Internet sales tax bill

[olevetonahill]

What say You?

Personally I dont see a thing wrong with States gettin sales Tax off internet sales.

[Soonerjeepman]

guess not either, the problem, which I'm sure has been discussed would be which state gets it? The one selling or the one buying..

[rock on sooner]

It'd sure help the local Mom & Pop stores compete against the
big guys...pretty sure that the state buying would get the tax...

[olevetonahill]

It'd sure help the local Mom & Pop stores compete against the
big guys...pretty sure that the state buying would get the tax...

What im thinkin.

[okiewaker]

I'm trying to figure this out. I live in Oklahoma and if I buy something off the Internet from some other state, Oklahoma wants to collect the sales tax? So if I drive to Gainesville Tx and buy something from that outlet mall and bring it back to Oklahoma, does Oklahoma collect that sales tax? :confused:

[XingTheRubicon]

It would have to be the state selling, I would think.

[Midtowner]

Oklahoma already charges an internet sales tax. They rely on self-disclosure for collections and do basically no checking on it, so it's pretty ineffective.

[okiewaker]

If it puts 'em on equal footing with local retailers in terms of taxes then I don't have any problems with it either. Businesses dont pay taxes anyway,,they collect them from us and pass them on to gov.

[cleller]

Oklahoma already charges an internet sales tax. They rely on self-disclosure for collections and do basically no checking on it, so it's pretty ineffective.

I actually pay that dumb thing every year, too. Just in case I'm ever audited I can point to that as some kind of honesty yardstick.

If you live in a rural area, I think its possible you might have to pay the only the state portion of the sales tax, and save a little by having no city sales tax.

[Midtowner]

It would have to be the state selling, I would think.

I think just the opposite, I'd say since we're taxing the purchaser, not the seller, the state in which the purchaser resides should collect, or else you'd have states offering zero tax to retailers who operate within their state and the whole system would be screwed again.

[XingTheRubicon]

So if we sell something from OK to Montreal...we tax Quebec?


Also, you're not taxing the purchaser OR the seller, you're taxing the goods that are sold. It's already set up to tax at the seller's local rate. IOW, if I live in Edmond and I pay for a dog abortion in Midwest City, I'm gonna pay the seller's Midwest City rate of sales tax. Not Edmond sales tax.

[Midtowner]

I'm gonna pay

These words are key to understanding.

Paying the tax where the seller is isn't even being considered. This is going to be tough on small internet businesses as they will now have to keep track of, file returns in, and send sales tax checks to 50 states. The onerous paperwork will be complicated for small employers.

[okiewaker]

" The proposed Marketplace Fairness Act simply provides a practical way for states to collect sales tax for goods sold on the Internet. Right now, if you live in Ohio and buy something online from a New York merchant, you’re the one who is supposed to tell Ohio and pay the tax. But few people actually does this—so the law makes the out-of-state merchant responsible instead for collecting the tax.

The law would apply only to businesses that sell more than $1 million a year (so don’t worry about those bobbleheads you sold on eBay (EBAY)). It also requires states to provide free software to merchants to help them collect tax for more than 9,000 state, county, and local taxing authorities".

[olevetonahill]

These words are key to understanding.

Paying the tax where the seller is isn't even being considered. This is going to be tough on small internet businesses as they will now have to keep track of, file returns in, and send sales tax checks to 50 states. The onerous paperwork will be complicated for small employers.


http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTO7BHQtJ1x4ysnrsysYfWNwPgBaDwAB 9Mv6vyE1XEtimvEW2fr

[Midtowner]

" The proposed Marketplace Fairness Act simply provides a practical way for states to collect sales tax for goods sold on the Internet. Right now, if you live in Ohio and buy something online from a New York merchant, you’re the one who is supposed to tell Ohio and pay the tax. But few people actually does this—so the law makes the out-of-state merchant responsible instead for collecting the tax.

The law would apply only to businesses that sell more than $1 million a year (so don’t worry about those bobbleheads you sold on eBay (EBAY)). It also requires states to provide free software to merchants to help them collect tax for more than 9,000 state, county, and local taxing authorities".

All I know is what I read in the newspaper...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/24/the-real-problem-with-the-internet-sales-tax.html

[olevetonahill]

All I know is what I read in the newspaper...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/04/24/the-real-problem-with-the-internet-sales-tax.html

And again
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTO7BHQtJ1x4ysnrsysYfWNwPgBaDwAB 9Mv6vyE1XEtimvEW2fr

[olevetonahill]

heres the way I see it. Just how hard can it be IF you're an Internet business to have yer sales tracked by yer puter?
Hell back in the Mid 80s when I had my restaurants it took me all of Maybe 15 minutes to do the monthly sales tax report by hand. Plus It made me a lil money because I was paid a % to collect and then forward the said tax.

If you sell over the internet you best be Computer savy anyway. so how hard would it be to download the software that each state will send you then File and pay on line using that software? It wouldnt be.

AS for being a Burden on the Poor small internet company , I dont see that either. No more so than on a Brick and mortar store in downtown Flatbush.

Plus whats already been said it WONT affect the small sellers on Ebay and such .

[rock on sooner]

heres the way I see it. Just how hard can it be IF you're an Internet business to have yer sales tracked by yer puter?
Hell back in the Mid 80s when I had my restaurants it took me all of Maybe 15 minutes to do the monthly sales tax report by hand. Plus It made me a lil money because I was paid a % to collect and then forward the said tax.

If you sell over the internet you best be Computer savy anyway. so how hard would it be to download the software that each state will send you then File and pay on line using that software? It wouldnt be.

AS for being a Burden on the Poor small internet company , I dont see that either. No more so than on a Brick and mortar store in downtown Flatbush.

Plus whats already been said it WONT affect the small sellers on Ebay and such .

Ummm, what he said, close and lock the thread!

[TheHumanAlphabet]

I'm against it...

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

If it puts 'em on equal footing with local retailers in terms of taxes then I don't have any problems with it either. Businesses dont pay taxes anyway,,they collect them from us and pass them on to gov.As it is now, brick and mortar stores charge and collect sales taxes. E-commerce sellers charge and pay shipping. Pretty much even up, it would seem. If the internet sellers have to charge shipping AND sales taxes, they are put at a disadvantage, IMO.

[Curly Bill]

I'm not in favor of paying more in taxes than I already am.

[badger]

It was a fun ride while it lasted, finding deals online that had free or cheap shipping that didn't charge sales taxes like the local stores did. But, I can understand why states and businesses alike (other than the Internet ones in general) want this to happen.

[jkjsooner]

One of the tough things is that not only do they have to obtain the software to handling the taxes in all of these jurisdictions but they have to determine what taxable category thier products reside in for each jurisdiction. For example, the same product can be treated differently in some jurisdictions based on its intended use.

It can be a little tricky but it is fair and can be done without costing the seller too much. (Even if the software is free, you might have to buy some software that integrates all of the various programs provided by the states and allows for a uniform system to categorize your products that work in every jurisdiction.)

Or frankly, you could just connect to a web service that takes the product type and jurisdiction as input and outputs the tax rate. If you're online at all times you wouldn't have to have that software yourself.

I see a business opportunity...

[jkjsooner]

I'm not in favor of paying more in taxes than I already am.

Well, then push that this change be followed by a lower sales tax rate to offset the increased taxes.

Allowing Internet companies an unfair advantage isn't the solution to lower taxes.

[Lott's Bandana]

It also requires states to provide free software to merchants to help them collect tax for more than 9,000 state, county, and local taxing authorities".


"Hey States: we're going to make the Marketplace fair with an Act. And oh-by-the-way States, you are required to provide free..."


Sure, they can pay for it with all those new revenues, but doesn't that cut into the windfall they're trying to grab in the first place? Kinda like driving 200 miles to Texas on No-Sales-Tax day and ignoring your fuel cost to do so.

[Curly Bill]

Well, then push that this change be followed by a lower sales tax rate to offset the increased taxes.

Allowing Internet companies an unfair advantage isn't the solution to lower taxes.

Anyone that has any faith that collecting internet sales tax will be followed by a lowering of their local or state sales taxes hasn't been paying attention to how government operates. It's nothing more than a grab at more of our money.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I'm not in favor of paying more in taxes than I already am.More taxes are always bad for the consumer/end user.

[Tiptonsooner]

Sales tax is the only fair tax. I'm with Curly on this though, the gov ain't going to give up other taxes because of this. Therefore, to hell with this idea....




Anyone that has any faith that collecting internet sales tax will be followed by a lowering of their local or state sales taxes hasn't been paying attention to how government operates. It's nothing more than a grab at more of our money.

[Midtowner]

More taxes are always bad for the consumer/end user.

Depends on how they're spent.

In local/state matters, taxes are spent in the year they're collected and the government doesn't really have the ability to incur debt outside of revenue bonds. MAPS projects, for example, have had a huge ROI for the OKC taxpayer. Hotel taxes are a decent revenue stream for our State Fair Park and MAPS III seems to be going pretty well. At the state level, if we were able to increase the number of child welfare workers and improve their training and pay, that'd be a good investment in our children's futures. Roads and bridges and other infrastructure, paid for by tax dollars always give ROI as well, so no, more taxes are not "always" bad.

[badger]

They could always penalize those of us (or should I say, all of us) that have not paid sales tax on Internet purchases, as required by existing laws.

In this instance, I'd rather the burden of taxation lie with the seller, not the purchaser.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

They could always penalize those of us (or should I say, all of us) that have not paid sales tax on Internet purchases, as required by existing laws.

In this instance, I'd rather the burden of taxation lie with the seller, not the purchaser.Are you one to believe the seller doesn't pass on the tax, having to collect it with the sale? The internet seller is no different than any other vendor in that regard.It just raises the price to the buyer.

[badger]

Are you one to believe the seller doesn't pass on the tax, having to collect it with the sale? The internet seller is no different than any other vendor in that regard.It just raises the price to the buyer.

I imagine stealing stuff would be the cheapest route of all for customers, but like the Internet sales tax no-report system that most customers already have in place, it's against the law.

I'm not trying to be a smartarse or extreme by bringing stealing up, because with Internet sales tax, I am reminded of the Internet music market that used to be in place before iTunes made being legal popular. Napster, Morphius, Kazaa, etc. were all popular in dorm rooms and home computers alike because music was endlessly shared and downloaded for free, even as music companies and brick & mortar stores alike howled. It was stealing, but it was also easy and free, much like the way that many Internet consumers don't report purchases to avoid sales tax.

Let's just get a legal system in place where it's easy to do the right and legal thing.

[olevetonahill]

The thing to me is with an Internet seller those profits and jobs are Not in your local community where as with a brick an mortar store they stay In the community provide jobs and help the infrastructure.

[diverdog]

We do not have a sales tax in Delaware. Woot!

[badger]

We do not have a sales tax in Delaware. Woot!

Yeah, you bastards convinced every major U.S. corp to have a mailbox office in your state so that you can collect a mere pittance of their billions and thus, your residents reap the sales tax free rewards. Kudos for thinking of it before any other state. :)

[jkjsooner]

"Hey States: we're going to make the Marketplace fair with an Act. And oh-by-the-way States, you are required to provide free..."


Sure, they can pay for it with all those new revenues, but doesn't that cut into the windfall they're trying to grab in the first place? Kinda like driving 200 miles to Texas on No-Sales-Tax day and ignoring your fuel cost to do so.

How about this. States, if you want the tax revenue you have to provide software to help compute it. If you don't then you're good.

I bet they would provide it...

[jkjsooner]

Anyone that has any faith that collecting internet sales tax will be followed by a lowering of their local or state sales taxes hasn't been paying attention to how government operates. It's nothing more than a grab at more of our money.

Whether you can make it happen or not, that would be the right approach. Keeping a lower average tax rate by created an unfair advantage for Internet companies is not the correct way to keep taxes down.

If you think it is, how about I suggest to you that people with an SSN ending with "1" don't have to pay income taxes.

[jkjsooner]

We do not have a sales tax in Delaware. Woot!

Better not move. In some states they'll claw back some of that savings on the big ticket items like cars.

[Mjcpr]

For those online retailers who currently charge, collect and remit sales tax, it is done so to the state where the purchase is received so I'm sure it would remain that way if all of them collected the salest tax.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

For those online retailers who currently charge, collect and remit sales tax, it is done so to the state where the purchase is received so I'm sure it would remain that way if all of them collected the salest tax.Currently sales tax is supposed to be collected only for intrastate vs interstate sales, at least where i live.

[diverdog]

Yeah, you bastards convinced every major U.S. corp to have a mailbox office in your state so that you can collect a mere pittance of their billions and thus, your residents reap the sales tax free rewards. Kudos for thinking of it before any other state. :)

Oh we luv screwing the little people.

[olevetonahill]

Oh we luv screwing the little people.

Course ya do, yer a dayum Lib. :very_drunk:

[diverdog]

Course ya do, yer a dayum Lib. :very_drunk:

true dat! Better to use other peoples money than your own.

[Curly Bill]

Whether you can make it happen or not, that would be the right approach. Keeping a lower average tax rate by created an unfair advantage for Internet companies is not the correct way to keep taxes down.

If you think it is, how about I suggest to you that people with an SSN ending with "1" don't have to pay income taxes.


In theory I agree with you, in practice we all know that wouldn't happen.

[olevetonahill]

Looks Like it aint a Matter of IF anymore.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shopping-tax-free-nears-end-234800383.html

[badger]

I know you all disagree with me on the tax front, but this could potentially be a good thing for both state coffers and Internet consumers.

Before the tax requirement becomes law, online retailers could lean on that one thing --- no sales tax --- to draw business. Now, they're going to have to come up with something else.

Will Internet sellers now offer universal free shipping?

Will Internet sellers now offer to undercut any brick and mortar price by 10 percent? 15 percent? 20 percent?

Will Internet sellers now offer better warranties and return policies for their products than the brick and mortars accustomed to dealing with system cheaters (you know, the ones that write bad checks until they're no longer accepted, steal items and then try to return them, claim that the item broke for being shoddy rather than their kid throwing it continuously against the wall, etc).

What will Internet sellers need to do now that they can't just use "no sales tax" as its one and only pitch to beat the convenience and reliability of a local store?

[SanJoaquinSooner]

Looks Like it aint a Matter of IF anymore.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/shopping-tax-free-nears-end-234800383.html

yip, but there'll be amnesty for those who didn't pay taxes previously.

[badger]

yip, but there'll be amnesty for those who didn't pay taxes previously.

All right, who's guilty?

(meekly raises hand)

[SoonerBBall]

I know you all disagree with me on the tax front, but this could potentially be a good thing for both state coffers and Internet consumers.

Before the tax requirement becomes law, online retailers could lean on that one thing --- no sales tax --- to draw business. Now, they're going to have to come up with something else.

Will Internet sellers now offer universal free shipping?

Will Internet sellers now offer to undercut any brick and mortar price by 10 percent? 15 percent? 20 percent?

Will Internet sellers now offer better warranties and return policies for their products than the brick and mortars accustomed to dealing with system cheaters (you know, the ones that write bad checks until they're no longer accepted, steal items and then try to return them, claim that the item broke for being shoddy rather than their kid throwing it continuously against the wall, etc).

What will Internet sellers need to do now that they can't just use "no sales tax" as its one and only pitch to beat the convenience and reliability of a local store?

No, it will not be a good thing. The cost of compliance will put plenty out of business and will also inhibit new Internet-only businesses from being created. It will also allow local retailers, both big and small, to increase prices since there is less competition. This is a bullsh*t money grab plain and simple and it goes against the spirit of having a state sales tax as well. It is anti-consumer and anti-business, period.

*Edit* It is also a ridiculous move to pull in a down economy as it will suppress growth even further. There is no rational reason to support this move if you aren't a big box retailer with a presence in every state already (Amazon, Walmart, Best Buy) or a politician that receives money from those outfits.

[Curly Bill]

Yup, it's all a grab for more money for the pols to spend. Anyone who tries to convince themelves or others otherwise hasn't been paying attention to the way things work.

[badger]

No, it will not be a good thing.

Well, it's happening, so I guess time will tell whether or not it'll be a good thing. Internet biz has had a lot of startup and fail since it became a thing in the 90s (pets.com, anyone?) so my thoughts are... survival of the fittest. Either and adapt to the rules and laws that govern what you're getting into, or get out.


This is a bullsh*t money grab plain and simple

I agree that this is a money grab, but I disagree that it's bullsh*t. It would not surprise me in the least if prices barely change online now that sales tax is included. It's like a soda machine... you're paying sales tax on the sodas you buy, but who cares, it's the final price quoted. 75 cents? Drop three quarters in and move on. Counterfeit NFL jersey on the Internet costs $25? Pay the final price and move on.


It is also a ridiculous move to pull in a down economy as it will suppress growth even further

How was Internet commerce benefiting state and local economy in the first place? Internet buyers could have been sending their money to China under the current model with no local or state benefit. When I buy a Tottenham Hotspur jersey from their online (they're a Brit soccer club -- NP is a Spurs fan of both the San Antonio and Totenham variety) store, what have I done to pull our down U.S. economy up or prevent the suppression of growth even further?

PS: I hope I'm not making anyone angry by disagreeing, I'm just trying to have a civilized conversation :)

[SoonerBBall]

Well, it's happening, so I guess time will tell whether or not it'll be a good thing. Internet biz has had a lot of startup and fail since it became a thing in the 90s (pets.com, anyone?) so my thoughts are... survival of the fittest. Either and adapt to the rules and laws that govern what you're getting into, or get out.

It isn't survival of the fittest, it is rigging the game for big box, local retailers. Just look at the supporters of the bill and the money they are slinging around to lobby it through.


I agree that this is a money grab, but I disagree that it's bullsh*t. It would not surprise me in the least if prices barely change online now that sales tax is included. It's like a soda machine... you're paying sales tax on the sodas you buy, but who cares, it's the final price quoted. 75 cents? Drop three quarters in and move on. Counterfeit NFL jersey on the Internet costs $25? Pay the final price and move on.

It is bullsh*t because it is against the spirit of state taxation. It is a tax on sales made by retailers in that state to support the government that allows them to do business. There is no reason that they should get a piece of the action on anything I buy just because I live in that location. I don't pay sales tax to OK when I buy something in TX whether I physically bring it over the boarder or have it shipped to me, so I shouldn't on an Internet purchase from TX either. In fact, it makes more sense to pay the sales tax rate of the location of the seller rather than the buyer. It make no sense at all to pay sales tax on person to person transactions such as eBay (or a yard sale locally for that matter).


How was Internet commerce benefiting state and local economy in the first place? Internet buyers could have been sending their money to China under the current model with no local or state benefit. When I buy a Tottenham Hotspur jersey from their online (they're a Brit soccer club -- NP is a Spurs fan of both the San Antonio and Totenham variety) store, what have I done to pull our down U.S. economy up or prevent the suppression of growth even further?

The vast majority of Internet spending is domestic. I don't even need to look that up because I do a lot of Internet shopping and the cheap prices overseas are negated by their terrible shipping options (especially from China/Hong Kong). It also pales in comparison to the amount of overseas traffic Amazon, Walmart, and Best Buy do to lower their prices by virtue of having large coffers. Why are they held to a different standard than the rest of us? Why aren't they buying all of their raw materials locally or setting up their factories locally to benefit this country?

It boosts the economy because it is the purest type of economic stimulus. One person gives money to another, who turns around and gives it to another to keep the business going. It is the foundation of the economy. Stifling this activity kills economic growth by definition. Taxing it also kills economic growth, again by definition. It is a terrible move.

For your jersey analogy, can you buy those jerseys locally? If you can't, it doesn't matter anyways because it will never help the economy (besides involving the domestic shipping company getting the package to your door). If you can, why not buy it from a domestic retailer online, unless the price is outrageous? I guarantee the shipping options are far more agreeable than those from jolly ol' England.


PS: I hope I'm not making anyone angry by disagreeing, I'm just trying to have a civilized conversation :)

Nope, just disagreeing with you completely that this is legitimate, necessary, or good.

[badger]

Nope, just disagreeing with you completely that this is legitimate, necessary, or good.

OK, I think we can all agree at this point that it is happening, no matter how "legitimate, necessary or good" it is or isn't.

So with that in mind, how can we make this thing that is happening regardless of our feelers on it the best it can possibly be?

[Midtowner]

There’s also a carve-out for small businesses—any online company with less than $1 million in annual revenue will be exempt from the law. Rather than unrealistically requiring us to track of our purchases so we can pay our sales tax at the end of the year, it puts the onus on states to simplify their tax regulations. (More on that later.) The law will thus create a centralized tax-collection system that proponents say will allow states and cities to receive $23 billion more in revenue each year—taxes which they’re already owed, but aren’t currently collecting. (Opponents dispute the figure, saying that Internet sales lead to only about $3 billion in uncollected state and local sales taxes.)

http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/technology/2013/04/national_internet_sales_tax_why_i_love_the_marketp lace_fairness_act_and.html

Initially, I was against it. The more I researched it, the more I think this is a good idea all around.

[olevetonahill]

hell I dont care one way or the other.I dont buy much on line and the Sales tax aint a factor.Plus I found a neat trick to avoid paying sales tax on anything I buy.
Beer included.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

hell I dont care one way or the other.I dont buy much on line and the Sales tax aint a factor.Plus I found a neat trick to avoid paying sales tax on anything I buy.
Beer included.okay...GO

[badger]

hell I dont care one way or the other.I dont buy much on line and the Sales tax aint a factor.Plus I found a neat trick to avoid paying sales tax on anything I buy.
Beer included.

So you use the five-finger discount, do you?

So you're a freeloading food stamper, are you?

So you work at a store and your employee discount basically cancels out the sales tax, does it?

So you are a business owner (or are impersonating one) and don't pay sales tax on your inventory, huh?

So you are a tax protestor that is going to get busted by the IRS before long, eh?

...any of those remotely close to the truth? :D

[olevetonahill]

So you use the five-finger discount, do you?

So you're a freeloading food stamper, are you?

So you work at a store and your employee discount basically cancels out the sales tax, does it?

So you are a business owner (or are impersonating one) and don't pay sales tax on your inventory, huh?

So you are a tax protestor that is going to get busted by the IRS before long, eh?

...any of those remotely close to the truth? :D

Not even in the same ball park

[cleller]

There's a veteran's sales tax exclusion of some sort in Oklahoma. Pretty good deal, takes sales taxes off almost everything, I think.

[badger]

There's a veteran's sales tax exclusion of some sort in Oklahoma. Pretty good deal, takes sales taxes off almost everything, I think.

ah... that makes more sense. although, any of the above ideas would probably work too

[olevetonahill]

There's a veteran's sales tax exclusion of some sort in Oklahoma. Pretty good deal, takes sales taxes off almost everything, I think.

Tattle tail :pirate:

[TAFBSooner]

There's a veteran's sales tax exclusion of some sort in Oklahoma. Pretty good deal, takes sales taxes off almost everything, I think.

It's just for disabled veterans. Had me going for a minute. :-)

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

It's just for disabled veterans. Had me going for a minute. :-)If there are Libz who involuntarily(they jest cain't hep it, it's part of their training) call you stupid or crazy, will that qualify a person for said sales tax exemption?

[TAFBSooner]

If there are Libz who involuntarily(they jest cain't hep it, it's part of their training) call you stupid or crazy, will that qualify a person for said sales tax exemption?

You would have to call the Veteran's Administration to answer that.

Wait, are you talking about the alleged name-caller, or the target of the name-calling?

Never mind, don't call the VA . . .

"No."

[StoopTroup]

I'm against it...

Same here. Lock this stupid a$$ thread.

[olevetonahill]

Looks like after flying thru the Senate its going to Stall out and Die in the House.

http://news.yahoo.com/fight-expected-house-online-sales-tax-000742412.html

[SoonerBBall]

Looks like after flying thru the Senate its going to Stall out and Die in the House.

http://news.yahoo.com/fight-expected-house-online-sales-tax-000742412.html

Good news. This is a terrible bill with no real purpose other than unfair money-grubbing.

[badger]

Good news. This is a terrible bill with no real purpose other than unfair money-grubbing.

I'm fine with whatever Congress decides, because if it fails, nothing changes and if it passes, we pay sales taxes on stuff we buy. No biggie to me.

But, it does make me curious what will happen if it fails, because the states still want this sales tax money and will likely take things into their own hands (much like some states tried taking immigration reform into their own hands, Oklahoma included) to get the tax money they think they deserve.

Or perhaps, a tattle tale system will be established so that a larger burden is placed on buyers to report and pay what they owe on internet purchases. For example, sites won't have to collect and charge taxes, but they will tell states when So-and-So who lives at Such-and-such address bought XXX for XXX dollars on XXX date.

[rock on sooner]

Biggist problem is going to be implimentation...supposed to be a
requirement of the states to supply computer programs for all 50
states, but, listening to some questions about refunds, etc, it will
be a can of worms. The bill doesn't provide for much of anything
along those lines. Interesting that some who do a lot of internet
shopping are pretty vocal in their disagreement.

Some retailers already price their products on line differently than
in their brick and mortar fronts. If all the kinks are worked out it
will boost the states' income and possibly relieve some local tax
pressures and, imo, help out smaller businesses to compete in a
more effective manner against the big retailers.

[badger]

Perhaps the answer is for it to fail on a federal level, and have the states implement their own plans that suit each state's needs. After all, as my Delaware relatives loved to say, they don't have sales tax. There are still other states that don't charge sales tax to some people (think food stamps) or for some things (Texas groceries I think?) so perhaps this was never a federal issue to begin with.

If there is a court decision that must be overturned to implement this, then yes, the federal government does need to do something about it. But, if it's just a matter that states can make their own rules (similar to how states make their own sales taxes on local and statewide levels), then the federal government should butt out

[olevetonahill]

Biggist problem is going to be implimentation...supposed to be a
requirement of the states to supply computer programs for all 50
states, but, listening to some questions about refunds, etc, it will
be a can of worms. The bill doesn't provide for much of anything
along those lines. Interesting that some who do a lot of internet
shopping are pretty vocal in their disagreement.

Some retailers already price their products on line differently than
in their brick and mortar fronts. If all the kinks are worked out it
will boost the states' income and possibly relieve some local tax
pressures and, imo, help out smaller businesses to compete in a
more effective manner against the big retailers.


But in reality bro. How much does the average person spend online?Im sure there are some that prolly shop exclusively online , and Others who have NEVER done so.

I might spend an average of MAYBE 20 bucks a month if ya take every thing Ive ever bot in the last 3 years and I doubt its even been that high.

[rock on sooner]

But in reality bro. How much does the average person spend online?Im sure there are some that prolly shop exclusively online , and Others who have NEVER done so.

I might spend an average of MAYBE 20 bucks a month if ya take every thing Ive ever bot in the last 3 years and I doubt its even been that high.

I'm guessing, mind you, but since on line business is reported to be
in the multi-billions annually (I saw one report that 226 million in taxes
went uncollected) that there is more than you think. In my small
circle, my adult kids and wife do a lot and, judging by how often Fedex
Ground and UPS are in the neighborhood, that a lot of my neighbors
do, as well.

Only problem with Badger's point, imo, is that if it is up to the states
then there will be a huge train wreck, with 50 different plans. This is
one issue that the Feds probably should handle.

[olevetonahill]

I'm guessing, mind you, but since on line business is reported to be
in the multi-billions annually (I saw one report that 226 million in taxes
went uncollected) that there is more than you think. In my small
circle, my adult kids and wife do a lot and, judging by how often Fedex
Ground and UPS are in the neighborhood, that a lot of my neighbors
do, as well.

Only problem with Badger's point, imo, is that if it is up to the states
then there will be a huge train wreck, with 50 different plans. This is
one issue that the Feds probably should handle.

Yup Since it involves INTER state commerce and such

[badger]

Yup Since it involves INTER state commerce and such

So can we all agree that the feds must do something, even if it's not what the U.S. Senate just passed, in order to prevent states from trying to take action themselves?

Can we also all agree that the status quo is not going to happen regardless, as some states feel that these are sales taxes owed to them that must be collected by some means, either through federal or state action?

I don't expect us all to agree on several things:

1- That Internet sales tax should/shouldn't be collected.
2- That what passed the Senate is the best/worst course of action to take on this issue.
3- That Internet stores are on an even/uneven playing field with brick & mortar stores.

I think we've established that disagreement in the first four pages.

Now, can we all agree on the top two, while still disagreeing with the bottom 3?

[rock on sooner]

Welp, if we all agree and agree to disagree then all the
fun's gone:biggrin:

[pphilfran]

So can we all agree that the feds must do something, even if it's not what the U.S. Senate just passed, in order to prevent states from trying to take action themselves?

Can we also all agree that the status quo is not going to happen regardless, as some states feel that these are sales taxes owed to them that must be collected by some means, either through federal or state action?

I don't expect us all to agree on several things:

1- That Internet sales tax should/shouldn't be collected.
2- That what passed the Senate is the best/worst course of action to take on this issue.
3- That Internet stores are on an even/uneven playing field with brick & mortar stores.

I think we've established that disagreement in the first four pages.

Now, can we all agree on the top two, while still disagreeing with the bottom 3?

Agree? NEVER!

[badger]

Welp, if we all agree and agree to disagree then all the
fun's gone


Agree? NEVER!

I wonder if this is what the U.S. House is saying to the U.S. Senate right about now. :P

[SoonerBBall]

So can we all agree that the feds must do something, even if it's not what the U.S. Senate just passed, in order to prevent states from trying to take action themselves?

Can we also all agree that the status quo is not going to happen regardless, as some states feel that these are sales taxes owed to them that must be collected by some means, either through federal or state action?

I don't expect us all to agree on several things:

1- That Internet sales tax should/shouldn't be collected.
2- That what passed the Senate is the best/worst course of action to take on this issue.
3- That Internet stores are on an even/uneven playing field with brick & mortar stores.

I think we've established that disagreement in the first four pages.

Now, can we all agree on the top two, while still disagreeing with the bottom 3?

I disagree. I don't care what states think they are owed. Governments (federal, state, local, and smaller) are doing everything they can to drag their feet entering the digital age. We should be forcing them to change their policies to adapt to the future, not allowing them to stick to the past at our expense. If a state on its own can come up with a creative solution to the problem without overreaching their sovereignty or harming their citizens, good on them. The federal government needs to stay out of it or take over the job of sales taxation completely. Anything else is a half-assed, untenable solution that will pick winners (Amazon, Best Buy, Walmart, state government *******s) and losers (nearly everyone else).

[rock on sooner]

I wonder if this is what the U.S. House is saying to the U.S. Senate right about now. :P

Naw, that's what the House is sayin to itself!

[KABOOKIE]

And the lemmings just pay the tax to the government.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

And the lemmings just pay the tax to the government.Lemmings who don't feed their lice become victimized by a lice infestation...or, if enough of the lemmings vote for lice, their wishes come true.

[badger]

All right STOP. Collaborate and listen. Lice is back with a brand new invention