But that's not the way the law is written. They will be required to collect any and all sales taxes and you had better believe that every taxing entity that thinks they can collect another nicklel will have their hand out. And you're right an operation the size of Amazon could comply with current staffing but small operations can't. And what about all of the consigners in operations like E-Bay and Amazon Marketplace? After listening to the rep from the KY Retailers Assc. yesterday I have no doubt that the ultimate goal is to put online operations out of business.

 

Sent from my Samsung Stratosphere using Forum Runner

 

Didn't notice where any and all sales taxes would be collected. That would be a deal breaker. If it were limited to state sales tax I could go along with it. 46 sales tax entities would not be too difficult to deal with from an accounting standpoint.

Quite a bit of discussion on eBay about this right now.

 

A lot of talk about a "million dollar threshold". Some say that an individual seller must have $1 million annual sales - including their B&M operations - to be assessed state tax. Some seem to think that because eBay exceeds (duh) the $1 million mark; everyone under their umbrella gets assessed. Even though eBay is simply supplying a venue as opposed to actually selling goods.

 

Discussion as well as to what kind of paperwork/software would be involved; particularly when dealing with nearly 50 state tax structures.

If you buy a TV in Ohio you aren't paying Kentucky sales tax.

 

Nope but as soon as you bring that purchase over and put it into your house you owe KY Use tax on that TV. There is a good deal of misunderstanding about Sales and Use tax along with Income tax. When you purchase an item from outside KY period you owe use tax on it. So if you bought a TV in OH and got charged 7.5% sales tax you would get credit toward your use tax of that item up to 6% but there is a catch. OH might only have a state sales tax of 5% (this is just a number so I don't need an exact quote of what Oh sales tax is) the other 2.5% tax you paid went to whatever city in OH you purchased the TV at. So instead of getting 7.5% credit you only get 5% credit and still owe the other 1% to KY. Magazine subscriptions? Guess what you owe sales and use tax on those.

 

Now as far as the working in one state and living in another like the CA and KY example given by someone. KY gives you credit for taxes paid to another state. You might have to file a CA state return to get that money back so you can pay KY or get a larger refund. That honeslty is on your employer more than the states.

 

The example given with the car shows how different things can be from state to state. In KY I am pretty sure its not sales tax but motor vehicle uses tax that you pay. After that it is property tax. Of course I am sure we don't have anyone on here that lives in NKY and has an OH plate on their car so they don't have to pay property tax.

 

The whole sale and use tax on internet venders has been in the works by states (and states working together) since some where around 2002-2004 or so. The issue isn't as much the online vendors as much as tax payers refusing to pay tax in the manner they are suppose to. Where things get tricky is what is taxable is not the same from state to state. We don't pay tax on grocery items so there are certain items you could order online that would not be taxed in KY but the online retailor might still collect the tax because it is easier for them.

On the radio today I heard that there are something like 9600 distinct sales taxing districts in the United States each with unique standards for what is taxed and what is not. How can an online vendor possibly (or reasonably) be able to adequately accommodate all of them?

 

I would not surprise me if an industry were to be formed so companies can outsource their sales and use tax calculation, similar to how companies outsource their payroll to companies like ADP. Payroll has gotten so complicated that many companies have given up on doing it themselves. Sales and Use taxes may do the same thing.

If an internet tax mandate leveled the playing field, larger corporations wouldn't be the ones having a heavy lobbying influence on Congress. Larger corporations can dedicate entire departments for the purpose of handling new regulations. However, small businesses cannot and it will eat away at their capital, force them to cut hours, or shut down.

 

Along with the larger corporations, you have state officials, mostly governors, coming out in favor of the Internet Tax Mandate so they can find new programs to spend money on when they should be focusing on cutting spending within their own state. Chances are its probably in debt.

Internet Sales Tax passes the Senate.

 

What a bunch of tards.

Check the Wall Street Journal. Apparently in order to get R votes on this a concession had to be made by the Ds that only 1 taxing authority per state could audit an internet merchant (all local taxes would still be collected but each of the 9600 taxing entities nationwide would have to rely on their state auditor). Along the way the definition of a state was expanded to include territories like DC, Guam, Puerto Rico etc. Then Harry Reid expanded the definition to include tribal entities, so as passed by the Senate internet firms could be audited by over 500 separate taxing authorities.

 

LINK

 

Sent from my Samsung Stratosphere using Forum Runner

Enzi in the Wyoming Senator who wrote the bill.

 

The Enzi talking points say that only one tax collector per state will be allowed to audit a Web merchant. But on Saturday we told you about Mr. Enzi's reluctance to rule out the possibility that city and county bureaucrats might be able to harass these firms, too. Now we learn that even if all the tax collectors can restrain themselves to one auditing bureaucracy per state, the Senate has a new definition of "state." At press time not even Mr. Enzi knew the meaning.

I usually post here as conservative financially and not in favor of taxes, but this is one I am for. This levels the playing field between local retailers and internet retailers who automatically get a 6% eg. price break. This should be a good thing for local small businesses. If the internet retailer is more efficient and offers lower prices because of volume (what about shipping costs) then so be it. If it is because of taxes, that's not right.

I usually post here as conservative financially and not in favor of taxes, but this is one I am for. This levels the playing field between local retailers and internet retailers who automatically get a 6% eg. price break. This should be a good thing for local small businesses. If the internet retailer is more efficient and offers lower prices because of volume (what about shipping costs) then so be it. If it is because of taxes, that's not right.

 

But it doesn't "level the playing field". Make the online operations collect only the taxes where they are based then it's level and I could live with that. When you travel if you buy something you don't have sales tax from your home collected, you pay the sales tax where you purchase the goods.

But it doesn't "level the playing field". Make the online operations collect only the taxes where they are based then it's level and I could live with that. When you travel if you buy something you don't have sales tax from your home collected, you pay the sales tax where you purchase the goods.

 

This levels the playing field with the state where the buyer is purchasing the good. Otherwise it kicks the other way because there are states with higher sales taxes such as Tennessee (which doesn't have a personal income tax). In your case as well, look for a big rush of internet retailers to New Hampshire.

In order for this to be "FAIR" (I'm really starting to get tired of this wrod) then Brick and Mortars need to start collecting sales tax based on where the customer lives.

I usually post here as conservative financially and not in favor of taxes, but this is one I am for. This levels the playing field between local retailers and internet retailers who automatically get a 6% eg. price break. This should be a good thing for local small businesses. If the internet retailer is more efficient and offers lower prices because of volume (what about shipping costs) then so be it. If it is because of taxes, that's not right.

 

So instead of getting rid of the barriers for small businesses, you want to increase regulations on those who are fortunate enough not have to have that red tape?

 

This is only going to make it harder for smaller businesses to even get their foot in their door and compete. A lot of entrepreneurs start out on the internet. Its low cost and it allows them to see if their product is viable and wanted in the market before they decide to invest in a physical store.

 

I've said it before, no small business that operates via the internet wants this. Its the large corporations and online retailers like Amazon (Ebay is against this) who can afford the extra regulatory burden. The new guy on the block can not.

 

How discouraging would it be knowing that if you want to sell your product over the internet, you have to know every sales tax law in every state. Nobody would want this. They will end up being forced to hire a tax attorney just to sell flowers, jewelry, make logos, etc. That will be a lot of money. Money that they could be using to produce or invest in their product that they're trying to sell in this crap economy.

The internet scares the crap out of the government. They are already toe the line when it comes to invading our privacy over the internet. This is just another step for them being able to regulate it. The internet is one of the most productive, most prosperous entities ever known to man. The main reason is the amount of freedom through advertising, connecting, and constant innovation. The internet is a great example of what happens when buyers and sellers freely and voluntarily exchange their goods and services. Regulating it will in no way shape or form make anything fairer.

The internet scares the crap out of the government. They are already toe the line when it comes to invading our privacy over the internet. This is just another step for them being able to regulate it. The internet is one of the most productive, most prosperous entities ever known to man. The main reason is the amount of freedom through advertising, connecting, and constant innovation. The internet is a great example of what happens when buyers and sellers freely and voluntarily exchange their goods and services. Regulating it will in no way shape or form make anything fairer.

 

Why is the government scared of something they created?