I Missed This One...

[Rick C]

Yeah, revenge is sweet. I hate subjects that tell you virtually nothing about the topic of the post. So I'm getting even with a few posters here who do that often.

I missed the fact that last year in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. the Supreme Court ruled that a company selling $100,000 worth of goods or 200 sales must collect sales tax for the jurisdiction of the buyer even if they have no physical presence there. That sucks!

It was a 5-4 vote and overturned the precedent of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which is not common. The physical-presence rule of Quill was stated in the opinion to be "unsound and incorrect". This was based on such sound legal arguments such as the revenue of such untaxed sales being much higher than previously and implying that states and local governments would be insolvent without these taxes. I've always felt practical aspects of every day life should dominate when interpreting the Constitution... not!

So now the Supreme Court is raising your taxes. I expect more things will be available from outside the country (can you say China?) since this ruling now provides an even greater advantage to buying overseas which is still not taxed through the sellers. Until Trump creates a universal, all country import tax.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 01.08.08 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:

Yeah, revenge is sweet. I hate subjects that tell you virtually nothing about the topic of the post. So I'm getting even with a few posters here who do that often.

I missed the fact that last year in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. the Supreme Court ruled that a company selling $100,000 worth of goods or 200 sales must collect sales tax for the jurisdiction of the buyer even if they have no physical presence there. That sucks!

It was a 5-4 vote and overturned the precedent of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which is not common. The physical-presence rule of Quill was stated in the opinion to be "unsound and incorrect". This was based on such sound legal arguments such as the revenue of such untaxed sales being much higher than previously and implying that states and local governments would be insolvent without these taxes. I've always felt practical aspects of every day life should dominate when interpreting the Constitution... not!

So now the Supreme Court is raising your taxes. I expect more things will be available from outside the country (can you say China?) since this ruling now provides an even greater advantage to buying overseas which is still not taxed through the sellers. Until Trump creates a universal, all country import tax.

that's pretty much how it works with VAT in the EU, seems like a pretty good
way to do it. A few sales to a country doesn't mean you have to go through the hassle of collecting VAT for that country, but one you start selling more to that country you have to pay the VAT and compete on equal terms

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:23:41 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 01.08.08 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
Yeah, revenge is sweet. I hate subjects that tell you virtually nothing about the topic of the post. So I'm getting even with a few posters here who do that often.

I missed the fact that last year in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. the Supreme Court ruled that a company selling $100,000 worth of goods or 200 sales must collect sales tax for the jurisdiction of the buyer even if they have no physical presence there. That sucks!

It was a 5-4 vote and overturned the precedent of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which is not common. The physical-presence rule of Quill was stated in the opinion to be "unsound and incorrect". This was based on such sound legal arguments such as the revenue of such untaxed sales being much higher than previously and implying that states and local governments would be insolvent without these taxes. I've always felt practical aspects of every day life should dominate when interpreting the Constitution... not!

So now the Supreme Court is raising your taxes. I expect more things will be available from outside the country (can you say China?) since this ruling now provides an even greater advantage to buying overseas which is still not taxed through the sellers. Until Trump creates a universal, all country import tax.


that's pretty much how it works with VAT in the EU, seems like a pretty good
way to do it. A few sales to a country doesn't mean you have to go through the hassle of collecting VAT for that country, but one you start selling more to that country you have to pay the VAT and compete on equal terms

I'm not familiar with VAT. I thought it wasn't handled the same as sales tax. Is it collected by a vendor and then paid to the state? I guess I had the impression it was integrated into the price of the item rather than collected as a separate item. Maybe I have this impression because VAT is paid at each stage of the process but the only tax that shows is what is being added in a given transaction. So all VAT paid at earlier stages is hidden and not indicated explicitly. A sales tax is only collected at the final retail sale.

What I'm wondering is how this ruling would be enforced. If a state mandates a sales tax and a company doesn't have a presence in that state and doesn't pay the tax, how can the state collect it from them?

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 17.38.22 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:23:41 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 01.08.08 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
Yeah, revenge is sweet. I hate subjects that tell you virtually nothing about the topic of the post. So I'm getting even with a few posters here who do that often.

I missed the fact that last year in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. the Supreme Court ruled that a company selling $100,000 worth of goods or 200 sales must collect sales tax for the jurisdiction of the buyer even if they have no physical presence there. That sucks!

It was a 5-4 vote and overturned the precedent of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which is not common. The physical-presence rule of Quill was stated in the opinion to be "unsound and incorrect". This was based on such sound legal arguments such as the revenue of such untaxed sales being much higher than previously and implying that states and local governments would be insolvent without these taxes. I've always felt practical aspects of every day life should dominate when interpreting the Constitution... not!

So now the Supreme Court is raising your taxes. I expect more things will be available from outside the country (can you say China?) since this ruling now provides an even greater advantage to buying overseas which is still not taxed through the sellers. Until Trump creates a universal, all country import tax.


that's pretty much how it works with VAT in the EU, seems like a pretty good
way to do it. A few sales to a country doesn't mean you have to go through the hassle of collecting VAT for that country, but one you start selling more to that country you have to pay the VAT and compete on equal terms

I'm not familiar with VAT. I thought it wasn't handled the same as sales tax. Is it collected by a vendor and then paid to the state? I guess I had the impression it was integrated into the price of the item rather than collected as a separate item. Maybe I have this impression because VAT is paid at each stage of the process but the only tax that shows is what is being added in a given transaction. So all VAT paid at earlier stages is hidden and not indicated explicitly. A sales tax is only collected at the final retail sale.

yes it is added at each stage, collected by a vendor and then paid to the state
just pretend everything is a final retail sale, except that vendors can deduct the VAT they pay buying stuff from the VAT they have to pay when selling it

i.e. buy 50€ worth of stuff 10€ of it is VAT, sell it for 100€, 20€ is VAT,
send 10€ to the state

What I'm wondering is how this ruling would be enforced. If a state mandates a sales tax and a company doesn't have a presence in that state and doesn't pay the tax, how can the state collect it from them?

If I buy from within EU it is the vendors responsibility to collect the VAT,
if I buy outside EU the shipping company will take it through customs and collect at delivery (unless it slips by customs with sometimes happens from China, in my experience never from the US)

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 12:29:22 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 17.38.22 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:23:41 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 01.08.08 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
Yeah, revenge is sweet. I hate subjects that tell you virtually nothing about the topic of the post. So I'm getting even with a few posters here who do that often.

I missed the fact that last year in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. the Supreme Court ruled that a company selling $100,000 worth of goods or 200 sales must collect sales tax for the jurisdiction of the buyer even if they have no physical presence there. That sucks!

It was a 5-4 vote and overturned the precedent of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which is not common. The physical-presence rule of Quill was stated in the opinion to be "unsound and incorrect". This was based on such sound legal arguments such as the revenue of such untaxed sales being much higher than previously and implying that states and local governments would be insolvent without these taxes. I've always felt practical aspects of every day life should dominate when interpreting the Constitution... not!

So now the Supreme Court is raising your taxes. I expect more things will be available from outside the country (can you say China?) since this ruling now provides an even greater advantage to buying overseas which is still not taxed through the sellers. Until Trump creates a universal, all country import tax.


that's pretty much how it works with VAT in the EU, seems like a pretty good
way to do it. A few sales to a country doesn't mean you have to go through the hassle of collecting VAT for that country, but one you start selling more to that country you have to pay the VAT and compete on equal terms

I'm not familiar with VAT. I thought it wasn't handled the same as sales tax. Is it collected by a vendor and then paid to the state? I guess I had the impression it was integrated into the price of the item rather than collected as a separate item. Maybe I have this impression because VAT is paid at each stage of the process but the only tax that shows is what is being added in a given transaction. So all VAT paid at earlier stages is hidden and not indicated explicitly. A sales tax is only collected at the final retail sale.


yes it is added at each stage, collected by a vendor and then paid to the state
just pretend everything is a final retail sale, except that vendors can deduct the VAT they pay buying stuff from the VAT they have to pay when selling it

i.e. buy 50€ worth of stuff 10€ of it is VAT, sell it for 100€, 20€ is VAT,
send 10€ to the state

Ok, this is more clear. The VAT applied at any stage is on the TOTAL value of the item! That makes no sense to me. I thought it was only on the increase in value. So why have all the intermediate taxes at each stage rather than just the final tax and send it all to the state? I guess the intermediate stages might not be in the same taxing jurisdiction...

What I'm wondering is how this ruling would be enforced. If a state mandates a sales tax and a company doesn't have a presence in that state and doesn't pay the tax, how can the state collect it from them?


If I buy from within EU it is the vendors responsibility to collect the VAT,
if I buy outside EU the shipping company will take it through customs and collect at delivery (unless it slips by customs with sometimes happens from China, in my experience never from the US)

Sorry, I was switching back to the US system. I don't think the ruling by SCOTUS mentioned how it would be enforced. In international commerce all goods entering a country have to pass through customs (which creates significant costs). In the US we don't have anything like that for interstate commerce. Even if the state knows you sold goods across state lines, states don't typically have authority to control companies outside their jurisdictions.

I'm wondering if this will result in the federal government stepping in to provide regulation and enforcement... which may be the first step to the feds deciding to take over the whole sales tax thing.

Taxes are very, very psychological in nature. If any one tax is too high, people raise a fuss and it gets rolled back. But add another small tax (they all start out small) and there is little noise. I have an electric bill in Maryland with something like a dozen charges on top of the actual cost of the electricity. One of them is not so little in my opinion and we get nothing for it... at all.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 19.31.14 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 12:29:22 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 17.38.22 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:23:41 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 01.08.08 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
Yeah, revenge is sweet. I hate subjects that tell you virtually nothing about the topic of the post. So I'm getting even with a few posters here who do that often.

I missed the fact that last year in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. the Supreme Court ruled that a company selling $100,000 worth of goods or 200 sales must collect sales tax for the jurisdiction of the buyer even if they have no physical presence there. That sucks!

It was a 5-4 vote and overturned the precedent of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which is not common. The physical-presence rule of Quill was stated in the opinion to be "unsound and incorrect". This was based on such sound legal arguments such as the revenue of such untaxed sales being much higher than previously and implying that states and local governments would be insolvent without these taxes. I've always felt practical aspects of every day life should dominate when interpreting the Constitution... not!

So now the Supreme Court is raising your taxes. I expect more things will be available from outside the country (can you say China?) since this ruling now provides an even greater advantage to buying overseas which is still not taxed through the sellers. Until Trump creates a universal, all country import tax.


that's pretty much how it works with VAT in the EU, seems like a pretty good
way to do it. A few sales to a country doesn't mean you have to go through the hassle of collecting VAT for that country, but one you start selling more to that country you have to pay the VAT and compete on equal terms

I'm not familiar with VAT. I thought it wasn't handled the same as sales tax. Is it collected by a vendor and then paid to the state? I guess I had the impression it was integrated into the price of the item rather than collected as a separate item. Maybe I have this impression because VAT is paid at each stage of the process but the only tax that shows is what is being added in a given transaction. So all VAT paid at earlier stages is hidden and not indicated explicitly. A sales tax is only collected at the final retail sale.


yes it is added at each stage, collected by a vendor and then paid to the state
just pretend everything is a final retail sale, except that vendors can deduct the VAT they pay buying stuff from the VAT they have to pay when selling it

i.e. buy 50€ worth of stuff 10€ of it is VAT, sell it for 100€, 20€ is VAT,
send 10€ to the state

Ok, this is more clear. The VAT applied at any stage is on the TOTAL value of the item! That makes no sense to me. I thought it was only on the increase in value. So why have all the intermediate taxes at each stage rather than just the final tax and send it all to the state? I guess the intermediate stages might not be in the same taxing jurisdiction...

it is basically on the increase in value because you only pay the difference between the VAT you paid and the VAT you have to charge

and if you have to scrap something and never sell it you get the VAT back

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 2:59:45 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 09:29:15 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 17.38.22 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:23:41 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 01.08.08 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
Yeah, revenge is sweet. I hate subjects that tell you virtually nothing about the topic of the post. So I'm getting even with a few posters here who do that often.

I missed the fact that last year in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. the Supreme Court ruled that a company selling $100,000 worth of goods or 200 sales must collect sales tax for the jurisdiction of the buyer even if they have no physical presence there. That sucks!

It was a 5-4 vote and overturned the precedent of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which is not common. The physical-presence rule of Quill was stated in the opinion to be "unsound and incorrect". This was based on such sound legal arguments such as the revenue of such untaxed sales being much higher than previously and implying that states and local governments would be insolvent without these taxes. I've always felt practical aspects of every day life should dominate when interpreting the Constitution... not!

So now the Supreme Court is raising your taxes. I expect more things will be available from outside the country (can you say China?) since this ruling now provides an even greater advantage to buying overseas which is still not taxed through the sellers. Until Trump creates a universal, all country import tax.


that's pretty much how it works with VAT in the EU, seems like a pretty good
way to do it. A few sales to a country doesn't mean you have to go through the hassle of collecting VAT for that country, but one you start selling more to that country you have to pay the VAT and compete on equal terms

I'm not familiar with VAT. I thought it wasn't handled the same as sales tax. Is it collected by a vendor and then paid to the state? I guess I had the impression it was integrated into the price of the item rather than collected as a separate item. Maybe I have this impression because VAT is paid at each stage of the process but the only tax that shows is what is being added in a given transaction. So all VAT paid at earlier stages is hidden and not indicated explicitly. A sales tax is only collected at the final retail sale.


yes it is added at each stage, collected by a vendor and then paid to the state
just pretend everything is a final retail sale, except that vendors can deduct the VAT they pay buying stuff from the VAT they have to pay when selling it

i.e. buy 50€ worth of stuff 10€ of it is VAT, sell it for 100€, 20€ is VAT,
send 10€ to the state

What I'm wondering is how this ruling would be enforced. If a state mandates a sales tax and a company doesn't have a presence in that state and doesn't pay the tax, how can the state collect it from them?


If I buy from within EU it is the vendors responsibility to collect the VAT,
if I buy outside EU the shipping company will take it through customs and collect at delivery (unless it slips by customs with sometimes happens from China, in my experience never from the US)





On direct imports, who pays the VAT? The end-user?

If a distributor buys Chinese stuff cheap, and resells in Europe, how
is the VAT handled?

I always thought the idea of VAT was silly, punishing people for
creating value.

Is there VAT on services?

We don't pay state sales tax on things that are "for resale", like
parts or subassemblies, and there is no Federal sales tax for us. Most
of our customers are also exempt from sales tax.

So you don't like sales tax, you don't like income tax on companies. I suppose you also would be opposed to taxes on wealth?

What taxes do you support? Any?

--

Rick C.

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

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 09:29:15 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
<langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 17.38.22 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:23:41 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 01.08.08 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
Yeah, revenge is sweet. I hate subjects that tell you virtually nothing about the topic of the post. So I'm getting even with a few posters here who do that often.

I missed the fact that last year in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. the Supreme Court ruled that a company selling $100,000 worth of goods or 200 sales must collect sales tax for the jurisdiction of the buyer even if they have no physical presence there. That sucks!

It was a 5-4 vote and overturned the precedent of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which is not common. The physical-presence rule of Quill was stated in the opinion to be "unsound and incorrect". This was based on such sound legal arguments such as the revenue of such untaxed sales being much higher than previously and implying that states and local governments would be insolvent without these taxes. I've always felt practical aspects of every day life should dominate when interpreting the Constitution... not!

So now the Supreme Court is raising your taxes. I expect more things will be available from outside the country (can you say China?) since this ruling now provides an even greater advantage to buying overseas which is still not taxed through the sellers. Until Trump creates a universal, all country import tax.


that's pretty much how it works with VAT in the EU, seems like a pretty good
way to do it. A few sales to a country doesn't mean you have to go through the hassle of collecting VAT for that country, but one you start selling more to that country you have to pay the VAT and compete on equal terms

I'm not familiar with VAT. I thought it wasn't handled the same as sales tax. Is it collected by a vendor and then paid to the state? I guess I had the impression it was integrated into the price of the item rather than collected as a separate item. Maybe I have this impression because VAT is paid at each stage of the process but the only tax that shows is what is being added in a given transaction. So all VAT paid at earlier stages is hidden and not indicated explicitly. A sales tax is only collected at the final retail sale.


yes it is added at each stage, collected by a vendor and then paid to the state
just pretend everything is a final retail sale, except that vendors can deduct the VAT they pay buying stuff from the VAT they have to pay when selling it

i.e. buy 50€ worth of stuff 10€ of it is VAT, sell it for 100€, 20€ is VAT,
send 10€ to the state

What I'm wondering is how this ruling would be enforced. If a state mandates a sales tax and a company doesn't have a presence in that state and doesn't pay the tax, how can the state collect it from them?


If I buy from within EU it is the vendors responsibility to collect the VAT,
if I buy outside EU the shipping company will take it through customs and collect at delivery (unless it slips by customs with sometimes happens from China, in my experience never from the US)

On direct imports, who pays the VAT? The end-user?

If a distributor buys Chinese stuff cheap, and resells in Europe, how
is the VAT handled?

I always thought the idea of VAT was silly, punishing people for
creating value.

Is there VAT on services?

We don't pay state sales tax on things that are "for resale", like
parts or subassemblies, and there is no Federal sales tax for us. Most
of our customers are also exempt from sales tax.


--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 20.59.45 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin:

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 09:29:15 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 17.38.22 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:23:41 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 01.08.08 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
Yeah, revenge is sweet. I hate subjects that tell you virtually nothing about the topic of the post. So I'm getting even with a few posters here who do that often.

I missed the fact that last year in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. the Supreme Court ruled that a company selling $100,000 worth of goods or 200 sales must collect sales tax for the jurisdiction of the buyer even if they have no physical presence there. That sucks!

It was a 5-4 vote and overturned the precedent of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which is not common. The physical-presence rule of Quill was stated in the opinion to be "unsound and incorrect". This was based on such sound legal arguments such as the revenue of such untaxed sales being much higher than previously and implying that states and local governments would be insolvent without these taxes. I've always felt practical aspects of every day life should dominate when interpreting the Constitution... not!

So now the Supreme Court is raising your taxes. I expect more things will be available from outside the country (can you say China?) since this ruling now provides an even greater advantage to buying overseas which is still not taxed through the sellers. Until Trump creates a universal, all country import tax.


that's pretty much how it works with VAT in the EU, seems like a pretty good
way to do it. A few sales to a country doesn't mean you have to go through the hassle of collecting VAT for that country, but one you start selling more to that country you have to pay the VAT and compete on equal terms

I'm not familiar with VAT. I thought it wasn't handled the same as sales tax. Is it collected by a vendor and then paid to the state? I guess I had the impression it was integrated into the price of the item rather than collected as a separate item. Maybe I have this impression because VAT is paid at each stage of the process but the only tax that shows is what is being added in a given transaction. So all VAT paid at earlier stages is hidden and not indicated explicitly. A sales tax is only collected at the final retail sale.


yes it is added at each stage, collected by a vendor and then paid to the state
just pretend everything is a final retail sale, except that vendors can deduct the VAT they pay buying stuff from the VAT they have to pay when selling it

i.e. buy 50€ worth of stuff 10€ of it is VAT, sell it for 100€, 20€ is VAT,
send 10€ to the state

What I'm wondering is how this ruling would be enforced. If a state mandates a sales tax and a company doesn't have a presence in that state and doesn't pay the tax, how can the state collect it from them?


If I buy from within EU it is the vendors responsibility to collect the VAT,
if I buy outside EU the shipping company will take it through customs and collect at delivery (unless it slips by customs with sometimes happens from China, in my experience never from the US)





On direct imports, who pays the VAT? The end-user?

if I order something from China I pay the VAT

If a distributor buys Chinese stuff cheap, and resells in Europe, how
is the VAT handled?

they pay VAT on import

I always thought the idea of VAT was silly, punishing people for
creating value.

or alternatively only taxing those that actually make money

Is there VAT on services?

yes, there is VAT on almost everything

We don't pay state sales tax on things that are "for resale", like
parts or subassemblies, and there is no Federal sales tax for us. Most
of our customers are also exempt from sales tax.

same for VAT, a company get the VAT back on stuff they buy and collect
VAT on stuff they sell

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 21.55.40 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin:

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 12:26:20 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 20.59.45 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin:
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 09:29:15 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 17.38.22 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:23:41 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 01.08.08 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
Yeah, revenge is sweet. I hate subjects that tell you virtually nothing about the topic of the post. So I'm getting even with a few posters here who do that often.

I missed the fact that last year in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. the Supreme Court ruled that a company selling $100,000 worth of goods or 200 sales must collect sales tax for the jurisdiction of the buyer even if they have no physical presence there. That sucks!

It was a 5-4 vote and overturned the precedent of Quill Corp. v.. North Dakota, which is not common. The physical-presence rule of Quill was stated in the opinion to be "unsound and incorrect". This was based on such sound legal arguments such as the revenue of such untaxed sales being much higher than previously and implying that states and local governments would be insolvent without these taxes. I've always felt practical aspects of every day life should dominate when interpreting the Constitution... not!

So now the Supreme Court is raising your taxes. I expect more things will be available from outside the country (can you say China?) since this ruling now provides an even greater advantage to buying overseas which is still not taxed through the sellers. Until Trump creates a universal, all country import tax.


that's pretty much how it works with VAT in the EU, seems like a pretty good
way to do it. A few sales to a country doesn't mean you have to go through the hassle of collecting VAT for that country, but one you start selling more to that country you have to pay the VAT and compete on equal terms

I'm not familiar with VAT. I thought it wasn't handled the same as sales tax. Is it collected by a vendor and then paid to the state? I guess I had the impression it was integrated into the price of the item rather than collected as a separate item. Maybe I have this impression because VAT is paid at each stage of the process but the only tax that shows is what is being added in a given transaction. So all VAT paid at earlier stages is hidden and not indicated explicitly. A sales tax is only collected at the final retail sale.


yes it is added at each stage, collected by a vendor and then paid to the state
just pretend everything is a final retail sale, except that vendors can deduct the VAT they pay buying stuff from the VAT they have to pay when selling it

i.e. buy 50€ worth of stuff 10€ of it is VAT, sell it for 100€, 20€ is VAT,
send 10€ to the state

What I'm wondering is how this ruling would be enforced. If a state mandates a sales tax and a company doesn't have a presence in that state and doesn't pay the tax, how can the state collect it from them?


If I buy from within EU it is the vendors responsibility to collect the VAT,
if I buy outside EU the shipping company will take it through customs and collect at delivery (unless it slips by customs with sometimes happens from China, in my experience never from the US)





On direct imports, who pays the VAT? The end-user?

if I order something from China I pay the VAT


If a distributor buys Chinese stuff cheap, and resells in Europe, how
is the VAT handled?

they pay VAT on import


I always thought the idea of VAT was silly, punishing people for
creating value.

or alternatively only taxing those that actually make money


Is there VAT on services?

yes, there is VAT on almost everything

California has no sales tax on services, which is probably because
lawyers write the laws. If my car gets repaired, the parts are taxed
but the labor isn't.



We don't pay state sales tax on things that are "for resale", like
parts or subassemblies, and there is no Federal sales tax for us. Most
of our customers are also exempt from sales tax.

same for VAT, a company get the VAT back on stuff they buy and collect
VAT on stuff they sell


One thing I like about sales tax as a source of government revenue is
that imports get taxed at the same rate as domestic production.
Chinese companies don't pay all the many taxes that US ones do.

same with VAT

And I like that it's in plain sight at the point of sales, instead of
hidden like VAT. Prices for stuff here are usually shown pre-tax, and
the taxes are added on at time of sale.

like tips it is just an excuse to write a lower price on the sign,
here the price on the sign is the price you have to pay.

Lots of things don't have sales tax. Food, houses, stuff like that.

in some countries the VAT is lower on things like food

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 12:26:20 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
<langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 20.59.45 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin:
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 09:29:15 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 17.38.22 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:23:41 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 01.08.08 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
Yeah, revenge is sweet. I hate subjects that tell you virtually nothing about the topic of the post. So I'm getting even with a few posters here who do that often.

I missed the fact that last year in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. the Supreme Court ruled that a company selling $100,000 worth of goods or 200 sales must collect sales tax for the jurisdiction of the buyer even if they have no physical presence there. That sucks!

It was a 5-4 vote and overturned the precedent of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which is not common. The physical-presence rule of Quill was stated in the opinion to be "unsound and incorrect". This was based on such sound legal arguments such as the revenue of such untaxed sales being much higher than previously and implying that states and local governments would be insolvent without these taxes. I've always felt practical aspects of every day life should dominate when interpreting the Constitution... not!

So now the Supreme Court is raising your taxes. I expect more things will be available from outside the country (can you say China?) since this ruling now provides an even greater advantage to buying overseas which is still not taxed through the sellers. Until Trump creates a universal, all country import tax.


that's pretty much how it works with VAT in the EU, seems like a pretty good
way to do it. A few sales to a country doesn't mean you have to go through the hassle of collecting VAT for that country, but one you start selling more to that country you have to pay the VAT and compete on equal terms

I'm not familiar with VAT. I thought it wasn't handled the same as sales tax. Is it collected by a vendor and then paid to the state? I guess I had the impression it was integrated into the price of the item rather than collected as a separate item. Maybe I have this impression because VAT is paid at each stage of the process but the only tax that shows is what is being added in a given transaction. So all VAT paid at earlier stages is hidden and not indicated explicitly. A sales tax is only collected at the final retail sale.


yes it is added at each stage, collected by a vendor and then paid to the state
just pretend everything is a final retail sale, except that vendors can deduct the VAT they pay buying stuff from the VAT they have to pay when selling it

i.e. buy 50€ worth of stuff 10€ of it is VAT, sell it for 100€, 20€ is VAT,
send 10€ to the state

What I'm wondering is how this ruling would be enforced. If a state mandates a sales tax and a company doesn't have a presence in that state and doesn't pay the tax, how can the state collect it from them?


If I buy from within EU it is the vendors responsibility to collect the VAT,
if I buy outside EU the shipping company will take it through customs and collect at delivery (unless it slips by customs with sometimes happens from China, in my experience never from the US)





On direct imports, who pays the VAT? The end-user?

if I order something from China I pay the VAT


If a distributor buys Chinese stuff cheap, and resells in Europe, how
is the VAT handled?

they pay VAT on import


I always thought the idea of VAT was silly, punishing people for
creating value.

or alternatively only taxing those that actually make money


Is there VAT on services?

yes, there is VAT on almost everything

California has no sales tax on services, which is probably because
lawyers write the laws. If my car gets repaired, the parts are taxed
but the labor isn't.

We don't pay state sales tax on things that are "for resale", like
parts or subassemblies, and there is no Federal sales tax for us. Most
of our customers are also exempt from sales tax.

same for VAT, a company get the VAT back on stuff they buy and collect
VAT on stuff they sell

One thing I like about sales tax as a source of government revenue is
that imports get taxed at the same rate as domestic production.
Chinese companies don't pay all the many taxes that US ones do.

And I like that it's in plain sight at the point of sales, instead of
hidden like VAT. Prices for stuff here are usually shown pre-tax, and
the taxes are added on at time of sale.

Lots of things don't have sales tax. Food, houses, stuff like that.

Well, a cold or "warm" sandwich has no sales tax, but a "hot" sandwich
does. I buy the "warm" corned beef sandwich.






--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:08:08 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

Yeah, revenge is sweet. I hate subjects that tell you virtually nothing about the topic of the post. So I'm getting even with a few posters here who do that often.

I missed the fact that last year in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. the Supreme Court ruled that a company selling $100,000 worth of goods or 200 sales must collect sales tax for the jurisdiction of the buyer even if they have no physical presence there. That sucks!

It was a 5-4 vote and overturned the precedent of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which is not common. The physical-presence rule of Quill was stated in the opinion to be "unsound and incorrect". This was based on such sound legal arguments such as the revenue of such untaxed sales being much higher than previously and implying that states and local governments would be insolvent without these taxes. I've always felt practical aspects of every day life should dominate when interpreting the Constitution... not!

So now the Supreme Court is raising your taxes. I expect more things will be available from outside the country (can you say China?) since this ruling now provides an even greater advantage to buying overseas which is still not taxed through the sellers. Until Trump creates a universal, all country import tax.

--

Rick C.

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

I don't enjoy paying more, but the brick and mortar stores are already
suffering greatly trying to compete with the internet. When some out
of state seller, someone in China can sell you a $500 item with no
sales tax, what do you think that does for the local store? And people
come into the store, check it out, ask questions, then proceed to buy
it tax free on the internet.

Another part of that, something Trump should fix, though I haven't
seen anyone talking about it, is the way the Post Office and US sellers
that ship by mail are getting screwed by China. Look on Ebay for
things like cables, fitting, o-rings, small thumb drives, etc and
you'll find vendors in China selling them for $1 with free shipping.
I sell things on Ebay and the cheapest I can mail anything other than
a letter is $2.70. So, how can that be? Well in the 1800s the post
offices of the world got together and signed an international agreement
where the receiving country has to deliver it at the same cost that
it would cost the sending country to deliver it. So China has very
low mailing costs intermally, likely because they are deliberately
doing that to screw foreign countries, to give their vendors an advantage.
And the US Post Office, that's losing money, delivers the Chinese goods!

This is an example of something very wrong, that was brought to the
attention of the feds decades ago, but no one gave a damn to fix it.
It was some guy in America who came up with a travel mug design,
he was selling it for like $7 plus shipping. Chinese vendors knocked
it off, violated his patents, and started selling it for less with free
shipping. He tried to get the govt to help him, but no one cared.

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 22.55.25 UTC+2 skrev tra...@optonline.net:

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:08:08 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
Yeah, revenge is sweet. I hate subjects that tell you virtually nothing about the topic of the post. So I'm getting even with a few posters here who do that often.

I missed the fact that last year in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. the Supreme Court ruled that a company selling $100,000 worth of goods or 200 sales must collect sales tax for the jurisdiction of the buyer even if they have no physical presence there. That sucks!

It was a 5-4 vote and overturned the precedent of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which is not common. The physical-presence rule of Quill was stated in the opinion to be "unsound and incorrect". This was based on such sound legal arguments such as the revenue of such untaxed sales being much higher than previously and implying that states and local governments would be insolvent without these taxes. I've always felt practical aspects of every day life should dominate when interpreting the Constitution... not!

So now the Supreme Court is raising your taxes. I expect more things will be available from outside the country (can you say China?) since this ruling now provides an even greater advantage to buying overseas which is still not taxed through the sellers. Until Trump creates a universal, all country import tax.

--

Rick C.

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

I don't enjoy paying more, but the brick and mortar stores are already
suffering greatly trying to compete with the internet. When some out
of state seller, someone in China can sell you a $500 item with no
sales tax, what do you think that does for the local store? And people
come into the store, check it out, ask questions, then proceed to buy
it tax free on the internet.

Another part of that, something Trump should fix, though I haven't
seen anyone talking about it, is the way the Post Office and US sellers
that ship by mail are getting screwed by China. Look on Ebay for
things like cables, fitting, o-rings, small thumb drives, etc and
you'll find vendors in China selling them for $1 with free shipping.
I sell things on Ebay and the cheapest I can mail anything other than
a letter is $2.70. So, how can that be? Well in the 1800s the post
offices of the world got together and signed an international agreement
where the receiving country has to deliver it at the same cost that
it would cost the sending country to deliver it. So China has very
low mailing costs intermally, likely because they are deliberately
doing that to screw foreign countries, to give their vendors an advantage..
And the US Post Office, that's losing money, delivers the Chinese goods!

not quite like that, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Postal_Union

 

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 5:13:20 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 22.55.25 UTC+2 skrev tra...@optonline.net:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:08:08 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
Yeah, revenge is sweet. I hate subjects that tell you virtually nothing about the topic of the post. So I'm getting even with a few posters here who do that often.

I missed the fact that last year in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. the Supreme Court ruled that a company selling $100,000 worth of goods or 200 sales must collect sales tax for the jurisdiction of the buyer even if they have no physical presence there. That sucks!

It was a 5-4 vote and overturned the precedent of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which is not common. The physical-presence rule of Quill was stated in the opinion to be "unsound and incorrect". This was based on such sound legal arguments such as the revenue of such untaxed sales being much higher than previously and implying that states and local governments would be insolvent without these taxes. I've always felt practical aspects of every day life should dominate when interpreting the Constitution... not!

So now the Supreme Court is raising your taxes. I expect more things will be available from outside the country (can you say China?) since this ruling now provides an even greater advantage to buying overseas which is still not taxed through the sellers. Until Trump creates a universal, all country import tax.

--

Rick C.

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

I don't enjoy paying more, but the brick and mortar stores are already
suffering greatly trying to compete with the internet. When some out
of state seller, someone in China can sell you a $500 item with no
sales tax, what do you think that does for the local store? And people
come into the store, check it out, ask questions, then proceed to buy
it tax free on the internet.

Another part of that, something Trump should fix, though I haven't
seen anyone talking about it, is the way the Post Office and US sellers
that ship by mail are getting screwed by China. Look on Ebay for
things like cables, fitting, o-rings, small thumb drives, etc and
you'll find vendors in China selling them for $1 with free shipping.
I sell things on Ebay and the cheapest I can mail anything other than
a letter is $2.70. So, how can that be? Well in the 1800s the post
offices of the world got together and signed an international agreement
where the receiving country has to deliver it at the same cost that
it would cost the sending country to deliver it. So China has very
low mailing costs intermally, likely because they are deliberately
doing that to screw foreign countries, to give their vendors an advantage.
And the US Post Office, that's losing money, delivers the Chinese goods!


not quite like that, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Postal_Union

Here is the relevant part:

In recent years UPU members have encountered serious problems triggered by the enormous increase in e-commerce originating from the Far East, where the terminal dues do not cover the unit costs of delivery in the destination countries, and the volumes are so big that the losses cannot be compensated by better terminal dues from other traffic. In 2016, a new remuneration system was implemented with a focus on e-commerce,[13] but while the 2016 reform balanced the costs to the delivery services, postage costs for shippers are still asymmetric. As of 2018, US companies pay more than twice as much to mail an item from a US plant to a US customer than does a manufacturer in China to mail an item to a US customer.[14][15][16]

On October 17, 2018, the United States declared its withdrawal from the UPU, effective October 17, 2019, with the US planning to switch to self-declared rates.[17]



So, sounds like finally something is being done and it took Trump
to do it. They say the difference is more than 2X. From what I see
it could be a lot more, eg selling a thing that comes in a small
packet or box from China for $1 including shipping.

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 3:55:40 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 12:26:20 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 20.59.45 UTC+2 skrev John Larkin:
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 09:29:15 -0700 (PDT), Lasse Langwadt Christensen
langwadt@fonz.dk> wrote:

torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 17.38.22 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:23:41 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 01.08.08 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
Yeah, revenge is sweet. I hate subjects that tell you virtually nothing about the topic of the post. So I'm getting even with a few posters here who do that often.

I missed the fact that last year in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. the Supreme Court ruled that a company selling $100,000 worth of goods or 200 sales must collect sales tax for the jurisdiction of the buyer even if they have no physical presence there. That sucks!

It was a 5-4 vote and overturned the precedent of Quill Corp. v.. North Dakota, which is not common. The physical-presence rule of Quill was stated in the opinion to be "unsound and incorrect". This was based on such sound legal arguments such as the revenue of such untaxed sales being much higher than previously and implying that states and local governments would be insolvent without these taxes. I've always felt practical aspects of every day life should dominate when interpreting the Constitution... not!

So now the Supreme Court is raising your taxes. I expect more things will be available from outside the country (can you say China?) since this ruling now provides an even greater advantage to buying overseas which is still not taxed through the sellers. Until Trump creates a universal, all country import tax.


that's pretty much how it works with VAT in the EU, seems like a pretty good
way to do it. A few sales to a country doesn't mean you have to go through the hassle of collecting VAT for that country, but one you start selling more to that country you have to pay the VAT and compete on equal terms

I'm not familiar with VAT. I thought it wasn't handled the same as sales tax. Is it collected by a vendor and then paid to the state? I guess I had the impression it was integrated into the price of the item rather than collected as a separate item. Maybe I have this impression because VAT is paid at each stage of the process but the only tax that shows is what is being added in a given transaction. So all VAT paid at earlier stages is hidden and not indicated explicitly. A sales tax is only collected at the final retail sale.


yes it is added at each stage, collected by a vendor and then paid to the state
just pretend everything is a final retail sale, except that vendors can deduct the VAT they pay buying stuff from the VAT they have to pay when selling it

i.e. buy 50€ worth of stuff 10€ of it is VAT, sell it for 100€, 20€ is VAT,
send 10€ to the state

What I'm wondering is how this ruling would be enforced. If a state mandates a sales tax and a company doesn't have a presence in that state and doesn't pay the tax, how can the state collect it from them?


If I buy from within EU it is the vendors responsibility to collect the VAT,
if I buy outside EU the shipping company will take it through customs and collect at delivery (unless it slips by customs with sometimes happens from China, in my experience never from the US)





On direct imports, who pays the VAT? The end-user?

if I order something from China I pay the VAT


If a distributor buys Chinese stuff cheap, and resells in Europe, how
is the VAT handled?

they pay VAT on import


I always thought the idea of VAT was silly, punishing people for
creating value.

or alternatively only taxing those that actually make money


Is there VAT on services?

yes, there is VAT on almost everything

California has no sales tax on services, which is probably because
lawyers write the laws. If my car gets repaired, the parts are taxed
but the labor isn't.



We don't pay state sales tax on things that are "for resale", like
parts or subassemblies, and there is no Federal sales tax for us. Most
of our customers are also exempt from sales tax.

same for VAT, a company get the VAT back on stuff they buy and collect
VAT on stuff they sell


One thing I like about sales tax as a source of government revenue is
that imports get taxed at the same rate as domestic production.
Chinese companies don't pay all the many taxes that US ones do.

And I like that it's in plain sight at the point of sales, instead of
hidden like VAT. Prices for stuff here are usually shown pre-tax, and
the taxes are added on at time of sale.

Lots of things don't have sales tax. Food, houses, stuff like that.

A rose by any other name. Maryland doesn't have a sales tax on autos. But they charge a 6% tax when registering it. Every state I know of has taxes on real estate. They may not call it "sales tax", but who cares? In most places houses have a rather significant tax when buying them.

Well, a cold or "warm" sandwich has no sales tax, but a "hot" sandwich
does. I buy the "warm" corned beef sandwich.

That's an issue of not wanting to tax the poor so in general food is not taxed unless it is considered to be more of a luxury item, meaning it is bought in a restaurant. Maryland has no tax on food in a grocery store (not sure about precooked items) but you are taxed in restaurants. In Virginia they drop the tax rate to half on food in a grocery store. On the other hand local jurisdictions have the option of piggyback taxing restaurants so that most locations charge 11% total tax.

No small part of the SCOTUS decision in this case was that with modern computing capabilities it should be a snap to know every tax in every jurisdiction for each vendor to charge. Clearly this will result in service companies to provide that capability not unlike the several credit card processors for business.

It should be a snap to allow these companies to aggregate all the taxes you pay. At one time you could deduct all your taxes on your federal return, but alas, no more. Still, it would be highly educational to see just what taxes you pay.

One I love is the "franchise fee" paid to cable operators. Why isn't that listed as a tax?

 

[John Larkin]

On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 13:55:20 -0700 (PDT), trader4@optonline.net wrote:

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:08:08 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
Yeah, revenge is sweet. I hate subjects that tell you virtually nothing about the topic of the post. So I'm getting even with a few posters here who do that often.

I missed the fact that last year in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. the Supreme Court ruled that a company selling $100,000 worth of goods or 200 sales must collect sales tax for the jurisdiction of the buyer even if they have no physical presence there. That sucks!

It was a 5-4 vote and overturned the precedent of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which is not common. The physical-presence rule of Quill was stated in the opinion to be "unsound and incorrect". This was based on such sound legal arguments such as the revenue of such untaxed sales being much higher than previously and implying that states and local governments would be insolvent without these taxes. I've always felt practical aspects of every day life should dominate when interpreting the Constitution... not!

So now the Supreme Court is raising your taxes. I expect more things will be available from outside the country (can you say China?) since this ruling now provides an even greater advantage to buying overseas which is still not taxed through the sellers. Until Trump creates a universal, all country import tax.

--

Rick C.

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

I don't enjoy paying more, but the brick and mortar stores are already
suffering greatly trying to compete with the internet. When some out
of state seller, someone in China can sell you a $500 item with no
sales tax, what do you think that does for the local store? And people
come into the store, check it out, ask questions, then proceed to buy
it tax free on the internet.

Another part of that, something Trump should fix, though I haven't
seen anyone talking about it, is the way the Post Office and US sellers
that ship by mail are getting screwed by China. Look on Ebay for
things like cables, fitting, o-rings, small thumb drives, etc and
you'll find vendors in China selling them for $1 with free shipping.
I sell things on Ebay and the cheapest I can mail anything other than
a letter is $2.70. So, how can that be? Well in the 1800s the post
offices of the world got together and signed an international agreement
where the receiving country has to deliver it at the same cost that
it would cost the sending country to deliver it. So China has very
low mailing costs intermally, likely because they are deliberately
doing that to screw foreign countries, to give their vendors an advantage.
And the US Post Office, that's losing money, delivers the Chinese goods!

This is an example of something very wrong, that was brought to the
attention of the feds decades ago, but no one gave a damn to fix it.
It was some guy in America who came up with a travel mug design,
he was selling it for like $7 plus shipping. Chinese vendors knocked
it off, violated his patents, and started selling it for less with free
shipping. He tried to get the govt to help him, but no one cared.

Trump has complained about the postage differential, and said he'd do
something about it. I hope he does.

The US postal service is subsidizing Chinese sales that damage US
suppliers.




--

John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
picosecond timing precision measurement

jlarkin att highlandtechnology dott com
http://www.highlandtechnology.com

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 4:55:25 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:08:08 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
Yeah, revenge is sweet. I hate subjects that tell you virtually nothing about the topic of the post. So I'm getting even with a few posters here who do that often.

I missed the fact that last year in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. the Supreme Court ruled that a company selling $100,000 worth of goods or 200 sales must collect sales tax for the jurisdiction of the buyer even if they have no physical presence there. That sucks!

It was a 5-4 vote and overturned the precedent of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which is not common. The physical-presence rule of Quill was stated in the opinion to be "unsound and incorrect". This was based on such sound legal arguments such as the revenue of such untaxed sales being much higher than previously and implying that states and local governments would be insolvent without these taxes. I've always felt practical aspects of every day life should dominate when interpreting the Constitution... not!

So now the Supreme Court is raising your taxes. I expect more things will be available from outside the country (can you say China?) since this ruling now provides an even greater advantage to buying overseas which is still not taxed through the sellers. Until Trump creates a universal, all country import tax.

--

Rick C.

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

I don't enjoy paying more, but the brick and mortar stores are already
suffering greatly trying to compete with the internet. When some out
of state seller, someone in China can sell you a $500 item with no
sales tax, what do you think that does for the local store? And people
come into the store, check it out, ask questions, then proceed to buy
it tax free on the internet.

What is your point?

Another part of that, something Trump should fix, though I haven't
seen anyone talking about it, is the way the Post Office and US sellers
that ship by mail are getting screwed by China. Look on Ebay for
things like cables, fitting, o-rings, small thumb drives, etc and
you'll find vendors in China selling them for $1 with free shipping.
I sell things on Ebay and the cheapest I can mail anything other than
a letter is $2.70. So, how can that be? Well in the 1800s the post
offices of the world got together and signed an international agreement
where the receiving country has to deliver it at the same cost that
it would cost the sending country to deliver it.

I don't believe that is the rule anymore. In any event, China has to pay the USPS a bunch of money every year for the mail we deliver.

I dug around a bit and there is some truth to what you say, but your facts are all wrong. Fees were added to the treaty in 1969. Prior to that this was free. These fees were often not as high as charged to US customers. However, this is regular mail with no tracking. People want tracking now so the USPS has created a service called "ePacket" which includes tracking. This has a better result for the USPS. Also, rates have increased 13% every year from 2014 to 2017. The article in the Washington Post says, "the USPS actually makes an operating profit on this kind of international mail".

Even so, the actual total cost is not very high. It is literally chump change in Washington.

So China has very
low mailing costs intermally, likely because they are deliberately
doing that to screw foreign countries, to give their vendors an advantage..
And the US Post Office, that's losing money, delivers the Chinese goods!

That's not the way it works.

This is an example of something very wrong, that was brought to the
attention of the feds decades ago, but no one gave a damn to fix it.
It was some guy in America who came up with a travel mug design,
he was selling it for like $7 plus shipping. Chinese vendors knocked
it off, violated his patents, and started selling it for less with free
shipping. He tried to get the govt to help him, but no one cared.

Do you expect the US government to get involved in patent dispute cases??? That is a civil matter. The US government has taken actions to get the Chinese government to do more to enforce patents, trademarks and copyright.


--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 5:29:16 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 5:13:20 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 22.55.25 UTC+2 skrev tra...@optonline.net:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:08:08 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
Yeah, revenge is sweet. I hate subjects that tell you virtually nothing about the topic of the post. So I'm getting even with a few posters here who do that often.

I missed the fact that last year in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. the Supreme Court ruled that a company selling $100,000 worth of goods or 200 sales must collect sales tax for the jurisdiction of the buyer even if they have no physical presence there. That sucks!

It was a 5-4 vote and overturned the precedent of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, which is not common. The physical-presence rule of Quill was stated in the opinion to be "unsound and incorrect". This was based on such sound legal arguments such as the revenue of such untaxed sales being much higher than previously and implying that states and local governments would be insolvent without these taxes. I've always felt practical aspects of every day life should dominate when interpreting the Constitution... not!

So now the Supreme Court is raising your taxes. I expect more things will be available from outside the country (can you say China?) since this ruling now provides an even greater advantage to buying overseas which is still not taxed through the sellers. Until Trump creates a universal, all country import tax.

--

Rick C.

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

I don't enjoy paying more, but the brick and mortar stores are already
suffering greatly trying to compete with the internet. When some out
of state seller, someone in China can sell you a $500 item with no
sales tax, what do you think that does for the local store? And people
come into the store, check it out, ask questions, then proceed to buy
it tax free on the internet.

Another part of that, something Trump should fix, though I haven't
seen anyone talking about it, is the way the Post Office and US sellers
that ship by mail are getting screwed by China. Look on Ebay for
things like cables, fitting, o-rings, small thumb drives, etc and
you'll find vendors in China selling them for $1 with free shipping.
I sell things on Ebay and the cheapest I can mail anything other than
a letter is $2.70. So, how can that be? Well in the 1800s the post
offices of the world got together and signed an international agreement
where the receiving country has to deliver it at the same cost that
it would cost the sending country to deliver it. So China has very
low mailing costs intermally, likely because they are deliberately
doing that to screw foreign countries, to give their vendors an advantage.
And the US Post Office, that's losing money, delivers the Chinese goods!


not quite like that, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Postal_Union

Here is the relevant part:

In recent years UPU members have encountered serious problems triggered by the enormous increase in e-commerce originating from the Far East, where the terminal dues do not cover the unit costs of delivery in the destination countries, and the volumes are so big that the losses cannot be compensated by better terminal dues from other traffic. In 2016, a new remuneration system was implemented with a focus on e-commerce,[13] but while the 2016 reform balanced the costs to the delivery services, postage costs for shippers are still asymmetric. As of 2018, US companies pay more than twice as much to mail an item from a US plant to a US customer than does a manufacturer in China to mail an item to a US customer.[14][15][16]

On October 17, 2018, the United States declared its withdrawal from the UPU, effective October 17, 2019, with the US planning to switch to self-declared rates.[17]



So, sounds like finally something is being done and it took Trump
to do it. They say the difference is more than 2X. From what I see
it could be a lot more, eg selling a thing that comes in a small
packet or box from China for $1 including shipping.

If you read the above carefully, you will see a false comparison. The comparison is end to end rates. Do you really expect the Chinese or anyone else to raise their rates for shipping to match what US customers pay? That would be like telling Hyundai they had to pay their workers as much as we pay auto workers in the US!

The funny part is that by raising the rates to mail packages from outside the US, we are passing on extra costs to US buyers with little improvement in the competitiveness of US products. Do you really expect to see flash drives or USB cables or anything else that is typically sold from foreign markets to be sole more here? We lost the manufacturing battle a long time ago. We ain't winning that war.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[John Robertson]

On 2019/06/06 2:29 p.m., trader4@optonline.net wrote:

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 5:13:20 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
torsdag den 6. juni 2019 kl. 22.55.25 UTC+2 skrev tra...@optonline.net:
On Wednesday, June 5, 2019 at 7:08:08 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:

I don't enjoy paying more, but the brick and mortar stores are already
suffering greatly trying to compete with the internet. When some out
of state seller, someone in China can sell you a $500 item with no
sales tax, what do you think that does for the local store? And people
come into the store, check it out, ask questions, then proceed to buy
it tax free on the internet.

Another part of that, something Trump should fix, though I haven't
seen anyone talking about it, is the way the Post Office and US sellers
that ship by mail are getting screwed by China. Look on Ebay for
things like cables, fitting, o-rings, small thumb drives, etc and
you'll find vendors in China selling them for $1 with free shipping.
I sell things on Ebay and the cheapest I can mail anything other than
a letter is $2.70. So, how can that be? Well in the 1800s the post
offices of the world got together and signed an international agreement
where the receiving country has to deliver it at the same cost that
it would cost the sending country to deliver it. So China has very
low mailing costs intermally, likely because they are deliberately
doing that to screw foreign countries, to give their vendors an advantage.
And the US Post Office, that's losing money, delivers the Chinese goods!


not quite like that, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Postal_Union

Here is the relevant part:

In recent years UPU members have encountered serious problems triggered by the enormous increase in e-commerce originating from the Far East, where the terminal dues do not cover the unit costs of delivery in the destination countries, and the volumes are so big that the losses cannot be compensated by better terminal dues from other traffic. In 2016, a new remuneration system was implemented with a focus on e-commerce,[13] but while the 2016 reform balanced the costs to the delivery services, postage costs for shippers are still asymmetric. As of 2018, US companies pay more than twice as much to mail an item from a US plant to a US customer than does a manufacturer in China to mail an item to a US customer.[14][15][16]

On October 17, 2018, the United States declared its withdrawal from the UPU, effective October 17, 2019, with the US planning to switch to self-declared rates.[17]



So, sounds like finally something is being done and it took Trump
to do it. They say the difference is more than 2X. From what I see
it could be a lot more, eg selling a thing that comes in a small
packet or box from China for $1 including shipping.

This decision was loosely based on a report inaugurated in August 2016
(remember Obama?) who made their recommendations in Sept, 2016:

https://www.hudson.org/research/13401-crisis-in-the-mail-fixing-a-broken-international-package-system

Previously this report came out which led to the above Hudson Report:

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/08/united-states-postal-regulatory-commission-usps-universal-postal-union-united-nations-china-national-security/

However when you withdraw from international agreements unilaterally
then why should anyone deal with you (the United States)? Your country
will find it is much harder to get agreements with nations who were
friendly to you.

A school yard bully gets his own way for a while - until everyone gangs
up on him/her. Which a lot of people in the USA are simply ignoring as a
consequence of these decisions. Your government is burning all your
bridges on the international stage.

This may not end well...

John

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, June 6, 2019 at 7:05:22 PM UTC-4, John Robertson wrote:

A school yard bully gets his own way for a while - until everyone gangs
up on him/her. Which a lot of people in the USA are simply ignoring as a
consequence of these decisions. Your government is burning all your
bridges on the international stage.

This may not end well...

Do ya think?


--

Rick C.

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