http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/06/...sales-tax/index.html

Getting so, there's no place to run anymore. r in w.

This has been a thorn for law makers for decades.

Th question is, "Where did the sale take place?"

Did it take place on your computer or did it take place in the state where the money was collected and the item shipped?

If the first then someone owes sales tax to what ever state that collects it. If the second and the 'store' is located in a state that doesn't collect sales tax, none is owed.

How is this the business of the Feds?

quote:

Originally posted by Gary Surko:
How is this the business of the Feds?

If anything comes under the heading of interstate commerce this does.

The Feds always have to tamper with stuff that does not concern them.Health care comes to mind!!!

Too bad. I just saved $1800 in taxes buying appliances for my kitchen remodel....even after paying for the freight.

Just another way to get in your wallet and loot!

What I'm opposed to about this (and what I told my congressmen) is, one, it sets us up real nice for a national sales tax, and two, it gets the fed into being an accomplice with the states on ripping us off (the thing in the WH already has the IRS tattling to the states on your earnings), three, your small "mom and pop" "brick and mortar" stores are all busy using the internet themselves across state lines and all over the country, and four, there is mass confusion on what's "an internet purchase".

Think about that. What do YOU consider an internet purchase?

The big idea is, you shop on line, hit the box that says "add to shopping cart" then supply the credit card info.

But, suppose you just use the internet like the old fashioned yellow pages and that's all.

Suppose you just look up the company's website for nothing more than getting their telephone number, then call them on an 800 number and negotiate something, then send a check. Is THAT an internet purchase? I think not, but under this bill, you're screwed on your (in my case) 9.5% state sales tax.

I don't like that a bit.

In other words, it applies not to just "internet sales", but de facto (I've always liked that word, but get to use it so seldom) it applies to ALL OUT OF STATE PURCHASES WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

And btw, the individual in the WH does NOT have "our back" on this. He/she/it is already fully on board with it and has publicly SAID so. And before our Reds here bother to say it, I'm well aware many Republicans favor it too. But that doesn't mean it's a good idea once you reason it out.

quote:

In other words, it applies not to just "internet sales", but de facto (I've always liked that word, but get to use it so seldom) it applies to ALL OUT OF STATE PURCHASES WITHOUT EXCEPTION.

Almost all states that have a sales tax have a clause that says the buyer is responsible for paying taxes on his out of state purchases. Of course, almost no buyers ever do.

I'm as opposed to taxes as anyone but it's interesting that so many in here will loudly proclaim "support your local gun shop" but buy on the net if they can save a few bucks. I don't necessarily blame them, but there is a word for such behavior....hypocrisy.

I'm also for saving as much money as I can on buying the same item but my sense of basic fairness tells me that if in-state sellers have to collect tax on sales to residents then out-of-state sellers should have the same "priviledge".

The exemption from sales taxes was put in place initially to get the then new internet sales jump started. That has obviously been accomplished.

Now if we can only get the states (and feds for that matter) to use the money wisely. That's the hard one.

quote:

Now if we can only get the states (and feds for that matter) to use the money wisely. That's the hard one.

Considering the recent IRS issues surely you jest.

quote:

I'm as opposed to taxes as anyone but it's interesting that so many in here will loudly proclaim "support your local gun shop" but buy on the net if they can save a few bucks.

Actually that's not exactly it. At least with me. The state sales tax is largely cancelled out by out of state shipping charges for one thing. But more to the point, I prefer in state gun purchases (I mention that since you used it as an example) due to getting to personally inspect the piece before buying. Like others here, there are many guns I was real interested in at first glance, then when I carefully checked them, or maybe looked at them again on a second visit to the shop, I found things to not like and took a skip on it.

For buying from out of state, that's largely a matter of buying using GB as an agent for the seller. And where I have done that (on extremely rare occasions) it was ONLY where I couldn't get the same piece locally at all. And in some cases, would NEVER be able to find that particular piece locally. So there was NO choice.

It's NOT just a matter of trying to beat the state's sales tax (the max rate of which is 9.75%) - though I congratulate anyone who pulls off that trick.

The feds need to mind their own business on this. We've got enough hi-tax politicians locally without their taking sides.

Of course, it could not be more of the "fed's business" than interstate sales (commerce).

To me it really comes down to my sense of what's fair. If the locals selling basically anything have to collect sales taxes while supporting building(s), employees, etc (not to mention ad valorem taxes on the above) then internet sellers should have the same privilege while often supporting nothing more than a computer and a garage full of merchandise. Given a choice, I'd certainly prefer no sales tax (at least how the current collection and spending system is defined) but since we have them in most locales, I feel that everyone should be in the pool, so to speak.

I think our positions are clear. I'm simply opposed. But I believe you'll prevail ultimately and by the same token we'll get a federal national sales tax out of it too to accompany the state sales taxes. In time.

I do disagree that it's the fed's business however.

If there WAS already a fed sales tax I'd agree that it's an interstate commerce question (and under the ability apparently that now exists to pass ANYTHING by calling it a "tax"). But, there is no such tax.

So it's not regulating interstate commerce, but regulating a state's right to collect taxes in another state that's the issue. Which among all other considerations I see as also objectionable.

To repeat, most if not all states that collect sales taxes, NOW require that the buyer pay sales taxes to the state on purchases from out of state where the seller doesn't collect sales tax. The buyers, which probably includes 99.99% of us, are breaking the law by not paying the state sales taxes due. The state just has had no rational way to enforce that clause. Requiring the sellers to collect it will do so.

quote:

Originally posted by Gatogordo:
To repeat, most if not all states that collect sales taxes, NOW require that the buyer pay sales taxes to the state on purchases from out of state where the seller doesn't collect sales tax. The buyers, which probably includes 99.99% of us, are breaking the law by not paying the state sales taxes due. The state just has had no rational way to enforce that clause. Requiring the sellers to collect it will do so.

Shhhhhhhhhhhhhh...............

Because of my previous post I'll have to categorically deny having any recollection of that..........senator

What post? I could have sworn there was a post but it was deleted.......personally, I don't know nuthin'........

Kansas has a line on the return for a "Use" tax. This is supposed to be a catch all for these types of sales. I pay it simply because it is reasonable and usually much lower than if I have to pay the actual sales tax. And, of course, because I am supposed to legally. I know of several other states that have the same thing, but it is typically ignored.

It became important in Kansas because we can go across the street (literally) into Missouri and buy things like cars. There was a big controversy about it some years ago. In the case of cars, the states made an agreement that says the buyer has to show proof of taxes paid before a car purchase can be registered. It does not matter which state, just so the tax is paid. Sucked when it happened.