Poll: what Silver bullion premium is too high?

Has nothing to do with it...has to do with the fact that the retailer is responsible for the collection of sales tax, the buyer is not legally obligated to fork it over.

That's why the retail establishments collect sales tax at point-of-purchase rather than the buyer pay it once a year when they file.

This isn't a question of "tax-cheating." It's a question of the state trying to deputize ordinary citizens (consumers/taxpayers) into doing the state's job with countless hours of record keeping, billing, tax paying, etc.

I'll pay my fair share but I'm not hiring a CPA or spending my weekends figuring out all of my OOS purchases.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide this ad.

What's your state? Got a legal link, to back up your claim from the DOR? Nothing whackoist, thanks.

Sorry, I'm with Ben Franklin on this one.

 

DP, it's not the buyers responsibility to collect sales tax and fork it over to his or her state of residence. The Supreme Court decided that in the case of OOS mail orders -- that's the key issue involving the Internet and Amazon.com.

In NYS where I live, residents have been going over to NJ for decades to fill up on gas ($0.40-$0.50 cheaper) and clothing (no sales tax).

On cars, which are a LARGE $$$ item, I believe that there are forms where you get dinged for the difference in sales tax. But that is the state being proactive and deciding that on a cost-benefit analysis it pays to worry about $30,000 purchases and not $30 fill-ups and $700 in clothes from Men's Warehouse.

If the politicians want to announce tomorrow that every citizen/consumer/voter is legally responsible to fork over the difference between his or her state sales tax and any items purchased OOS (what happens when the OOS purchase is taxed HIGHER ??), they are free to declare us all tax scofflaws.

I eagerly await all those politicians who traveled OOS and bought gasoline, clothing, presents, cigarettes, and dinners/lunch/breakfasts showing verification that they forked over to the state the sales tax differential.

 

And this has nothing to do with being a "whackoist" but simple common-sense and the normal practice for decades involving tens of millions of NY-NJ-CT residents.

 

North Carolina offers an alternative. For "Taxpayers Who Have Records of All Out-of-State Purchases" (during 2014), we can look up the appropriate rate for purchases made between 1/1 and 3/31, purchases made between 4/1 and 9/30, and purchases made between 10/1 and 12/31, and calculate our precise amount owed. (Certain localities changed their tax rates at the boundaries of those periods. Not us; we're pegged at the maximum rate, all year long.)

For "Taxpayers Who Do Not Have Records of All Out-of-State Purchases", we get to look up what we owe in a table based on our income. The calculation is "0.0675% of NC taxable income" -- in other words, the minimum state rate, regardless of your locality, times one percent of your income. The form also helpfully suggests that "If you believe the estimate from the table is too high for your out-of-state purchases, you may estimate what you think you owe."

So, if you spend more than 1% of your income on out-of-state purchases, it is strongly and legally to your advantage not to keep "records of all out-of-state purchases". Although I truly don't have records of all my out of state purchases, I can add up enough from memory to be pretty sure that my effective tax rate on them is well under 1% -- with 100% legal compliance.

The good: this reduces the accounting burden on ordinary citizens, not that governments have ever seemed overly concerned about reducing that burden.

The bad: this approach does nothing to remediate the "unfair disadvantage for local businesses" -- once I've determined that I'm paying the calculated-from-income use tax, my marginal tax rate on any further out-of-state purchases is zero, while for local purchases it remains at 7.5%.

 

We're talking about bullion, not gas-cigarettes-clothing. Correct?

My "opinion" on taxes is irrelevant; so is yours. Ditto, sly evasion. What matters here are the facts.

I didn't see a link to any legal clarification from your state's DOR in your reply, just more huff'n'puff.
(Sorry: not interested in political crud from FreeRepublic, Stormfront or whatever teabag/doomer sites anyone favors: that's definitely "whackoist" and not germane here either, thanks.)

My own state's DOR website is crystal clear on this: sales tax is owed by the buyer-resident for untaxed OOS purchases, 6.25%.

 

Ok, the thread has morphed from 'metal premium' to taxes ( state more than not) which is becoming political and pushing the rules, so stop here on taxation. Again this is the end of it. Get back 100% to bullion premiums ( excluding taxes). Thanks
Jim

 

Agreed......but maybe a separate thread to discuss the specifics of sales tax on in-state and OOS and Internet purchases of PMs is warranted. It's definitely relevant to PM investing, if not this thread.

As per Jim's request....I think myself that paying a premium for bullion IS warranted just like a numismatic premium -- if you value what that premium is for.

I think the liquidity and marketability -- they are not necessarily the same -- for ASEs and other coins makes the premium worth paying, esp. if you dollar-cost average into the coins so that if they go lower you reduce your cost.

Those deals from MCM and Apmex -- and maybe from Provident Metals, though I've never used them -- are pretty good for initiating a position or adding.

 

If you do decide to start a thread on sales tax, etc. even if it is for pm is still a political subject , so please start it on Peter's specified site.

Partisan Lines

You can start a thread there and link it to this one.

 

Judging by the poll results, we have some pure-silver-at-cheapest-cost investors here who think even 10% is excessive. Either that or they are coin investors who really want low premium deals or buy those Monster Boxes.

More voters see 15% and 25% as the excessive thresholds.

I wonder if the Mint has commented about charging $2 per coin when silver is $16/oz. as opposed to $30/oz. If ASEs are still flying off the shelves, they may feel "why change it?"

Does anybody know if they charged $2/coin when silver fell to $7 in 2009 ?

 

So VAT discussion is still ok?

2014:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/marketplace-fairness-act-got-my-attention.256627/page-2
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/what-would-you-have-chosen-for-bullion-purchase.252108/

2013:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/germany-silver-tax.238023/

2011:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/so-how-do-you-get-access-to-the-chinese-mints-to-buy-direct.173627/
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/online-business-problems.151412/

2010:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/future-vat-tax-in-us-effect-on-metals.113906/
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/your-opinions-on-the-potential-silver-downside.114129/
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/buying-etf-silver-in-europe.111330/

2007:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/importing-from-the-u-k-and-europe.27890/

2005:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/value-added-tax.8920/
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/tax-on-coins.9279/
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/a-lesson-learned.4279/

Quite ALOT of threads on "sales taxes" on Cointalk, already. Here's a sample, see who posts there:

2014:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/minnesota-law-restricts-gold-and-silver-sales.249072/
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/investor-or-collector.256097/

2013:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/buying-at-coin-shops-bad-for-your-wallet.220346/

2012:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/coin-and-bullion-sales-tax.205987/
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/article-on-sales-tax-on-pms-coins.200571/
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/an...carolina-need-advice-on-buying-silver.200615/

2011:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/what-about-your-state-sales-tax-laws.178567
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/shops-which-sell-bullion-coins-in-person.153313/

2010:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/paying-sales-tax-on-us-coin-currency-sales.129255/
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/sales-tax-at-coin-shows.137073/
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/sales-and-use-tax.98473/
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/ebay-and-taxes.85858/

2009:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/small-coin-taxing-fact.65296/
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/coin-show-do-you-pay-taxes.73893/
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/apmex-com.79069/

2007:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/taxes-on-coins-in-california.20292/
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/california-sales-tax.20373/

2006:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/sales-tax-on-coins.16727/

2005:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/tax-on-coins.9279/
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/finally-stopped-at-local-coin-shop.4260/

2004:
https://www.cointalk.com/threads/silver-bullion-and-taxes.2541/

 

Judging by the poll results and your reply, there was a lot of (mis)interpretation here. Monster boxes are certainly excluded, and the emphasis was on eBay or similar online purchases of 1-5 ozt {Silver!}

"Premium" should include all taxes, all s/h/i, anything germane to the bullion buyer's total cost basis to acquire.

15% certainly looks like a viable, cheaper option to the in-store +25% premium that many retail buyers in the USA must pay (dealer's markup and "user fees"), NOT PRICEY after all.

 

For apples-to-apples, I exclude S/H/I (minimal or none) and taxes, for the reasons I outlined earlier.

For me, the premium I pay for the coin/silver/gold is the total premium. For a $1,800 Saint-Gaudens or 50 ASEs, I'm not gonna worry about $10 S&H. But that's me.

Since we can't avoid S/H/I and/or taxes, then what we can control -- the actual premium paid to sellers -- should be the primary focus, IMO.

 

For ASEs, I think 15-20% is ACCEPTABLE for small quantities, which I frequently buy.

If you buy in size, then I think you want that premium under 10%.

 

So VAT discussion is still ok?

https://www.cointalk.com/threads/coin-talk-rules.34131/

The rule is as below. Generally we don't delete whole threads unless necessary, so some are still there. What is your purpose?. Yes some may have been missed in the past, but that doesn't change the present. You have been given an alternate site, and many of our members post both places one for coins, one for politics, religion, Taxation, etc. Peter set it up specifically to separate the two groups. You, me, and all members are guests here.

Now I know that some might say that it is impossible to discuss coins sometimes without mentioning politics since it is the politicians that make the decisions regarding coinage – and that is quite true. And since we have phrases like “In God We Trust” on our coins you could say that the discussion of religion is necessary in a way – and that is quite true. Therefore, it will be up to the sole discretion of the Coin Talk Administrators and Moderators as to what constitutes a permissible discussion on these subjects – period.

 

Let me ask this: for some of you, what is your drop-dead level of premium at which you will NOT buy a single coin or small number of coins ?

And what about for a very large quantity of coins (for those of you who buy in bulk)?

 

I'm well aware we are guests here. My contribution was not political, and well within Terms. As you can see from dozens of (not "some") prior discussions, this specific tax topic has been mentioned without fuss or censorship before. Policy change, when?

"What's your point" indeed: Tu quoque! You yourself freely took the liberty express yourself on the tax question a day before (although you were off topic, as politely noted.)

In complaint, the term "arbitrary and capricious" comes to mind - also, the "rank stench of censorship" - but I'm guessing that's just how it rolls here.
https://www.cointalk.com/search/1569699/?q=Taxes&o=date&c[user][0]=15199

 

Please don't confound "house rules" with "censorship".

Bentham advocated transparency, and I think the mods here do a better-than-average job of transparently warning us when discussion is straying into off-limits territory, and notifying us when they have taken action.

I greatly value your contributions here, and I hope you won't choose to leave over this issue. But I find CoinTalk's general avoidance of politics to be a refreshing change from many other online forums, and I wouldn't like to see it change. Just my opinion, of course.

 

Back to premiums....Apmex has a special regardless of if you buy 1 or 500 American Silver Buffalos:

http://www.apmex.com/product/44447/...onsys&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Promotion

6% over spot.....that's a great deal, IMO. I didn't read the fine print but even with S&H&I (if any), premium must be < 10%.

 

Thanks jeffB-
I'm not political, and I'm not religious. I've illustrated how common and acceptable this specific sales tax topic is; indeed, it's critical to our understanding whether or not the LCS is competitive. It's all about the math.

We certainly can avoid pay extra for s/h - click the "Free Shipping" box on the eBay search. Read the fine print for insurance, registered, etc., but most would probably find that extra cost unnecessary, if optional, for a small purchase.

Smaller bullion purchases are clearly indicated as 12.875% in NYC, 8.75% in Buffalo, 8. in Rochester, etc. You'd still owe that, even if the vendor was out of state and didn't factor that "use tax" on your bill. I don't see the legitimate case where it's waived for small bullion buys online.
http://www.tax.ny.gov/pubs_and_bulls/tg_bulletins/st/use_tax_for_individuals.htm

Still assuming Littleton's premium is "highly competitive" compare:

Buying 5 Ozt ASEs from Littleton Coin (Spot @$17.23; 21.98*5 +6. Postage = $111.) someone in NYC would still owe $13.50 in tax, a true cost basis of $124.45. or $24.90 per ASE. It stands to reason the NYC LCS would be "competitive" offering an ASE for $23.70 - 24.90 (including NYC sales tax.) That cost basis looks high, at 37.6% - 44.5% and warrants saving for a larger $1k purchase that's taxed lower, 8.875%?