Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck The Internet Government Politics

States Push to Collect Online Sales Tax 395

Carl Bialik from the WSJ writes "On Saturday, 18 states will implement the Streamlined Sales Tax Project, which will make it easier to collect local and state sales taxes on purchases made over the Internet while offering amnesty on uncollected taxes. In their longstanding opposition to collect sales tax, many online retailers 'have cited a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that said that it would be too onerous for e-tailers to calculate all the permutations of differing state and local tax rates,' the Wall Street Journal reports. 'One goal of the project was to remove the ruling as a key defense for online merchants.' Is your state involved? 'The states that have signed on are Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota and West Virginia. Five more -- Arkansas, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming -- are in the process of finalizing the requirements needed to join, while Washington, Texas and Nevada are in earlier stages.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

States Push to Collect Online Sales Tax

Comments Filter:
  • Is it just me... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TJ_Phazerhacki ( 520002 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @12:00PM (#13685507) Journal
    Or are the only states on that list that don't appear to be blatent Tax-Farmers Texas, Nevada, and Washington? Why is it that none of the other states appear to contribute significantly to e-commerce, yet they think they need to tax for the products or services rendered elsewhere?

    Thank God you can still lie to servers about your location (sheesh...)

  • by Flamesplash ( 469287 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @12:02PM (#13685533) Homepage Journal
    They aren't alone, I think a LOT of states do it, but there's 0 enforcement. Just like the MA optional higher tax rate, who's seriously going to volunteer to give more money to their state gov?
  • by almeida ( 98786 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @12:02PM (#13685534)
    Massachusetts does the same thing.
  • Goodbye free lunch (Score:5, Insightful)

    by tnk1 ( 899206 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @12:04PM (#13685565)
    Well, it sucks that they are getting around to figuring out how to tax online purchases. However, I can't really fault them for doing it. As more and more sales go online, there is a real issue with decreasing tax revenues. It probably won't be a critical issue for decades, but the fact is that governments need taxes to operate and I've always tended to prefer sales taxes over income taxes.

  • Re:Great (Score:1, Insightful)

    by no reason to be here ( 218628 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @12:12PM (#13685661) Homepage
    Yet another attempt to distribute my hard earned wealth among those too lazy or incompetent to work work themselves. Just what I wanted!

    Yeah! just like those lazy aerospace engineers at NASA, and all those lazy-ass soldiers and sailors in Iraq. Damn gubmint comin' in and sealin' all mah money!
  • Re:Not quite (Score:4, Insightful)

    by swillden ( 191260 ) <shawn-ds@willden.org> on Friday September 30, 2005 @12:17PM (#13685712) Journal

    While I disagree with this arguement, it *could* be argued that the Internet creates a presence in every state, far beyond the old days of mail order catalogs.

    Seems like a pretty shaky argument. Because the buyer and seller can swap IP packets the seller has a local nexus? Exchanging messages over the Internet seems precisely analogous to exchanging bits of paper (catalogs and order forms) via the postal service.

  • by killmenow ( 184444 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @12:19PM (#13685728)
    Thank God you can still lie to servers about your location (sheesh...)
    Yeah, but...if it bases the tax calculation off of shipping location, how do you lie to it and still get your purchase delivered to where you are? Are you gonna ship to a drop location in the Cayman Islands and re-ship it to your true location? You'll end up paying a lot more in shipping than sales tax for most cases.
  • by csoto ( 220540 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @12:20PM (#13685736)
    For years, there was a myth that online sales were "cheaper" because you didn't pay sales tax. Rather, the truth is that states, counties and municipalities were being cheated out of collecting legal sales and use taxes.

    If you don't like sales tax, then fight your local/state sales and use taxes on principal. But as long as 7-11 down the street has to charge it, why should a company that's in another state be exempt?
  • by br00tus ( 528477 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @12:23PM (#13685779)
    I have been running "e-commerce" sites since 1997 when I set up a site that used Broadvision (and Taxware on the backend). Right now I run a site using osCommerce.

    The article mentions how some states consider candy different than other food as an example of the many little differences in tax code. Another one is different counties charge different taxes - in New York state, Queens county and Nassau county have slightly different tax rates. And then these tax rates change every time a new law is passed. So you have to update your tax tables whenever that happens. Most people who are truly concerned about this pay thousands to get regular Taxware updates. Luckily, right now I only have to worry about one state.

    Now in general terms, I would not mind if some flat, national tax were charged on items going from me to a consumer. I could just say "add x.y%" to every sale, just like everyone else would be doing. But the way this is being done is ridiculous. What has happened in the US is that federal taxes have remained the same, I suppose to pay for the increased military spending for the war in Iraq and whatnot, while money the federal government used to give to the states was cut. So now the states are all scrambling to get money, and since the politicians don't want to go after locals, they are fighting to gouge out of state people for taxes. So we have this mess. And it doesn't effect Amazon.com who can afford to pay for Taxware updates and whatnot, it hurts the small businessman like me, who now has a lot more work to do and may have to buy expensive Taxware updates to be in compliance with this. If one steps back and looks at the whole country, this is a ridiculous way to do things. It's not even that I have to pay the tax, if everyone else had to, it's that now I have to be concerned about not just the tax laws of each state, but the tax laws of each county in each state. It's ridiculous. So much for "state's rights".

  • by superpulpsicle ( 533373 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @12:24PM (#13685795)
    Actually this is not a calculating issue as the taxes would probably only be off by a small percentage. It's more of a political issue. No president wants the interest rates to fly upwards on their watch. No president wants to add internet tax on their watch either.

    If they matched internet tax with sales tax, then I can see a mega boom for online stores in Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon.

  • by Anita Coney ( 648748 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @12:25PM (#13685803) Homepage
    Article. I, Section. 10., Clause 2 specifically forbids states from collecting intrastate tariffs. But, for some strange reason if they call it a "use" tax it's ok. I'm also guessing that if the south reinstituted slavery under the term "Happy Fun Work" it'd be legal.

    Surely if I got to California and buy something, take it back to my state, I'm not obligated to pay a sales tax back here. And if I asked my brother to buy me something and bring it back from California, I wouldn't have to pay my state's sales tax. But for some reason, could it be greed?!, if I pay FedEx to bring it to me, suddenly I have to pay.

    I have NO problem paying sales tax. I think that if I buy something shipped from California, for example, California's sales tax should be added to the order. But I see no reason to flush the Constitution merely because states are greedy.
  • by lucabrasi999 ( 585141 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @12:27PM (#13685835) Journal
    I imagine that, when you are thinking of regulation interstate commerce, you are thinking of Justice Marshall's ruling in Gibbons v. Ogden [wikipedia.org]. That talks about the power of states to limit navigation of commerce between their borders. That ruling did not adress the legaility of a sales tax (a tax on consumption).
  • by Monkelectric ( 546685 ) <[moc.cirtceleknom] [ta] [todhsals]> on Friday September 30, 2005 @12:40PM (#13685961)
    You know what? I pay 42% *OFF THE TOP* (single-no deductions and make fairly decent money), California can go FUCK itself if It thinks i am paying an internet sales tax which it can just redistribute to illegal aliens in counties like San Bernardino where *30%* of the residents are on assistance. Thats right california, I'm telling you and your crooked legislature to fuck off. And yes I live in california. I'm sick of working my ASS off (12 hours days, everyday) so that the government can redistribute my education and my hard work to people. Becuase thats what its doing. I work 10 - 12 hour days everyday, and the first 5 or 6 hours of that the government takes. I want to pay no taxes and work 6 hours a day and have an easy life like all the people my taxes support.
  • by windowpain ( 211052 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @12:45PM (#13686019) Journal
    The article says "states and local governments will lose $18 billion in online sales tax in 2005".

    They're not losing that money. It's staying in the pockets of their citizens for them to spend or save as they see fit. All that's happening is that the money is not being filtered through the sticky fingers of the politicians on its path to supposedly benefit those citizens.
  • by lucabrasi999 ( 585141 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @12:48PM (#13686048) Journal
    I've always tended to prefer sales taxes over income taxes.

    Sales taxes always seem to be better at first glance. However, they do tend to have some pitfalls:


    1) They are regressive, especially if there is a sales tax on food and clothing. The poor pay a higher percentage of their income on sales tax than do the rich.
    2) They are not as "stable" as property taxes or even income taxes. When the economy goes downhill, the first thing that happens is that consumers stop buying goods. When that happens, your government tax revenue dries up. Take a look at what happened with the Florida State Budget during the most recent recession. While most states had budgetary problems, Florida, which depends primarily on sales taxes, had a huge crisis. With property taxes, the revenue level is fairly predicatable, year after year, which is why many school boards across this country prefer using property taxes to generate revenue.
    3) They can be complicated for retailers, especially in states that allow counties and municipalities to set their own sales tax rates.

    Personally, while I don't mind some sales tax, I prefer income taxes, since sales taxes are regressive in nature.

  • by I confirm I'm not a ( 720413 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @12:54PM (#13686124) Journal

    it's no wonder the poor need so much assistance over there with a regressive tax that massive.

    In VAT's defence, at least for the UK, when it was set up it was intended to be a luxery tax - a tax on cars, perfumes, colour teevees, etc. Even today certain things, like children's clothing, is VAT-exempt, and other things, like electricity (don't know about gas, etc) is VAT-rated at only 5%.

    But basically you're absolutely right - VAT's a regressive tax these days. Maybe we could argue that there's a case for standardising EU VAT downward, in line with US Sales Tax?!

  • by loucura! ( 247834 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @12:57PM (#13686155)
    What demands does an out-of-state company place upon the local infrastructure? They don't require police or fire protection from the local infrastructure, they don't use the telecommunications, they don't even use the roads that your hypothetical "local retailer". Since they require no services from the government local to the purchaser, why should they be required to collect and pay taxes for those services?
  • by Civil_Disobedient ( 261825 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @01:02PM (#13686217)
    Trash the income tax and just tax what people buy!

    This would put a far larger burden on those with lower incomes. For instance, the family making $50k a year spends most of it in living expenses (if not all of it, considering our outrageous consumer debt). But once living expenses are covered, the rest is "gravy". Certainly, those who pull in more money a year are going to be buying more expensive things (bigger homes, nicer cars, etc.) but by the large, they can also use that extra wealth to leverage more money (through investments, real-estate, etc.) Thus the rich get richer, while the poor and middle class stay in "their place."

    "So what!" you may decry. Well, unfortunately that creates a system where you start getting largely centralized accumulations of wealth. And as the saying goes, "It takes money to make money". The United States is already set up to give enormous advantages to those with cash (easier to raise capital, lower interest rates on loans, etc.); this would enable those "have's" to rapidly force those "kinda-have's" into "have-not's", and the "have-not's"--well... they haven't started charging rent for prison (yet).
  • by Alex P Keaton in da ( 882660 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @01:21PM (#13686423) Homepage
    The tax goes to where the item is delivered, or "used"
    It is the same way with counties and cars (and other big ticket items) here in Ohio- If I but a car in Cuyahoga County where the sales tax is 8%, but I live in Summit COunty where the tax is 7%, I pay 7% tax on the car....
    Technically, If you live in a high tax county, and buy stuff in a low tax county, you are supposed to send the county/Sate gov't the difference each year. But of course if you live in a low tax county and shop in a high tax county, you dont get a refund at the end of the year.
  • Red States (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday September 30, 2005 @01:21PM (#13686432)
    Okay, this is ridiculous. How can Republicans still claim to be for fewer taxes, when 17 of the 21 states listed are red states?
  • by dcavanaugh ( 248349 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @01:31PM (#13686562) Homepage
    I agree with your last sentence about cutting the pork, but you are wrong about everything else up to that point. Government expenditures always rise to meet revenue (and then some). Therefore if the Feds sent my $300 to my state government, they would have spent $350, which means they would still be looking to tax Internet sales. Government (at any level) won't even consider spending cuts until they have positive verification that the money is gone and borrowing is maxed out. The only way to put a limit on what government spends is to put a limit on how much they take in.
  • by YesIAmAScript ( 886271 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @01:33PM (#13686587)
    That says they have no ability to tax or regulate interstate commerce?

    The supreme law of the land does mean something, you know.
  • by tbone1 ( 309237 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @01:33PM (#13686590) Homepage
    They tax you when you make it, they tax you when you save it, they tax you when you spend it, they tax you when you win it, they tax you when you invest it, they tax you when you inherit it, they tax you when you buy food, they tax you when you buy clothing, they tax you when you buy shelter, they tax you when you do anything. In short, we are taxed for living until we are taxed to death.

    When is enough enough? I know we need taxes for things like policmen, firemen, the military, the courts, roads, etc, but fer cryin' out loud, when I have to work until July 1 just to pay my income, property, sales, gas, ticket, etc etc etc taxes, I'm ready to spend the winter at Valley Forge. If a politican and bureaucrat are getting less of our money to waste because there is no on-line sales tax, and they complain about it, then I for one am against any internet tax.

    *sigh* Sorry, I'll go cheer myself up by reading some Thomas Payne and James Madison ... until the government tries to ban those books.

  • by tbone1 ( 309237 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @01:42PM (#13686717) Homepage
    You were given lots of priveleges in life, so you have to give all your money to those who weren't. Right?

    No. First, this is America; you can earn in the top 3% of world income and qualify for poverty benefits here. And yes, America's cost of living is higher, but this is also a land where opportunity knocks, rings the doorbell, and looks in the window to see if you didn't hear. And while I don't mind helping people, I do mind being forced to help people, particularly those who wet their own nests. Then expect me to clean it up. And repeat the process. Again and again.

  • by jitterysquid ( 913188 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @01:46PM (#13686755)
    I am paying for the privilege of not being surrounded by slack-jawed morons with not a whit of education to their name. I am also paying for the privilege to deal almost exclusively with people who learned to cope with a forced social setting. Even if I do not partake of the educational services offered in my district directly, I indirectly benefit from it every time I interact with the world around me.

    Yes, I aware of the state of public education (in the US) today. Everything I said is true, in theory. It is the execution that leaves a lot to be desired.
  • by IthnkImParanoid ( 410494 ) * on Friday September 30, 2005 @01:53PM (#13686849)
    42%? Interesting. I make "fairly decent money" and my state income tax is about 5%. I played around with the Franchise Tax Board's tax table calculator, and couldn't get it to go over ~9.2%. Of course, my federal tax is 25%, so I'm assuming you're counting federal tax.

    Combining federal tax tables and state tax tables, I'd guess your income is at least $146,000 a year (33% federal + 9% state). If you are working 10-12 hours a day you are spending too much time at work. Scale back your lifestyle a bit. I make $47,000 (working eight hours a day) and am happy doing it.
  • by mankey wanker ( 673345 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @02:02PM (#13686931)
    Your problem isn't really what you pay, it's how they squander it away.

    My attitude is simply that if we are going to act like socialists (which we do), and pay taxes like socialists (which we do), then I want plenty of socialist programs (like universal healthcare) as enjoyed by other western countries.

    It would make the states more competitive in terms of cost of labor, I can tell you that.
  • Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @02:21PM (#13687139)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • by EastCoastSurfer ( 310758 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @02:28PM (#13687215)
    Anyone spending half their life at work should reassess their priorities, regardless of what society is taking from them.

    Why? They need to reassess to match your priorities? Thanks, but no thanks. Freedom allows all of us to make choices. If I want to make 50k/year and chill out that's fine, if I want to bust my ass and possibly make lots more that should be fine too. By society taking more than they are giving to individuals you actually take away one of the huge incentives to work hard and innovate.
  • by zxnos ( 813588 ) <zxnoss@gmail.com> on Friday September 30, 2005 @02:39PM (#13687317)
    who's seriously going to volunteer to give more money to their state gov?

    listening to all the people complain about bush's tax cuts then roughly half of the population should be giving more money to state and federal coffers. its not like you are being forced to pay less now. i think many people only want higher taxes to screw people they perceive as 'ultra-rich' as my favourite congresswoman calls any family that earns over $85,000 a year. i would call that decently middle class considering that u.s. per capita is about $40k.

  • by stuartkahler ( 569400 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @02:51PM (#13687456)
    A SHITTY house here costs 600k .
    So MOVE already! I'm so damn tired of people bitching about how their hovel costs half a million dollars. There are plenty of mid sized cities in america where you can buy a well maintained house in a nice neighborhood for about $100/sqft (1500 to 4000 sqft, your choice). If you're used to working 12 hours a day, you're probably not getting out much, so where you live shouldn't be an issue. If you have to take a pay cut from $150k to $100k, it will be well worth it. You'll likely save enough on taxes and mortgage interest to offset the income, and probably won't have to work such long hours. Plus, you're a lot less likely to lose your ass if the value of your house drops.

    You seem to hate it so much, what the hell made you want to live there in the first place?
  • Color me confused (Score:3, Insightful)

    by razmaspaz ( 568034 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @03:34PM (#13687866)
    I'm confused. How is buying something on the Internet (when the company is in another state no less) not INTERstate commerce? And since when did the constitution stop explicitly forbidding states from taxing interstate commerce? Now maybe it is arguable that the spirit of that law was that Nevada could not put a tax on goods passing from California to Utah, but I don't think the artlcie spells it out in those terms. I am pretty sure that no state is allowed to tax goods that pass across a border. Of course IANAL so I can't say for sure.
  • by manno ( 848709 ) on Friday September 30, 2005 @05:41PM (#13689077)
    go to McDonalds, Wendys, Burger King, what color isn't the skin of the person behind the counter? Do you honestly believe that the poor are poor because they're lazy? You're ignorant in the highest degree.

    In a lot of places we have created a social underclass, and in those places this republic, unfortunately, is just like the Roman one. Run on slavery, only this time it's socially except able. We put the "socially challenged" in worse schools, and let them drop out. We tell them you can't work here without x degree. Despite the fact that for the majority of jobs OTJT is the best education you can get.

    Is it intentional?

    Not at all, but is it what's happening? Yes.

    The poor get poorer, and the rich get richer. Do you believe that poor family's tend to stay poor, and rich family's tend to stay, rich because rich people are more motivated, better suited for success? Get a clue, mod me troll, ignorance such as yours serves no one.

    I was born poor white trash, into a family with 8 children, and a single mother. I'm well on my way to living a more successful life than her but I'm not ignorant to the fact that I had a LOT of help. Help not available to most people. That's why I'm where I am today.

    Yes I work hard, but no harder than the guys I used to work with when I was painting pools shoulder to shoulder with them.

    Yes I'm intelligent, but no more so than any one else I've worked with.

    I know for a fact that I'm where I am today simply because I have friends with friends with friends that pulled some strings and get me a break, to get that interview. And no matter what you say about affirmative action I know that when I go on an interview I have a leg up on a black applicant, or an applicant with an accent, just because I was born white into a family while broke for all intents and purposes, were well spoken.

    You have no idea how stacked in your favor were the cards, that allow you to sit in your position, and pass judgment on those that aren't as successful as you. Ignorance like this disgusts me.

Say "twenty-three-skiddoo" to logout.

Working...