Forum - View topicNEWS: U.S. Senate Passes Internet Sales Tax Bill
|
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 Next Note: this is the discussion thread for this article |
| Author | Message | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
R315r4z0r
 Posts: 717 |
|
|||||
|
As much as I dislike the idea of new taxes, I'm not really against this. Not paying taxes on online goods from outta state just felt like an extra bonus. As disapointing as this is to lose that bit of savings, this is how it should be.
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Mikeski
Posts: 608 Location: Minneapolis, MN |
|
|||||
|
Didn't we cover all this in the last 5 pages?
This isn't "new taxes". Any taxes collected this way were taxes you owed already. (Well, unless your state has a "don't send in out-of-state use tax unless it's more than X", then it's new taxes if you spend less than X.) It's "taxes that have always been there, but rather than trust our citizens to pay them, or let the states enforce their own laws, we're gonna bury online businesses under new federal regulations in an attempt to collect them that way. Because Amazon, or something." |
||||||
|
||||||
ValkyrieZeroZeroOne
 Posts: 432 Location: Brisbane, Australia |
|
|||||
|
Firstly, let me just say this discussion reminds me why I'm really glad I don't live in America. The tax system over there would drive me nuts. Over here in Australia, income taxes and GST (Goods and Services Tax our equivalent of Sales Tax or VAT) are the responsibility of the federal government. We only pay taxes directly to the state for property sales (stamp duty), payroll taxes (by employers), or to our municipalities for property taxes (called "Rates" here). Plus, for now at least, we don't pay import duties or sales taxes on personal use imports under $1,000 (and it doesn't appear like we ever will because the monies raised by such collection would not cover the cost of collecting them). Even if we did end up collecting them, there are a number of things that are so ridiculously marked up over here (to the point where we've recently had Apple, Microsoft, and Adobe among others before a Senate Enquiry to "please explain") that even with tax being added, it is often far cheaper than buying locally.
Secondly, I noted this bill still has to go through the House of Representatives, which is Republican-dominated. I didn't think those guys were into passing any sort of legislation where Americans wound up paying more tax - even if it is just to collect tax that technically should already be getting collected. |
||||||
|
||||||
YotaruVegeta
 Posts: 1061 Location: New York |
|
|||||
|
Alexander55, did you mean "manikins" or mannequins?
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Key
Moderator
 Posts: 18238 Location: Indianapolis, IN (formerly Mimiho Valley) |
|
|||||
|
So having to collect sales tax for Internet purchases is going to put companies out of business?
So collecting sales tax is going to have a substantial negative impact on how much people buy? Riiiight. Someone who's already willing to pay, say, $100 for a couple of Blu-Ray seasonal sets ordered online isn't going to suddenly not make those purchases just because they have to now pay an extra $5-7, especially if going to a non-taxed source would only get a price that's about the same with the tax figured in. No, the people that this would actually be a boon for are those that might only sell a few thousand dollars' worth of inventory a year on places like Amazon market. I'll freely admit that there could be simpler ways to do this - such as by, say, imposing a set sales tax figure for all Internet purchases - but I find it hard to regard this as the "doom and gloom" scenario that some are making this out to be. Also, let's stay away from the politics on this, people. This has been a reasonable thread so far, and I don't want it to get mired in the muck. |
||||||
|
||||||
prime_pm
 Posts: 2340 Location: Your Mother's Bedroom |
|
|||||
|
Well, the law won't come into play until at least past October, so start buying now while you still can.
Otherwise, if anybody wants to go down to the harbor dressed up like "injuns" throwing Amazon boxes into the ocean, your call. But, seriously, California alone has estimated almost two (that's f***ing 2) billion dollars worth of uncollected taxes thanks to online sales. New York, Florida and Texas, close to one billion each. I'm not particularly fond of this new bill, but, frankly, even I can tell when you just need to take one for the team. Otherwise, get ready to see a bunch of people moving to Montana or Delaware. |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Mesonoxian Eve
Posts: 1858 |
|
|||||
LOL. Perhaps the title be altered then, since the Senate is politics. I get what you mean, but this entire proposal wouldn't have started if politics stayed out of it. |
||||||
|
||||||
victor viper
 Posts: 630 Location: The deep south |
|
|||||
As I mentioned in an earlier post, the projections seem to be that this tax would bring about $20 billion per year in tax revenue. Given the low compliance rate with the use tax, this is $20 billion per year that must come from somewhere, be it reduced purchasing, reduced savings, or increased personal debt. Sure, for most individuals the effect will be negligible, but a potential reduction of $20 billion in commerce is nothing to sneeze at. I wouldn't even have a problem if the tax went to the state where the seller has established their physical presence (for instance, buy from Rightstuf, the state of Iowa gets a couple of tax dollars), as this would encourage giants like Amazon to build distribution centers (and create jobs!) in more tax-friendly locales, thus giving states an potential incentive to lower sales tax rates through competition. But, the states of course don't want that; they want free, easy, no-strings-attached revenues. As it sits now, it's confiscation pure and simple. |
||||||
|
||||||
Polycell
 Posts: 4623 |
|
|||||
|
||||||
|
||||||
|
Mikeski
Posts: 608 Location: Minneapolis, MN |
|
|||||
It would be interesting to hear where people think this $20,000,000,000 is going to come from, if not from reduced purchasing (and thus reduced tax revenues in other places, like income & corporate taxes), and how that reduction is not going to lead to layoffs or business closings (and thus the complete elimination of those people or businesses as tax sources)? Perhaps the average Amazon shopper keeps a stash of bills just to light up their cigars, and they'll be using those, and the businesses are so flush with cash that a few tens or hundreds of thousands here and there will just be lost in the noise on the balance sheet? I know when I worked retail (lo, so many years ago), we were told that shoplifting and damaged product was a big issue, because our average markup was only 2-3% or so. If fighting over $10 or $100 was a "big deal" then, I don't know why ~5-7% of a million+ wouldn't be now... And "Riiiight" is a rather snarky way to toe the party line right before telling us not to light up the political fires, isn't it? 
Edit in: The graph here relates to income tax, but the concept applies here as well, I think. It doesn't matter how the gov't tries to get money out of the population, what they get is going to be a pretty set percentage of the GDP (In this case, 19%, whether the top income tax rate was 28% or 92%... in fact, you can just ignore the top line and say "no matter what the feds do, they get no more than 19%, long term". I can think of no reason why the same wouldn't be true for the states, shuffling between sales/property/income/etc taxes). If the gov't wants more money, they should do everything in their power to grow the economy, and not play around with percentages of the pie, which has no effect in total. Last edited by Mikeski on Thu May 09, 2013 2:06 pm; edited 4 times in total |
||||||
|
||||||
|
Xanas
Posts: 2058 |
|
|||||
So you expect a thread about taxes not to have to do with politics. What exactly do you mean by the term "politics" in this context? It's an innately political subject. |
||||||
|
||||||
hikaru004
 Posts: 2306 |
|
|||||
Well.... I would only buy during extreme sales like at Thanksgiving to get more bang for the buck, especially if tax was added in. Nothing off sale. |
||||||
|
||||||
stove top stuffing
 Posts: 117 Location: "Orygun" NOT "Orygone" |
|
|||||
Speak for yourself. I am single with no dependents and make a decent wage. This means I get screwed when it comes to taxes. I pay my fair share and then some. It fills me with joy when I go to the corner store after work for some beer to see people buying tons of chips/soda/twinkies etc... with their food stamp card and yet believe it or not, after that purchase they whip out a fist full of bills to buy smokes and a fifth of whiskey. Yeah, glad to support people who need the help. At the end of the day it doesn't matter to me as I live in Oregon so sales tax will never apply. Everybody in southwest Washington already drive across the river to Oregon to buy everything tax free, so when they do, hopefully they will tack on that internet purchase they were thinking about. |
||||||
|
||||||
dizzon
 Posts: 338 |
|
|||||
|
Pretty informative discussion/debate if anyone's interested.
http://snd.sc/131kjeO |
||||||
|
||||||
Charred Knight
 Posts: 3085 |
|
|||||
People who want a new tv are going to buy that new tv. They are not going to just stop buying what they want just because of a small increase. I recently bought a new 3DS since I live in a rural part of Washington I bought it online so I didn't pay any taxes on it. If I had to pay taxes I would still buy it because I wanted to play Kid Icarus Uprising, and Project X Zone. I am not going to quibble over paying an extra 20 bucks to get what I want and I imagine thats the same for most people. |
||||||
|
||||||
 |
All times are GMT - 5 Hours |
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group