Where? SHOW ME THE QUOTE WHERE I SAID THAT! You too, @baseball21, you too can show me where I said that! YOU CAN'T, BECAUSE I DIDN'T. Grow up, or learn to read, maybe. The salient question at hand is, "Where does the transaction take place?" And the answer is NOT "nowhere". If it truly is "interstate commerce" then only the federal government has any taxing power, under the Commerce Clause, and their unwillingness to tax it is strictly a federal concern, not my state's nor any other one's.
You stated it’s time states grew balls to get what’s due. They’ve always gotten what was due which is even questionable to that extent for places with zero physical presence, but now we have moved into the terroitory of them trying to claim they’re due more than they really are with extremely vague connections to physical presences. We’re now in the spot where the sales tax can literally be claimed due by multiple states for one transaction which is completely redicilous. Most of them aren’t growing balls to get what’s due, they’re trying desperate money grabs because they can’t afford all the false promises they’ve made
Both parties to any sales transaction have physical presences. To deny that is to make yourself out to be an idiot. The only question is which jurisdiction applies. State? If so, which one? If federal, then it’s their call. Right now, in almost ALL cases, the purchaser’s state law applies. You OWE the tax on everything. The only question is whether a non-resident entity can be required to collect and remit it.
"Both parties to any sales transaction have physical presences. To deny that is to make yourself out to be an idiot." Come on Kurt, that's a given everybody has to be somewhere. "The only question is which jurisdiction applies. State? If so, which one? If federal, then it’s their call. Right now, in almost ALL cases, the purchaser’s state law applies." Right now the taxation of goods is in the domain of the states. What is not specifically given to the Federal Government remains a State's Right. "You OWE the tax on everything." There are states that have neither a GRT or Sales Tax or an Income Tax. "The only question is whether a non-resident entity can be required to collect and remit it" And that is what started the Internet tax question we are discussing on this tread.
Yes, and when it applied to Amazon, in particular, they have nexus in NEARLY every state. I know of at least ONE state where they MAY not (Delaware), but then again, after the Whole Foods merger, they just now may. At any rate, Amazon collects for ALL states that levy a sales tax because they were umm, "informed" that they had become big enough to be "eligible" to be made an example of. Follow my drift? Yeah. Conspiracy to evade taxes.
Well, I'm not sure what "redicilous" is, but I'll assume. We ALSO now have a situation where interstate pacts regarding taxation of INCOME taxes are breaking down. That means sometimes people are about to be charged state income taxes in several states, without tax credits for other states' levies. Turns out that living in one state and working in another actually is NOT an unlimited right that can't be avoided by making different personal choices.
Ever hear of the Commerce Clause? It grants the federal government RATHER EXPLICITLY the power to regulate interstate commerce. The Congress has the "right" to tax Internet sales itself, or they wouldn't have passed their own bill to delay any such taxation until a later date, as they have.
Internet Neutrality is an issue as yet to be determined, as is the question of a company taxing someone for goods if they do not have a physical presence in that state. Companies have been whining that Amazon has an advantage, because they don't charge GRT or Sales Tax, that's why they're a target. Those same companies are not addressing the fact that people buy from Amazon because of their cheaper prices and free two day delivery. Shop from home, don't have to go out where those crazy drivers are. I live in a rural area, and the local hardware store, grocery store, gas station etc. pitched a fit when Walmart wanted to build a store in our area, all of them charge at least 25% or more than the nearest big town, Albuquerque. They knew that they would either have to lower their prices or go out of business. They set up a phony committee, joined by the people who live in the high end homes in the gated communities, to lobby the county to deny Walmart's application to build (we are an unincorporated town). The majority of people who live out here wanted Walmart not only for the low prices, but for the JOBS. Guess who won? Money talks, what the people need walks. A town 15 miles up the road, welcomed Walmart and they are doing well there, but the lower income people, who were hoping for a job, have no way to get there. An example of Government at its best.
Some of us are writing this on a Smartphone. I hate autocorrect! It will change not only the spelling of a word, but the word entirely.
Not a 100 percent true with the first part as digital transactions can take place without ever touching a physical server in the country but that really isn’t the scope of the discussion. The second part is what’s been discussed and so far the answer has been a resounding no that states cannot use non residents with no presence there as free slave labor to be their tax collectors and that should not change. If they want them to do their job for them then they should be providing them at least minimum wage and benefits. It’s not someone in Florida’s problem if Illinois wants them to do something, that’s never been how this country has worked. Frankly since it’s all interstate commerce you can make a good argument that the tax should just be a federal one and that should be it.
Darned right it's not. The server is unimportant, as are the telephone poles for a phone call. It's the PEOPLE who matter. The Internet can't change that!
Be careful what you ask for. Could happen. The federal finances are in more need of revenue than any state could even imagine.
Its not that cut and dry legally depending on how things are structured with completely digital content.
They don't live in the mountains, they live in the North Valley. They do have a museum, which nobody goes to. If you ever come down this way I'll give you directions to it (it's state subsidized).
I’d rather just see a flat federal one at this point with the understanding that it cuts the states ability to tax it entirely. I generally prefer for states to handle things, but at the rate we’re going and how aggressive some of these states are getting it’s only a matter of time before the feds or the courts are going to have to step in and put an end to this. Better to pay sales tax once to the feds than to 15 different states because the package may have flown over it
I've seen what a "Superstore" can do. Yes, prices drop. So does selection, and quality, and service behind the sale, and courtesy, and finding store help, and any semblance of advice or expertise. It's a dual-edged sword at a bare minimum. I don't shop there, and won't, unless there is no other option.
I have always liked the family. I sold "Big Al" a full Nikon set-up when he drove for Penske Racing, who was then HQ'ed in Reading, PA. I did photo work for them and ALL their photo lab work. Sold an even better rig to Rick Mears, too. One little camera shop/photo lab, two customers, eight Indy 500 rings. Not bad.
I just picked up my mail and I got an item I ordered from the U.S. Mint. They didn't charge me sales tax, guess they don't have a physical presence in NM. I wonder if they charge tax if they sent it to Pennsylvania, Colorado or California where the three mints are located.
