Sales Tax Laws Got Complicated

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 9:04:40 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

onsdag den 28. august 2019 kl. 02.56.13 UTC+2 skrev dagmarg...@yahoo.com:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 8:29:05 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
onsdag den 28. august 2019 kl. 02.22.43 UTC+2 skrev dagmarg...@yahoo.com:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 4:56:08 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:49:55 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo..com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 2:18:09 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:49:14 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:08:22 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
Rick C wrote...

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

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


--
Thanks,
- Win

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

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

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

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

If your state wants to tax purchases and the voters approve, I suppose
they could go ahead and do that. But that's not a sales tax imposed
on someone out of state, that would be a purchase tax imposed by a
state on their own citizens.
Hmm, James you are smart enough to argue rings around me... my head spins.
(Have pity.)
The above is a 'sales tax'... that to me is the same as a 'tax on purchases'.
If you come into my state, buy said Chinese screw from 'my' hardware store we
collect a sales tax on you.. an out of stater.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

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

onsdag den 28. august 2019 kl. 02.22.43 UTC+2 skrev dagmarg...@yahoo.com:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 4:56:08 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:49:55 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 2:18:09 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:49:14 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:08:22 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
Rick C wrote...

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

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


--
Thanks,
- Win

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

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

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

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

If your state wants to tax purchases and the voters approve, I suppose
they could go ahead and do that. But that's not a sales tax imposed
on someone out of state, that would be a purchase tax imposed by a
state on their own citizens.
Hmm, James you are smart enough to argue rings around me... my head spins.
(Have pity.)
The above is a 'sales tax'... that to me is the same as a 'tax on purchases'.
If you come into my state, buy said Chinese screw from 'my' hardware store we
collect a sales tax on you.. an out of stater.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Don't kid yourself.

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 8:22:43 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 4:56:08 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 10:04:33 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:

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

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

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

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Lasse Langwadt Christense]

torsdag den 29. august 2019 kl. 01.43.07 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:

On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 9:04:40 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
onsdag den 28. august 2019 kl. 02.56.13 UTC+2 skrev dagmarg...@yahoo.com:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 8:29:05 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
onsdag den 28. august 2019 kl. 02.22.43 UTC+2 skrev dagmarg...@yahoo.com:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 4:56:08 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:49:55 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 2:18:09 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:49:14 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:08:22 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
Rick C wrote...

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

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


--
Thanks,
- Win

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

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

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

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

If your state wants to tax purchases and the voters approve, I suppose
they could go ahead and do that. But that's not a sales tax imposed
on someone out of state, that would be a purchase tax imposed by a
state on their own citizens.
Hmm, James you are smart enough to argue rings around me... my head spins.
(Have pity.)
The above is a 'sales tax'... that to me is the same as a 'tax on purchases'.
If you come into my state, buy said Chinese screw from 'my' hardware store we
collect a sales tax on you.. an out of stater.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

They aren't doing business in New York.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 12:01:28 AM UTC-4, Jasen Betts wrote:

On 2019-08-27, Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 8:32:42 AM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
Rick C wrote...

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

Really, why?

I don't know, but why else would they be collecting the tax? How could US law be binding on foreign companies with no US presence?

Could be a treaty.

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

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Wednesday, August 28, 2019 at 7:50:29 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:

torsdag den 29. august 2019 kl. 01.43.07 UTC+2 skrev Rick C:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 9:04:40 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
onsdag den 28. august 2019 kl. 02.56.13 UTC+2 skrev dagmarg...@yahoo.com:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 8:29:05 PM UTC-4, Lasse Langwadt Christensen wrote:
onsdag den 28. august 2019 kl. 02.22.43 UTC+2 skrev dagmarg...@yahoo.com:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 4:56:08 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 3:49:55 PM UTC-4, dagmarg...@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 2:18:09 PM UTC-4, George Herold wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:49:14 PM UTC-4, dagmarg....@yahoo.com wrote:
On Tuesday, August 27, 2019 at 1:08:22 PM UTC-4, Winfield Hill wrote:
Rick C wrote...

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

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


--
Thanks,
- Win

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

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

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

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

If your state wants to tax purchases and the voters approve, I suppose
they could go ahead and do that. But that's not a sales tax imposed
on someone out of state, that would be a purchase tax imposed by a
state on their own citizens.
Hmm, James you are smart enough to argue rings around me... my head spins.
(Have pity.)
The above is a 'sales tax'... that to me is the same as a 'tax on purchases'.
If you come into my state, buy said Chinese screw from 'my' hardware store we
collect a sales tax on you.. an out of stater.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

They aren't doing business in New York.

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

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

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

--

Rick C.

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

 

[Rick C]

On Thursday, August 29, 2019 at 12:46:43 AM UTC-4, jurb...@gmail.com wrote:

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

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

Go fuck yourself. (not you)

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

--

Rick C.

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

 

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

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

Go fuck yourself. (not you)