maddogdrivethru.net

Open all night
It is currently Sat Dec 15, 2018 3:47 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Yet More Taxes: Internet transactions is up next
PostPosted: Wed Apr 22, 2009 4:04 pm 
Offline
Oppressive Tyrant and Enemy of Truth
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 6:06 pm
Posts: 15500
Location: under the porch
Reputation points: 16468
A lot of "the poor" are too stupid to realize how much they're paying in taxes. If your landlord is paying $2400 a year in property taxes on the apartment you're renting, then you're paying $200.00 a month in taxes.

_________________
First, we must kill moose and squirrel


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Yet More Taxes: Internet transactions is up next
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 12:41 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 31659
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... urt-review

Quote:
U.S. Supreme Court to Review Bid to Collect Internet Sales Tax

By Greg Stohr
January 12, 2018, 2:46 PM EST Updated on January 12, 2018, 5:11 PM EST

    South Dakota says 1992 ban on many tax collections is obsolete
    States could have collected $13 billion more in 2017, GAO says

The U.S. Supreme Court will consider freeing state and local governments to collect billions of dollars in sales taxes from online retailers, agreeing to revisit a 26-year-old ruling that has made much of the internet a tax-free zone.

Heeding calls from traditional retailers and dozens of states, the justices said they’ll hear South Dakota’s contention that the 1992 ruling is obsolete in the e-commerce era and should be overturned.

State and local governments could have collected up to $13 billion more in 2017 if they’d been allowed to require sales tax payments from online merchants and other remote sellers, according to a report from the Government Accountability Office, Congress’s nonpartisan audit and research agency. Other estimates are even higher. All but five states impose sales taxes.


Online retailers Wayfair Inc., Overstock.com Inc. and Newegg Inc. are opposing South Dakota in the court fight. Each collects sales taxes from customers in only some states.

The case will also affect Amazon.com Inc., though the biggest online retailer isn’t directly involved. When selling its own inventory, Amazon charges sales tax in every state that imposes one, but about half of its sales involve goods owned by third-party merchants. For those items, the company says it’s up to the sellers to collect any taxes, and many don’t.

The court probably will hear arguments in April with a ruling by the end of its nine-month term in late June.

‘Physical Presence’
The high court’s 1992 Quill v. North Dakota ruling, which involved a mail-order company, said retailers can be forced to collect taxes only in states where the company has a “physical presence.” The court invoked the so-called dormant commerce clause, a judge-created legal doctrine that bars states from interfering with interstate commerce unless authorized by Congress.

South Dakota passed its law in 2016 with an eye toward overturning the Quill decision. It requires retailers with more than $100,000 in annual sales in the state to pay a 4.5 percent tax on purchases. Soon after enacting the law, the state filed suit and asked the courts to declare the measure constitutional.

“States’ inability to effectively collect sales tax from internet sellers imposes crushing harm on state treasuries and brick-and-mortar retailers alike,” South Dakota said in its Supreme Court appeal.

Wayfair, Overstock and Newegg said the court should reject the appeal and leave it to Congress to set the rules for online taxes.

Expressing Doubts
“If Quill is overruled, the burdens will fall primarily on small and medium-size companies whose access to a national market will be stifled,” the companies argued. “Congress can address this issue in a balanced and comprehensive manner through legislation.”

Those supporting South Dakota at the high court include 35 other states, as well as lawmakers who say they’ve been trying for years to get Congress to address the issue.

Overturning Quill would mean "leveling the playing field for businesses who are employing people on Main Street," Senator Heidi Heitkamp, a North Dakota Democrat, said in an interview. Heitkamp was North Dakota’s tax commissioner during its unsuccessful fight for taxing power in the Quill case.

The National Retail Federation, which represents both brick-and-mortar and Internet-only sellers, said it was encouraged by the court’s decision to get involved. “We are hopeful it will lead to a positive outcome that reflects the realities of 21st century commerce,” the trade group’s president, Matthew Shay, said in a statement.

Three current justices -- Clarence Thomas, Neil Gorsuch and Anthony Kennedy -- have expressed doubts about Quill. Kennedy said in 2015 that Quill had produced a “startling revenue shortfall” in many states, as well as “unfairness” to local retailers and their customers.

“A case questionable even when decided, Quill now harms states to a degree far greater than could have been anticipated earlier,” Kennedy wrote. “It should be left in place only if a powerful showing can be made that its rationale is still correct.”

Gorsuch, the newest Supreme Court justice, suggested skepticism about Quill as an appeals court judge. And Thomas has said he would jettison the entire dormant commerce clause, saying “it has no basis in the Constitution and has proved unworkable in practice.”

Amazon backs a nationwide approach that would relieve retailers from dealing with a patchwork of state laws. Amazon once relied on the Quill ruling and didn’t collect sales tax at all; the company gradually changed its position as it built warehouses all over the country, giving it a greater physical presence in multiple states.

The case is South Dakota v. Wayfair, 17-494.


_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Yet More Taxes: Internet transactions is up next
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 2:25 pm 
Offline
Hair in the soap
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 12:46 am
Posts: 19269
Reputation points: 18052
There's one thing career politicians tend to vote together on more often, despite party affiliation.

When voting to add taxes to un-taxed transactions. So they can get more funds to skim and purchase favor with.

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Yet More Taxes: Internet transactions is up next
PostPosted: Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:50 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 1:49 pm
Posts: 10475
Reputation points: 18507
Ppl who buy goods online should be required to pay their local sales tax where their goods are delivered. This is a no brainer.

There's no legal conduit to make that happen. States won't collect each other's county sales taxes. Nor should they be expected to.

It's sort of a cluster fuck.

If fucks over local retailers b/c ppl will come in and try the product provided, waste a salespersons's time for an hour - then order it online to save 6 percent local sales tax.

Still, it's none of the fedril gobmint's bidness.

_________________
This post was prepared by C_S as a service to the Internet community. It is intended, but not promised nor guaranteed to be correct, complete, or up to date. Do not act or rely on any of this information without first seeking the advice of an attorney


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Yet More Taxes: Internet transactions is up next
PostPosted: Sun Jun 24, 2018 9:27 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 9:50 pm
Posts: 31659
Location: West coast of the east coast
Reputation points: 20000
https://uk.news.yahoo.com/online-seller ... ccounter=1

Quote:
Online sellers consider how to comply with sales tax ruling

Associated Press
Joyce m. Rosenberg, AP Business Writer
Associated Press
23 June 2018

NEW YORK (AP) -- While a Supreme Court ruling on sales taxes will create more obligations and expenses for many small online retailers, owners are already thinking about how they'll comply.

The decision allows states to require out-of-state businesses to collect sales tax from customers in other states — for example, a retailer in Utah who sells goods to a customer in New York would have to calculate and collect the New York sales tax. The ruling potentially means thousands of small businesses that never collected sales tax except in their home states will be responsible for tax in some 10,000 state and local jurisdictions nationwide.

The ruling has angered many small online retailers and advocates for small companies because it will increase their expenses, mostly from the cost of software and services to help sellers collect the taxes and send the money to state authorities. But brick-and-mortar retailers who have had to collect tax simply because they have a store, office or warehouse in a state say the court has leveled the playing field, as online retailers will no longer have an advantage created by tax-free shopping.

The decision overturned two decades-old Supreme Court decisions that allowed companies without a physical presence in a state to avoid collecting sales tax. The internet has changed retailing, and Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the new decision, said, "each year, the physical presence rule becomes further removed from economic reality." Kennedy also noted the existence of software that "may make it easier for small businesses to cope" with compliance.

Some internet retailers are shrugging and making plans to adhere to the new rules.

"I'll do what needs to be done and get it taken care of," said Dave "Lando" Landis, owner of Rocker Rags, a New Mexico-based online seller of clothing with photos and logos of rock musicians. "It's not something that needs to be a panic situation."

Adrienne Kosewicz who pays $3,300 a year for tax compliance software for sales in her home state, Washington, expects that collecting taxes in other states will raise costs by a manageable 10 percent at her Seattle-based online business, Play It Safe World Toys.

The cost can be reduced for retailers who sell to customers in the 24 states that participate in the Streamlined Sales Tax Agreement, a plan aimed at simplifying tax collection. Under the agreement, retailers can use a sales tax compliance service of their choice without charge for transactions in the participating states, according to Craig Johnson, executive director of the Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board.

There are still many unknowns. The ruling upheld a South Dakota law that exempts sellers with $100,000 or less in sales in the state. Other states are free to set their own thresholds, and it's not known what they might be or how long it would take for all the states to weigh in, says David Campbell, CEO of TaxCloud, a provider of tax compliance software. It's also not known if Congress might set a uniform ceiling that all states would have to adhere to.

Kosewicz says for her, sales may not reach the threshold in each state.

States also still must announce dates by which retailers must be in compliance, says Scott Peterson, a vice president at Avalara, a manufacturer of tax collection software. He suggests retailers consult with their accountants to determine the states where they should be in compliance.

The tax compliance software and services are designed to work with the programs retailers use to process their sales transactions. They are linked to databases that track tax rates in the 45 states that charge sales tax, and in the thousands of counties and municipalities that have their own taxes.

But using the compliance services won't be without complications, says Jamie Yesnowitz, an accountant specializing in state and local taxes with the firm Grant Thornton.

"It's not as easy as pushing a button," because businesses will need to make decisions about where they're going to collect tax, Yesnowitz says. If a company doesn't expect to reach the threshold in a state, it may decide not to collect tax.

Owners will also have to absorb the costs of complying, or pass it along to customers — something they want to avoid.

"There must be another piece of overhead someplace else to reduce," says Bob Cuddihy, owner of True Citrus, a Baltimore-based online seller of drink mixes, water bottles and apparel. He's concerned about consumers cutting back their purchases when they see they have to pay sales tax, but he also believes in time they'll get used to the added cost.

Owners who have never collected out-of-state sales tax will need to get up to speed. Betty Lou Kranz initially worried about being able to stay in business if she had to track tax rates in hundreds of jurisdictions where her Port Jervis, New York-based company, The Pretzel Princess, sells candy and snacks.

"I will be learning a lot in the next couple of months," Kranz says.

The ruling also concerns some small business advocates, who see it as government interference in business. "It's taxes and regulation all combined in one unfortunate tax," says Raymond Keating, chief economist with the Small Business & Entrepreneurship Council.

But to brick-and-mortar stores, the ruling righted a decades-old imbalance that favored internet retailers and led to the demise of thousands of merchants.

"They've been getting an unfair advantage for 20 years. As much as I like the internet, real harm has been done," says Mike Brey, owner of two Hobby Works stores in Maryland. Brey, who also has an online business, has closed three stores. He plans keep building his internet business, and expects his company will eventually pass whatever thresholds are set in all the states.

Businesses that aren't traditional retailers hope they'll get back lost sales. Among them: veterinarians who write prescriptions for medicine and special food that clients have been able to buy tax-free online.

"Vets all over the country have lost a lot of income for a long time," says Dr. John de Jong, owner of Newton Animal Hospital in Massachusetts and president-elect of the American Veterinary Medical Association. He estimates his practice loses more than $75,000 in sales annually to online stores.

_____

Follow Joyce Rosenberg at http://www.twitter.com/JoyceMRosenberg. Her work can be found here: https://apnews.com/search/joyce%20rosenberg



Large online retailers like Amazon will be able to handle this process...they were already doing it in some jurisdictions, and they have an army of accountants and tax lawyers that can monitor the ins and outs of collecting differing sales taxes in 10,000 different tax jurisdictions nationwide.

Who will be harmed most by this?
Smaller online retailers and mom and pop places that had over time expanded their online presence in order to compete with the bigger retailers.
They can't afford the accountants and attorneys that Amazon has.
They will be forced to utlize the sort of software mentioned in the article, or pay some third party firm to develop and monitor this process for them----in either case it will cut into their profit margins.

Will the removal of the prior advantage that some online retailers had of not charging sales tax be enough to draw customers back to their local merchants?
I don't know....but years of buying things from Amazon has probably developed into a habit that many consumers will not change now.

_________________
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public’s money.
- misattributed to Alexis De Tocqueville

No representations made as to the accuracy of info in posted news articles or links


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Yet More Taxes: Internet transactions is up next
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 8:28 am 
Offline
Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:09 am
Posts: 1679
Location: On the beach
Reputation points: 8777
Yep... tax Amazon for everything they sell. They have been getting away with highway robbery for years and at the same time destroying local businesses.

I would think most small businesses will welcome this news.

Whenever someone jumps up and shits themselves... in this case for the poor small businesses and how they will cope... it is almost always because they seek to protect the status quo.

P.S. Trump... please break up the Amazon monopoly.

_________________
"In this present crisis, Government is not the solution to our problem; Government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan

"Because in America, we don't worship Government; we worship God." - Donald Trump


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Yet More Taxes: Internet transactions is up next
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 9:46 am 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:43 pm
Posts: 16147
Reputation points: 720
Abandoning the net neutrality will cost you much more. ;)

Image

_________________
The trouble with the world is that the stupid are cocksure and the intelligent are full of doubt

Mit der Dummheit kämpfen selbst Götter vergebens.


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Yet More Taxes: Internet transactions is up next
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 1:24 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major

Joined: Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:44 am
Posts: 11606
Reputation points: 17050
Lucky bastards.

That shit doesn’t fly here!

_________________
“The gap in EU finances arising from the United Kingdom’s withdrawal and from the financing needs of new priorities need to be clearly acknowledged.” - Mario Monti


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Yet More Taxes: Internet transactions is up next
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 1:30 pm 
Offline
Sergeant Major
User avatar

Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2011 3:06 pm
Posts: 12117
Location: inside your worst nightmare
Reputation points: 16336
Lava wrote:
Yep... tax Amazon for everything they sell. They have been getting away with highway robbery for years and at the same time destroying local businesses.

I would think most small businesses will welcome this news.

Whenever someone jumps up and shits themselves... in this case for the poor small businesses and how they will cope... it is almost always because they seek to protect the status quo.

P.S. Trump... please break up the Amazon monopoly.


I forget, doesn't the concept of "monopoly" imply that the entity who is exerting the monopoly is somehow manipulating market forces to PREVENT other firms from entering that market?

I mean, it is more than just "being the only one who provides a specific type of product or service," isn't it?

If I'm correct, then I have a hard time considering Amazon to be a "monopoly." Bezos went way out on a limb like a decade or more ago to make all the necessary capital investments to make this business venture what it is today. It operated in the red for a very long time if I recall, but he always believed that eventually he would cross a threshold of product diversity, product volume and service volume which would tip the scale and allow the business to grow (both in terms of revenue/profit, and in terms of hiring/building/acqusitions growth).

In sum, Bezos seems to me to be the quintessential "Perfect Capitalist." Now granted, I might be wrong on something or not know about something, but that is how I see it.

Which makes me puzzled that anyone of a "conservative" or "libertarian" view would regard Amazon dimly; well, at least how it does business.

_________________
Anthro's NSFW Thread


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: Yet More Taxes: Internet transactions is up next
PostPosted: Mon Jun 25, 2018 9:52 pm 
Offline
Sergeant
User avatar

Joined: Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:09 am
Posts: 1679
Location: On the beach
Reputation points: 8777
Anthropoid wrote:
I forget, doesn't the concept of "monopoly" imply that the entity who is exerting the monopoly is somehow manipulating market forces to PREVENT other firms from entering that market?


And that is exactly what is happening, as Amazon uses predatory pricing to destroy competitors.

Look to the far right of the image for the 10 year change in market cap:
Image

Amazon not only is completely destroying it's competitors but it's practices mean that each year we see less and less small business startups. This is a pretty good overview:

https://www.thenation.com/article/amazo ... he-market/

_________________
"In this present crisis, Government is not the solution to our problem; Government is the problem." - Ronald Reagan

"Because in America, we don't worship Government; we worship God." - Donald Trump


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 30 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group