Sales Tax Laws Got Complicated

[Rick C]

The whole "economic nexus" thing is complicated and varies from state to state. Looks like the Supreme Court opened a bit of a can of worms.

Here is what Maryland says about it...

"A marketplace facilitator that has an obligation to collect Maryland sales tax, sells or facilitates sales of tangible personal property into Maryland, and processes payments on behalf of sellers must collect and remit sales tax on all sales made through the marketplace for delivery into Maryland. However, a marketplace facilitator and seller may ask for a waiver of this collection requirement if:

The marketplace seller is a publicly traded communications company;
The marketplace facilitator and marketplace seller have an agreement that the seller will collect and remit applicable taxes; and
The marketplace seller provides the facilitator with evidence that the seller is licensed to engage in the business of an out-of-state vendor in Maryland

Non-collecting seller use tax reporting:
No"

It seems the "marketplace facilitator" is the guy being held responsible unless they can prove the seller is the right guy. The "marketplace facilitator" is someone like eBay or Aliexpress I believe.

What got me looking into this is the fact that Virginia and other states already require the collection of these taxes, but it seems Maryland is still not. They are a pretty heavy tax state, but they are a bit slow on the uptake with this one. So my mail order stuff is being delivered to MD for the interim.

Now if I can just find that aluminum kayak trailer before Maryland starts collecting.

Why are "publicly traded communications companies" exempt?

Oh yeah, this seems to even involve foreign companies. Does Aliexpress have any physical presence in the US??? Telling US companies have to cooperate with all states is one thing, but foreign companies???

--

Rick C.

- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[John Robertson]

That already works in Canada when we sell products through Amazon.ca - a
Marketplace Facilitator - Amazon charges tax based on the home province
of the buyer and remits it to the appropriate provincial government. If
I am not mistaken we get the federal tax portion and have to remit that
on our trimonthly GST (Goods & Services Tax) remittance to the feds.

I don't know what happens in the US when you buy from Amazon.com, but it
looks like Maryland wants the same piece of the action (state tax) that
they would get for a sale made within their borders as one made within
the USA via Amazon (or whoever) that ends up delivered within Maryland.

Craigslist better watch out!

John :-#)#

[Rick C]

I assume Amazon has physical presence in Canada. Does Aliexpress do the same? I guess they could also have physical presence.

--

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[Winfield Hill]

Rick C wrote...

>
> Does Aliexpress do the same? I guess they
> could also have physical presence.

Really, why?


--
Thanks,
- Win

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 8:32:42 AM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
> Rick C wrote...
> >
> > Does Aliexpress do the same? I guess they
> > could also have physical presence.
>
> Really, why?

I don't know, but why else would they be collecting the tax? How could US law be binding on foreign companies with no US presence? It's not like Aliexpress is shipping any of the packages so they could be stopped. They are just a "marketplace facilitator" handling the money.

I'm appalled SCOTUS reversed the long standing precedent and is allowing the taxes to be collected at all. In other cases they actually asked a lawyer if he felt SCOTUS should reverse a long standing decision for the simple reason that it was the "right" thing to do. lol Then they reverse this decision just so the states can impose more and more taxes on us. No one was "losing" money on this. Sales tax collection was increasing every year even without the rising sales tax rates. The states are so greedy they wanted taxes to increase faster.

One of my electric bills has 15 line items when the electric company only needs three to charge me for electricity.

A friend auto-pays his electric bill and has no idea what they are billing him for. There must be something wrong with me.

--

Rick C.

-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

tirsdag den 27. august 2019 kl. 16.40.29 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
> On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 8:32:42 AM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
> > Rick C wrote...
> > >
> > > Does Aliexpress do the same? I guess they
> > > could also have physical presence.
> >
> > Really, why?
>
> I don't know, but why else would they be collecting the tax? How could US law be binding on foreign companies with no US presence? It's not like Aliexpress is shipping any of the packages so they could be stopped. They are just a "marketplace facilitator" handling the money.
>

like the EU. if is from one EU country to another EU country the seller is responsible for collection and forwarding the VAT to the buyers country
(once it is above some minimum annual amount to the country)

if it is from a country outside EU shipments go though customs and if they determine that you have to pay vat the shipping company (fedex/DHL/UPS, et.al.) collect the VAT at delivery

[bloggs.fred...@gmail.com]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:08:11 AM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

You rant about some USSC ruling, which you do not cite, then you copy a bunch of gibberish from a Maryland regulation or pamphlet. Hopefully this isn't representative of anything.

[Winfield Hill]

Rick C wrote...

>
> I'm appalled SCOTUS reversed the long standing precedent
> and is allowing the taxes to be collected at all.

I don't begrudge the state its revenue. That's where
we live, and most of the important things government
does is state based, not federal government based.
States are perennially short of critical funds for
infrastructure, transportation, education, etc.


--
Thanks,
- Win

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

I don't disagree with that, but it's wrong for a state to
be able to tax someone who does not live in that state, and
who has no vote, no representation to appeal to.

The purpose of sales tax should be to repay the seller's state
for the cost of its vital services and infrastructure used in
producing the product.

The buyer's state contributed nothing to the labors of production,
and shouldn't have any claim on the fruits.

Cheers,
James Arthur

[George Herold]

James, what's the difference if I go down to my local hardware store
and buy some screw made in China, vs buying it on amazon?
I think I could argue that the amazon order puts more 'wear and tear' on
my state. (It certainly puts more wear and tear on my long gravel driveway. :^)


George H.
>
> Cheers,
> James Arthur

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

If your state wants to tax purchases and the voters approve, I suppose
they could go ahead and do that. But that's not a sales tax imposed
on someone out of state, that would be a purchase tax imposed by a
state on their own citizens.

It doesn't appeal much to me, but if New York wants to do that that's
up to them and their voters.

To me, the producer should reap the rewards of his labor, and be
responsible for the costs, too. That's the seller, and the seller's
state.

If your state had nothing to do with producing the product, why
do they deserve a share of the result?

More critically, there's a question of federalism. Should state 'A'
be able to impose laws obliging other states' citizens beyond its
borders, requiring citizens of 49 other states to, for example, collect
taxes for them?

That seems abundantly clear: no.

That's taxing the seller without representation. It robs the seller's
state of rightful revenue from a product the seller's state was used
to help to create.

And state 'A', passing laws imposing duties on state 'B's citizens
outside of its borders, is asserting sovereignty over 'B's citizens.
That violates state 'B's sovereignty -- they get to preside over
their citizens. State 'B' and its citizens get to decide their
own taxes, and the duties of its citizens.

State 'A' extending its laws past its borders defeats the purpose of
having states, it defeats the Constitution's guarantee

"to every State ... a Republican Form of Government" (Art. IV, sec. 4)

(that is, each state is guaranteed a representative form of government,
with representatives of their local choosing).

If your government / country / state played no role in the planting
of the wheat, the harvesting, the milling, or the baking of the loaves,
what exactly is their claim to Henny-Penny's (The Little Red Hen) bread?

SCOTUS botched this one badly, IMO.

Cheers,
James Arthur

[George Herold]

Hmm, James you are smart enough to argue rings around me... my head spins.
(Have pity.)
The above is a 'sales tax'... that to me is the same as a 'tax on purchases'.
If you come into my state, buy said Chinese screw from 'my' hardware store we
collect a sales tax on you.. an out of stater.

If you are meaning something else here I'd need a lot more words to understand the
distinction. I think below you are talking about a value added tax.
I haven't thought much about VAT's. (I really haven't thought much about taxes
mostly just grin and pay 'em.)

>
> It doesn't appeal much to me, but if New York wants to do that that's
> up to them and their voters.
>
> To me, the producer should reap the rewards of his labor, and be
> responsible for the costs, too. That's the seller, and the seller's
> state.
>
> If your state had nothing to do with producing the product, why
> do they deserve a share of the result?

Isn't this a VAT and not a sales tax?

>
> More critically, there's a question of federalism. Should state 'A'
> be able to impose laws obliging other states' citizens beyond its
> borders, requiring citizens of 49 other states to, for example, collect
> taxes for them?
>
> That seems abundantly clear: no.

Well the states rights discussion is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.

Why can't you stick with my simple example? Chinese made screw sold by
local hardware store and amazon. They should be able to compete equally.
Giving amazon a tax advantage seems to disadvantage my local guy.
(And I want my local guy to stay around, I'm happy to pay his mark-up,
and do business with him, for the convenience of running over there on
a Saturday morning to buy said Chinese screw to fix whatever is broken
that day.) In this electronic age it's not at all clear to me in what state
the sale of a screw on amazon takes place?

>
> That's taxing the seller without representation. It robs the seller's
> state of rightful revenue from a product the seller's state was used
> to help to create.
>
> And state 'A', passing laws imposing duties on state 'B's citizens
> outside of its borders, is asserting sovereignty over 'B's citizens.
> That violates state 'B's sovereignty -- they get to preside over
> their citizens. State 'B' and its citizens get to decide their
> own taxes, and the duties of its citizens.
>
> State 'A' extending its laws past its borders defeats the purpose of
> having states, it defeats the Constitution's guarantee
>
> "to every State ... a Republican Form of Government" (Art. IV, sec. 4)
>
> (that is, each state is guaranteed a representative form of government,
> with representatives of their local choosing).
>
> If your government / country / state played no role in the planting
> of the wheat, the harvesting, the milling, or the baking of the loaves,
> what exactly is their claim to Henny-Penny's (The Little Red Hen) bread?

The above is all worthy of discussion, but seems to have little to do with sales
taxes. I have to pay sales tax on my car, even if it's a used car purchased
from a private citizen! I have no love of taxes.

George H.

[Rick C]

I'm pretty sure US customs is not getting into this fray. It would be as much of a mess for them to try to figure out any tax that is required as for anyone. Remember, this is not a national tax. It's not completely a state tax (50 states+). It can also be a county tax or even a city tax and many times combinations of the three.

I don't know about other sales tax, but in Virginia they let the county and cities collect tax on restaurants so pretty much restaurant tax is 11% instead of 6%. Some places do the same with sales tax. Then there is the time factor. They keep changing the tax laws to raise (never lower) sales tax as well as the things it is collected on. As a country this is a mess.

One of the reasons SCOTUS changed their collective minds is that we *now* have the technology to implement this using computers. Damn that quantum computing. I knew it would lead to no good!!!

--

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

That's fine. A state has jurisdiction inside its boundaries and can
have whatever taxes it wants to. If an out-of-stater comes to NY and
buys something in NY, he has to follow NY's rules.

But Rick's referring to a Supreme Court decision that states can require
out-of-state sellers living elsewhere, to collect and remit sales tax to
the buyer's state.

So I thought we were talking about that -- you mail-order something
from Oklahoma, and New York makes Mom-n-Pop(tm) in Oklahoma collect
New York sales tax from you, and send the money to New York. Mom-n-Pop
in Oklahoma now has to act as tax collector for New York.

> If you are meaning something else here I'd need a lot more words to understand the
> distinction. I think below you are talking about a value added tax.
> I haven't thought much about VAT's. (I really haven't thought much about taxes
> mostly just grin and pay 'em.)
> >
> > It doesn't appeal much to me, but if New York wants to do that that's
> > up to them and their voters.
> >
> > To me, the producer should reap the rewards of his labor, and be
> > responsible for the costs, too. That's the seller, and the seller's
> > state.
> >
> > If your state had nothing to do with producing the product, why
> > do they deserve a share of the result?
>
> Isn't this a VAT and not a sales tax?

VAT's another topic.

> > More critically, there's a question of federalism. Should state 'A'
> > be able to impose laws obliging other states' citizens beyond its
> > borders, requiring citizens of 49 other states to, for example, collect
> > taxes for them?
> >
> > That seems abundantly clear: no.
> Well the states rights discussion is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
>
> Why can't you stick with my simple example? Chinese made screw sold by
> local hardware store and amazon. They should be able to compete equally.
> Giving amazon a tax advantage seems to disadvantage my local guy.

I don't think so -- the mail-order guy has to pay shipping. That's a
big handicap. (I need a 5k potentiometer, but I'm not willing to pay
$7 shipping + $1 to get a $1 part.)

And the local in-state can sell over the internet too, if he wants to.
There's nothing stopping him. Why not set up a website and do both?

I like local businesses and I try to buy stuff from them, even if
it's a little more. I value their efforts. I want small businesses
to stay around, too.

The internet is one of the greatest opportunities for them, ever,
though. Making the scrappy one-horse outfits collect internet sales
tax for all 50 states and the 1,000's of counties of all of their
customers is a terrible development. I don't know what SCOTUS
was thinking.

> (And I want my local guy to stay around, I'm happy to pay his mark-up,
> and do business with him, for the convenience of running over there on
> a Saturday morning to buy said Chinese screw to fix whatever is broken
> that day.) In this electronic age it's not at all clear to me in what state
> the sale of a screw on amazon takes place?
> >
> > That's taxing the seller without representation. It robs the seller's
> > state of rightful revenue from a product the seller's state was used
> > to help to create.
> >
> > And state 'A', passing laws imposing duties on state 'B's citizens
> > outside of its borders, is asserting sovereignty over 'B's citizens.
> > That violates state 'B's sovereignty -- they get to preside over
> > their citizens. State 'B' and its citizens get to decide their
> > own taxes, and the duties of its citizens.
> >
> > State 'A' extending its laws past its borders defeats the purpose of
> > having states, it defeats the Constitution's guarantee
> >
> > "to every State ... a Republican Form of Government" (Art. IV, sec. 4)
> >
> > (that is, each state is guaranteed a representative form of government,
> > with representatives of their local choosing).
> >
> > If your government / country / state played no role in the planting
> > of the wheat, the harvesting, the milling, or the baking of the loaves,
> > what exactly is their claim to Henny-Penny's (The Little Red Hen) bread?
>
> The above is all worthy of discussion, but seems to have little to do with sales
> taxes. I have to pay sales tax on my car, even if it's a used car purchased
> from a private citizen! I have no love of taxes.

I was speaking to the issue of states imposing their sales taxes and
the duty of collecting those taxes on people who physically reside
and are conducting their portion of the transaction in other states.

If you buy a used car in your state, naturally you owe sales tax. That's
how states pay for the services they provide. That's fair and
proportionate -- you used a bit of your state's services to make
and sell whatever it was you sold. They deserve part of the revenue.

But if you make a purchase in another state, then your state had no
part in it. The purchase (and any tax) should be governed by the
other state; your state shouldn't have any stake or say in that.

>
> George H.
> >
> > SCOTUS botched this one badly, IMO.
> >
> > Cheers,
> > James Arthur

Cheers,
James Arthur

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

so it is the same rules for everyone, if you want to sell stuff in New York
you collect and pay tax in New York

so you can't just move the business address to a low tax state and unfairly compete with those who doesn't

[dagmarg...@yahoo.com]

I think that's a good thing -- how is that unfair? If New York
makes business untenable, why shouldn't someone be able to move,
and why should New York be able to tax someone who moved away to
escape their mistreatment?

And why is New York owed for something that happened in another state?
What claim does New York have on that?

Tax competition between jurisdictions is important. If taxes in a
state (or country) get too high, people move. That helps keep taxes
lower and local governments efficient.

If a New Yorker moves to Berlin, should vendors all across Germany
legally have to collect and remit New York sales tax to New York
for every purchase the New Yorker makes living abroad?

Cheers,
James Arthur

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

they are free to move, just can't do business in New York without following
the rules of New York

[George Herold]

Huh, OK. It seems like there is a lot more amazon than mom &
pops. Can they send some attachment to the sale that says you the
receiver has to pay your local sales taxes?
That's how it has been, I'm mostly happy that Amazon collects and
pays my NYS sales tax. I use to have to guesstimate and give 'em
~0-50 bucks.

>
> > If you are meaning something else here I'd need a lot more words to understand the
> > distinction. I think below you are talking about a value added tax.
> > I haven't thought much about VAT's. (I really haven't thought much about taxes
> > mostly just grin and pay 'em.)
> > >
> > > It doesn't appeal much to me, but if New York wants to do that that's
> > > up to them and their voters.
> > >
> > > To me, the producer should reap the rewards of his labor, and be
> > > responsible for the costs, too. That's the seller, and the seller's
> > > state.
> > >
> > > If your state had nothing to do with producing the product, why
> > > do they deserve a share of the result?
> >
> > Isn't this a VAT and not a sales tax?
>
> VAT's another topic.

Grin. James, this is totally OT, but I was listening to this
liberal anti gun guy talk about the 2nd amd. And he totally
repeated your 'what the framers' wanted. Local militias were
the 'balance' to any federal army, and they were worried about
some federal taking over.

>
> > > More critically, there's a question of federalism. Should state 'A'
> > > be able to impose laws obliging other states' citizens beyond its
> > > borders, requiring citizens of 49 other states to, for example, collect
> > > taxes for them?
> > >
> > > That seems abundantly clear: no.
> > Well the states rights discussion is a whole 'nother kettle of fish.
> >
> > Why can't you stick with my simple example? Chinese made screw sold by
> > local hardware store and amazon. They should be able to compete equally.
> > Giving amazon a tax advantage seems to disadvantage my local guy.
>
> I don't think so -- the mail-order guy has to pay shipping. That's a
> big handicap. (I need a 5k potentiometer, but I'm not willing to pay
> $7 shipping + $1 to get a $1 part.)

huh? amazon prime! I've got 2 kids and a wife, I'm not sure
but easy more than 100 shipments per year, two days, for
$100? (I think it went up some.)
I sent Phil, strippers for his B-day, it cost me nothing in my
books for shipping... Amazon prime is a bit crazy, and I can't
imagine it lasting for long.

>
> And the local in-state can sell over the internet too, if he wants to.
> There's nothing stopping him. Why not set up a website and do both?
>
> I like local businesses and I try to buy stuff from them, even if
> it's a little more. I value their efforts. I want small businesses
> to stay around, too.
>
> The internet is one of the greatest opportunities for them, ever,
> though. Making the scrappy one-horse outfits collect internet sales
> tax for all 50 states and the 1,000's of counties of all of their
> customers is a terrible development. I don't know what SCOTUS
> was thinking.

Well, I can ask my local shop owners, but I think not.
Their business is local, installing parts some guy bought on
amazon is not what they want to do. The local guy I know
says he'll install whatever, but there is no guarantee/ warranty
on mail order parts.

Yeah sorry, my bad. I don't know of this decision.
Can't you just send some 'extra' bit of paper work that says
you have to pay local taxes, or be subject to the local fines?
That's how it use to be here, there's a line item for 'out of
state purchases'.. I'm not saying NYS is sane tax-wise, but they figure
they get a piece of whatever you spend anywhere..
well you can buy stocks and bonds and such.

>
> If you buy a used car in your state, naturally you owe sales tax. That's
> how states pay for the services they provide. That's fair and
> proportionate -- you used a bit of your state's services to make
> and sell whatever it was you sold. They deserve part of the revenue.

Hmm, OK. but you can sell some things. Like a house, and pay no
sales tax.

>
> But if you make a purchase in another state, then your state had no
> part in it. The purchase (and any tax) should be governed by the
> other state; your state shouldn't have any stake or say in that.

Hah, come to NYS. I had to pay some sort of sales tax,
on value, of the several vehicles I brought up from TN.
(It wasn't a lot of tax, they were older models...
some of my favorite rides!)

George H.

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:08:22 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:

I don't think I said anything to indicate I begrudge the state due revenue. The issue is this is NEW revenue they had never collected before. Revenues from sales taxes in the US have increased every year since 1994 other than 2009 which was in the depth of the great recession. So how can anyone say the states were "begrudged" sales tax revenue? It's not like the mail order exclusion was new. This was money they've never collected and they had no entitlement to receive which SCOTUS agreed some decades ago. Originally the matter was decided based on consideration of Constitutional issues. Now it's a matter of technology.

It's more like the states were getting fruit from the part of a tree in the neighbor's yard that over hung their year. Now they've figured out how to eat more of the fruit by using ropes to bend the whole tree to hang over their property.

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[Jasen Betts]

On 2019-08-27, Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 8:32:42 AM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
>> Rick C wrote...
>> >
>> > Does Aliexpress do the same? I guess they
>> > could also have physical presence.
>>
>> Really, why?
>
> I don't know, but why else would they be collecting the tax? How could US law be binding on foreign companies with no US presence?

Could be a treaty.



--
When I tried casting out nines I made a hash of it.

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 8:22:43 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 4:56:08 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
>
> I don't think so -- the mail-order guy has to pay shipping. That's a
> big handicap. (I need a 5k potentiometer, but I'm not willing to pay
> $7 shipping + $1 to get a $1 part.)

Doesn't matter. It's a red herring. Taxes aren't about "fair". They are about bringing money into the government.

BTW, I recently saw a YouTube video about "Malicious Compliance" meaning what employees do when the company insists on ignoring your inputs and ordering you to do stupid things. Finally the employee gives up and does exactly what they've been ordered and let things go to crap.

I don't remember what story I wanted to relate about that, but the stories are pretty amazing. It had something to do with competing.

> And the local in-state can sell over the internet too, if he wants to.
> There's nothing stopping him. Why not set up a website and do both?

A lot of people are afraid of selling over the Internet since you have to use credit cards and more likely some service like PayPal which allows you to be ripped off by the unscrupulous.

> I like local businesses and I try to buy stuff from them, even if
> it's a little more. I value their efforts. I want small businesses
> to stay around, too.

I have no special admiration of local businesses. They are just people and some people are good, others suck. Whether they stay around seldom has anything to do with me even if I try to help. Most small businesses are doomed to failure because the owners have no idea how to run their business... which brings us back to "Malicious Compliance" videos. One included a guy working as a dishwasher in a coffee shop for a new owner who didn't want to be the manager or pay a manager. This guy was constantly overworked but because it was his first job he didn't know it. One day the owner comes in and the place is slammed, the dishwasher is washing stuff by hand just so the baristas can have something NOW. The owner tells the guy to clear tables and sweep, etc and takes over on the dishwasher. 15 minutes later they owner is nearly in tears and begs the dishwasher to come back in the kitchen and resume making it work. lol The owner never yelled at him again.

> The internet is one of the greatest opportunities for them, ever,
> though. Making the scrappy one-horse outfits collect internet sales
> tax for all 50 states and the 1,000's of counties of all of their
> customers is a terrible development. I don't know what SCOTUS
> was thinking.

In defense of SCOTUS they are not going to allow states to require *every* seller to collect taxes. There are thresholds (which seem to be set by the states?). I think Maryland is setting a $200,000 per year and some quantity of shipments minimum which will drop to $100,000 per year in the near future. I think I read other states are similar. So the "mom and pop" stores can avoid the cost and hassle of knowing all the taxing jurisdictions which are a lot more than just the states. I'm sure I've said before that counties and even cities get into the act with sales tax. So there are going to be services that calculate the tax and likely skim the tax from the sale and convey it to the jurisdiction. I think MD requires quarterly sales tax payments. I could have done it all over the Internet if I had anything to report, but because I never collected tax on my B2B sales I had to file with paper including a form that said I understood that I had the option of filing paperlessly or something equally MASH like. Sign here, initial here, here and here, then sign to say you initialed instead of signing.

> > The above is all worthy of discussion, but seems to have little to do with sales
> > taxes. I have to pay sales tax on my car, even if it's a used car purchased
> > from a private citizen! I have no love of taxes.
>
> I was speaking to the issue of states imposing their sales taxes and
> the duty of collecting those taxes on people who physically reside
> and are conducting their portion of the transaction in other states.
>
> If you buy a used car in your state, naturally you owe sales tax. That's
> how states pay for the services they provide. That's fair and
> proportionate -- you used a bit of your state's services to make
> and sell whatever it was you sold. They deserve part of the revenue.
>
> But if you make a purchase in another state, then your state had no
> part in it. The purchase (and any tax) should be governed by the
> other state; your state shouldn't have any stake or say in that.

The state sees it as "sales" that they aren't getting their fair share of tax from. It's that simple. There is something going on that they weren't allowed to tax and it got bigger every year.

In most states we are taxed on the money when we make it. We are taxed on the money when we spend it. We are taxed for the simple fact that we own some things. We are taxed because we use some stuff that isn't ours. I'm not certain, but I believe we are taxed (or have to pay fees) simply because we exist and can't live without doing some things we are taxed on.

Give it a try sometime. Shove a bunch of money in your pocket, say $10,000 and leave your home to sleep in a tent someplace where you aren't charged, like along the Appalachian trail. See how much of that money still goes to paying taxes... I mean if you aren't arrested for having that much cash on you. Or the cops simply take your money without arresting you. Civil Asset Forfeiture: another SCOTUS cock up if there ever was one.

Sometimes living in a "free" country doesn't feel so free.

Everything's free in America
For a slight fee in America

--

Rick C.

+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 8:29:05 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

Nothing to do with competition. No legal argument for this issue was based on "unfair competition".

IT'S ABOUT THE MONEY... the money the states see they are "loosing".

Don't kid yourself.

--

Rick C.

++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[Rick C]

They aren't doing business in New York. Perhaps New York should make it illegal for residents to not pay the tax on their own? Oh yeah, states tried that and virtually no one paid it. To get around the federal prohibition on extending your sales tax to other states they even tried calling it a "use" tax whatever the heck that is. In the end it's just more legal mumbo jumbo to keep people from knowing enough to resist.

--

Rick C.

--- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 10:04:33 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
> Grin. James, this is totally OT, but I was listening to this
> liberal anti gun guy talk about the 2nd amd. And he totally
> repeated your 'what the framers' wanted. Local militias were
> the 'balance' to any federal army, and they were worried about
> some federal taking over.

That ship has sailed mostly due to SCOTUS saying the feds get the final word in any argument. It was many years that the states though they were sovereign until they found they just weren't as sovereign as the fed.

I would have commented on a few other points, but I couldn't cope with the trimming and fixing the attributions.

--

Rick C.

--+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
--+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[Lasse Langwadt Christensen]

if they are selling to stuff people who live in New York and ship
it to New York they are

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:01:28 AM UTC-4, Jasen Betts wrote:
> On 2019-08-27, Rick C <gnuarm.del...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 8:32:42 AM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
> >> Rick C wrote...
> >> >
> >> > Does Aliexpress do the same? I guess they
> >> > could also have physical presence.
> >>
> >> Really, why?
> >
> > I don't know, but why else would they be collecting the tax? How could US law be binding on foreign companies with no US presence?
>
> Could be a treaty.

That must be why Aliexpress is collecting US tax. They are really big on sticking to their treaties. <yes, that was sarcasm>

--

Rick C.

-+- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[Rick C]

Not really. That's like saying a British company is doing business in New York if they ship to New York. There are zero requirements to do that. You don't have to register with New York, you don't have to obey New York regulations of any sort. You don't have to deal with New York in any other manner other than collecting their sales tax. So how the hell can you call that "doing business in New York"???

No, they are doing business where ever their office is, not the location they are shipping to.

--

Rick C.

-++ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-++ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[jurb...@gmail.com]

All a bunch of shit. I don't mean you, I mean this situation. If you ship internationally, you expect Russians to pay for your local schools and pools ?

If you are in California how come I have to contribute to your toxicity ? Like the 13 gender thing, I have to pay you for that because I bought something from Amazon ?

Go fuck yourself. (not you)

[Rick C]

You are seriously weird. What does 13 gender have to do with sales tax??? Only in your mind can these things be warped so they have any similarity at all.

--

Rick C.

+-- Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+-- Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209