OT-Online sales tax

[Frank Howell]

It appears that the Senate will pass an online sales tax bill, The Fairness
Act that would require out-of-state merchants to collect sales tax for any
state that has a sales tax. It's unclear for now if the House will pass a
similar bill.

As a resident of Oregon it will not effect me(at least for now), as Oregon
does not collect sales tax, but what about the rest of you, will any new
internet taxes alter your online purchases?

--
Frank Howell

[Janet Wilder]

AFAIK, QVC (the TV shopping channel) has no facilities in Texas, yet
they collect sales tax on my orders.

--
Janet Wilder
Way-the-heck-south Texas
Spelling doesn't count. Cooking does.

[Hunter Hampton]

On 5/5/2013 8:23 AM, Frank Howell wrote:
> As a resident of Oregon it will not effect me(at least for now), as Oregon
> does not collect sales tax, but what about the rest of you, will any new
> internet taxes alter your online purchases?

Probably not, certainly not if the product is still cheaper than in stores.

An example.... I bought a Pioneer DVD player for the truck... it
replaces the radio in the dash. Has back up camera and bluetooth and
plays my pod, showing me what's playing and allows me to change albums,
and singers touching the screen.

Lets say it was 300.00 retail at Best Buy.... I saw it closeout at Best
Buy for something like 250.00 plus more to install....

I think I paid 175.00 for it online..... then paid a guy to install it
in his garage...

So purchase and install was less than Best Buy's closeout price.

Adding sales take would have been approx. 15.00 it still would be
cheaper....

Hunter

[nothermark]

On Sun, 5 May 2013 08:23:44 -0700, "Frank Howell" <fpho...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Since NY already manages to get tax from folks like Amazon and LL Bean
while small cottage vendors are exempt I do not see a change here.
OTOH I still think it sucks. If the local folks would stock what I
want I would buy local. As it stands I find an occasional reason to
shop elsewhere. The closest big radio dealer is in NH. PA and MA do
not have sales tax on clothing. Now we are starting to venture
farther more often so even more opportunities. ;-)

[rvfulltime]

On 5/5/2013 8:23 AM, Frank Howell wrote:

I think that almost all states that have a sales tax also have a use tax.
Assuming you live in a sales tax state, legally, if your purchase something
using interstate commerce, you as a consumer are required to pay a use tax.
Most people ignore the law and it's too expensive for states for follow up
except for expensive items (cars, boats, etc).

I think a better solution would be for internet merchants to provide to each
state's taxing authority, those residents that purchased products and the dollar
value that was shipped to each address. The state would then send a tax bill to
each resident.

[D-R]

On 5/5/2013 11:33 AM, rvfulltime wrote:

>
> I think that almost all states that have a sales tax also have a use
> tax. Assuming you live in a sales tax state, legally, if your purchase
> something using interstate commerce, you as a consumer are required to
> pay a use tax. Most people ignore the law and it's too expensive for
> states for follow up except for expensive items (cars, boats, etc).
>
> I think a better solution would be for internet merchants to provide to
> each state's taxing authority, those residents that purchased products
> and the dollar value that was shipped to each address. The state would
> then send a tax bill to each resident.

The main problem I see with that is that by the time the merchant
and the state set up all the bureaucracy they will think they need it
will end up negative account for everyone.

--

AJ - up in the Arizona mountains

[bill horne]

It might alter where I buy a specific thing at any specific time, but
it won't alter my decision-making process for buying something online
or not.

--
bill
Theory don't mean squat if it don't work.

[Jan Orme]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
As an Online Merchant, the main thing I see would be how they word it
and set up the process. IF.....the merchant has to keep track of every
different State, County and Municipal Sales tax and then report to ALL
of those then it will me a nightmare for ALL concerned.

On the other hand, it could be as simple as KISS Theory...(Keep It
Simple Stupid). One Online Tax Rate that is collected by such as
PayPal or Amazon and distributed to the States accordingly. Perhaps
something in the 7-10% range.

Keeping as many bureaucrats out of the picture as possible will also
keep collection costs lower. It doesn't really have to be Rocket
Science with TONS of Forms and BS!

KISS!

Jan

[nothermark]

On Sun, 5 May 2013 12:33:54 -0700 (PDT), Jan Orme <JanO...@aol.com>
wrote:

It is my impression that setting it up for the big shippers is not a
big issue as everything is computer controlled anyway. This is
especially true if they do not try to collect local sales tax and
stick with only the state one. (We have 4%local and 4% state.)
Exempting folks who do less than a million avoids the small account
cost.

[K Miller]

"Frank Howell" <fpho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:51867983$0$13627$c3e8da3$dd96...@news.astraweb.com

> It appears that the Senate will pass an online sales tax bill, The
> Fairness Act that would require out-of-state merchants to collect
> sales tax for any state that has a sales tax. It's unclear for now if
> the House will pass a similar bill.

Calling it a "Fairness Act" and saying it will "level the playing field" is
obsfucating the point near as I can tell. It would be "unfair" or "unlevel"
if I couldn't open a business in the same state as my competition. But I can
so the field is about as level and fair as it can get. It's not about "fair
competition". It's about the fact that some states believe that they are not
getting the income they think they should be getting so they're going to
change the rules until they do.

The "simple" answer (one sure to be understood by that triclone
WillBruceAnthony) would be to make it a law that no place can charge sales
tax. That would instantly make it "Fair" and "Level".

[Lone Haranguer]

It's only money. Think of it as greasing the wheels of commerce.

LZ

[Frank Howell]

I hope you're not holding your breath. :-)

--
Frank Howell

[Frank Howell]

Since it's only money, can I send me some? :-)

Oh, I forgot to acknowledge that everyone is suppose to pay the sales tax,
but it is on a voluntary basis, aka honor system, but under the present
system it's just about unenforceable.

--
Frank Howell

[George Anthony]

"K Miller" <i09...@removethisspamblockerstuff-yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:KeSdnbV0np2FUhvM...@giganews.com...

> "Frank Howell" <fpho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:51867983$0$13627$c3e8da3$dd96...@news.astraweb.com
>> It appears that the Senate will pass an online sales tax bill, The
>> Fairness Act that would require out-of-state merchants to collect
>> sales tax for any state that has a sales tax. It's unclear for now if
>> the House will pass a similar bill.
>
> Calling it a "Fairness Act" and saying it will "level the playing field"
> is obsfucating the point near as I can tell. It would be "unfair" or
> "unlevel" if I couldn't open a business in the same state as my
> competition. But I can so the field is about as level and fair as it can
> get. It's not about "fair competition". It's about the fact that some
> states believe that they are not getting the income they think they should
> be getting so they're going to change the rules until they do.
>
> The "simple" answer (one sure to be understood by that triclone
> WillBruceAnthony) would be to make it a law that no place can charge sales
> tax. That would instantly make it "Fair" and "Level".
>

I love it! I, and the others mentioned, have gotten under your skin. There
was absolutely no need to mention us in your attempt at brilliance. Maybe
you should follow in the footsteps of the great and powerful plonker,
Hunter, and humiliate us by use of the plonk function on your keyboard.

[Hank]

On Sunday, May 5, 2013 2:33:00 PM UTC-4, rvfulltime wrote:

> I think that almost all states that have a sales tax also have a use tax.
>
> Assuming you live in a sales tax state, legally, if your purchase something
>
> using interstate commerce, you as a consumer are required to pay a use tax.
>
> Most people ignore the law and it's too expensive for states for follow up
>
> except for expensive items (cars, boats, etc).
>
>
>
> I think a better solution would be for internet merchants to provide to each
>
> state's taxing authority, those residents that purchased products and the dollar
>
> value that was shipped to each address. The state would then send a tax bill to
>
> each resident.

I also see some company setting up a seervice that can collect the tax, then selling the service of collecting the sales tax from out-of-state purchases for a "small percentage" at no expense to the State.

Hank

[Ralph E Lindberg]

In article <31a38ddb-6062-4eae...@googlegroups.com>,

Hank <nineb...@aol.com> wrote:


>
> I also see some company setting up a seervice that can collect the tax, then
> selling the service of collecting the sales tax from out-of-state purchases
> for a "small percentage" at no expense to the State.
>
> Hank

Actually a couple firms are already setup to provide services for
small firms to collect sales tax

--
--------------------------------------------------------
Personal e-mail is the n7bsn but at amsat.org
This posting address is a spam-trap and seldom read
RV and Camping FAQ can be found at
http://www.ralphandellen.us/rv

[Frank Howell]

Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
> In article <31a38ddb-6062-4eae...@googlegroups.com>,
> Hank <nineb...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> I also see some company setting up a seervice that can collect the
>> tax, then selling the service of collecting the sales tax from
>> out-of-state purchases for a "small percentage" at no expense to
>> the State.
>>
>> Hank
>
> Actually a couple firms are already setup to provide services for
> small firms to collect sales tax

Another aspect of this Senate bill that they are trying to get included,
is an exemption for businesses that have less then a million dollars in
sales
to mitigate the economic impact that collections, administration, and
possible audits could impose on a business and either force them to create
an in-house collection section or farm it out to private firms.


--
Frank Howell

[Jan Orme]

On May 6, 9:52 am, "Frank Howell" <fphow...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Ralph E Lindberg wrote:
> > In article <31a38ddb-6062-4eae...@googlegroups.com>,

> > Hank <ninebal...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >>  I also see some company setting up a seervice that can collect the
> >>  tax, then selling the service of collecting the sales tax from
> >>  out-of-state purchases for a "small percentage" at no expense to
> >> the State.
>
> >> Hank
>
> >  Actually a couple firms are already setup to provide services for
> > small firms to collect sales tax
>
> Another aspect of this Senate bill that they are trying to get included,
> is an exemption for businesses that have less then a million dollars in
> sales
> to mitigate the economic impact that collections, administration, and
> possible audits could impose on a business and either force them to create
> an in-house collection section or farm it out to private firms.
>
> --
> Frank Howell

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This will stir the pot. Here's another opinion:

Sarah Palin

Taxed Enough Already?

This new tax increase – the internet sales tax – must be stopped in
the House. The Senate just passed it, and many Senators want to
justify their tax increase vote by claiming that it will somehow
“level the playing field” for brick and mortar retailers. This isn’t
legit.

This is actually a boon to the big online powerhouses like Amazon who
can afford the insane paperwork that comes with complying with
government’s newest tax. The smaller mid-size online operations and
smaller brick and mortar businesses, many family-owned with small
staffs, who want to have larger online presences will be swamped with
the regulatory paperwork of complying with the tax requirements for
all these different states.

This new internet tax is not only another barrier to entry for
smaller online start-ups, it’s a disincentive to grow a company. This
will hit these smaller companies right where their margin of profit
is, which means that this will cost jobs because when businesses lose
profitability, they lay off workers or shut down.

Did Republicans who voted for this new tax on businesses forget that
it will trickle down to consumers in this dangerously weak economic
era? And when smaller and mid-size operations are pushed out of
business, we have less competition and fewer choices in the
marketplace.

Here’s an example: say you want to order Runner’s World’s re-release
of Dr. George Sheehan’s book “Running and Being.” I just ordered it.
You could get it at Amazon, and they’d have no problem calculating the
minutia of sales tax regulations for your state because they have a
boatload of employees (and lobbyists) to deal with this burden, but
their base price for the book might be higher than the smaller online
business competing with them. But thanks to this new internet sales
tax, that smaller business will now have a whole new burdensome level
of stifling government bureaucracy over their heads as they scramble
to comply with various states’ sales tax rules and rates. And when
this smaller business goes out of business because they can no longer
make a profit, someone will lose his or her job and you will be left
with fewer options when you go shopping for a better price online.
Amazon doesn’t sweat it – in fact they support it.

Those “small government champions” of our middle class’s mom and pop
businesses should ask themselves why they want to be any part of
limiting the growth opportunities for smaller operations? More and
more shopping is done online today, and every smart brick and mortar
mom and pop wants to get in on that; and when they do, they should be
allowed to produce by the sweat of their brow and ethically grow
beyond being just a small online operation without worrying about a
massive regulatory burden if they gross more than $1 million in sales
in a year.

Bottom line: These anti-small business measures disincentivize the
start-ups we need, and any measure to stick it to the consumer by
increasing taxes for government growth is not what Republicans are
supposed to fight for. I bet that once the tax increase is explained,
your constituents won’t want you to contribute to government growth
via increased internet taxes. And that’s what this is all about. House
GOP, read your constituent’s lips: No New Taxes.

- Sarah Palin

P.S. I see that some are saying that a “positive” measure in this bill
that the GOP Senators who voted for it liked is that it requires the
government to provide “free” sales tax calculating software to all
companies for compliance. Here’s a little newsflash: when it’s from
the government, it’s not “free”! It’s being paid for by the very same
people this new tax will hit in the pocketbook. That would be “We the
People.”

[nothermark]

On Tue, 7 May 2013 18:18:24 -0700 (PDT), Jan Orme <JanO...@aol.com>
wrote:

>People.�

Read part of it. Sarah is off on one of her delusional rants. A
boatload of employees to calculate tax is plain stupid. Anybody
involved in shipping will be able to get software that calculates the
sales tax with the shipping charges while it prints the label. It's
low hanging fruit somebody will jump on.

That said collecting the tax is a stupid idea.

[Frank Howell]

>> This new tax increase - the internet sales tax - must be stopped in

>> better price online. Amazon doesn't sweat it - in fact they support

It's obvious you think that somehow there is no paper work involved in tax
collection and it just does it by itself. So if your company is audited by,
say 4 states, you're just going to send your shippers to argue the case
along with the software to each states revenue agency and that's the extent
of it.

Well ok!

--
Frank Howell

[Frank Howell]

> People.�

Yah, right! Snicker, snicker. While I agree with you, I'll bet that the 47%
who don't pay taxes, see it in an entirley different light. :-) I don't
think their pocketbook will be effected unless of course they end up paying
the online tax.


--
Frank Howell

[David "The Hamster" Malone]

On May 8, 1:24 pm, "Frank Howell" <fphow...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I don't
> think their pocketbook will be effected unless of course they end up paying
> the online tax.

'affected'...

David "The punctilious Hamster" Malone

[nothermark]

On Wed, 8 May 2013 10:19:47 -0700, "Frank Howell" <fpho...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

No, I assume that there will be a service or software to do it. I
also assume they will pass the exemption for folks doing less than a
million in sales a year. If they are not careful it will cost more
for many states to collect what they are owed than what they are owed.

[Bruce S]

When has the fact that a new law would hurt far more than it would help
ever stopped the Feds from passing that law?

--
Bruce

"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can
win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can
profit."

[ozm...@gmail.com]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 5:00:51 PM UTC-5, nothermark wrote:

> If they are not careful it will cost more for many states to collect what they > are owed than what they are owed.

Doesn't matter....they got a tax laid on the peeeepull. That's worth the cost.

It's the principle of the thing........more taxes.

[Lone Haranguer]

Yahbut those who vote for them are too effing lazy toactually
read them before voting.

LZ

[Owen McKenzie]

Would someone like to take a guess as to how many different taxing
jurisdictions there are in the US? My bet is that it is well up in the
thousands. In the Phoenix area alone there are at least a dozen
different sales tax rates. In fact, there have probably been a half
dozed changes since this thread started!

--

Owen McKenzie
Posting from Largo, FL

"It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument."
-- William G. McAdoo

[nothermark]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 15:52:57 -0700, Bruce S <bruce...@gmail.com>
wrote:

The only reason the feds are interested is that they are getting a lot
of pressure from the states who think they are losing a lot of money.
In fact the feds have turned the idea down a couple of times already.

What I find interesting is that states like NY already have a deal
with folks like Amazon to collect sales tax. That leaves mr thinking
the low hanging fruit is already being harvested.

[Bruce S]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 20:24:19 -0400, nothermark <nothe...@not.here>
wrote:

Has New York got a deal with Amazon, or does Amazon have some sort of
offices in New York? Under the current law if the retailer does
business in the state they must collect state taxes.

Bruce

--
Bruce

[Hank]

On Wednesday, May 8, 2013 11:09:28 PM UTC-4, Bruce S wrote:

>
> Has New York got a deal with Amazon, or does Amazon have some sort of
>
> offices in New York? Under the current law if the retailer does
>
> business in the state they must collect state taxes.
>
>
>
> Bruce

It is my understanding that Amazon is nothing more than a warehouse/shipper for all the different companies, not a retailer. Maybe that is the way they get around the tax thing.

Hank

[nothermark]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 20:09:28 -0700, Bruce S <fa...@fakeemail.com>

Amazon is big enough to be worth taking to Court. That was all it
took. I'm not sure if it was even adjudicated. Most of the big
catalog retailers have a presence in NYC so they are also subject to
sales tax. Assuming the exemption for small companies I am not sure
who they will add to my pain threshold.

[Frank Howell]

Ok here's my guess; 45 states and 7,600 local jurisdictions.
Source of my guess: http://tinyurl.com/csq4map



--
Frank Howell

[Lone Haranguer]

Amazon.com adds taxes for my purchases which are made in AZ.

LZ

[Frank Howell]

When it comes to tax collections, all fruit is low hanging and if it's not
low hanging, then out comes the chainsaws.

--
Frank Howell

[Frank Howell]

Ah no! Many items sold by Amazon are by them. As to the tax thing, they want
to pay taxes. Why? Because they are big enough now that they can have whole
departments dedicated to taxes and other regulatory issues. A lot of their
competition can not and that's Amazon's real agenda. To eliminate as much
competition as possible.

This is a strategy embraced by many industries. Make the entry barriers so
difficult, either monetarily and/or regulatory with mountains of paper work
to discourage competition.


--
Frank Howell

[Lone Haranguer]

They add tax to my purchases which ship to AZ.

LZ

[Owen McKenzie]

On 5/9/2013 10:43 AM, Frank Howell wrote:

> Owen McKenzie wrote:
>>
>> Would someone like to take a guess as to how many different taxing
>> jurisdictions there are in the US? My bet is that it is well up in the
>> thousands. In the Phoenix area alone there are at least a dozen
>> different sales tax rates. In fact, there have probably been a half
>> dozed changes since this thread started!
>
> Ok here's my guess; 45 states and 7,600 local jurisdictions.
> Source of my guess: http://tinyurl.com/csq4map
>
>
>

You didn't guess, you looked it up and supported it with facts! No fair!
You mustn't be a RORT liberal, you must be one of those nasty conservatives!

[Bruce S]

Please, Please, Please start reading the threads you feel compelled to
respond to.

mark mentioned that Amazon collects taxes on New Yorkers, so it is not a
question of "getting around" the taxes, they ARE collecting them.

[Bruce S]

If Amazon has some sort of presence in New York, then it was not some
sort of deal that caused them to start collecting taxes, it was the law.

[Bruce S]

Well, they have never collected a penny of taxes from me - either in
Nevada or here in Oregon (where there is no sales tax).

[NotMe]

"Frank Howell" <fpho...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:51867983$0$13627$c3e8da3$dd96...@news.astraweb.com...
> It appears that the Senate will pass an online sales tax bill, The
> Fairness Act that would require out-of-state merchants to collect sales
> tax for any state that has a sales tax. It's unclear for now if the House
> will pass a similar bill.
>
> As a resident of Oregon it will not effect me(at least for now), as Oregon
> does not collect sales tax, but what about the rest of you, will any new
> internet taxes alter your online purchases?

The devil is in the details as I understand the text of the legislation a
lot more will be taxed than is currently subject to sales tax in the
respective states.

As example the work product (design & artwork) of my wife's studio are not
subject to sales tax if 'hand' delivered yet if delivered on line then her
work product would be subject to tax.

[NotMe]

"nothermark" <nothe...@not.here> wrote in message
news:0sbjo8pffpgjtbtu9...@4ax.com...

>>This new tax increase - the internet sales tax - must be stopped in

>>Amazon doesn't sweat it - in fact they support it.

Software cost money, administering the software (just to keep it up to date)
is going to be a night mare. Think just who does the hammer fall if the
software is wrong?

Disregarding different rates for different locations (In one case items
shipped to our warehouse which was across the street from our office, had
different tax rates. Then there are local exemptions for various items
depending on the intended use. In Texas items use to produce art work
intended for movie production are exempt but the same item used for the
production of art work for books are not. If the ration is 49/51 then it's
typically not taxable if the ration is 51/49 then it is but then some area
apply tax in proportion to the % of use.

[NotMe]

"Hank" <nineb...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8fc47eb7-909a-4c0a...@googlegroups.com...

Nope. Shipping depot counts. Years back one of my clients had a deal with
FedEx to warehouse and ship from the FEDEX depot in Memphis. You guessed it
they had to collect and rebate taxes based on that location as a point of
presence for sales tax.

[nothermark]

Somebody has already programmed the local cash registers to do this.
That leaves me thinking there is one and possibly several databases
already in existence and maintained by folks like IBM and NCR. Given
those need to be maintained it seems reasonable to think there is no
problem creating what is already in existence.

I am not naive enough to think there is not some work to be done
tieing it to something like a shipping program. My point is that it
would be a one time effort then basic maintenance that is done anyway.
Fedex, UPS, and USPS already have a vested interest in the location
information. I assume they are working with one or more GIS companies
to maintain their shipping data bases. Assuming the government is
made responsible I would assume they would stick the USPS with making
and maintaining the data base. Assuming they priced it right they
could then sell it to Fedex and UPS. Scary thought, the government
making money... ;-)

My real point was that it will not take armies of folks looking up tax
rates as it can be combined with the shipping label software as the
same information is needed. The end user just inputs the address when
creating the order and everything is automatic from there.

My experience with the government is that they will solve problems by
collecting the tax and providing a way to file to get it back if
someone over pays.

The other issue that may come into play is that the Fed's might choose
to ignore local tax and just collect the state share. It depends on
how the law is written. States like NY have unified sales tax to the
county level in most, if not all, places. That simplifies the problem
here. That approach may or may not work other places. Again, it all
depends on how the law is written.

It all boils down to Sarah was wrong in assuming that every small
business would need teams of folks to figure out the tax to collect.
That was what I was talking about. OTOH I still think it is wrong to
collect sales tax on internet sales.

[Hank]

On Thursday, May 9, 2013 2:38:31 PM UTC-4, NotMe wrote:
> > It is my understanding that Amazon is nothing more than a
>
> > warehouse/shipper for all the different companies, not a retailer. Maybe
>
> > that is the way they get around the tax thing.
>
>
>
> Nope. Shipping depot counts. Years back one of my clients had a deal with
>
> FedEx to warehouse and ship from the FEDEX depot in Memphis. You guessed it
>
> they had to collect and rebate taxes based on that location as a point of
>
> presence for sales tax.

I was under the impression that if anybody had, say 1000 items to sell, they would contract with them and they would put them on their website, store, and ship them for anybody. For a fee of course.

Hank