internet companies just simply don't want
to bother, they have an advantage and they want to keep it.

Everyone is convinced that you're too dumb to breathe. Then again, maybe
that's why you're so damned dumb.

Well **** THEM and you to

....yet you just can't stop posting replies to my posts. That *is* stupid, but
this is no surprise.

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

Oh, no, it most certainly has not. *States can't even keep it straight.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Bull****.

Wrong, as always.

There are already companies that collect sales tax over the internet
and have been for years. *They are required to because they have both
B&M as well as internet sales so they don't have an excuse.

...and they *all* have problems with the corner cases

Then maybe they are too damn ignorant to be in business in the first
place.

Good God, you're stupid!

" krwatt.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

BobR reed1 r-a-reed-assoc.com wrote:
" wrote:
BobR wrote:

I guess you pretty much answered his question. Nothing but
juvenile insults.

Ah, I hurt your feelings too. Don't worry, Barak will take
care of you, too.

You aren't capable of hurting my feelings, you have no
significance.

Yet you can't resist answering. Got it.

I can resist answering.

On 25 Nov 2011 05:21:56 GMT, John Doe wrote:

" krwatt.bizzzzzzzzzzzz wrote:

BobR reed1 r-a-reed-assoc.com wrote:
" wrote:
BobR wrote:

I guess you pretty much answered his question. Nothing but
juvenile insults.

Ah, I hurt your feelings too. Don't worry, Barak will take
care of you, too.

You aren't capable of hurting my feelings, you have no
significance.

Yet you can't resist answering. Got it.

I can resist answering.

Then please do.

BobR wrote:

I am convinced that YOU are incapable of solving this very simple
problem that just because you are stupid doesn't mean that everyone
else is. Hell, this isn't even a very difficult problem with the
information that is easily available to anyone with an honest desire
to find it and use it. Most internet companies just simply don't want
to bother, they have an advantage and they want to keep it. Well ****
THEM and you to

This is not a "very simple" problem. Getting the exact sales tax
percent for the delivery address is not in any database I know of. Even
if the data was readily available, there is no current way of
implementing it with off-the-shelf 'shopping cart' software. If the
software could do it by a database lookup (would have to be zip+4),
that's only one hurdle overcome.

How does the small-time merchant get the tax monies to the state it was
collected for? Are we expected to get sales/use certificates in every
damn state? Do they expect that 'we' small merchants file a quarterly
return in every state? I have a hard enough time doing it for the feds
and Texas every 3 months, there is no way in hell I could do that x50.

It may be just the "big" guys now like Amazon, but they will eventually
try to get all the tax revenue they can. I'm not going to do that unless
they make it 2-click easy (and free).

The way it stands now, it would actually be illegal for me to collect
tax in any state besides my home state. I have one sales/use tax permit,
and its only valid in Texas. If I collected sales tax without a permit
I could go to prison for interstate fraud/theft. If I don't charge tax,
they can do nothing to me or my business. (as it stands today)









--

"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)

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
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.

Exactly.

BS. It is done already by many retailers that have catalog operations.
Sears, Monkey Ward, etc.

Yep. And Wards is out of business.

The software necessary to accomplish the result you favor costs upwards of
several thousand dollars per year and must be updated at least monthly.
Giant retailers - Sears, Target, etc. - can absorb this cost, but the
part-timer who sells homemade candles or cookies cannot.

George wrote:
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?

Ah, you've never owned a retail business.

When I make my report to the state comptroller, *I* have to specify which
sub-authority gets what. There are over 2,000 separate taxing authorities in
my state (city, county, metro, hospital districts, mosquito control
districts, enterprise zones, etc.). *I* have to compute the amount of tax
due EACH one.

For example, I may sell a $100 item to some rancher in a sparsely-populated
county. The only tax is $6.00 to the state. If I sell that same item to a
customer in a metropolitan area, I may have to collect, and report
individually, $6.00 to the state, $1.50 to the customer's city, $0.50 to his
local transit authority, and $0.25 to the community hospital district (total
8.25%) and report each separately.

Now multiply the above by, say, 1,000 customers scattered across the state,
complicated by quarterly reporting, and you begin to see the difficulty for
just one retailer dealing with his home state. (Imagine a spread-sheet with
2,000 columns - the taxing authorities and 1,000 rows - the customers.
Further imagine different percentages for each of the columns. Has your
brain exploded yet?)

Now pretend this same retailer is faced with, potentially, 11,000 sales tax
jurisdictions across the land. It's mind boggling.

Peter wrote:

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).

No need. The software already exists. You can do a simple internet search to
find several companies offering such a product. For a reasonably-sized
internet company, the company can expect to pay upwards of $5,000.00 per
year for such a service.

If you owned a used book store and sold 5,000 books per year nationwide,
you'd have to add $1.00 to the price of each book just to cover the
calculation of the appropriate tax. The result? No more used books sold
online, or at least not very many.

wrote:

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



It seems unfair that a local store can supply the merchandise immediately
when one has to wait three days for that same merchandise to arrive from
Amazon. To be "fair," the local brick and mortar store should be required to
hold the merchandise, much like a lay-away, for at least a couple of days to
ensure "fairness."

Of course if you needed another box of nails, a replacement for a broken
drill-bit, or a water pump for your car, you might be slightly
inconvenienced by waiting a few days, but at least the universe would take a
big step toward fairness.

It's for the children.

" wrote in
:

On 24 Nov 2011 15:31:54 GMT, Han wrote:

Nancy Young email@replyto wrote in news:4ece5b8b$0$28478$a8266bb1
:

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.


I believe most states will adjust that line if there is no evidence to
back up a zero amount. I know NY and NJ would.

How could they possibly adjust the amount on a form and still have a
form that can hold up in a fraud case? You would be requiring people
to sign a fraudulent document.

They'll send you a bill, or reduce your refund, because they've added an
amount to that atx line assuming hehehe that is the amount you have
spent out of state on use tax-subject stuff.

How do you supply "evidence of a zero amount"? "OK, I have zero
evidence of the actual amount!"

You'll have to prove the amount NY has estimated is incorrect.

...not that I would put either past those two cesspools.

NY indeed stinks, and NJ isn't that much better. We do agree on the
politicians ...

--
Best regards
Han
email address is invalid