Solving the Internet Sales Tax Dilemma

One thing I'm curious about, how do these "lawmakers" reconcile the notion of the Amazon Marketplace? Basically, will Amazon have to collect a salestax on my behalf as a seller? If you're a person that just sells a couple games a year will they not care? Or will it get to a point of, oh maybe $500 in annual sales means you as an individual need to pay a sales tax?

It's impossible. If big box B&M locations fear Amazon that much, maybe they need to differentiate with service and other things as opposed to going after a competitor.
 
[quote name='dopa345']New Hampshire has no sales tax which is why in Massachusetts they require MA residents to pay MA sales tax on goods bought in NH. They even pushed to require NH retailers to report purchases made by MA residents.... yeah good luck with that.[/QUOTE]

That can't be a rule, can it? My in-laws live in northern MA and every large purchase I make I do in NH to avoid taxes. I've never once encountered a problem.
 
Take ebay for example, if I buy something from someone in my state they should charge me sales tax, but the last time that happened I don't remember paying any.

Companies figured out long ago it's easier to attack competitors with things like lawsuits than it is to actually beat them at whatever business it is they're in. Like Apple and that lawsuit against Amazon.
 
[quote name='Javery']That can't be a rule, can it? My in-laws live in northern MA and every large purchase I make I do in NH to avoid taxes. I've never once encountered a problem.[/QUOTE]

MA has a 6.25% use tax, so it's a rule, albeit an ineffective one:

People who are not registered to collect sales/use tax in Massachusetts, and who make an occasional out-of-state purchase for business or personal use, do not need to register. They instead must pay their use taxes by filing either a Business Use Tax Return (Form ST-10) or an Individual Use Tax Return (Form ST-11).
Click to expand...

And, even more weirdly:

Out-of-state vendors who meet any of the vendor definitions [. . .] generally have the same responsibilities as Massachusetts vendors.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
[quote name='Clak']Take ebay for example, if I buy something from someone in my state they should charge me sales tax, but the last time that happened I don't remember paying any.[/quote]

My issue with eBay taxes is that, generally, you're buying used items or items previously purchased at retail. Sales tax on these items has already been paid, therefore you should not be required to pay tax on them again.

Now, if they're selling new goods that have not previously had sales tax applied to them, then they should, in an ideal situation, charge you tax.

Companies figured out long ago it's easier to attack competitors with things like lawsuits than it is to actually beat them at whatever business it is they're in. Like Apple and that lawsuit against Amazon.
Click to expand...
Are any companies currently suing over this? I thought they were pressing for legislation to cover it. Which, of course, is what our system of government is deigned for.
 
Not yet that I know of, but do you think they wouldn't if it came to that? I'm just saying that companies don't try to out compete their competitors as much these days as they try to stop them from doing things with law suits. That's the knee jerk reaction these days.
 
[quote name='Clak']I'm just saying that companies don't try to out compete their competitors as much these days as they try to stop them from doing things with law suits. [/QUOTE]

Well, in this case the B&M stores are just at a huge disadvantage vs. the online stores.

They just can't beat the prices on a regular basis as they have more physical locations to pay rent and utilities on, have to have more employees to pay salaries, payroll taxes and benefits on etc.

They can try to compete by offering good service, chances to try things out in person etc. But at the end of the day most consumers care about two things:

1. Getting the lowest price possible. And online retailers will always have an advantage there in most areas for the reasons above.

2. Convenience. It doesn't get more convenient than ordering online and getting it delivered. B&M stores will always require a drive to the store being fit in our hectic schedules, as well as waiting in line (however short), dealing with other people etc.


There's just not a lot of things B&M retailers can do in many areas to give people a reason to buy locally instead of online. They can compete in areas like groceries and toiletries and other things people need instantly. Things like clothing or big ticket items like TVs where people want to try things on, check them out in person etc.

Much tougher for things like books, movies, music, video games, gadgets and other things that don't really need examined in person nor to be obtained instantly. It's going to be as cheaper or cheaper to order online, and always more convenient regardless of how good service is at the local store.

So I can get why they want sales tax imposed on online orders to at least level the playing field on that front. I like not getting sales tax on my Amazon orders for sure. But I understand the concern of the local stores and wouldn't be upset over my online orders getting taxed. And as I said before I'd order just as much online as I care more about the convenience than saving a few bucks.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well to be fair Wal-Mart has an online store as well, so they've actually got two sides covered, online and B&M. Now of course I'm sure Amazon is more popular than Wal-Mart online, but that isn't our fault.
 
my thoughts are there should be less taxes not more.

I dont like being taxed when they waste it on the stupidest shit imaginable.

I dont like taxes when they tax my income, they tax my purchases, tax your property and also remove money for a bunch of social programs that are broken (social security medicare etc)

I dont like funding pointless wars that fund corporations and paying the salaries of bored police officers that pull you over for no reason and give you tickets for extremely minor shit.

I dont like bailing out the rich elite after they looted their own companies/corporations carcass for financial gain. (the american taxpayers were robbed)

at the end of the day im against any new taxes... all these states could trim so very much and im not talking about schools and education.

Instead of following the Federal example states should work to be more efficient and budget conscious. At the end of the day defecit spending is a bad idea. With the amount of money available that is collected in taxes they should be able to do a FTON more than what they are doing.

Instead of being efficient they are looking for new ways to tax us (what this topic is really about) while taking bribes by special interests to sell out their fellow americans.

insofar as retail goes, most of them are run extremely inefficiently by idiots and they dont know how to price their merchandise correctly. If you have ever seen a $90 hdmi cable or a $75 dvi cable in a store then you know what im talking about.
Its all pretty sickening tbh.
 
Figures that now that most states are in a budget crunch stuff like this comes up. In the same way that the rate of traffic fines suddenly increases when towns need more money.
 
[quote name='Clak']Figures that now that most states are in a budget crunch stuff like this comes up. In the same way that the rate of traffic fines suddenly increases when towns need more money.[/QUOTE]

Of course - government only knows how to increase revenue. Cutting spending is an alien concept.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']Of course - government only knows how to increase revenue. Cutting spending is an alien concept.[/QUOTE]
How about we start by cutting education and social services LAST instead of FIRST. Or how about you stop mouthing off with meaningless tripe.

Is cutting the subsidy to keep people warm in the winter THAT wasteful? I guess it's cheaper to let them freeze/die than have them on the dole amirite? But hey, record bonuses on wall st this year! It's Miller Time!!!
 
If the only government programs that you can think to cut spending in are education and social services, then you don't know too much about the government.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']If the only government programs that you can think to cut spending in are education and social services, then you don't know too much about the government.[/QUOTE]
WTF are you talking about. Reading comprehension: Get Some.
 
I mentioned cutting spending and you chimed in about not cutting education and social services.

The conversation really isn't that hard to follow, but I can see if my neighbor's kids have some hand puppets if it would help you.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']I mentioned cutting spending and you chimed in about not cutting education and social services.

The conversation really isn't that hard to follow, but I can see if my neighbor's kids have some hand puppets if it would help you.[/QUOTE]
So you mentioned cutting spending, then I said that we shouldn't cut services first(because that's what you and your ilk do), then you made the assertion that I am ignorant of what CAN be cut when I was talking about what usually IS cut, once again, by YOU and YOUR fuckING ILK.

Yet I'M the one with the learning disability...
 
First, I didn't know I've ever cut any services. Didn't know I had that power. hmmm... I need to make use of this.

Second, I mentioned cutting spending - then you ranted about not cutting education/social services. If you wanted to discuss other types of cuts the government should make, perhaps you should discuss those instead of only throwing out the one type of cut you disagree with and acting like I and "my ilk" are all for it and that's all "we" care about.
 
[quote name='dohdough']So you mentioned cutting spending, then I said that we shouldn't cut services first(because that's what you and your ilk do), then you made the assertion that I am ignorant of what CAN be cut when I was talking about what usually IS cut, once again, by YOU and YOUR fuckING ILK.

Yet I'M the one with the learning disability...[/QUOTE]

Conservatives when talking about the budget etc. can by definition never be honest.

The lower income cons get shafted but they have too much of a peasant mentality to fight for their own self interest.

Exhibit A, the new Paul Ryan thread.
 
[quote name='Msut77']The lower income cons get shafted but they have too much of a peasant mentality to fight for their own self interest.
[/QUOTE]

I don't even think it's the peasant mentality. Many poor, rural state people I (unfortunately) know are against it as they see it as their tax money going to help the poor ghetto people in the city and they'd rather suffer themselves than have money go to them. And the poorer people (welfare trash in their words) in their area that they somehow still manage to be condescending toward despite not being much better off than them.

That and many just believe in a dog eat dog world where you either make it on your own or suffer and are fine with that. But many are saying that kind of crap while their family is on medicare and they're on food stamps etc., so it's just bs and more tied in to the bias in the first point above IMO.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I don't even think it's the peasant mentality. Many poor, rural state people I (unfortunately) know are against it as they see it as their tax money going to help the poor ghetto people in the city and they'd rather suffer themselves than have money go to them. And the poorer people (welfare trash in their words) in their area that they somehow still manage to be condescending toward despite not being much better off than them.

That and many just believe in a dog eat dog world where you either make it on your own or suffer and are fine with that. But many are saying that kind of crap while their family is on medicare and they're on food stamps etc., so it's just bs and more tied in to the bias in the first point above IMO.[/QUOTE]
Sounds like plain racism to me.
 
Partly racism for sure with the disdain toward urban poor.

But more than just that overall as they have similar feelings about poor whites who are worse off than them who live around them. Working people on some levels of government assistance (or not on it even though eligible) are very intolerant of those worse off and on more more assistance, unemployment benefits, disability for things that don't seem major to them etc. in my experience.

Thus they shun all forms of entitlement, even things that would make their own lives easier. They hold on to the American (pipe)Dream that they'll get their break someday despite having no more than a high school diploma (if that) and no real marketable skills. As long as they keep working hard things will get better eventually. That was never really true, and definitely not today with the decline of unskilled labor jobs that pay a living wage with the manufacturing industry largely dying.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']First, I didn't know I've ever cut any services. Didn't know I had that power. hmmm... I need to make use of this.

Second, I mentioned cutting spending - then you ranted about not cutting education/social services. If you wanted to discuss other types of cuts the government should make, perhaps you should discuss those instead of only throwing out the one type of cut you disagree with and acting like I and "my ilk" are all for it and that's all "we" care about.[/QUOTE]


GOP Completely Fixes Economy By Canceling Funding For NPR

WASHINGTON—Unemployment plummeted and stocks soared Tuesday after Republican leaders fulfilled their promise to cut funding for National Public Radio, a budgetary move that has completely rejuvenated the flagging U.S. economy. "Since eliminating federal spending for NPR, America's economic outlook is brighter than it's been in decades, with manufacturing on the rise and millions of jobs once sent overseas now returning to our shores," said Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL), adding that by eliminating funds for NPR, the deficit has been slashed by 0.000004 percent and a newly thriving middle class once again has cause to believe in the American dream. "Pulling funding for Car Talk and Planet Money alone has created 4.2 million jobs and generated a $2 trillion budget surplus." Republicans announced Thursday they will now turn their attention to cutting the National Park Service, a move that should ensure Social Security's solvency for the next 350 years
Click to expand...

http://www.theonion.com/articles/gop-completely-fixes-economy-by-canceling-funding,19897/
 
I live in a suburb of NYC (long Island). I pay about $10k a year in property taxes and my small house is not in a prime location (paid about $142k in the 90's). Until a few months ago there was a tax on freakin heating oil as well. Every year the school budget goes up so my taxes go up. I am a Physical therapist and I have not gotten a raise in 3 years. My wife was able to cut her hours at work (clerical) to part time .They canceled busing for the kids and the after school program increased in price so it was cheaper for us to take the pay cut than hire a person to drop off my youngest son at kindergarten ( which is half a day to save school funds) and then pick up both my sons after school. Both boys come home at least once a week with a letter from the teacher's asking for donations for this or that (fine, I don't expect them to pay for it out of their pockets). We try to save money whenever we can so that's why I try to buy things online whenever possible. Saving 8.75% may not seem like a lot to some people but it adds up. I was so pissed when NY forced Amazon to collect the tax even though they have no physical presence here so I don't buy from them as much unless the deal is great. Thank God Newegg reversed their policy cause I had also stopped buying from them. In short, if it's a big ticket item, I'm buying online to save on the actual cost and the tax. If it's a smaller thing that I want ASAP then it's retail.
 
For people in most states, "saving" by not paying taxes for online purposes is identical to cheating on their taxes. Maybe it is deliberate, maybe it is unknowingly.
There are many flaws in the tax code, how interstate commerce is accounted for is just one flaw.
A solution would be to take away the state and local sales tax from all internet (and mail order) purchases. Instead, it would be replaced by a 5% federal sales tax. The burden of collecting the tax would fall on the seller. The use tax would be eliminated.
This would never happen because of the entrenched interest as it takes away money from state and local government.
 
[quote name='vherub']For people in most states, "saving" by not paying taxes for online purposes is identical to cheating on their taxes. Maybe it is deliberate, maybe it is unknowingly.
There are many flaws in the tax code, how interstate commerce is accounted for is just one flaw.
A solution would be to take away the state and local sales tax from all internet (and mail order) purchases. Instead, it would be replaced by a 5% federal sales tax. The burden of collecting the tax would fall on the seller. The use tax would be eliminated.
This would never happen because of the entrenched interest as it takes away money from state and local government.[/QUOTE]

Maybe you should be glad it hasn't happened, in the UK VAT (effectively a federal sales tax) is now sitting at 20%.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top