US Senate Passes Internet Tax Bill 69 To 27 678
schwit1 quotes The Washington Post: "The Senate aimed to help traditional retailers and financially strapped state and local governments Monday by passing a bill that would widely subject online shopping — for many a largely tax-free frontier — to state sales taxes. The Senate passed the bill by a vote of 69 to 27, getting support from Republicans and Democrats alike."
schwit1 adds "Unfortunately online businesses could be in for a rude awakening when it comes to the law's interpretation." Passage in the House is not certain, and companies like eBay are lobbying to raise the minimum sales required to collect state sales tax to $10 million instead of $1 million per year.
What if the 'sale' was via an offshore subsidiary? (Score:3, Interesting)
The web front end and credit card transactions are in Bermuda, but the shipments are from a warehouse in the states? Is the seller obligated to collect state taxes.
Re:Republicans control the house (Score:2, Interesting)
That orange line is ALL Bush era tax cuts, most of which went to the middle class. And by "most" I don't mean 51%. I mean over 80% of the Bush tax cuts went to the middle class.
Nice try though. I don't know why you're complaining. Obama already undid most of the Bush tax cuts for high earners anyway.
Re:...wont make me shop at "traditional" (Score:4, Interesting)
If local retailers go out of business, you will regret it because sometimes you need that new gooseneck or pair of shoes right now. Two day delivery doesn't cut it when you have an immediate need. It's fine for stuff that you DON'T need. It also doesn't work at all well for the kinds of thing where you need hands and eyes on the product to decide whether it's the thing you want.
The kinds of sales where online works well are when you either know exactly what you want (down to the model number) or don't particularly care because a wide variety of items fit the bill.
Re:...wont make me shop at "traditional" (Score:4, Interesting)
The sooner stores realize who actually spends money at them, the better. The vast majority of businesses would do far, far better if they could shed the bottom 10-20% of their customers - The coupon cutters who tie up lines for half an hour and end up paying $6.99 for 30x that value in groceries and then count out pennies one... by... one... to pay (and then end up $0.04 short); the medicaid customers who "can't afford" that $2 copay but buy smokes in a separate transaction; the "window shoppers" who just use the physical store as a gallery.
On the flip side, when I walk into a store, I know beforehand what I want, I walk immediately to it, I take it to the register, and I have some appropriate form of payment ready before the cashier wants it. And while the necessity annoys me, I even have a "No!" handy to each BS upcharge and bit of personal info your marketing department has forced the poor cashiers to beg for this week. Bam, in and out in a minute and a half, and quite likely one of your most profitable customers of the day in terms of what you had to do to get my money.
If you kick out the former so I don't find every visit to your brick-and-mortar an entirely loathsome experience... Y'know, I'd honestly rather not wait a week for shipping. But, as long as I can get a better experience online - Well, don't complain that the online stores have killed you, when in reality, you've pulled the equivalent of a slow suicide by eating nothing but crappy fast food.
Not 50, but Thousands of Taxing Jurisdictions (Score:5, Interesting)
Among the challenges of collecting sales tax is there are thousands of taxing jurisdictions. And often the boundaries don't correspond to any zipcode nor even a particular municipality. In addition, sales tax jurisdictions can and often do overlap - ie. city and county.
Even a state that doesn't levy a sales tax itself may allow local authorities to do so, such as some local Alaskan towns do.
To make matters worse, there are numerous categories and exceptions in what's taxable depending on what it is, the amount purchased, the location / manner in which it's sold (ie. food item purchased in a convenience store verses supermarket; consumed on premises or take-out) and when (tax holidays, etc).
And then there's the matter of filing dozens of state sales tax returns - some will expect filings every month, some quarterly, etc. And the time-frames will often differ, so one could find themselves filing sales tax forms practically every month or even more often depending on sales volume. And that's not even getting into dealing with compliance checks that states may perform at any time.
Bottom line is sales tax is far more challenging to collect than many realize. It's not 50 states, but rather thousands of taxing jurisdictions with numerous different rates, rules, exemptions, etc.
There is talk of simplifying the collection process for on-line retailers, which would lessen the burden, especially to small businesses.
Re:bollocks (Score:4, Interesting)
If you're not gonna spend it, they'll need to tax it. So start spending, or we'll have to try Socialism. :-P
What do so many Americans have such fear/hatred of Socialism?
Lets make this fair (Score:2, Interesting)
Okay, let's make this fair and require the brick & mortar stores to do the same thing. If I live in Colorado and visit friends in California, I only want to pay Colorado's 2.9% tax (which would be sent directly to Colorado) and not California's 7.5% (California should get nothing since I don't live there). It's the exact same logic. Let the brick and mortar stores have to hire new employees specifically to deal with all the new paperwork involved.
Re:bollocks (Score:4, Interesting)
Because in a nation with the size and diversity of the US, advocates of Socialism seem willfully blind to the fact that there are people who would disagree with the implementation.
On smaller scales (maybe statewide?) it's a different story. If I don't like the way something is implemented I can move to a state with other people who have similar beliefs. In reality, that wouldn't be possible if such things were implemented across the entire US.
Re:...wont make me shop at "traditional" (Score:1, Interesting)
You miss the point from Best Buy's perspective - and it's even worse for smaller businesses.
People aren't leaving Best Buy empty handed because the service sucked. They knew that when they walked in the door. They left empty handed because they learned which product they wanted and now are going to try to avoid paying sales tax.
Now consider the small, local shop that pays local property taxes, collects and submits sales taxes, supports the local school's fundraiser, and sponsors the local community library project. Then when all is said and done, someone will stop by the local grocer and ask to sell candy bars (the same brand he sells inside, but bought elsewhere because they're cheaper) at the entry of the store to raise money for the local church group.
We've become great, savvy consumers and shitty citizens.
Re:...wont make me shop at "traditional" (Score:4, Interesting)
Great so make your entire area unemployed and watch the profits roll in.
Why do you think that reducing the number of jobs in an area is going to help increase your business?
Re:bollocks (Score:4, Interesting)
Because in a nation with the size and diversity of the US, advocates of Socialism seem willfully blind to the fact that there are people who would disagree with the implementation.
On a tangential thought, why can't we have both? This is the future. We should have a customizable, user-friendly government and economic structure.
Maybe Citizen A prefers free enterprise, so he opts for a capitalist citizenship. He works for a living, pays a low level of taxes and receives little help from the government. Citizen B prefers a socialist citizenship, so he receives a stipend and single-payer health care, and a large portion of his earnings are sucked away in taxes. Citizen C lives in a shed down by the river and prefers the anarchist option; he pays no taxes and expects nothing from the government, and is indeed excluded from any laws that affect only himself. He can't hurt other people, but he can drink and do drugs all he likes.
There is no reason, in today's information-rich society, why every citizen can't choose among several different legal and economic options, all of which combine to form the government system of their country. All it would take is a database and a form for citizens to choose their option.
These systems -- capitalism, socialism, communism, anarchism -- they are not each others' enemy. They are different options that are all superior in some way, and people should get their choice in the way they want to live.
Re:bollocks (Score:4, Interesting)
What the fuck do you think your freedom deal with America is if it's not a social contract? Do you make use of roads, cleanish air and water, and the right to not be hassled/killed/enslaved by roving warlords? Well you probably would claim that you mean the whole "let's not have people die in the streets" thing more than the roads thing when you say social contract, but I'd argue that you're just drawing an arbitrary line, and you're doing in such a way that it maximizes your assholishness. You're perfectly fine taking some services from the government and paying your share (and expecting the rest to do the same), but some services are too much. And the latter (but not former) services are the "social contract" ones.
A typical explanation of 'social contract' is why we do education. It's because we want the electorate to be educated. It's pretty easy to make the same case about healthcare or foodstamps or unemployment insurance or social security. And yes I know your type, you'll start screaming about welfare queens or personal responsibility or something, but here's the dirty little secret - it is in your interest to do these things. We already have universal healthcare, for example, just literally the worst one imaginable - you can't be turned away at an ER. So only the people who are actually having heart attacks or are in labor get treatment, not people with high cholesterol or looking for prenatal care. Fuck them, which one is cheaper for you? Because the hospital sure doesn't eat the cost, they give it to you in the form of a $2000 MRI, which the insurance doesn't eat and you pay more for that. Some people who could barely afford insurance can't anymore, and then they become part of this problem.
We do that kind of thing a lot in this country - do the worst thing imaginable because of the fear that somewhere, somehow, a poor person might benefit. Even though (in the health care case, and others) it would literally be cheaper to just give everybody health care and pay for it with taxes - as evidenced by every nation with universal healthcare, the OMB, math, logic, etc.
Point being, you have a bad premise. It's at best short-sighted and at worst "fuck you", because it assumes that if anybody else benefits, you must therefore suffer. But doing the best thing for everyone can also be the best thing for you. This is some pretty basic civics, pretty well hashed out by a few hundred years ago. Hell, it's all over the bible itself - be nice to people and you get to go to heaven.