Not Hot: 18 state pact for collecting sales tax from internet sales

[Stoneburner]

If there's anything I learned in law school is that there are no definite answers. YOu cannot sit there and say this is one hundred percent unacceptable under the commerce clause. FIrst of all, I have not seen any case of this sort before where the states themselves have pacted to perform a function. This could be because it has not been done or because it's so obviously legal nobody brought suit. There are so many possibilities here. The states could just argue they are not altering the fed tax system, they are just enforcing their taxes which are technically owed.

And yes, court's can use legislative determinations in deciding such issues, especially with something like the Dormant commerce clause.

"
I don't see the states getting a cent of taxes before the feds do anyway. If there are to be internet taxes they will start at the federal government level, because the federal government CAN tax interstate commerce. If all 50 states got together, the federal govt would just step in and take it all away. "

I'm no tax expert, but sales taxes are purely state I believe. Sales taxes are properly owed to the state. And i'm no expert in this field but from what i've learned of Con law, the state's behavior is acceptable.

 

[waxking1]

I think it would really be counterproductive in the long run. I buy more because I pay less taxes. I will buy less if I have to pay more taxes. If I buy less( and many others like me) there will be less taxes for the states to collect. There will also be less jobs for those paying state & federal taxes etc. because people will spend less money. Our state tax is 9.25 percent and if I had to pay it on all my purchases I would definetly purchase less.

 

[jakedeez]

Originally posted by: Tu13erhead
Not NH.

If NH was in the pact, wouldn't that just be weird....

 

[ElGuache]

Well, a good example is Dell here in California.
I used to buy a lot from Dell, but since they started taxing, I just concluded that their coupons didn't make things any hotter for us, Califonians. Therefore, I stoped buying as I used to. I still buy as much from other places that charge no tax to us.

Now, very simple, if this is not mandatory, then why buy from those companies that are charging tax? Unless you compare prices from one company that doesn't charge tax and other that does and you finalize that the cheaper price even with the tax, comes from that company that do charge tax, then it is all good. You should then buy from that company. Of course, they might be selling cheap due to some tax cut that they are getting, but even then, there is nothing else that you can do. The reason for that is that people are still going to buy from that company and that company might continue to be productive, sending other companies that didn't join to the ground.

 

[vanionBB]

Got this from http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

The congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, so it would take an act of congress to impose an internet tax. Just dont vote for people that want a tax and we should be safe. This whole thread is about the sky falling down anyway. I think the sky will stay right where it is for a while yet.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: vanionBB
Got this from http://www.house.gov/Constitution/Constitution.html

Section. 8.

Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

Clause 2: To borrow Money on the credit of the United States;

Clause 3: To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

The congress has the power to lay and collect taxes, so it would take an act of congress to impose an internet tax. Just dont vote for people that want a tax and we should be safe. This whole thread is about the sky falling down anyway. I think the sky will stay right where it is for a while yet.

We're not talking about a federal tax here. We're talking about state sales tax.

 

[vanionBB]

I know mike, but states cannot tax across their borders, at least that is what the constitution says. Clause 3 states that the congress regulates commerce among the states, I believe this includes taxes.

 

[Pollock]

Originally posted by: mscdex0

Originally posted by: msi1337
why does Ohio always have to get into stuff like this

I second that.

Thirded. Maybe I should try to call my congressmen...

 

[Midlander]

Originally posted by: Chucko

Originally posted by: worldcomingdown
yep KS figured that...they cant get a good model for a budget so they will tax more!!! great plan guys!

Amen

KS has already added a section on state income taxes to report unpaid sales tax for internet and catalog orders.

I love being able to order from Newegg and Dell tax free. This will suck big time. Damn Sebelius and her money grubbin arse.

Michigan (one of the joiners) has had a place on the state income tax form for years that tells you that tax is owed on purchases made out of state. They don't differentiate between internet purchases or those you made when you were traveling. Then, they threaten you with legal phrases. Finally, they ask you to put a number down: How much do you owe?

I don't know of a single person who has put a number other than 0 on that line. So much for enforcement....

 

[Injury]

So ummm...

where's the deal?

OFF-TOPIC, Douches.

Gosh, request a deal in this forum and it's locked within the hour. Make a thread that bears only a slight relevance to the forum and it has a complete discussion.

 

[designgirl]

heh, well, ur sig definitely goes along with this....

and i'm starting to hate NC more and more...should have stayed in TX

Originally posted by: Injury
So ummm...

where's the deal?

OFF-TOPIC, Douches.

Gosh, request a deal in this forum and it's locked within the hour. Make a thread that bears only a slight relevance to the forum and it has a complete discussion.

 

[Rapier]

Lets not dance around this. I want the list of the e-tailers that have signed-up with this "pact", so I know who I'm NOT going to be buying from in the future.

Rapier

 

[darksine2003]

Originally posted by: Rapier
Lets not dance around this. I want the list of the e-tailers that have signed-up with this "pact", so I know who I'm NOT going to be buying from in the future.

Rapier

Definitely a good idea, I would be more than happy to direct my money only to those companies that have the balls to stand up against this. Being taxed for everything would be easier to take if I knew the money was actually going to useful things like healthcare for everyone rather than toilet seats that cost 500 dollars.

 

[CyberZenn]

Originally posted by: vanionBB
I know mike, but states cannot tax across their borders, at least that is what the constitution says. Clause 3 states that the congress regulates commerce among the states, I believe this includes taxes.

So would it be possible to tax the source rather than the destination? In other words, tax the merchant (located in the respective state) for what they sell, rather than the consumer for what they buy? Seems like this would be easier to enforce and would generate more money as all purchases would be taxed rather than just those from particular states. Think of it as an export tariff of sorts. An unpleasant prospect -- but I am just thinking aloud.

Unfortunately folks, I think that these taxes are ultimately going to be inevitable for most of us. If these states are successful, every state (except maybe you lucky NH folks) will want a cut of the action.

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: CyberZenn
So would it be possible to tax the source rather than the destination? In other words, tax the merchant (located in the respective state) for what they sell, rather than the consumer for what they buy?

Hmm, what would we call this, perhaps a sales tax? This pretty is much what all sales taxes already are.
If you are putting the burden of tax on the merchant, the problem is that if you also have income tax you are now officially double taxing.

Think of it as an export tariff of sorts. An unpleasant prospect -- but I am just thinking aloud.

This is exactly the sort of thing that is not allowed under the Constitution. A large part of what the Constitution guarantees is that there will be free commerce between the states. That at least economically the states will be treated as one nation and not impose import or export tariffs between each other, and that any import and export tariffs levied on goods from a foreign nation will be equal between all states. When you add this to the concept of no taxation with out representation then you find a very serious problem with imposing sales tax on the internet.

Unfortunately folks, I think that these taxes are ultimately going to be inevitable for most of us. If these states are successful, every state (except maybe you lucky NH folks) will want a cut of the action.

They will not be successful, partly because if they were then there would be a mass exodus of online retailers from high taxation states to low taxation states, or even to off shoring. Unlike a B&M store it is not hard to move a online retailer, and comes will little disruption of your business.

 

[SunnyD]

Originally posted by: Injury
So ummm...

where's the deal?

OFF-TOPIC, Douches.

Gosh, request a deal in this forum and it's locked within the hour. Make a thread that bears only a slight relevance to the forum and it has a complete discussion.

Actually, as this discussion progresses, this belongs in P&N, and you belong banned for the insult thrown.

 

[TheSlamma]

Colorado is surrounded by these idot states, hope they don't close in on us

 

[JImmyK]

Originally posted by: morkus64
not MD, VA or DC...

w00t

 

[Corporate Thug]

cali lookin out!

 

[deepinya]

Originally posted by: darkavenger626
f*$#@ WHY NJ!?!?!?! we already get taxed from NEWEGG!!! NOOOOOOOOOO bbooooooooooooo to unconstitutional bs that is an infringement not only upon commercial rights but consumer rights as well. Booooooooo No taxation without constitution!!!

Yeah seriously, I love getting charged tax by Newegg yet the shipments ALWAYS come from CA....buncha friggin retards. Why the fuk do I buy from Newegg?

 

[TankGuys]

Originally posted by: deepinya

Originally posted by: darkavenger626
f*$#@ WHY NJ!?!?!?! we already get taxed from NEWEGG!!! NOOOOOOOOOO bbooooooooooooo to unconstitutional bs that is an infringement not only upon commercial rights but consumer rights as well. Booooooooo No taxation without constitution!!!

Yeah seriously, I love getting charged tax by Newegg yet the shipments ALWAYS come from CA....buncha friggin retards. Why the fuk do I buy from Newegg?

It's not neweggs fault. That's the law

 

[sflahavin]

why does Ohio always have to get into stuff like this

because people in Ohio vote democrat...

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: sflahavin

why does Ohio always have to get into stuff like this

because people in Ohio vote democrat...

LOL...tell that to the blue states that watched OHIO put the nail in Kerry for Bush. Ohio voted Republican during the last election.

 

[elny3680]

anyone realize that if you spend 150 at a retailer and say you pay sales tax of 8%, the retailer gets 162 with 12 of that is going to the government and then the retailer also gets taxed on income or profit earned on the 150? and if the retailer is a corporation, there is another tax shareholders get hit with. im know my math and/or principles here might be wrong though. someone smarter want to see if im right?

 

[SMOGZINN]

Originally posted by: elny3680
anyone realize that if you spend 150 at a retailer and say you pay sales tax of 8%, the retailer gets 162 with 12 of that is going to the government and then the retailer also gets taxed on income or profit earned on the 150? and if the retailer is a corporation, there is another tax shareholders get hit with. im know my math and/or principles here might be wrong though. someone smarter want to see if im right?

Although this is increasingly off topic for this forum, I'll answer anyway.

You buy something for $150. There is a 8% sales tax on it.
You pay the retailer $150.00.
You pay the government 8% of $150, or $12, and leave it in care of the retailer.
The retailer pays income tax on the amount of the $150 that was profit, and then distributes the rest to it's shareholders.
The Shareholders pays taxes on the already taxed profit of the $150.

There is, I feel, a case of double taxation here, and the solution would be to not tax the retailer on its profits.