Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 15:26:41 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
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 100âŹ, 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.
I've _never_ paid a "significant" tax when buying a house. A couple
of hundred bucks, maybe, but nothing like even 1%. Of course, I've
had to pay property taxes into escrow, or reimburse the seller for
property taxes paid.
On 2019/06/08 7:19 a.m., krw@notreal.com wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 12:06:56 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
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?
Taxes on individuals? Only individuals pay taxes anyway. Collecting
it in the middle only warps the economy and adds cost.
If companies want to be treated as people (legal fiction of course) then
the same company should be taxed. You can't have it both ways. If the
company shouldn't pay taxes then it should have no rights - Disney would
have no copyright protection, companies couldn't sue to collect debts or
protect their interests, etc.
Why should companies have the legal rights of personhood but not the
responsibility (to pay appropriate tax?
Companies were granted the right of personhood so they can exist - they
just don't work otherwise, so they need to pay taxes just like the rest
of us. And we have to keep an eye on them so they can't get away with
Love Canals or tax avoidance!
John
On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 10:31:26 AM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:
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.
Trump has talked about it. I believe he's directed the USPS to
investigate the actual cost of delivering packages. They claim it's
not possible. Go figure.
AFter posting that I saw where Trump actually has done something about it..
His given notice that the US is withdrawing from the international agreement
where the intl body determines the rates. It happens Oct, unless the
issues are fixed. That's an example of a Trump action that I support.
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.
Yet you don't like _any_ tariffs.
That's right, tariffs in general don't work and are wrong. Beyond the
fact that they don't work, it's a HUGE expansion of govt power, which
conservatives are supposed to be opposed to. Do you want the govt,
Trump, picking the winners and losers in the US economy? See any
issues ripe for abuse there? Companies that lobby and pay, get
tariff protection, those out of favor, get screwed.
On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 08:36:55 -0700, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com
wrote:
On 2019/06/08 7:19 a.m., krw@notreal.com wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 12:06:56 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
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 100âŹ, 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?
Taxes on individuals? Only individuals pay taxes anyway. Collecting
it in the middle only warps the economy and adds cost.
If companies want to be treated as people (legal fiction of course) then
the same company should be taxed. You can't have it both ways. If the
company shouldn't pay taxes then it should have no rights - Disney would
have no copyright protection, companies couldn't sue to collect debts or
protect their interests, etc.
Why should companies have the legal rights of personhood but not the
responsibility (to pay appropriate tax?
Companies were granted the right of personhood so they can exist - they
just don't work otherwise, so they need to pay taxes just like the rest
of us. And we have to keep an eye on them so they can't get away with
Love Canals or tax avoidance!
John
Moralistic theory is not the best way to run an economy; see how
Venezuela is doing. Since nobody, especially no politicians and no
economists, understand economics, the best way to run an economy is to
mostly leave it alone.
A company isn't a person, it is an organization of persons, namely the
shareholders.
If government must tax (and government is addicted to taxing) it
should tax personal consumption and maybe financial transactions.
On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 12:49:13 PM UTC-4, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 12:27:56 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 10:31:26 AM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:
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.
Trump has talked about it. I believe he's directed the USPS to
investigate the actual cost of delivering packages. They claim it's
not possible. Go figure.
AFter posting that I saw where Trump actually has done something about it.
His given notice that the US is withdrawing from the international agreement
where the intl body determines the rates. It happens Oct, unless the
issues are fixed. That's an example of a Trump action that I support..
This issue is in the noise for pretty much everyone.
It's not in the noise for US companies that are trying to compete with
unfair competition with China. Again, you libs just dismiss what is
unfair to US companies and side with foreign companies. Even better
if it's a commie country, libs love Russia, Cuba, China. But if there
is a regime somewhere that was doing similar and it was run by some
dictator that's friendly to the US, why then libs are outraged.
That's why Trump is spending time on it. He likes making noise. It's not about the fees. It's about making himself appear to be doing useful things. This is not really a useful thing. But it is something that people will rally behind so Trump can get out in front and lead.
Of course if your business was getting screwed with China selling items
for $1 with the shipping cost born by USPS while it costed you more
than that to ship it, why then it would be a whole different story.
And your're so stupid, you don't realize they are screwing you too.
USPS raises rates, it cost you 55 cents to mail a letter, because the
Chinese are using USPS at loss rates. But heh, Trump is fixing it,
so because you're suffering from Trump derangement syndrome, well
it has to be bad.
I got a good laugh from the lib media the last few days. They were all
over Trump's new tariff threat with Mexico. It was going to drive up
the price of food, drive up the prices of cars. That big dope that runs
Chipolte, he was pissing and moaning that they might have to raise the
price of Burrito! It was non-stop, all last week. Mexico just caved,
agreed to do a lot more to stop the flow of migrants bum rushing the
border. Trump won, no tariffs, no cost.
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.
Yet you don't like _any_ tariffs.
That's right, tariffs in general don't work and are wrong. Beyond the
fact that they don't work, it's a HUGE expansion of govt power, which
conservatives are supposed to be opposed to. Do you want the govt,
Trump, picking the winners and losers in the US economy? See any
issues ripe for abuse there? Companies that lobby and pay, get
tariff protection, those out of favor, get screwed.
Why not call a tariff what it is, a tax. It is a tax that is paid ONLY by US buyers. What a great idea. Tax the US and say it is hurting the foreigners. Yeah, Trump is really good a manipulating people into thinking things like this are a good idea.
Tariffs are not necessarily only paid by US buyers. In many cases
foreign companies lower their prices to offset some or all of the
tariffs. I don't think tariffs are a great idea. I don't think the
way Trump approached the China problem was right. He started trade
wars with just about everybody, instead of focusing on China. But
there is plenty wrong with what China is doing that needs to be
addressed. Prior presidents did nothing at all.
On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 12:27:56 PM UTC-4, tra...@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 10:31:26 AM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:
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.
Trump has talked about it. I believe he's directed the USPS to
investigate the actual cost of delivering packages. They claim it's
not possible. Go figure.
AFter posting that I saw where Trump actually has done something about it.
His given notice that the US is withdrawing from the international agreement
where the intl body determines the rates. It happens Oct, unless the
issues are fixed. That's an example of a Trump action that I support.
This issue is in the noise for pretty much everyone.
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.
Yet you don't like _any_ tariffs.
That's right, tariffs in general don't work and are wrong. Beyond the
fact that they don't work, it's a HUGE expansion of govt power, which
conservatives are supposed to be opposed to. Do you want the govt,
Trump, picking the winners and losers in the US economy? See any
issues ripe for abuse there? Companies that lobby and pay, get
tariff protection, those out of favor, get screwed.
Why not call a tariff what it is, a tax. It is a tax that is paid ONLY by US buyers. What a great idea. Tax the US and say it is hurting the foreigners. Yeah, Trump is really good a manipulating people into thinking things like this are a good idea.
On 2019/06/08 9:06 a.m., John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 08:36:55 -0700, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com
wrote:
On 2019/06/08 7:19 a.m., krw@notreal.com wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 12:06:56 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
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?
Taxes on individuals? Only individuals pay taxes anyway. Collecting
it in the middle only warps the economy and adds cost.
If companies want to be treated as people (legal fiction of course) then
the same company should be taxed. You can't have it both ways. If the
company shouldn't pay taxes then it should have no rights - Disney would
have no copyright protection, companies couldn't sue to collect debts or
protect their interests, etc.
Why should companies have the legal rights of personhood but not the
responsibility (to pay appropriate tax?
Companies were granted the right of personhood so they can exist - they
just don't work otherwise, so they need to pay taxes just like the rest
of us. And we have to keep an eye on them so they can't get away with
Love Canals or tax avoidance!
John
Moralistic theory is not the best way to run an economy; see how
Venezuela is doing. Since nobody, especially no politicians and no
economists, understand economics, the best way to run an economy is to
mostly leave it alone.
A company isn't a person, it is an organization of persons, namely the
shareholders.
If government must tax (and government is addicted to taxing) it
should tax personal consumption and maybe financial transactions.
Government is just a more civilized form of organized crime. You pay
protection (A Piece Of The Action) for that gain. If you don't want that
protection or roads, schools, hospitals, etc, then find somewhere to
live where a proper government doesn't exist. Perhaps Venezuela? The
taxpayers role is to keep the government in track so they don't spend
$12,000 for a hammer. All organizations grow and need reigning in or
excesses occur.
Back to corporations as persons, much as I am not a big fan of Wikipedia
they have a good historical perspective:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
I own two companies and pay the business taxes as well as my personal
ones. I see no logical error in that, my businesses have separate rights
from me, and they have protections that are governed by law, so should
they not pay tax to keep the laws working and protections in place?
Where I have trouble is where a corporation (as an 'individual') can
hire reams of lobbyists to argue against paying tax or making laws, etc.
On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 10:19:31 AM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 12:06:56 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
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?
Taxes on individuals? Only individuals pay taxes anyway. Collecting
it in the middle only warps the economy and adds cost.
Collecting in the middle does make people in foreign countries that buy
US products pay part of the tax burden. A US company is taxed, that
cost gets passed on not only to US consumers, but also to foreigners.
On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 09:22:25 -0700 (PDT), trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 10:19:31 AM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 12:06:56 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
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 100âŹ, 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?
Taxes on individuals? Only individuals pay taxes anyway. Collecting
it in the middle only warps the economy and adds cost.
Collecting in the middle does make people in foreign countries that buy
US products pay part of the tax burden. A US company is taxed, that
cost gets passed on not only to US consumers, but also to foreigners.
Not really. International pricing is set by international competitive
markets. If the US government increases my taxes, I don't just pass it
on. I could just as well "pass on" the cost of a new Frerrari.
If I could increase my prices - for any reason - and come out ahead, I
would. The market sets my prices, irrespective of my costs.
The actual effect of high corporate taxation is to drive US companies
out of competitive markets, partly by killing them.
On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 4:10:28 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 09:22:25 -0700 (PDT), trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 10:19:31 AM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 12:06:56 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
What taxes do you support? Any?
Taxes on individuals? Only individuals pay taxes anyway. Collecting
it in the middle only warps the economy and adds cost.
Collecting in the middle does make people in foreign countries that buy
US products pay part of the tax burden. A US company is taxed, that
cost gets passed on not only to US consumers, but also to foreigners.
Not really. International pricing is set by international competitive
markets. If the US government increases my taxes, I don't just pass it
on. I could just as well "pass on" the cost of a new Frerrari.
If I could increase my prices - for any reason - and come out ahead, I
would. The market sets my prices, irrespective of my costs.
The actual effect of high corporate taxation is to drive US companies
out of competitive markets, partly by killing them.
Larkin loves to invent his own economics even though he will tell you economics can't be understood.
Here is a simple fact. If a company makes very little profit, it pays very little in taxes. As the profits go down, the taxes go down in direct proportion. So it is pretty much impossible for an otherwise viable company to be driven out of business by ordinary business taxes in the US.
On Saturday, 8 June 2019 21:44:50 UTC+1, Rick C wrote:
On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 4:10:28 PM UTC-4, John Larkin wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 09:22:25 -0700 (PDT), trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 10:19:31 AM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 12:06:56 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
What taxes do you support? Any?
Taxes on individuals? Only individuals pay taxes anyway. Collecting
it in the middle only warps the economy and adds cost.
Collecting in the middle does make people in foreign countries that buy
US products pay part of the tax burden. A US company is taxed, that
cost gets passed on not only to US consumers, but also to foreigners.
Not really. International pricing is set by international competitive
markets. If the US government increases my taxes, I don't just pass it
on. I could just as well "pass on" the cost of a new Frerrari.
If I could increase my prices - for any reason - and come out ahead, I
would. The market sets my prices, irrespective of my costs.
The actual effect of high corporate taxation is to drive US companies
out of competitive markets, partly by killing them.
Larkin loves to invent his own economics even though he will tell you economics can't be understood.
Here is a simple fact. If a company makes very little profit, it pays very little in taxes. As the profits go down, the taxes go down in direct proportion. So it is pretty much impossible for an otherwise viable company to be driven out of business by ordinary business taxes in the US.
Lol.
On 2019/06/08 7:19 a.m., krw@notreal.com wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 12:06:56 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
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?
Taxes on individuals? Only individuals pay taxes anyway. Collecting
it in the middle only warps the economy and adds cost.
If companies want to be treated as people (legal fiction of course) then
the same company should be taxed. You can't have it both ways. If the
company shouldn't pay taxes then it should have no rights - Disney would
have no copyright protection, companies couldn't sue to collect debts or
protect their interests, etc.
Why should companies have the legal rights of personhood but not the
responsibility (to pay appropriate tax?
Companies were granted the right of personhood so they can exist - they
just don't work otherwise, so they need to pay taxes just like the rest
of us. And we have to keep an eye on them so they can't get away with
Love Canals or tax avoidance!
On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 09:22:25 -0700 (PDT), trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 10:19:31 AM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 12:06:56 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
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 100âŹ, 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?
Taxes on individuals? Only individuals pay taxes anyway. Collecting
it in the middle only warps the economy and adds cost.
Collecting in the middle does make people in foreign countries that buy
US products pay part of the tax burden. A US company is taxed, that
cost gets passed on not only to US consumers, but also to foreigners.
Taxing at the consumer does exactly the same thing, where it be income
or "sales". Tariffs tilt the table the other direction, if that's the
desire.
On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 09:22:25 -0700 (PDT), trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 10:19:31 AM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 12:06:56 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
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 100âŹ, 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?
Taxes on individuals? Only individuals pay taxes anyway. Collecting
it in the middle only warps the economy and adds cost.
Collecting in the middle does make people in foreign countries that buy
US products pay part of the tax burden. A US company is taxed, that
cost gets passed on not only to US consumers, but also to foreigners.
Not really. International pricing is set by international competitive
markets. If the US government increases my taxes, I don't just pass it
on. I could just as well "pass on" the cost of a new Frerrari.
If I could increase my prices - for any reason - and come out ahead, I
would. The market sets my prices, irrespective of my costs.
The actual effect of high corporate taxation is to drive US companies
out of competitive markets, partly by killing them.
--
John Larkin Highland Technology, Inc
lunatic fringe electronics
On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 10:19:31 AM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 12:06:56 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
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?
Taxes on individuals? Only individuals pay taxes anyway. Collecting
it in the middle only warps the economy and adds cost.
Collecting in the middle does make people in foreign countries that buy
US products pay part of the tax burden. A US company is taxed, that
cost gets passed on not only to US consumers, but also to foreigners.
On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 10:47:36 PM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 09:22:25 -0700 (PDT), trader4@optonline.net wrote:
On Saturday, June 8, 2019 at 10:19:31 AM UTC-4, k...@notreal.com wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 12:06:56 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
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?
Taxes on individuals? Only individuals pay taxes anyway. Collecting
it in the middle only warps the economy and adds cost.
Collecting in the middle does make people in foreign countries that buy
US products pay part of the tax burden. A US company is taxed, that
cost gets passed on not only to US consumers, but also to foreigners.
Taxing at the consumer does exactly the same thing, where it be income
or "sales". Tariffs tilt the table the other direction, if that's the
desire.
No it does not. A consumption tax on the consumer is typically paid at
retail sales, ie a sales tax.
If a US company sends a wholesaler
tires or computer chips, it's not taxed as a retail sale. But if that
company is paying a corp tax, it gets added to the price just like
raw materials, labor or rent.
Even if someone in France orders a
retail item from here, it's generally not subject to a sales tax.
The big picture is that a society must in the long term defer some
present consumption in favor of investment for future productivity.
The entities that invest are rich people and businesses. Bleed them at
peril to everyone.
Where I have trouble is where a corporation (as an 'individual') can
hire reams of lobbyists to argue against paying tax or making laws, etc.
Simple fix: tax consumption.
The big picture is that a society must in the long term defer some
present consumption in favor of investment for future productivity.
The entities that invest are rich people and businesses. Bleed them at
peril to everyone.
Where I have trouble is where a corporation (as an 'individual') can
hire reams of lobbyists to argue against paying tax or making laws, etc.
Simple fix: tax consumption.
I think the fundamental problem not the collection but rather what the government does with tax revenue..
If it is used for what we need and want and ultimately benefits the taxpayers, no problem. ie, build transportation, communications infrastructure, national defense etc.
But if it is wasted on unneeded military adventures, or corruption, then we have a problem.
The big picture is that a society must in the long term defer some
present consumption in favor of investment for future productivity.
The entities that invest are rich people and businesses. Bleed them at
peril to everyone.
Where I have trouble is where a corporation (as an 'individual') can
hire reams of lobbyists to argue against paying tax or making laws, etc.
Simple fix: tax consumption.
I think the fundamental problem not the collection but rather what the government does with tax revenue..
If it is used for what we need and want and ultimately benefits the taxpayers, no problem. ie, build transportation, communications infrastructure, national defense etc.
But if it is wasted on unneeded military adventures, or corruption, then we have a problem.
If it wasn't wasted, there would be more then enough tax revenue for what is needed.
m
On Sat, 8 Jun 2019 08:36:55 -0700, John Robertson <spam@flippers.com
wrote:
On 2019/06/08 7:19 a.m., krw@notreal.com wrote:
On Thu, 6 Jun 2019 12:06:56 -0700 (PDT), Rick C
gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
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:
Moralistic theory is not the best way to run an economy; see how
Venezuela is doing.
Since nobody, especially no politicians and no
economists, understand economics, the best way to run an economy is to
mostly leave it alone.
A company isn't a person, it is an organization of persons, namely the
shareholders.
If government must tax (and government is addicted to taxing) it
should tax personal consumption and maybe financial transactions.