Posted by Krux on Friday May 7, 2010 @ 09:08pm
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

No. At the end of the year, you file your taxes and you show a sales of X, of those X, Y was from NV, Those sales are taxes according to NV tax laws. That's where your business is, that's where your license is. Why should you get a license in all 50 states? Why should you file taxes in all 50 states?

From what I understand that if a company, such as Amazon, has warehouses in multiple states, they have to charge sales tax for sales in each of those states, but only for sales to people in those states.

I believe there is also a strong Constitutional argument that when a business engages in regular commerce across state lines, they should either have to get a license in every state or get some kind of federal interstate commerce business license. I'm not saying I agree, but it doesn't seem unreasonable for such a thing to be suggested.

I don't think that should be the case. It seems a logistical nightmare. Getting a business license in the state you are in is fine. If you have a business that has a presence in multiple states, having multiple business licenses for each state is fine. I mean I assume how the translations work is that for each sale that state sales tax is collected on, they have to pay that to the state either monthly or at least when you file your taxes for the business. I don't see how workable it would be if you ended up having to file taxes to potentially 50 different states. And then what about sales to people who are over seas. If we're trying to collect more money from sales, If anything I would think, that businesses just charge a sales tax for the state they are local in for all translations, and be done with it. That would probably complicate things, if say you were amazon and had multiple state business licenses, since you would have to then figure out which state you are going to put the sales under. It may be for that very reason they just don't required a state sales tax for sales across state lines.

Posted by voltaic on Wednesday May 12, 2010 @ 08:34am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I believe there is also a strong Constitutional argument that when a business engages in regular commerce across state lines, they should either have to get a license in every state or get some kind of federal interstate commerce business license. I'm not saying I agree, but it doesn't seem unreasonable for such a thing to be suggested.

I don't think that should be the case. It seems a logistical nightmare. Getting a business license in the state you are in is fine. If you have a business that has a presence in multiple states, having multiple business licenses for each state is fine. I mean I assume how the translations work is that for each sale that state sales tax is collected on, they have to pay that to the state either monthly or at least when you file your taxes for the business. I don't see how workable it would be if you ended up having to file taxes to potentially 50 different states. And then what about sales to people who are over seas. If we're trying to collect more money from sales, If anything I would think, that businesses just charge a sales tax for the state they are local in for all translations, and be done with it. That would probably complicate things, if say you were amazon and had multiple state business licenses, since you would have to then figure out which state you are going to put the sales under. It may be for that very reason they just don't required a state sales tax for sales across state lines.

Business primarily file taxes quarterly, both state and federal. It isn't like our personal taxes on a once-per-year basis. Just FYI.

Anyway, record keeping across state lines isn't as difficult as it used to be. It's trivial to keep up with sales taxes and track records of who bought what and where. Overseas certainly is a different issue especially since there is a question of jurisdiction. But for a customer in FL using a computer in FL and an internet connection in FL to buy an item to be shipped to FL, I'm not convinced he shouldn't pay FL sales tax just because the company he bought from is in another state.

When I traveled to Hawaii and bought some cookies from a store to be shipped to family in Nevada, I paid Hawaii sales taxes on them. What is the substantive difference if I performed the exact same transaction except where I was sitting in CA making the purchase over the internet?

Posted by Stealth on Thursday May 13, 2010 @ 07:10am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

I believe there is also a strong Constitutional argument that when a business engages in regular commerce across state lines, they should either have to get a license in every state or get some kind of federal interstate commerce business license. I'm not saying I agree, but it doesn't seem unreasonable for such a thing to be suggested.

I don't think that should be the case. It seems a logistical nightmare. Getting a business license in the state you are in is fine. If you have a business that has a presence in multiple states, having multiple business licenses for each state is fine. I mean I assume how the translations work is that for each sale that state sales tax is collected on, they have to pay that to the state either monthly or at least when you file your taxes for the business. I don't see how workable it would be if you ended up having to file taxes to potentially 50 different states. And then what about sales to people who are over seas. If we're trying to collect more money from sales, If anything I would think, that businesses just charge a sales tax for the state they are local in for all translations, and be done with it. That would probably complicate things, if say you were amazon and had multiple state business licenses, since you would have to then figure out which state you are going to put the sales under. It may be for that very reason they just don't required a state sales tax for sales across state lines.

Business primarily file taxes quarterly, both state and federal. It isn't like our personal taxes on a once-per-year basis. Just FYI.

Anyway, record keeping across state lines isn't as difficult as it used to be. It's trivial to keep up with sales taxes and track records of who bought what and where. Overseas certainly is a different issue especially since there is a question of jurisdiction. But for a customer in FL using a computer in FL and an internet connection in FL to buy an item to be shipped to FL, I'm not convinced he shouldn't pay FL sales tax just because the company he bought from is in another state.

When I traveled to Hawaii and bought some cookies from a store to be shipped to family in Nevada, I paid Hawaii sales taxes on them. What is the substantive difference if I performed the exact same transaction except where I was sitting in CA making the purchase over the internet?

These two examples confuse me. From the way I read your first one (the FL example) I get that you are implying that the customer should pay taxes to FL for something purchased somewhere else. Correct? So you would have to keep track of what you bought and then pay FL at the end of the year.

In the second example, you ask why shouldn't HI get taxes from the sale, since the company is in HI even if you purchased them at home in CA; where as you when you purchased them in HI, the state did get taxes.

Who should get the taxes for what? Should the company always pay the sales tax for every purchase, should the company pay taxes for only the purchases made from customers in the state or should the consumer always pay the tax no matter where the store is (and move the requirement to pay the tax from the business to the consumer; as in businesses would no longer pay sales tax).

What does the tax solve/provide? Income to the state. For what? Services for the business (fire/police/land improvements?). So why should FL get a cut of money of a purchase that a consumer made that didn't cost the state anything (if the purchase is over the internet)?

If we had to choice, I would be more for having a company pay for every sale, regardless of source. But then, like with Amazon or NewEgg.. which state do you pay the tax in? the HQ state (and the states with the warehouses loose out)? The states it item came from (the warehouse but not where the sale was made, the HQ)? If you did it that way, I'm willing to bet most shops would move to OR or Delware and set up shop there.

With the current system., anywhere there is a physical presence, that has to be supported by a city/state, those sales pay tax. Over the internet, from a place that doesn't have a physical presence for the company, there is no cost to any one state, so why should a state make money off of it.

Posted by voltaic on Sunday May 16, 2010 @ 11:26am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Who should get the taxes for what? Should the company always pay the sales tax for every purchase, should the company pay taxes for only the purchases made from customers in the state or should the consumer always pay the tax no matter where the store is (and move the requirement to pay the tax from the business to the consumer; as in businesses would no longer pay sales tax).

If this thing happens I expect businesses would be responsible to collect sales taxes from each buyer appropriately and then pass it on to the appropriate state governments. People aren't likely to self-report sales taxes.

What does the tax solve/provide? Income to the state. For what? Services for the business (fire/police/land improvements?). So why should FL get a cut of money of a purchase that a consumer made that didn't cost the state anything (if the purchase is over the internet)?

Whoa whoa, slow down here. California doesn't provide anything for me to buy something online from a store in Hawaii? Fire and police protection are nullified when I'm on the internet? My (hypothetical) kids aren't going to the public school when I buy from Amazon?

If we had to choice, I would be more for having a company pay for every sale, regardless of source. But then, like with Amazon or NewEgg.. which state do you pay the tax in? the HQ state (and the states with the warehouses loose out)? The states it item came from (the warehouse but not where the sale was made, the HQ)? If you did it that way, I'm willing to bet most shops would move to OR or Delware and set up shop there.

The state of the buyer. Your hypothetical is close to how the system is now and I don't see businesses flocking to Delaware.

With the current system., anywhere there is a physical presence, that has to be supported by a city/state, those sales pay tax. Over the internet, from a place that doesn't have a physical presence for the company, there is no cost to any one state, so why should a state make money off of it.

I disagree that there is no cost. Shrug.

Posted by Stealth on Monday May 17, 2010 @ 04:07am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

Who should get the taxes for what? Should the company always pay the sales tax for every purchase, should the company pay taxes for only the purchases made from customers in the state or should the consumer always pay the tax no matter where the store is (and move the requirement to pay the tax from the business to the consumer; as in businesses would no longer pay sales tax).

If this thing happens I expect businesses would be responsible to collect sales taxes from each buyer appropriately and then pass it on to the appropriate state governments. People aren't likely to self-report sales taxes.

And that would be a suck for businesses and consumers. In addition, cities/counties have their own tax rate. So now If I buy from Amazon, am I paying the 10 percent King County tax or the 8 percent Clark County tax? it's opening up a bigger can of worms.

What does the tax solve/provide? Income to the state. For what? Services for the business (fire/police/land improvements?). So why should FL get a cut of money of a purchase that a consumer made that didn't cost the state anything (if the purchase is over the internet)?

Whoa whoa, slow down here. California doesn't provide anything for me to buy something online from a store in Hawaii? Fire and police protection are nullified when I'm on the internet? My (hypothetical) kids aren't going to the public school when I buy from Amazon?

No, But you still pay CA taxes on things you do buy from there; groceries, gas, power, food, property taxes,etc. I guess if this was a big deal where EVERYTHING was bought over the internet then maybe it would be something looking at again, but right now it's just trying to squeeze for every last dime. Lets say I spend 5K a year at Amazon.. that 500 in taxes. I don't think the state would care. And, no, I don't think every persons spends that much online.. i think it's much less.

If we had to choice, I would be more for having a company pay for every sale, regardless of source. But then, like with Amazon or NewEgg.. which state do you pay the tax in? the HQ state (and the states with the warehouses loose out)? The states it item came from (the warehouse but not where the sale was made, the HQ)? If you did it that way, I'm willing to bet most shops would move to OR or Delware and set up shop there.

The state of the buyer. Your hypothetical is close to how the system is now and I don't see businesses flocking to Delaware.

Right now it's physical presence of any building.. Amazon and New Egg can't work out of one state (thus the warehouses around the country). And everyone else.. they either already have a presence in the state and collect/pay the tax (Sears, BestBuy, etc) or are to small to really care.

With the current system., anywhere there is a physical presence, that has to be supported by a city/state, those sales pay tax. Over the internet, from a place that doesn't have a physical presence for the company, there is no cost to any one state, so why should a state make money off of it.

I disagree that there is no cost. Shrug.

You disagree, but provide no example or alternative?

What addition cost does the state of CA incur when you buy something from HI on-line? You already paid for your cable/internet and the tax with that, and so the bits are being paid for, same with the house and power and all that jazz. It doesn't cost them anything. CA hasn't had to pay at all, any more then it already does when you browse the Google or the website for your school.

Posted by voltaic on Tuesday May 18, 2010 @ 08:34am
>> [ reply ][ rating +0  

 

 

]

If this thing happens I expect businesses would be responsible to collect sales taxes from each buyer appropriately and then pass it on to the appropriate state governments. People aren't likely to self-report sales taxes.

And that would be a suck for businesses and consumers. In addition, cities/counties have their own tax rate. So now If I buy from Amazon, am I paying the 10 percent King County tax or the 8 percent Clark County tax? it's opening up a bigger can of worms.

Businesses do it now. How does it suck for consumers exactly since they don't have to do anything?

As I've said, I'm talking about the customer's location at the time of sale. It's no big can of worms. It's 3141 numbers in a database listing sales taxes by county (or county equivalent as the USGS calls it). Businesses do it now. Think McDonalds. What is the big can of worms in them typing in the correct sales tax into their point-of-sale system whenever they open an outlet in a new place?

Whoa whoa, slow down here. California doesn't provide anything for me to buy something online from a store in Hawaii? Fire and police protection are nullified when I'm on the internet? My (hypothetical) kids aren't going to the public school when I buy from Amazon?

No, But you still pay CA taxes on things you do buy from there; groceries, gas, power, food, property taxes,etc. I guess if this was a big deal where EVERYTHING was bought over the internet then maybe it would be something looking at again, but right now it's just trying to squeeze for every last dime. Lets say I spend 5K a year at Amazon.. that 500 in taxes. I don't think the state would care. And, no, I don't think every persons spends that much online.. i think it's much less.

The great thing about Amazon now is that they are publicly traded, so their audited financials are available online. Per their financials, their US-only sales (excluding stuff like fees from their credit cards, etc, so just sales as far as I can get it) was about $12.278B last year. Sales taxes range quite a bit in the US, but let's just be simple for this and say an average of 5% (I'm sure a true weighted average would be higher with more customers in the high CA and NY states for example, but fuck it). 5% of that sales revenue is ~$614M in 2009 alone.

Or let's get creative and say perhaps Amazon sells 10% of their US revenue in CA since we're a bunch of online freaks. That's $1.228B in sales (going back to the original sales figure) and with our average 8.5% sales tax or so, that's potentially $104M in sales tax for only one year from Amazon alone. That's not something a state doesn't care about.

With the current system., anywhere there is a physical presence, that has to be supported by a city/state, those sales pay tax. Over the internet, from a place that doesn't have a physical presence for the company, there is no cost to any one state, so why should a state make money off of it.

I disagree that there is no cost. Shrug.

You disagree, but provide no example or alternative?

I already gave an example. I still receive fire and police protection in CA while I'm online buying from a store in NV. I'm curious what the "cost" is to a state beyond that for a business opening up a physical presence?

What addition cost does the state of CA incur when you buy something from HI on-line? You already paid for your cable/internet and the tax with that, and so the bits are being paid for, same with the house and power and all that jazz. It doesn't cost them anything. CA hasn't had to pay at all, any more then it already does when you browse the Google or the website for your school.

Additional cost? None. Just like it didn't cost Hawaii anything when I travelled there and bought from the Hawaii store.