"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...
On 2/26/2016 4:44 AM, michael adams wrote:

Then there's the sales tax. Many US States impose sales tax at different rates.
For sellers they deduct this tax at source for any buyers living in that State
which is why Amazon located in Seattle in relatively sparsely populated
Washington State. (Gates just happened to be born there)

I find the your use of the phrase 'deduct tax at source' to be puzzling in this
context.
Amazon does not _deduct_ sales tax - it is _added_ to the price of the item sold. For
example, in a 7% tax sales tax jurisdiction, an item listed at $10.00 will be invoiced
at $10.70.

quote

The US Supreme Court has ruled on multiple occasions that a state
can force a retailer to collect sales tax *only if that retailer
has a physical presence in that state.* If there's no physical
presence in a state, then the state can't require a retailer to
pay taxes,

/quote

http://www.cnet.com/news/confused-ab...ure-not-alone/

Tax forms for most states with a sales tax, include a section for sales and use tax, on
the yearly return form.


Which is exactly what I said. Amazon customers in Washington State won't pay
sales tax as that will be paid "at source" by Amazon. And will be invoiced
accordingly

For all other States, the Supreme Court has ruled there is no obligation
on Amazon, to do anything. In those cases its the sole responsibility
of the buyer to declare any purchases which are liable for sales tax.


michael adams

....

To clarify : Amazon customers in Washington State won't pay sales
tax *separately*. It will be included in the overall price and
invoiced accordingly.

"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...
On 2/26/2016 4:44 AM, michael adams wrote:

Then there's the sales tax. Many US States impose sales tax at different rates.
For sellers they deduct this tax at source for any buyers living in that State
which is why Amazon located in Seattle in relatively sparsely populated
Washington State. (Gates just happened to be born there)

I find the your use of the phrase 'deduct tax at source' to be puzzling in this
context.
Amazon does not _deduct_ sales tax - it is _added_ to the price of the item sold. For
example, in a 7% tax sales tax jurisdiction, an item listed at $10.00 will be invoiced
at $10.70.

quote

The US Supreme Court has ruled on multiple occasions that a state
can force a retailer to collect sales tax *only if that retailer
has a physical presence in that state.* If there's no physical
presence in a state, then the state can't require a retailer to
pay taxes,

/quote

http://www.cnet.com/news/confused-ab...ure-not-alone/

Tax forms for most states with a sales tax, include a section for sales and use tax, on
the yearly return form.


Which is exactly what I said. Amazon customers in Washington State won't pay
sales tax as that will be paid "at source" by Amazon. And will be invoiced
accordingly

For all other States, the Supreme Court has ruled there is no obligation
on Amazon, to do anything. In those cases its the sole responsibility
of the buyer to declare any purchases which are liable for sales tax.


michael adams

....

On 26/02/2016 12:13, Tim Streater wrote:

Good question. I think it all became automated during my time there,
but I could be wrong, it was a long time ago. So each form was
data-entered and then I assume automatic cross-checking took place, and
then the software looked for particular patterns which might raise
alarms, and after that some number of people were selected at random
for an audit.

One of the bizarre features of US tax returns is the government isn't
allowed to provide a decent online version (*). This is at the behest of
the companies selling tax return software - corporate lobbying at its
finest.

http://www.latimes.com/business/hilt...14-column.html

(they do appear to have one for people whose income is 62K$)

In article ,
michael adams wrote:
Allowing the hard pressed taxman to concentrate all their efforts on
the self employed - that and cooking up sweetheart deals with large
corporates

I was a free lance for some 15 years. My accountant never once asked for
receipts etc, and merely claimed allowances he knew the IR would 'rubber
stamp' They seemed quite generous to me after being on PAYE, so I was
happy to do as he advised.

And it was also clear to me that being self employed allowed one to claim
for things you couldn't when on PAYE. Even when there was apparently no
difference - at least to me.

--
*White with a hint of M42*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 2/26/2016 9:02 AM, michael adams wrote:
"S Viemeister" wrote
On 2/26/2016 4:44 AM, michael adams wrote:
Then there's the sales tax. Many US States impose sales tax at different rates.
For sellers they deduct this tax at source for any buyers living in that State
which is why Amazon located in Seattle in relatively sparsely populated
Washington State. (Gates just happened to be born there)
I find the your use of the phrase 'deduct tax at source' to be puzzling in this
context.
Amazon does not _deduct_ sales tax - it is _added_ to the price of the item sold. For
example, in a 7% tax sales tax jurisdiction, an item listed at $10.00 will be invoiced
at $10.70.
"The US Supreme Court has ruled on multiple occasions that a state
can force a retailer to collect sales tax *only if that retailer
has a physical presence in that state.* If there's no physical
presence in a state, then the state can't require a retailer to
pay taxes,"

Yes. This is true. But I still question your use of the word 'deducted'!

Tax forms for most states with a sales tax, include a section for sales and use tax, on
the yearly return form.

Which is exactly what I said. Amazon customers in Washington State won't pay
sales tax as that will be paid "at source" by Amazon. And will be invoiced
accordingly

Re your comment upthread - "However for out of State sales to places
like NY buyers were supposed to voluntarily declare the sales tax and
pay it - not sure of the mechanism", I was simply describing the
'mechanism' by which the sales tax is remitted to the state involved.

And I find your statement above 'Amazon customers in Washington State
won't pay sales tax' rather odd. They don't include that sales tax on
their income tax return, but they _do_ pay it - to Amazon, who then
remit it to the state. Unlike VAT in the UK where the tax is included in
the posted price, sales tax in the US is generally added on to the
stated retail price, which can be a surprise to foreigners who don't
understand why they're being charged more than the posted price.

On 2/26/2016 9:07 AM, michael adams wrote:
To clarify : Amazon customers in Washington State won't pay sales
tax *separately*. It will be included in the overall price and
invoiced accordingly.

Yes, this is true.

"S Viemeister" wrote in message
...
On 2/26/2016 9:07 AM, michael adams wrote:
To clarify : Amazon customers in Washington State won't pay sales
tax *separately*. It will be included in the overall price and
invoiced accordingly.

Yes, this is true.


My original information was based on the 2013 edition of "The
Everything Store". Where Washington was the only such state.
Apparently since that time, presumably as a result of pressure
of various kinds, Amazon now collects sales taxes on behalf of
a growing number of States. The latest being Colorado as of
February 2106.

michael adams

....

In message , "Dave Plowman (News)"
writes

When your tax affairs become simple - ie just regular pension income only,
you don't normally need to do a return each year.

I'm looking forward to that day, but with reservations. My tax affairs
will be simplified, but a lot of general expenses will no longer be tax
deductible :-(
--
Graeme

"whisky-dave" wrote in message
...
On Thursday, 25 February 2016 17:32:11 UTC, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
So how will they pay the rent, food bills, council tax, utility
bills, and what about medical costs ?

The numbers of refugees over pension age is tiny.

yes so the majority are under pension age.
So how longh have they been paying into the UK pension pot ?

From as long as they have been working here and paying NI contributions?

Exactly.


Most wouldn't have the
strength for the journey. Just look at any TV prog showing them.

yes the weak, the old the women tend to get left behind.


But there is virtually zero Syrian refugees reaching the UK anyway.

So far, about from the 20k.

Figure I've seen is about 1000.

People see what they want to see.


But any who did - or any UK citizen not entitled to an OAP due to a
lack of NI contributions - could still claim some benefits.

But I've been told they don;t come here for benifits.

And? If they have worked here for long enough to earn benefits, you'd
stop
them?

No.
They can come here get a job and pay for living in the UK the same way I
do.
But I don;t see how they can if they have given all
their money to traficers for the dingy they rented.

They don't give all their money to traffickers, and they
mostly don't rent dinghies either, it's a one way trip for
plenty of them.

So I agree with taking them from the caps rather than the beaches.
I dont; understand how a syrian family can afford ot live
in the UK let alone london, were one bed flats are 300K+ .
yes sure take them to Barnsley for the free months rent
but I don't understand how they can afford it.

Luckily, we haven't
quite got to the point in this country of letting people starve or
rely
solely on charity. Yet.

exactly so saying that no one comes here for benifits is irrelivent.
They still need a home and for that to happen unless they build them
then that's one home less for anyone currently looking for a home.

Depends. Many may want to come to the UK because they have family/friends
here already, and will live with them.

Yes sure they do, you see how this works on the TV, arranged marriages and
the like. And with so called extended families.....
If you say there are just 1000 syrians in the UK how many friends and
family will they have ?

I take it you're perfectly happy with non UK residents buying up property
and leaving it empty?

No more so than I am happy for UK residents to do it.
My old school is now flats being brought or rented.
If a syrian has the 350K for a 1 bedroom flat they they
can have it or my brother can or anyone else, whoever
has the money can have the property whether they
leave it empty or not is up to them.

What I would object to is someone using it to house 2+ families or
to renting it illegaly or by those breaking what I'd call serious laws.
If you don;t know what they are then for me a serious law being
broken would be using the flat for child sex or distilling alochol,
or running a DVD duplicating scam, rathe r than parking on a
yellow line, or swerving to avoid hittign a cat/dog in a bus lane.
I do not care what skin colour they have or their religious beliefs,
but I equaly don;t want to be told that I can;t report them for kiddy
fiddling because of their culture or that they are a famous DJ.

On Friday, 26 February 2016 17:03:10 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"whisky-dave" wrote in message

No.
They can come here get a job and pay for living in the UK the same way I
do.
But I don;t see how they can if they have given all
their money to traficers for the dingy they rented.

They don't give all their money to traffickers,

So they will be able to afford to buy a place in the UK so wont need any support or benifits great lets do want Germany have done.


The we shouldn't have things like restrictions and they
mostly don't rent dinghies either, it's a one way trip for
plenty of them.

buy, rent, hire, or just pay the fare.



So I agree with taking them from the caps rather than the beaches.
I dont; understand how a syrian family can afford ot live
in the UK let alone london, were one bed flats are 300K+ .
yes sure take them to Barnsley for the free months rent
but I don't understand how they can afford it.

Depends. Many may want to come to the UK because they have family/friends
here already, and will live with them.

Yes sure they do, you see how this works on the TV, arranged marriages and
the like. And with so called extended families.....
If you say there are just 1000 syrians in the UK how many friends and
family will they have ?

I take it you're perfectly happy with non UK residents buying up property
and leaving it empty?

No more so than I am happy for UK residents to do it.
My old school is now flats being brought or rented.
If a syrian has the 350K for a 1 bedroom flat they they
can have it or my brother can or anyone else, whoever
has the money can have the property whether they
leave it empty or not is up to them.

What I would object to is someone using it to house 2+ families or
to renting it illegaly or by those breaking what I'd call serious laws.
If you don;t know what they are then for me a serious law being
broken would be using the flat for child sex or distilling alochol,
or running a DVD duplicating scam, rathe r than parking on a
yellow line, or swerving to avoid hittign a cat/dog in a bus lane.
I do not care what skin colour they have or their religious beliefs,
but I equaly don;t want to be told that I can;t report them for kiddy
fiddling because of their culture or that they are a famous DJ.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

No.
They can come here get a job and pay
for living in the UK the same way I do.

But I don;t see how they can if they have given all
their money to traficers for the dingy they rented.

They don't give all their money to traffickers,

So they will be able to afford to buy a place in the UK so wont need
any support or benifits great lets do want Germany have done.

Its not that black and white.

So I agree with taking them from the caps rather than the
beaches. I dont; understand how a syrian family can afford
ot live in the UK let alone london, were one bed flats are
300K+ . yes sure take them to Barnsley for the free months
rent but I don't understand how they can afford it.

Depends. Many may want to come to the UK because they
have family/friends here already, and will live with them.

Yes sure they do, you see how this works on the TV, arranged
marriages and the like. And with so called extended families.....
If you say there are just 1000 syrians in the
UK how many friends and family will they have ?

I take it you're perfectly happy with non UK residents
buying up property and leaving it empty?

No more so than I am happy for UK residents to do it.
My old school is now flats being brought or rented.
If a syrian has the 350K for a 1 bedroom flat they they
can have it or my brother can or anyone else, whoever
has the money can have the property whether they
leave it empty or not is up to them.

What I would object to is someone using it to house 2+ families or
to renting it illegaly or by those breaking what I'd call serious laws.
If you don;t know what they are then for me a serious law being
broken would be using the flat for child sex or distilling alochol,
or running a DVD duplicating scam, rathe r than parking on a
yellow line, or swerving to avoid hittign a cat/dog in a bus lane.
I do not care what skin colour they have or their religious beliefs,
but I equaly don;t want to be told that I can;t report them for kiddy
fiddling because of their culture or that they are a famous DJ.

On Monday, 29 February 2016 20:38:25 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

No.
They can come here get a job and pay
for living in the UK the same way I do.

But I don;t see how they can if they have given all
their money to traficers for the dingy they rented.

They don't give all their money to traffickers,

So they will be able to afford to buy a place in the UK so wont need
any support or benifits great lets do want Germany have done.

Its not that black and white.

They either have the money to live in the UK or they don't.




So I agree with taking them from the caps rather than the
beaches. I dont; understand how a syrian family can afford
ot live in the UK let alone london, were one bed flats are
300K+ . yes sure take them to Barnsley for the free months
rent but I don't understand how they can afford it.

Depends. Many may want to come to the UK because they
have family/friends here already, and will live with them.

Yes sure they do, you see how this works on the TV, arranged
marriages and the like. And with so called extended families.....
If you say there are just 1000 syrians in the
UK how many friends and family will they have ?

I take it you're perfectly happy with non UK residents
buying up property and leaving it empty?

No more so than I am happy for UK residents to do it.
My old school is now flats being brought or rented.
If a syrian has the 350K for a 1 bedroom flat they they
can have it or my brother can or anyone else, whoever
has the money can have the property whether they
leave it empty or not is up to them.

What I would object to is someone using it to house 2+ families or
to renting it illegaly or by those breaking what I'd call serious laws.
If you don;t know what they are then for me a serious law being
broken would be using the flat for child sex or distilling alochol,
or running a DVD duplicating scam, rathe r than parking on a
yellow line, or swerving to avoid hittign a cat/dog in a bus lane.
I do not care what skin colour they have or their religious beliefs,
but I equaly don;t want to be told that I can;t report them for kiddy
fiddling because of their culture or that they are a famous DJ.

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

No.
They can come here get a job and pay
for living in the UK the same way I do.

But I don;t see how they can if they have given all
their money to traficers for the dingy they rented.

They don't give all their money to traffickers,

So they will be able to afford to buy a place in the UK so wont need
any support or benifits great lets do want Germany have done.

Its not that black and white.

They either have the money to live in the UK or they don't.

Its not that black and white. They have no real idea whether
they will be able to get job that pays enough to live in Britain
until they try that. And your original was about buying a place,
not just living in Britain anyway.

So I agree with taking them from the caps rather than the
beaches. I dont; understand how a syrian family can afford
ot live in the UK let alone london, were one bed flats are
300K+ . yes sure take them to Barnsley for the free months
rent but I don't understand how they can afford it.

Depends. Many may want to come to the UK because they
have family/friends here already, and will live with them.

Yes sure they do, you see how this works on the TV, arranged
marriages and the like. And with so called extended families.....
If you say there are just 1000 syrians in the
UK how many friends and family will they have ?

I take it you're perfectly happy with non UK residents
buying up property and leaving it empty?

No more so than I am happy for UK residents to do it.
My old school is now flats being brought or rented.
If a syrian has the 350K for a 1 bedroom flat they they
can have it or my brother can or anyone else, whoever
has the money can have the property whether they
leave it empty or not is up to them.

What I would object to is someone using it to house 2+ families or
to renting it illegaly or by those breaking what I'd call serious
laws.
If you don;t know what they are then for me a serious law being
broken would be using the flat for child sex or distilling alochol,
or running a DVD duplicating scam, rathe r than parking on a
yellow line, or swerving to avoid hittign a cat/dog in a bus lane.
I do not care what skin colour they have or their religious beliefs,
but I equaly don;t want to be told that I can;t report them for kiddy
fiddling because of their culture or that they are a famous DJ.

On Wednesday, 2 March 2016 19:15:04 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
whisky-dave wrote

No.
They can come here get a job and pay
for living in the UK the same way I do.

But I don;t see how they can if they have given all
their money to traficers for the dingy they rented.

They don't give all their money to traffickers,

So they will be able to afford to buy a place in the UK so wont need
any support or benifits great lets do want Germany have done.

Its not that black and white.

They either have the money to live in the UK or they don't.

Its not that black and white.

yes it is.

They have no real idea whether
they will be able to get job that pays enough to live in Britain
until they try that. And your original was about buying a place,
not just living in Britain anyway.

Both are needed, a place and to be able to live.
Living would include food, accomedation is another thing they need.
For some it maybe friends or family but for most there's no one.

On 19/02/2016 18:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Perhaps you don't follow the news these days? The housing crisis in many
parts of the country?

What has that to do with whether or not girls who get pregnant are
offered flats and various extras? Several of us here have seen it
happen.

You can't be given a council flat if there are none to be given. Simple,
innit?

In many places such a mother and child would end up in a pretty grotty
private bedsit with shared facilities.

But don't let what you believe get in the way of reality.

Indeed, if there are none to be given, they will not get one - however,
having a dependent child will push them to the top of the list to get
one when one becomes free ... leaving others that have been on the list
for years one step further down.

SteveW

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In many places such a mother and child would end up in a pretty grotty
private bedsit with shared facilities.

But don't let what you believe get in the way of reality.

Indeed, if there are none to be given, they will not get one - however,
having a dependent child will push them to the top of the list to get
one when one becomes free ... leaving others that have been on the list
for years one step further down.

Just my point. Worrying about matters such as that they might not get
one because none are available is typical Dave counting angels on
pinheads. Perhaps he's a lawyer. He's certainly heavily into things
that are trivially unimportant.

Well, if you're not going to house the mother and child, the option is to
put the child in care and let the mother fend for herself. Very cost
effictive, that one. As long as *you* are paying for it.

--
*Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 19/02/2016 18:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Perhaps you don't follow the news these days? The housing crisis in
many
parts of the country?

What has that to do with whether or not girls who get pregnant are
offered flats and various extras? Several of us here have seen it
happen.

You can't be given a council flat if there are none to be given. Simple,
innit?

In many places such a mother and child would end up in a pretty grotty
private bedsit with shared facilities.

But don't let what you believe get in the way of reality.

Indeed, if there are none to be given, they will not get one - however,
having a dependent child will push them to the top of the list to get one
when one becomes free ... leaving others that have been on the list for
years one step further down.

And with know that with the 15 year old being discussed,
there are indeed empty council places available.

On Saturday, 5 March 2016 04:04:52 UTC, Rod Speed wrote:
"Steve Walker" wrote in message
...
On 19/02/2016 18:16, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Perhaps you don't follow the news these days? The housing crisis in
many
parts of the country?

What has that to do with whether or not girls who get pregnant are
offered flats and various extras? Several of us here have seen it
happen.

You can't be given a council flat if there are none to be given. Simple,
innit?

In many places such a mother and child would end up in a pretty grotty
private bedsit with shared facilities.

But don't let what you believe get in the way of reality.

Indeed, if there are none to be given, they will not get one - however,
having a dependent child will push them to the top of the list to get one
when one becomes free ... leaving others that have been on the list for
years one step further down.

And with know that with the 15 year old being discussed,
there are indeed empty council places available.

Availible to who ?

whisky-dave wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Steve Walker wrote
Dave Plowman (News) wrote
Tim Streater wrote

Perhaps you don't follow the news these days?
The housing crisis in many parts of the country?

What has that to do with whether or not girls who get pregnant are
offered flats and various extras? Several of us here have seen it
happen.

You can't be given a council flat if there are none to be given.
Simple, innit?

In many places such a mother and child would end up
in a pretty grotty private bedsit with shared facilities.

But don't let what you believe get in the way of reality.

Indeed, if there are none to be given, they will not get one - however,
having a dependent child will push them to the top of the list to get
one
when one becomes free ... leaving others that have been on the list for
years one step further down.

And with know that with the 15 year old being discussed,
there are indeed empty council places available.

Availible to who ?

To those on benefits with brats.