- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: States Want to Force Online Retailers to Collect Billions in Sales Tax
Posted on 4/18/18 at 9:15 am to Mingo Was His NameO
Posted on 4/18/18 at 9:15 am to Mingo Was His NameO
quote:
When did YOU pay tax on it the first time?
As if that's a reasonable defense.
Come on, you know this shite is BS.
2
Posted on 4/18/18 at 9:15 am to Will Cover
Everyone wants to save money. Buying on line and not paying sales(use) taxes can save you 10% in EBR.
That's a good chunk of money.
But there is a problem with buying on line.
First and mots important of all it costs locals jobs. Local retailers can't compete as well with an extra 10 per cent mark up. In our capitalistic system there's nothing "wrong" with that, but in this case the "extra" 10 per cent is not because someone is more efficient, smarter, or better; it's because the government is handicapping one retailer and not the other.
Second, it also screws up the state, and local governments who budget based on a history of sales tax collection. No one likes paying taxes, but most of us understand that taxes are necessary to pay for essential services, schools, etc. If the governments don't collect taxes on out of state retailers then they'll either have to cut important services or raise taxes another way.
But this is just another problem progress has presented us. Let's hope they figure it all out and we can keep enjoying the on line business and the freedom you have in looking on line and purchasing what you need without going to the store.
That's a good chunk of money.
But there is a problem with buying on line.
First and mots important of all it costs locals jobs. Local retailers can't compete as well with an extra 10 per cent mark up. In our capitalistic system there's nothing "wrong" with that, but in this case the "extra" 10 per cent is not because someone is more efficient, smarter, or better; it's because the government is handicapping one retailer and not the other.
Second, it also screws up the state, and local governments who budget based on a history of sales tax collection. No one likes paying taxes, but most of us understand that taxes are necessary to pay for essential services, schools, etc. If the governments don't collect taxes on out of state retailers then they'll either have to cut important services or raise taxes another way.
But this is just another problem progress has presented us. Let's hope they figure it all out and we can keep enjoying the on line business and the freedom you have in looking on line and purchasing what you need without going to the store.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 9:16 am to slackster
quote:But it makes things EQUAL!
Come on, you know this shite is BS.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 9:18 am to slackster
quote:
As if that's a reasonable defense.
Come on, you know this shite is BS.
I don't disagree with you there. Once tax is paid once, if it's resolf that should just be built into the resale price.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 9:19 am to doubleb
quote:
Everyone wants to save money. Buying on line and not paying sales(use) taxes can save you 10% in EBR. That's a good chunk of money.
Sales tax is nothing compared to the savings you get many times in the super low mark up simply because many businesses with these online websites don’t even touch the product. They just ship directly from the manufacturer to the customer. It’s money they would never see otherwise, and all they are doing is facilitating a transaction.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 9:24 am to WavinWilly
quote:
What a bad excuse from the likes of Amazon. One of the biggest companies can't figure out how to set up sales taxes for different states?? If you want a competitive advantage, at least come up with a better excuse.
Amazon is just playing from the deck the government has dealt.
The federal government has purview over interstate commerce/transactions but as yet has not provided any guidance on how to consider taxation on internet sales.
If someone calls a store that is out of state and buys a widget from them via a phone call and/or mail then the sale is considered to take place at that store. The differences in purchasing something over the internet are not enough to create a whole new series of encumbering laws, just state that the sale occurs where the server that runs the actual transaction resides and leave it at that.
Easy. Peasy.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 9:41 am to WavinWilly
quote:
What a bad excuse from the likes of Amazon. One of the biggest companies can't figure out how to set up sales taxes for different states?? If you want a competitive advantage, at least come up with a better excuse.
TROOTH. MY mom and gf freaked out getting their statements from online retailers and the idea of them 'owing' taxes to La for stuff.
It's in e-tailers' best interest to cackalate/pay the taxes for customers.
quote:
The federal government has purview over interstate commerce/transactions but as yet has not provided any guidance on how to consider taxation on internet sales.
I was JUST About to post that question. Can't the Feds make them do whatever they want under ICC?
This post was edited on 4/18/18 at 9:42 am
Posted on 4/18/18 at 9:48 am to mikelbr
quote:
Can't the Feds
Hmmm. We are going to let the government decide if it should get more tax money or less? Let me make a wild guess what they are going to choose.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:01 am to Will Cover
There is and has been a provision in the tax code for reporting online purchases that you did not pay state sales tax on.
1) If you purchase items online and do not report the purchases and pay the proper sales tax, You are the Problem.
2) Because their are so many of You now that are the problem, there needs to at least a provision for online businesses to report your purchases to the IRS so that you can pay what you owe since you have proven unreliable to do so yourselves.
3) It's really a simple process but cheaters don't want to pay their fair share of taxes, and businesses will keep fighting it because if they lose their "no tax carrot" to dangle the sheeple shoppers may likely just go back to buying local if there is no advantage to shopping online.
Plain and simple.
1) If you purchase items online and do not report the purchases and pay the proper sales tax, You are the Problem.
2) Because their are so many of You now that are the problem, there needs to at least a provision for online businesses to report your purchases to the IRS so that you can pay what you owe since you have proven unreliable to do so yourselves.
3) It's really a simple process but cheaters don't want to pay their fair share of taxes, and businesses will keep fighting it because if they lose their "no tax carrot" to dangle the sheeple shoppers may likely just go back to buying local if there is no advantage to shopping online.
Plain and simple.
This post was edited on 4/18/18 at 12:09 pm
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:26 am to Will Cover
I sell on my own website, I sell on eBay, I sell on Amazon and various other platforms. I collect state sales tax on in-state (Texas) sales on all platforms. My company was audited by the state of Texas about two years ago to verify collection and payment of all sales made in Texas, including online sales. Glad I was collecting and paying them....could have been very painful.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 10:57 am to Will Cover
Commerce clause applies. Congress can always change the law.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 11:19 am to Mike da Tigah
quote:
Sales tax is nothing compared to the savings you get many times in the super low mark up simply because many businesses with these online websites don’t even touch the product. They just ship directly from the manufacturer to the customer. It’s money they would never see otherwise, and all they are doing is facilitating a transaction.
And that's fine. It's a market based issue. Taxing one retailer and not another is not a market issue, it's the govt. picking winners and losers.
Tax should be the same IMHO.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 11:35 am to doubleb
Is it really that much of a burden for business owners? If I am the states, I would spend a couple hundred thousand to create an open/free online service that anyone can use that manages taxes owed depending on the location of the buyer. It's not rocket science. In fact, they probably should have gone ahead and done just that when this case started. It would make any case about the burden on businesses a moot point.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 12:10 pm to FCP
quote:
FWIW, I heard a report yesterday that said in addition to the thousands of different taxing jurisdictions in the US, there are places where a Snickers bar is taxed differently from a Twix. I can hardly comprehend the complexity facing online retailers trying to comply with the varied and arcane tax laws in 50 states, much less all the different jurisdictions within those states.
I helped a Walmart.com third party seller build a sales tax file. You basically have to figure out the correct category for each item, and assign the corresponding 7 digit code. Walmart uses that plus the buyer's ZIP code do calculate the tax.
Large online sellers can do this quite easily. Smaller businesses will have to rely on their ecommerce platform or the host site (Amazon/Walmart) to do the math. Which they will gladly do...for a fee.
Better idea might be to treat all transactions as occurring in the seller's location.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 12:29 pm to Will Cover
Another issue is that sales taxes, at least in Alabama, or broken up to State, County, and City sales taxes that adds up to the total sales tax.
I believe the 8% that Amazon collects goes to the state only. Otherwise, the state only originally kept about 50% of the total sales tax. Now, the state keeps it all, and the city or county gets none.
I believe the 8% that Amazon collects goes to the state only. Otherwise, the state only originally kept about 50% of the total sales tax. Now, the state keeps it all, and the city or county gets none.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 1:01 pm to doubleb
quote:
First and mots important of all it costs locals jobs. Local retailers can't compete as well with an extra 10 per cent mark up. In our capitalistic system there's nothing "wrong" with that, but in this case the "extra" 10 per cent is not because someone is more efficient, smarter, or better; it's because the government is handicapping one retailer and not the other. Second, it also screws up the state, and local governments who budget based on a history of sales tax collection. No one likes paying taxes, but most of us understand that taxes are necessary to pay for essential services, schools, etc. If the governments don't collect taxes on out of state retailers then they'll either have to cut important services or raise taxes another way.
See, I agree, that sounds good in theory. Everyone wants more, better, higher-paying jobs. In reality though, the owner is just going to pocket the difference and make do with as little staff as possible. That's just the way things are these days. Business has become very good at hiring just enough people to keep from going under.
And on the 2nd part, government needs to cut spending. Period. They'll never have enough. There is always something else that they need more money for. And why wouldn't they? The money taken from us is just numbers on a spreadsheet. There is a huge disconnect between government and the people on the ground.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 1:49 pm to CivilTiger83
quote:
Is it really that much of a burden for business owners? If I am the states, I would spend a couple hundred thousand to create an open/free online service that anyone can use that manages taxes owed depending on the location of the buyer. It's not rocket science. In fact, they probably should have gone ahead and done just that when this case started. It would make any case about the burden on businesses a moot point
There's over 12,000 taxing jurisdictions in the US. You have state, city, county/parish, school board, transit authorities, special district, hospital districs, and dozens of others. Then you throw in the complexity of what is/isn't taxable, in Texas for example for oil and gas if something is used down hole it's nontaxable, but the same exact piece of equipment or whatever is taxable if it's used on the surface. The snickers/twix example. Twix is nontaxable because it contains flour therefore it's food. Since snickers doesn't contain flour so it's taxable.
Designing tax engines is a huge expense for companies, and $100,000 isn't that much money to have to collect and remit tax. Throw in the administrative burden of filing returns and remitting the tax and it's a huge investment.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 1:50 pm to East Coast Band
quote:
I believe the 8% that Amazon collects goes to the state only.
That's incorrect.
Posted on 4/18/18 at 2:26 pm to Will Cover
quote:
The case will also affect e-commerce behemoth Amazon.com Inc., though less directly. The company now charges consumers in every state that imposes a sales tax, but only when selling products that come from its own inventory. About half of Amazon’s sales involve goods owned by third-party merchants, many of which don’t collect tax.
So is Amazon just doing this voluntarily right now?
Posted on 4/18/18 at 2:33 pm to Kingpenm3
We should just eliminate the sales tax and replace it with income/gains taxes.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News