Internet Tax On Its Way ...

[GBFan]

your lack of understanding is not shocking..

1. Taxing both things equally is about making a even playing field, not punishing a store for having a building where they actuly have people work. But Its odd, your in favor of Punishing real stores by saying they should have to pay the tax, but not online...Who is the Hypoctit?

2. Only one small problem...I am in favor of lowering Busines taxes...But also removing loopholes to make a more fair tax stem with a lower rate, but more having to actuly pay the fair rate. Also anyone who knows anything knows that the tax rate for companies in the US is a high percent, and then actually fairly low for what they actually pay to the point of big companies making billions and paying nothing or near nothing.

I know, a fair tax system is evil. And good job deciding what my view was of Buisness taxes...without all that thinking and knowing anything about my view part.

It is not the function of the government to make an "even playing field".

But, even so, an 'even playing field' is not one that punishes one side in order to subsidize the other ... but rather a playing field that allows each competitor to operate in the manner best to capitalize on their market position. Your logic says that we should have a 'buggy whip' tax on all cars, because, otherwise, the auto companies out of business.

Once again, you make it sound like the taxes on the brick and mortar stores is a God-given right of the government. Did it ever occur to you that 1) brick and mortar stores require more government-provided capabilities (after all, "they didn't build that", did they?) , or 2) that maybe, just maybe, the answer to a level 'playing field' is no taxes on either one?

I, on the other hand, don't believe in punishing anybody, but rather, creating an environment that allows the market forces to create the most advantageous price for the consumer. Artificially escalating prices on one producer to prop up a failing business model is interference ... not assistance.

Your commentary on business taxes only further demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of national and international economy, and shows your reliance on socia ... uhhh ... Democratic talking points.

 

[PLC1]

It is not the function of the government to make an "even playing field".

But, even so, an 'even playing field' is not one that punishes one side in order to subsidize the other ... but rather a playing field that allows each competitor to operate in the manner best to capitalize on their market position. Your logic says that we should have a 'buggy whip' tax on all cars, because, otherwise, the auto companies out of business.

Once again, you make it sound like the taxes on the brick and mortar stores is a God-given right of the government. Did it ever occur to you that 1) brick and mortar stores require more government-provided capabilities (after all, "they didn't build that", did they?) , or 2) that maybe, just maybe, the answer to a level 'playing field' is no taxes on either one?

I, on the other hand, don't believe in punishing anybody, but rather, creating an environment that allows the market forces to create the most advantageous price for the consumer. Artificially escalating prices on one producer to prop up a failing business model is interference ... not assistance.

Your commentary on business taxes only further demonstrates your complete lack of understanding of national and international economy, and shows your reliance on socia ... uhhh ... Democratic talking points.

The problem with all that is that the retailers are not paying the taxes. They are collecting the taxes from their customers.

If one store has to collect sales tax, and another doesn't, then that is unfair and contrary to a free market. It is, in fact, a subsidy for the retailer who doesn't have to collect taxes.

Of course, if neither store has to collect taxes, then there is no problem. To be fair, both retailers should have to collect the same tax, or no tax.

 

[GBFan]

The problem with all that is that the retailers are not paying the taxes. They are collecting the taxes from their customers.

If one store has to collect sales tax, and another doesn't, then that is unfair and contrary to a free market. It is, in fact, a subsidy for the retailer who doesn't have to collect taxes.

Of course, if neither store has to collect taxes, then there is no problem. To be fair, both retailers should have to collect the same tax, or no tax.

"If one store has to collect sales tax, and another doesn't, then that is unfair and contrary to a free market. It is, in fact, a subsidy for the retailer who doesn't have to collect taxes. "

I don't agree with this statement at all ... you, as a retailer, make decisions about where to place your business. You do not, for example, open a Jewish deli in the Muslim side of town, or a high-end restaurant on the poor side of town. You may choose to put your store in a strip mall, a big shopping center, or as a stand-alone building.

You also choose how to sell your product ... if you elect to sell your product in an area that taxes you for that sale, you pass that cost on to your customer, understanding, of course, that they may or may not choose to shop at your store because your after-tax price is higher.

Where I grew up, I was 8 miles from the border between Wisconsin and Michigan. Wisconsin had a sales tax ... Michigan didn't (yeah, this was REALLY a long time ago). We drove across the border to do our shopping. I assume you don't have a problem with that.

In the town I now live, the city has a 7.4% sales tax .... in some cases, directly across the street, in county controlled areas, the sales tax is only 3.2%. Companies get to choose which side of the street they want to place their stores. Needless to say, most choose the 'county side of the street'.

I'm sure you think that is fair ... but, when I apply the same logic to Internet vs. brick & mortar, you want to suddenly 'level the playing field'. Under your logic, shouldn't the sales tax be the same from county to city, or even, state to state?

It is not our responsibility to subsidize the errors in judgment by the retailers.

' ... contrary to a free market'? How can ANY government intervention create a more 'free' market? Sounds counter-intuitive to me.

 

[PLC1]

"If one store has to collect sales tax, and another doesn't, then that is unfair and contrary to a free market. It is, in fact, a subsidy for the retailer who doesn't have to collect taxes. "

I don't agree with this statement at all ... you, as a retailer, make decisions about where to place your business. You do not, for example, open a Jewish deli in the Muslim side of town, or a high-end restaurant on the poor side of town. You may choose to put your store in a strip mall, a big shopping center, or as a stand-alone building.

You also choose how to sell your product ... if you elect to sell your product in an area that taxes you for that sale, you pass that cost on to your customer, understanding, of course, that they may or may not choose to shop at your store because your after-tax price is higher.

Where I grew up, I was 8 miles from the border between Wisconsin and Michigan. Wisconsin had a sales tax ... Michigan didn't (yeah, this was REALLY a long time ago). We drove across the border to do our shopping. I assume you don't have a problem with that.

In the town I now live, the city has a 7.4% sales tax .... in some cases, directly across the street, in county controlled areas, the sales tax is only 3.2%. Companies get to choose which side of the street they want to place their stores. Needless to say, most choose the 'county side of the street'.

I'm sure you think that is fair ... but, when I apply the same logic to Internet vs. brick & mortar, you want to suddenly 'level the playing field'. Under your logic, shouldn't the sales tax be the same from county to city, or even, state to state?

It is not our responsibility to subsidize the errors in judgment by the retailers.

' ... contrary to a free market'? How can ANY government intervention create a more 'free' market? Sounds counter-intuitive to me.

So, you can choose where to market your goods. That's part of the free market.

If you're selling in Oregon, which does not have a sales tax, you don't collect sales tax regardless of where your business is located.

If you're selling in California, which does have a sales tax, you collect the tax regardless of where your business is.

How is that not fair?

 

[dogtowner]

So, you can choose where to market your goods. That's part of the free market.

If you're selling in Oregon, which does not have a sales tax, you don't collect sales tax regardless of where your business is located.

If you're selling in California, which does have a sales tax, you collect the tax regardless of where your business is.

How is that not fair?

Because being online means you market to thenworld. But lets ckncentrate on jyst the us. Between dtate and local sales taxes there are over a thousand combinations. For a brick and mortar there is one. A much larger burden. And hiw do you determine what taxes apply ? Address ? What if its a po box ?
Not simple

 

[PLC1]

Because being online means you market to thenworld. But lets ckncentrate on jyst the us. Between dtate and local sales taxes there are over a thousand combinations. For a brick and mortar there is one. A much larger burden. And hiw do you determine what taxes apply ? Address ? What if its a po box ?
Not simple

In the computer age, not complex at all. Did the order come from California? Add in the sales tax. From Oregon? no sales tax. The computer can be programmed to collect the proper taxes.

 

[dogtowner]

In the computer age, not complex at all. Did the order come from California? Add in the sales tax. From Oregon? no sales tax. The computer can be programmed to collect the proper taxes.

State only ? Then only fifty plus any product specific taxes. But poboxes not a problem. Go to locality specific taxes and its another story. Throw in keeping track of changes then even more. Youre talking needing.to buy software and annual contract. If you are a specialty shop who made an online presence thats a burden. Not so much for walmart dot com. Plus state and zip code are not enough to know which locality.

 

[PLC1]

State only ? Then only fifty plus any product specific taxes. But poboxes not a problem. Go to locality specific taxes and its another story. Throw in keeping track of changes then even more. Youre talking needing.to buy software and annual contract. If you are a specialty shop who made an online presence thats a burden. Not so much for walmart dot com. Plus state and zip code are not enough to know which locality.

It could be more of a problem for small retailers, but can't they make software that automatically adds the appropriate sales tax from the zip code? There can't be that much variation within a postal zip.

 

[dogtowner]

It could be more of a problem for small retailers, but can't they make software that automatically adds the appropriate sales tax from the zip code? There can't be that much variation within a postal zip.

I suppose but the point is that its another expense. Oh and tack on where how and how often the collected tax is to be sent. More work for the CPA or whoever keeps the books.
And lets just say it gets passed. There are already are outfits whose service it is to make the buyer invisible to the seller (seriously they have been advertising here for a year or more). Bets as to how many set up shop in tax free states ? If their fees are a tad lower than the tax rates they got customers.
Not as simple as it sounds.
oh and enforcement... impossible....

 

[PLC1]

I suppose but the point is that its another expense. Oh and tack on where how and how often the collected tax is to be sent. More work for the CPA or whoever keeps the books.
And lets just say it gets passed. There are already are outfits whose service it is to make the buyer invisible to the seller (seriously they have been advertising here for a year or more). Bets as to how many set up shop in tax free states ? If their fees are a tad lower than the tax rates they got customers.
Not as simple as it sounds.
oh and enforcement... impossible....

Not really, not in the computer age. All it takes is the right software.
And internet retailers not collecting a tax that their competitor have to collect is unfair competition.

 

[GBFan]

Not really, not in the computer age. All it takes is the right software.
And internet retailers not collecting a tax that their competitor have to collect is unfair competition.

Or ... you could say that requiring a brick & mortar merchant paying a tax that others don't is unfair restriction of trade.

Let's see if we understand .... the B&M merchant uses the local roads, schools, snow removal, whatever. The Internet merchant, on the other hand, uses none of those. Why should the Internet merchant be required to pay taxes in a state he never set foot in, much less maintains a physical presence?

 

[PLC1]

Or ... you could say that requiring a brick & mortar merchant paying a tax that others don't is unfair restriction of trade.

Let's see if we understand .... the B&M merchant uses the local roads, schools, snow removal, whatever. The Internet merchant, on the other hand, uses none of those. Why should the Internet merchant be required to pay taxes in a state he never set foot in, much less maintains a physical presence?

Because the online merchant is not paying the tax, but collecting it. The customers use those roads, schools, and so on whether they buy online or from the local merchant.

 

[GBFan]

Sounds like 'taxation without representation' to me ...

 

[dogtowner]

Not really, not in the computer age. All it takes is the right software.
And internet retailers not collecting a tax that their competitor have to collect is unfair competition.

the software you describe would be costly and an ongoing cost to address changing law. When you look at the huge number of vendors who sell through Amazon many of whom are small businesses operation on thin margins already this law is a boon to the big boys with whom they compete.

 

[PLC1]

the software you describe would be costly and an ongoing cost to address changing law. When you look at the huge number of vendors who sell through Amazon many of whom are small businesses operation on thin margins already this law is a boon to the big boys with whom they compete.

You do have a point there, but it's unfair either way as the local retailers have to collect sales taxes, and if their competitors don't, then their margins get a bit thinner as well.