Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5577

The state of NJ forces Amazon to collect taxes on my purchases. They also force Steam to tax me on my game purchases. WHAT IS THIS TYRANNY?!


I was surprised to find out other states don't do this. I am not bothered by it though. NJ is taxed nearly as much as European countries so I am used to paying taxes on everything. Digital items are questionable but if Amazon uses the roads, and airports in order to deliver my package I think it is fair the state gets a cut. The dollar and change the state takes when they tax my $60 game isn't going to break my bank and I am saving it by not driving out to a store. You have to pay for everything you get somehow. I got to a state college so it is not like I am man apart from everything.   So yeah, I am okay with both.


So do you think online purchases and digital items should be taxed?
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6763|PNW

Should be taxed how other remote transactions are taxed. I even pay tax if I order shit from the UK.
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6708
that's why aussieland is awesome - no sales tax on online orders under 1000 AUD from the US
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4246

Cybargs wrote:

that's why aussieland is awesome - no sales tax on online orders under 1000 AUD from the US
except everything in aussieland already costs 2.5x as much for absolutely no fucking reason.

and in the EU, we already pax tax on online orders. this is nothing new.
-Whiteroom-
Pineapplewhat
+572|6650|BC, Canada

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Cybargs wrote:

that's why aussieland is awesome - no sales tax on online orders under 1000 AUD from the US
except everything in aussieland already costs 2.5x as much for absolutely no fucking reason.

and in the EU, we already pax tax on online orders. this is nothing new.
It's the same in NZ. I pay tax on most things I order online here in Canada, nothing to complain about. Why shouldn't we pay a  tax for items purchased online?
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4246
retailer located in country x, who has high-street stores and an online store, for convenience.

order online - pay no taxes!!!!!

how does that make sense?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5350|London, England
Because if the company has no physical presence in the state it acts as a tariff, and tariffs are illegal between states.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6708

Jay wrote:

Because if the company has no physical presence in the state it acts as a tariff, and tariffs are illegal between states.
Won't be too long till they consider that cyber presence = to physical presence.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5350|London, England

Cybargs wrote:

Jay wrote:

Because if the company has no physical presence in the state it acts as a tariff, and tariffs are illegal between states.
Won't be too long till they consider that cyber presence = to physical presence.
My state has already started taxing me on online purchases, but if you think about it, if I call up a store in a state without sales tax and order the product over the phone, where is the purchase being made? It's essentially equivalent to me standing at the counter and waiting in line to be rung up at the register. Same concept can be extended to buying something online. So if I'm purchasing a product in a state without sales tax in person and then transporting it back home, am I committing tax fraud? That's essentially their argument. Politicians just want revenue no matter the ethical dilemmas involved.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6708
it'll be more hilarious when you get doubled tax - when the originating state has a sales tax and your own state as well.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5350|London, England
I wouldn't put it past them, honestly.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5350|London, England
Then the feds will ride to the rescue with a VAT
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4246

Jay wrote:

Because if the company has no physical presence in the state it acts as a tariff, and tariffs are illegal between states.
"has a high street store" sure sounds like "has no physical presence in the state".
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5350|London, England

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Jay wrote:

Because if the company has no physical presence in the state it acts as a tariff, and tariffs are illegal between states.
"has a high street store" sure sounds like "has no physical presence in the state".
I wasn't aware that Amazon had retail outlets.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Uzique The Lesser
Banned
+382|4246
are warehouses, distribution centres, offices etc. not 'physical presences'? i.e. something that makes the company a little brick-and-mortar, as well as a supra-national website?
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5350|London, England
They are, but those can be localized to a region and don't necessarily have to be located in every state. Most of Amazon's distribution is based in Tennessee if I remember correctly.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6708

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

are warehouses, distribution centres, offices etc. not 'physical presences'? i.e. something that makes the company a little brick-and-mortar, as well as a supra-national website?
They don't have warehouses/ offices in every single state so a lot of their orders cross state lines are untaxed.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5350|London, England
They just deliver to UPS or Fedex which in turn distributes it.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
jsnipy
...
+3,276|6514|...

Jay wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

Jay wrote:

Because if the company has no physical presence in the state it acts as a tariff, and tariffs are illegal between states.
"has a high street store" sure sounds like "has no physical presence in the state".
I wasn't aware that Amazon had retail outlets.
At least in VA, we get taxed if the seller has any physical presence in the state (distribution center, etc)
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5350|London, England
The concept of sales tax is ridiculous anyway. The money being spent was already taxed when it was earned, and then it's taxed again when it's spent.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
jsnipy
...
+3,276|6514|...

Should just be an internet tax, then Canada get their internet money
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5350|London, England

jsnipy wrote:

Jay wrote:

Uzique The Lesser wrote:

"has a high street store" sure sounds like "has no physical presence in the state".
I wasn't aware that Amazon had retail outlets.
At least in VA, we get taxed if the seller has any physical presence in the state (distribution center, etc)
We do too now. It sucks. The worst part is that brick and mortar stores were the ones screaming loudest for the sales tax on online purchases because they thought it was 'unfair'. That may be, but most people still feel more comfortable shopping for stuff in person, even if it costs more. Like, I wouldn't buy a suit online, even though I know my measurements, because I can't feel the quality or see the actual color/pattern. For commodities like books, video games etc it's perfect, which makes big box stores like Best Buy and Barnes & Noble cry.

Last edited by Jay (2013-02-19 11:04:49)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|6708

Jay wrote:

jsnipy wrote:

Jay wrote:


I wasn't aware that Amazon had retail outlets.
At least in VA, we get taxed if the seller has any physical presence in the state (distribution center, etc)
We do too now. It sucks. The worst part is that brick and mortar stores were the ones screaming loudest for the sales tax on online purchases because they thought it was 'unfair'. That may be, but most people still feel more comfortable shopping for stuff in person, even if it costs more. Like, I wouldn't buy a suit online, even though I know my measurements, because I can't feel the quality or see the actual color/pattern. For commodities like books, video games etc it's perfect, which makes big box stores like Best Buy and Barnes & Noble cry.
That's what retailers told the aussie gov, omg it's so unfair then gov told them to fuck off since they're already overcharging aussies.
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5350|London, England

Cybargs wrote:

Jay wrote:

jsnipy wrote:


At least in VA, we get taxed if the seller has any physical presence in the state (distribution center, etc)
We do too now. It sucks. The worst part is that brick and mortar stores were the ones screaming loudest for the sales tax on online purchases because they thought it was 'unfair'. That may be, but most people still feel more comfortable shopping for stuff in person, even if it costs more. Like, I wouldn't buy a suit online, even though I know my measurements, because I can't feel the quality or see the actual color/pattern. For commodities like books, video games etc it's perfect, which makes big box stores like Best Buy and Barnes & Noble cry.
That's what retailers told the aussie gov, omg it's so unfair then gov told them to fuck off since they're already overcharging aussies.
My state government was happy to oblige them to help plug our budget deficit
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
Jay
Bork! Bork! Bork!
+2,006|5350|London, England
A bipartisan group of 35 House members and 18 senators introduced legislation on Thursday that would allow states to tax online purchases.

"This is gaining momentum, and this is the year to do it," Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), the lead Senate sponsor, said during a Capitol Hill press conference.
Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), the bill's top author in the House, said he is confident the measure will become law this year.

"I have talked to [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid [(D-Nev.)]. Harry Reid wants to bring this to the floor," Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said.

Many of the same lawmakers pushed similar legislation last year, but the measures never made it to the floor for a vote. The latest version of the bill, called the Marketplace Fairness Act, combines several proposals from the last Congress and includes revisions aimed at winning over skeptics.
The lawmakers argued that their bill would close an unfair loophole that benefits online retailers over local brick-and-mortar stores.

"Government shouldn't be in the business of picking winners and losers," Rep. Jackie Speier (D-Calif.) said.

Under current law, states can only collect sales taxes from retailers that have a physical presence in their state. People who order items online from another state are supposed to declare the purchases on their tax forms, but few do.

The Marketplace Fairness Act would empower states to tax online purchases. The bill would exempt small businesses that earn less than $1 million annually from out-of-state sales — an increase from the $500,000 threshold proposed last year.

Womack and Enzi argued that the measure is about states' rights, emphasizing that the proposal would not create any new taxes — it would only empower states to collect taxes that are already owed to them.

Enzi said states are collectively losing $23 billion every year because of their inability to tax online purchases.

The National Retail Federation is lobbying aggressively for the legislation.

"We need a level playing field to compete on," Scott Durchslag, the e-commerce president of Best Buy, said in an interview, adding that the bill is the company's top priority in Washington.

Online giant Amazon also backs the tax. The company reportedly has plans to expand its network of physical distribution centers, which would make it subject to state sales taxes under current law.

Critics of the bill say it would create a complicated new tax system and would stifle Internet commerce.

“Congress should reject any Internet sales tax legislation that throws a new tax barrier in front of small businesses," Tod Cohen, eBay's deputy general counsel, said in a statement.

Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist warned the legislation would be a nightmare to enforce.

"At the end of the year if there are any disputes over sales tax collection, the Virginia business would be subject to the New York Department of Revenue and New York Courts," he said in a statement.

At the press conference, the bill's sponsors argued that simple software could help retailers determine how much tax they owe for purchases from different states.

Durbin said he is trying to convince Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to take up the legislation.

"He has some concerns. We are trying to address them," Durbin acknowledged. "It is important that we bring this matter up sooner rather than later."
Baucus's home state of Montana is one of only five states without a sales tax.

Durbin also argued that Congress should consider the online sales tax as a standalone issue and should not try to wrap it into a large debate about reforming the federal tax code.

"It has nothing to do with federal tax revenue," Durbin argued.

The bill will head to the Judiciary Committee in the House, but committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) has shown little enthusiasm for the proposal in the past.

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), one of the new co-sponsors of the legislation and the former tax commissioner of North Dakota, was the losing party in the 1992 Supreme Court decision that ruled that, unless Congress changed the law, states cannot tax out-of-state retailers.
Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valle … z2LNJXHfw8

le sigh

I thought the highlighted part was funny because it's a Democrat using Republican language against them. I bet she felt witty after her remark.

Last edited by Jay (2013-02-19 11:34:46)

"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard