Political DiscussionA place to hold political debates and general discussion. Please remember to always respect the opinions of other members and above all else, be civil.
Obviously its better to buy things online where possible b/c in most cases theres no tax. I personally love it, but some state governments hate it. I think its just another way to get money for them to waste. I was reading about this in another forum and got this:
From a news item today:
"A coalition of 18 states representing 20% of the U.S. population made a pact to begin collecting sales taxes on Internet purchases. The agreement provides a tax-collection procedure for online retailers . Retailer participation isn’t mandatory. The National Conference of State Legislatures says states lose as much as $8.9 bil annually from taxes that aren’t collected on online sales."
I can understand that if a physical retail store has an online site and they charge tax for items when you buy them online i.e Best Buy, Circuit City, Staples, etc. Places like www.newegg.com and/or www.buy.com should not be able to charge tax b/c there is no "physical" NewEgg store or Buy store that u can walk into. The internet has pretty much remained tax-free for the most part for the main reason that no single entity owns the internet/www. Now, our governments wanna dip their greedy hands in it so they can get some cash flow. I think its complete
Just my rant for the day
ps I tried making this into a poll, but I guess I cant? If someone knows how then make it into one thanx!
You can only make polls if you're a premium member.
Anywho, here's my $.02: retailers that are based out of a certain state (i.e. their home offices are in Montana) should charge the sales tax from that state. I see no problem with this. The problem comes when you have companies based overseas and now the money doesn't stay in the U.S. anymore (say you buy from Newegg.com and they are based in the Bahamas). Now your money is not only not taxed, but is spent in a foreign country where the respending of that money generates absolutely no revenue for the state or federal governments.
I think that online sales should be left untaxed for that reason. Give companies an incentive to stay based in the U.S.
Obviously its better to buy things online where possible b/c in most cases theres no tax.
You should be very careful here. The correct statement is: B/c they don't COLLECT sales tax.
In certain states (in NJ, where I live) you are STILL liable for the sales tax. It is just up to the person buying the item to include it on their state tax filing. On the NJ 1040 there is a special line for this. Does everyone do this? No. But NJ is cracking down on this using any mean legally that they have.
For example, they supoena (sp?) the records from out-of-state merchant for items shipped in NJ. They also tap the CC companies.
You should be very careful here. The correct statement is: B/c they don't COLLECT sales tax.
In certain states (in NJ, where I live) you are STILL liable for the sales tax. It is just up to the person buying the item to include it on their state tax filing. On the NJ 1040 there is a special line for this. Does everyone do this? No. But NJ is cracking down on this using any mean legally that they have.
For example, they supoena (sp?) the records from out-of-state merchant for items shipped in NJ. They also tap the CC companies.
That should be illegal. If you go to NY and purchase something, you don't have to pay NJ sales tax on it. Well, when you purchase over the internet you are basically doing the same thing.
If you live in Washington, for example, you have the option of driving into Oregon and buying whatever you want tax-free. Washington has been dealing with it for a long time but they don't charge you tax when you come back into the state. They can't. Neither can NJ.
It is akin to purchasing an item and mailing it to yourself. You still don't have to pay the taxes of the state it's mailed to.
The flaw in your agrument is the point that you take possession of the goods.
In the Oregon/Washington scenario, you actually took possession in the tax free state. When you purchase and mail to yourself, you have, indeed, taken possession of the item and then sent it to another jurisdiction.
What the state cannot do is make an out-of-state vendor, with no contact with the state that the shipment is destined for, collect and send their state tax. That would be insane. A single shop, for example, would need to know the state tax parameters of all 50+ state/other jurisdictions in the US.
So the state shifts the responsibility to the purchaser to collect and pay the state the required sales tax.
It is ALWAYS the responsibility of the purchase to pay the tax, at least in NJ.
So, yes, then can do it. NJ does do it. I have seen and heard of nightmares on this, though they mostly have to do with tobacco products.
All I know is that this has been an ongoing issue ever since e-commerce has grown to what it is today. I agree with silverdevil about the issue about the non-US-based companies making online transactions and not having to pay taxes. I dont think thats right b/c it does take away from the US economy.
To me, buying items online (inside the US not international items) is a major convenience for me. 1) I dont have to waste time going to the store and waiting in lines blahh blahh (especially around xmas time) 2) In some cases its tax free. I say in order for transactions to be tax free there has to be stipulations.
1) The company must be based in the US
2) There are no "physical" or B&M stores in the state that the purchaser resides
for example if I buy something from bestbuy.com as opposed to the store right down the street there should be no difference in terms of taxes. Michigan has a 6% sales tax. So, I should be charged 6% whether I bought it online or if I bought it at the store.
Now, lets say I go to Ohio and see something I want, but I dont get it there for some reason. I go back to Michigan and see that they have a website online that i can purchase the same thing from. So, when I buy this item this transaction should be TAX-FREE coz there is not a physical store in the state of Michigan. I should not pay any Michigan tax or Ohio tax. its obvious, that the seller is going to charge me a slightly higher shipping charge to make a little profit and to compensate for the "tax-free" part of the transaction.
Now, this is how I think it should be handled. Basically thats how it is now and they should just keep it that way and make no changes to it.
Well, what some states are afraid of (like NJ) is that people will purchase their items from out-of-state vendors and they miss out on tax revenue. They already have to deal with it from people who live in border towns but now those in Central Jersey are doing it, too. I can see their point and how the lack of revenue will eventually push the state into a situation where the budget isn't enough to take care of the needs of the state.
However, you also have to see it from a consumer's standpoint. While paying the state taxes is no burden for them (since they'd have to pay them anyway), you would think that lower prices (such as not having the tax add-on) would be better for the economy because it fosters more consumer spending (albeit out-of-state). Consumers are deal-driven. If they can get something for $.10 less somewhere else they will spend $.20 to get there and "save" that dime. All NJ has to do is make up that revenue in other places (like property tax or income tax).
Zad, you do have a point, tho. Someone other than the vendor was taking posession of the item at some point. That is an argument I cannot get around.
I think taxes are bad as it is. I think there should be less taxes, not more.
For instance, income tax. If we reduced it to a flat 10% for everyone, this would get rid of a whole lot of complications and so on
Actually, a flat tax (unless it's around 25%) would net a loss for the IRS. So, if we want a flat tax here we're going to have to pay around 25% of our checks. That hurts the poor more than it hurts the rich as it's not the same to pay 1/4 of your $50.000 a year salary (which leaves only $37.500) than it is to pay 1/4 of your $500.000 a year salary (which leaves you with $375.000).
So, if the IRS takes a loss then the money the gov. uses for everything would have to come from other places. How does the gov. get money? They levy taxes. So, you would save it in one place only to pay it in another.
Let the rich pay more because that's what's best for society at large.
tax or no tax? 
