I don’t think it’ll be especially difficult for programmers to correlate zip codes to percentages so that the law is followed.
they already do!
all of this already exists, for every state with a sales tax!
it's just now instead of you checking off each state where you have a building/employee, you also get automatically checked off for any states who:
have passed a law to this effect
you've met whatever requirements needed to be effected by that law (like, the law in question had minimums for # of transactions or $ amount before they required you to collect and submit sales taxes)
presumably the tax management platforms will just update those rules automatically as they become aware of the new laws, they already need to be constantly updating to keep up with changes in tax rates
Aioua on
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I'm starting with SCOTUSblog and I guess I should be proud of Kennedy's confidence in our software industry coming to the rescue of retailers.
"New Jersey knitters pay sales tax on yarn purchased for art projects, but not on yarn earmarked for sweaters,” Roberts said, while Texas imposes a sales tax on plain deodorant but not on deodorant with antiperspirant, and Illinois treats Twix and Snickers bars differently for sales-tax purposes."
That should be fun to work out on a per-product, per-use basis nationwide.
I don't think it's "pollyanna shit" to explore why your strong reaction may not be fully warranted.
Yes, this will effect online businesses, I don't think anyone is denying that.
That it will crush small businesses and retard innovation, for example, I think is a stretch.
The online market would not have grown as it had without Quill. Now that it's gone, some of that revenue must go to compliance instead of innovation. Either that, or we get ready for as much as $33 billion in price increases for the tax alone, not to mention the overhead of collecting and remitting it.
Okay, I don't agree that you've proven your premise here at all, but suppose you're correct - do you think it was fair or equitable to the states with sales tax that these companies, including very large national retailers, could so effectively avoid paying sales tax? Do you think it was appropriate, and still is, to expect states to go after every consumer in their state that bought something online and did not report it and pay the appropriate tax?
If the market is predicated on tax loopholes and avoiding touching a state even though you absolutely do business there, I feel like I'm okay with the market being corrected.
P.S. I live in a state with income tax, and no sales tax. So I'm already living the dream I guess.
Well, I think your question is flawed because the companies don't pay the tax. They're just forced to collect the tax for the state, then remit it to them. The consumer is paying the tax.
Let's look an example of this that really highlights how wrong this is: steam games.
So, do I think it's fair for a state government to force a company that has no presence in that state, and consumer that may or may not be in that state, using systems and software that may exist in neither the buyers state nor the seller's, and perhaps not even in the country at all, to collect tax because the zipcode on the address associated with the card used to purchase the data falls within their border?
I'm starting with SCOTUSblog and I guess I should be proud of Kennedy's confidence in our software industry coming to the rescue of retailers.
"New Jersey knitters pay sales tax on yarn purchased for art projects, but not on yarn earmarked for sweaters,” Roberts said, while Texas imposes a sales tax on plain deodorant but not on deodorant with antiperspirant, and Illinois treats Twix and Snickers bars differently for sales-tax purposes."
That should be fun to work out on a per-product, per-use basis nationwide.
different states having different taxes isn't suddenly a new thing for businesses to deal with
It's certainly different for every online retailer in every state to suddenly need to evaluate their exposure everywhere. Arguments suggesting that this is trivial are drastically downplaying the impact.
It's not hard to get middleware to take care of it for you, but given we're talking about a payment processing thing, that's PROBABLY going to cost money. That being said, I don't know if I'd want to trust a storefront that doesn't use some sort of standard payment processing thing?
I don't think it's "pollyanna shit" to explore why your strong reaction may not be fully warranted.
Yes, this will effect online businesses, I don't think anyone is denying that.
That it will crush small businesses and retard innovation, for example, I think is a stretch.
The online market would not have grown as it had without Quill. Now that it's gone, some of that revenue must go to compliance instead of innovation. Either that, or we get ready for as much as $33 billion in price increases for the tax alone, not to mention the overhead of collecting and remitting it.
Okay, I don't agree that you've proven your premise here at all, but suppose you're correct - do you think it was fair or equitable to the states with sales tax that these companies, including very large national retailers, could so effectively avoid paying sales tax? Do you think it was appropriate, and still is, to expect states to go after every consumer in their state that bought something online and did not report it and pay the appropriate tax?
If the market is predicated on tax loopholes and avoiding touching a state even though you absolutely do business there, I feel like I'm okay with the market being corrected.
P.S. I live in a state with income tax, and no sales tax. So I'm already living the dream I guess.
Well, I think your question is flawed because the companies don't pay the tax. They're just forced to collect the tax for the state, then remit it to them. The consumer is paying the tax.
Let's look an example of this that really highlights how wrong this is: steam games.
So, do I think it's fair for a state government to force a company that has no presence in that state, and consumer that may or may not be in that state, using systems and software that may exist in neither the buyers state nor the seller's, and perhaps not even in the country at all, to collect tax because the zipcode on the address associated with the card used to purchase the data falls within their border?
Nope.
I'm not in a state, but I pay a different amount for my Steam games because of my location.
I don't think it's "pollyanna shit" to explore why your strong reaction may not be fully warranted.
Yes, this will effect online businesses, I don't think anyone is denying that.
That it will crush small businesses and retard innovation, for example, I think is a stretch.
The online market would not have grown as it had without Quill. Now that it's gone, some of that revenue must go to compliance instead of innovation. Either that, or we get ready for as much as $33 billion in price increases for the tax alone, not to mention the overhead of collecting and remitting it.
Okay, I don't agree that you've proven your premise here at all, but suppose you're correct - do you think it was fair or equitable to the states with sales tax that these companies, including very large national retailers, could so effectively avoid paying sales tax? Do you think it was appropriate, and still is, to expect states to go after every consumer in their state that bought something online and did not report it and pay the appropriate tax?
If the market is predicated on tax loopholes and avoiding touching a state even though you absolutely do business there, I feel like I'm okay with the market being corrected.
P.S. I live in a state with income tax, and no sales tax. So I'm already living the dream I guess.
Well, I think your question is flawed because the companies don't pay the tax. They're just forced to collect the tax for the state, then remit it to them. The consumer is paying the tax.
Let's look an example of this that really highlights how wrong this is: steam games.
So, do I think it's fair for a state government to force a company that has no presence in that state, and consumer that may or may not be in that state, using systems and software that may exist in neither the buyers state nor the seller's, and perhaps not even in the country at all, to collect tax because the zipcode on the address associated with the card used to purchase the data falls within their border?
Nope.
nobody forced you to do business in that state
I'll admit with purely digital it's a bit more hinky because you're right, the CC zip is not a perfect stand in for the buyers location (physical delivery address isn't perfect either but it's about as close as you're going to get and trying to be even more accurate you start pulling at the strings of 'state residency')
also, presumably, if the buyer is in some place where they're not obligated to pay taxes they should work on getting themselves a credit card that accurately reflects their location!
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
How are online retailers and brick and mortar retailers now on an equal footing if you have to add shipping plus taxes for online, but only tax for brick and mortar?
How are online retailers and brick and mortar retailers now on an equal footing if you have to add shipping plus taxes for online, but only tax for brick and mortar?
Because brick and mortar also pay for shipping before it's in the store and it's baked into the cost?
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
I mean, it's the state's responsibility to manage this, SCOTUS merely told online sellers that they aren't immune to state taxes. It's the state's responsibility to make the system usable by small businesses.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
I don't think it's "pollyanna shit" to explore why your strong reaction may not be fully warranted.
Yes, this will effect online businesses, I don't think anyone is denying that.
That it will crush small businesses and retard innovation, for example, I think is a stretch.
The online market would not have grown as it had without Quill. Now that it's gone, some of that revenue must go to compliance instead of innovation. Either that, or we get ready for as much as $33 billion in price increases for the tax alone, not to mention the overhead of collecting and remitting it.
Okay, I don't agree that you've proven your premise here at all, but suppose you're correct - do you think it was fair or equitable to the states with sales tax that these companies, including very large national retailers, could so effectively avoid paying sales tax? Do you think it was appropriate, and still is, to expect states to go after every consumer in their state that bought something online and did not report it and pay the appropriate tax?
If the market is predicated on tax loopholes and avoiding touching a state even though you absolutely do business there, I feel like I'm okay with the market being corrected.
P.S. I live in a state with income tax, and no sales tax. So I'm already living the dream I guess.
Well, I think your question is flawed because the companies don't pay the tax. They're just forced to collect the tax for the state, then remit it to them. The consumer is paying the tax.
Let's look an example of this that really highlights how wrong this is: steam games.
So, do I think it's fair for a state government to force a company that has no presence in that state, and consumer that may or may not be in that state, using systems and software that may exist in neither the buyers state nor the seller's, and perhaps not even in the country at all, to collect tax because the zipcode on the address associated with the card used to purchase the data falls within their border?
Nope.
nobody forced you to do business in that state
I'll admit with purely digital it's a bit more hinky because you're right, the CC zip is not a perfect stand in for the buyers location (physical delivery address isn't perfect either but it's about as close as you're going to get and trying to be even more accurate you start pulling at the strings of 'state residency')
also, presumably, if the buyer is in some place where they're not obligated to pay taxes they should work on getting themselves a credit card that accurately reflects their location!
Alternately, get a PO Box and a bank account in SiG's state and never pay any tax for digital purchases at all.
It's not hard to get middleware to take care of it for you, but given we're talking about a payment processing thing, that's PROBABLY going to cost money. That being said, I don't know if I'd want to trust a storefront that doesn't use some sort of standard payment processing thing?
yeah. The important takeaway is that costs will go up, and not just by the amount of supposedly 'lost' tax revenue. Also by the cost of the middleware and the cost of the implementation and the cost of compliance and the cost of litigation and the man-hours of lost productivity associated with all those things.
Assuming the compounded cost and effort doesn't just make the retailer pack it in.
I don't think it's "pollyanna shit" to explore why your strong reaction may not be fully warranted.
Yes, this will effect online businesses, I don't think anyone is denying that.
That it will crush small businesses and retard innovation, for example, I think is a stretch.
The online market would not have grown as it had without Quill. Now that it's gone, some of that revenue must go to compliance instead of innovation. Either that, or we get ready for as much as $33 billion in price increases for the tax alone, not to mention the overhead of collecting and remitting it.
Okay, I don't agree that you've proven your premise here at all, but suppose you're correct - do you think it was fair or equitable to the states with sales tax that these companies, including very large national retailers, could so effectively avoid paying sales tax? Do you think it was appropriate, and still is, to expect states to go after every consumer in their state that bought something online and did not report it and pay the appropriate tax?
If the market is predicated on tax loopholes and avoiding touching a state even though you absolutely do business there, I feel like I'm okay with the market being corrected.
P.S. I live in a state with income tax, and no sales tax. So I'm already living the dream I guess.
Well, I think your question is flawed because the companies don't pay the tax. They're just forced to collect the tax for the state, then remit it to them. The consumer is paying the tax.
Let's look an example of this that really highlights how wrong this is: steam games.
So, do I think it's fair for a state government to force a company that has no presence in that state, and consumer that may or may not be in that state, using systems and software that may exist in neither the buyers state nor the seller's, and perhaps not even in the country at all, to collect tax because the zipcode on the address associated with the card used to purchase the data falls within their border?
Nope.
nobody forced you to do business in that state
I'll admit with purely digital it's a bit more hinky because you're right, the CC zip is not a perfect stand in for the buyers location (physical delivery address isn't perfect either but it's about as close as you're going to get and trying to be even more accurate you start pulling at the strings of 'state residency')
also, presumably, if the buyer is in some place where they're not obligated to pay taxes they should work on getting themselves a credit card that accurately reflects their location!
Alternately, get a PO Box and a bank account in SiG's state and never pay any tax for digital purchases at all.
you could do this!
it's also technically tax fraud in my state
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I don't think it's "pollyanna shit" to explore why your strong reaction may not be fully warranted.
Yes, this will effect online businesses, I don't think anyone is denying that.
That it will crush small businesses and retard innovation, for example, I think is a stretch.
The online market would not have grown as it had without Quill. Now that it's gone, some of that revenue must go to compliance instead of innovation. Either that, or we get ready for as much as $33 billion in price increases for the tax alone, not to mention the overhead of collecting and remitting it.
Okay, I don't agree that you've proven your premise here at all, but suppose you're correct - do you think it was fair or equitable to the states with sales tax that these companies, including very large national retailers, could so effectively avoid paying sales tax? Do you think it was appropriate, and still is, to expect states to go after every consumer in their state that bought something online and did not report it and pay the appropriate tax?
If the market is predicated on tax loopholes and avoiding touching a state even though you absolutely do business there, I feel like I'm okay with the market being corrected.
P.S. I live in a state with income tax, and no sales tax. So I'm already living the dream I guess.
Well, I think your question is flawed because the companies don't pay the tax. They're just forced to collect the tax for the state, then remit it to them. The consumer is paying the tax.
Let's look an example of this that really highlights how wrong this is: steam games.
So, do I think it's fair for a state government to force a company that has no presence in that state, and consumer that may or may not be in that state, using systems and software that may exist in neither the buyers state nor the seller's, and perhaps not even in the country at all, to collect tax because the zipcode on the address associated with the card used to purchase the data falls within their border?
Nope.
Well everyone in the world could pay Washington Sales tax. Would that be a better option?
Spoiler alert: not for you.
Some states generate revenue by taxing sales. Its a shit way to raise revenue but they do. Because of this, states which tax sales need to be able to well... tax sales. If sales that are digital or shipped in are exempted then states cannot raise revenues via sales taxes. The downside is that, for some things, consumers which are in a different state at time of purchase may be taxed as if they reside where their credit card is. Well too bad. If they move or are on vacation they should consider getting pre-paid options so as to not have to pay taxes when making said purchases*
*though since they're probably going back to that state with the digital good it could also be a tax dodge to do so.
It's not hard to get middleware to take care of it for you, but given we're talking about a payment processing thing, that's PROBABLY going to cost money. That being said, I don't know if I'd want to trust a storefront that doesn't use some sort of standard payment processing thing?
yeah. The important takeaway is that costs will go up, and not just by the amount of supposedly 'lost' tax revenue. Also by the cost of the middleware and the cost of the implementation and the cost of compliance and the cost of litigation and the man-hours of lost productivity associated with all those things.
Assuming the compounded cost and effort doesn't just make the retailer pack it in.
See, this is where we deviate a bit.
I see it going one of three ways.
1. The online retailer already uses a payment processor which probably has a monthly fee for usage, and the payment processor takes care of it because everyone needs it now anyway. Total effort: adding one extra form on their front page earlier in the process to properly reflect the new price, or no effort and the real price doesn't get applied until it's in their cart.
2. The online retailer doesn't use a payment processor and coded their own, looks at the difficulty, and goes "whelp" and starts paying for a payment processor (which is probably a good thing for the consumer ANYWAY, because it's probably more secure with their credit card info).
3. The online retailer can't afford to pay for a payment processor, which means they probably were close to insolvent in the first place, and shuts down (but probably a month or two earlier than they would have in the first place).
Net result: online shopping is probably marginally more secure, new companies just starting out need to budget for a bit more expenses a month than they would have if they didn't plan on having a payment processor (which most do anyway).
I don't think it's "pollyanna shit" to explore why your strong reaction may not be fully warranted.
Yes, this will effect online businesses, I don't think anyone is denying that.
That it will crush small businesses and retard innovation, for example, I think is a stretch.
The online market would not have grown as it had without Quill. Now that it's gone, some of that revenue must go to compliance instead of innovation. Either that, or we get ready for as much as $33 billion in price increases for the tax alone, not to mention the overhead of collecting and remitting it.
Okay, I don't agree that you've proven your premise here at all, but suppose you're correct - do you think it was fair or equitable to the states with sales tax that these companies, including very large national retailers, could so effectively avoid paying sales tax? Do you think it was appropriate, and still is, to expect states to go after every consumer in their state that bought something online and did not report it and pay the appropriate tax?
If the market is predicated on tax loopholes and avoiding touching a state even though you absolutely do business there, I feel like I'm okay with the market being corrected.
P.S. I live in a state with income tax, and no sales tax. So I'm already living the dream I guess.
Well, I think your question is flawed because the companies don't pay the tax. They're just forced to collect the tax for the state, then remit it to them. The consumer is paying the tax.
Let's look an example of this that really highlights how wrong this is: steam games.
So, do I think it's fair for a state government to force a company that has no presence in that state, and consumer that may or may not be in that state, using systems and software that may exist in neither the buyers state nor the seller's, and perhaps not even in the country at all, to collect tax because the zipcode on the address associated with the card used to purchase the data falls within their border?
Nope.
Well everyone in the world could pay Washington Sales tax. Would that be a better option?
Spoiler alert: not for you.
Some states generate revenue by taxing sales. Its a shit way to raise revenue but they do. Because of this, states which tax sales need to be able to well... tax sales. If sales that are digital or shipped in are exempted then states cannot raise revenues via sales taxes. The downside is that, for some things, consumers which are in a different state at time of purchase may be taxed as if they reside where their credit card is. Well too bad. If they move or are on vacation they should consider getting pre-paid options so as to not have to pay taxes when making said purchases*
*though since they're probably going back to that state with the digital good it could also be a tax dodge to do so.
The problem with his argument is that none of these sales have ever been exempted from the tax. It's the companies which have been exempted from the burden of collecting the tax.
So now, because someone in Washington bought a widget from Spool Industries Online of Texas, I have to do the State of Washington's job even if I'm not even shipping anything to Washington!
I don't think it's "pollyanna shit" to explore why your strong reaction may not be fully warranted.
Yes, this will effect online businesses, I don't think anyone is denying that.
That it will crush small businesses and retard innovation, for example, I think is a stretch.
The online market would not have grown as it had without Quill. Now that it's gone, some of that revenue must go to compliance instead of innovation. Either that, or we get ready for as much as $33 billion in price increases for the tax alone, not to mention the overhead of collecting and remitting it.
Okay, I don't agree that you've proven your premise here at all, but suppose you're correct - do you think it was fair or equitable to the states with sales tax that these companies, including very large national retailers, could so effectively avoid paying sales tax? Do you think it was appropriate, and still is, to expect states to go after every consumer in their state that bought something online and did not report it and pay the appropriate tax?
If the market is predicated on tax loopholes and avoiding touching a state even though you absolutely do business there, I feel like I'm okay with the market being corrected.
P.S. I live in a state with income tax, and no sales tax. So I'm already living the dream I guess.
Well, I think your question is flawed because the companies don't pay the tax. They're just forced to collect the tax for the state, then remit it to them. The consumer is paying the tax.
Let's look an example of this that really highlights how wrong this is: steam games.
So, do I think it's fair for a state government to force a company that has no presence in that state, and consumer that may or may not be in that state, using systems and software that may exist in neither the buyers state nor the seller's, and perhaps not even in the country at all, to collect tax because the zipcode on the address associated with the card used to purchase the data falls within their border?
Nope.
You do realize that you already pay different prices for games on steam based on your country right?
...and I don't mean because of exchange rates, the real value of a game can and will change based on what the publisher thinks the market there will support. Paradox got into hot water with their player base a year or so back when they raised the prices on several games across several, but not all, countries (which they did roll back, IIRC with refunds and freebies to those affected as an apology to boot)
Now, IIRC steam does that by checking where your pinged location is, not the zip code of the CC used (which wouldn't work anyway if it was paid with PayPal or a store bought Steam card) Could people use VPNs to change their location to somewhere that has no sales tax? Sure, but as you mentioned, it's not Valve's duty to pay those taxes or to ensure that the customer isn't cheating on their taxes, only that they collect them on behalf of the state.
I don't think it's "pollyanna shit" to explore why your strong reaction may not be fully warranted.
Yes, this will effect online businesses, I don't think anyone is denying that.
That it will crush small businesses and retard innovation, for example, I think is a stretch.
The online market would not have grown as it had without Quill. Now that it's gone, some of that revenue must go to compliance instead of innovation. Either that, or we get ready for as much as $33 billion in price increases for the tax alone, not to mention the overhead of collecting and remitting it.
Okay, I don't agree that you've proven your premise here at all, but suppose you're correct - do you think it was fair or equitable to the states with sales tax that these companies, including very large national retailers, could so effectively avoid paying sales tax? Do you think it was appropriate, and still is, to expect states to go after every consumer in their state that bought something online and did not report it and pay the appropriate tax?
If the market is predicated on tax loopholes and avoiding touching a state even though you absolutely do business there, I feel like I'm okay with the market being corrected.
P.S. I live in a state with income tax, and no sales tax. So I'm already living the dream I guess.
Well, I think your question is flawed because the companies don't pay the tax. They're just forced to collect the tax for the state, then remit it to them. The consumer is paying the tax.
Let's look an example of this that really highlights how wrong this is: steam games.
So, do I think it's fair for a state government to force a company that has no presence in that state, and consumer that may or may not be in that state, using systems and software that may exist in neither the buyers state nor the seller's, and perhaps not even in the country at all, to collect tax because the zipcode on the address associated with the card used to purchase the data falls within their border?
Nope.
nobody forced you to do business in that state
I'll admit with purely digital it's a bit more hinky because you're right, the CC zip is not a perfect stand in for the buyers location (physical delivery address isn't perfect either but it's about as close as you're going to get and trying to be even more accurate you start pulling at the strings of 'state residency')
also, presumably, if the buyer is in some place where they're not obligated to pay taxes they should work on getting themselves a credit card that accurately reflects their location!
Alternately, get a PO Box and a bank account in SiG's state and never pay any tax for digital purchases at all.
you could do this!
it's also technically tax fraud in my state
It's so easy! I have Texas residency but I'm logged into a PC in Massachusetts through VPN while on vacation in Ohio, using a card with a Delaware address to buy a software title from a retailer with an office on Washington and deliver it to my friend's workstation in Arizona.
This right here is high-grade bullshit up there with “bribery isn’t bribery unless a sack cloth overflowing with money is passed between the parties”
How is getting stock you can liquidate into cash not a form of compensation? How?
I know how, i’m just angry how nakedly classist this ruling is
Well you see, because its not "money" and because congress in 1938 could not possibly conceive of non-currency monies despite many of them almost certainly having participated in the creation of the federal reserve and arguments over whether or not to run on the gold or silver standard. Similarly they must have all forgotten all of the financial instruction they had received over the past 10 years in the form of the great depression
entirely physically located within a single state - all employees, warehouses, buildings
but you ship to many states
you're not already using a tax management platform
or the tax management platform you're using is somehow only for your state
while also, you had no plans to expand your physical business to another state, necessitating a multi-state setup anyway
and you do a low enough volume of orders that the state-by-state filing fees effect your bottom line
but not so low of a volume that you are exempted from those states
and your overall margins are so thin that a couple extra grand a year tanks your company
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I don't think it's "pollyanna shit" to explore why your strong reaction may not be fully warranted.
Yes, this will effect online businesses, I don't think anyone is denying that.
That it will crush small businesses and retard innovation, for example, I think is a stretch.
The online market would not have grown as it had without Quill. Now that it's gone, some of that revenue must go to compliance instead of innovation. Either that, or we get ready for as much as $33 billion in price increases for the tax alone, not to mention the overhead of collecting and remitting it.
Okay, I don't agree that you've proven your premise here at all, but suppose you're correct - do you think it was fair or equitable to the states with sales tax that these companies, including very large national retailers, could so effectively avoid paying sales tax? Do you think it was appropriate, and still is, to expect states to go after every consumer in their state that bought something online and did not report it and pay the appropriate tax?
If the market is predicated on tax loopholes and avoiding touching a state even though you absolutely do business there, I feel like I'm okay with the market being corrected.
P.S. I live in a state with income tax, and no sales tax. So I'm already living the dream I guess.
Well, I think your question is flawed because the companies don't pay the tax. They're just forced to collect the tax for the state, then remit it to them. The consumer is paying the tax.
Let's look an example of this that really highlights how wrong this is: steam games.
So, do I think it's fair for a state government to force a company that has no presence in that state, and consumer that may or may not be in that state, using systems and software that may exist in neither the buyers state nor the seller's, and perhaps not even in the country at all, to collect tax because the zipcode on the address associated with the card used to purchase the data falls within their border?
I don't think it's "pollyanna shit" to explore why your strong reaction may not be fully warranted.
Yes, this will effect online businesses, I don't think anyone is denying that.
That it will crush small businesses and retard innovation, for example, I think is a stretch.
The online market would not have grown as it had without Quill. Now that it's gone, some of that revenue must go to compliance instead of innovation. Either that, or we get ready for as much as $33 billion in price increases for the tax alone, not to mention the overhead of collecting and remitting it.
Okay, I don't agree that you've proven your premise here at all, but suppose you're correct - do you think it was fair or equitable to the states with sales tax that these companies, including very large national retailers, could so effectively avoid paying sales tax? Do you think it was appropriate, and still is, to expect states to go after every consumer in their state that bought something online and did not report it and pay the appropriate tax?
If the market is predicated on tax loopholes and avoiding touching a state even though you absolutely do business there, I feel like I'm okay with the market being corrected.
P.S. I live in a state with income tax, and no sales tax. So I'm already living the dream I guess.
Well, I think your question is flawed because the companies don't pay the tax. They're just forced to collect the tax for the state, then remit it to them. The consumer is paying the tax.
Let's look an example of this that really highlights how wrong this is: steam games.
So, do I think it's fair for a state government to force a company that has no presence in that state, and consumer that may or may not be in that state, using systems and software that may exist in neither the buyers state nor the seller's, and perhaps not even in the country at all, to collect tax because the zipcode on the address associated with the card used to purchase the data falls within their border?
Nope.
Well everyone in the world could pay Washington Sales tax. Would that be a better option?
Spoiler alert: not for you.
Some states generate revenue by taxing sales. Its a shit way to raise revenue but they do. Because of this, states which tax sales need to be able to well... tax sales. If sales that are digital or shipped in are exempted then states cannot raise revenues via sales taxes. The downside is that, for some things, consumers which are in a different state at time of purchase may be taxed as if they reside where their credit card is. Well too bad. If they move or are on vacation they should consider getting pre-paid options so as to not have to pay taxes when making said purchases*
*though since they're probably going back to that state with the digital good it could also be a tax dodge to do so.
The problem with his argument is that none of these sales have ever been exempted from the tax. It's the companies which have been exempted from the burden of collecting the tax.
So now, because someone in Washington bought a widget from Spool Industries Online of Texas, I have to do the State of Washington's job even if I'm not even shipping anything to Washington!
That's kind of bullshit.
ok but
nobody made Spool Industries offer sales to Washington
the law in question (and presumably others that follow it) would totally exempt you if it's just the one! It didn't kick in until $100k or 200 transactions
also, from a realist perspective, if states start setting the minimums too low, low volume retailers will just ignore it
WA state's not gonna come after Spool Industries for failing to collect $40 in taxes, the same way they don't go after their own citizen for failing to report their out-of-state purchases (unless they're very large like a car or something)
Aioua on
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
entirely physically located within a single state - all employees, warehouses, buildings
but you ship to many states
you're not already using a tax management platform
or the tax management platform you're using is somehow only for your state
while also, you had no plans to expand your physical business to another state, necessitating a multi-state setup anyway
and you do a low enough volume of orders that the state-by-state filing fees effect your bottom line
but not so low of a volume that you are exempted from those states
and your overall margins are so thin that a couple extra grand a year tanks your company
I mean, its not a GOOD thing that Spool's customers will face additional pseudo random sales taxes depending on where they live. Sales taxes are not a good way to collect tax. But, if they must exist then they must be applied fairly.
I don't think it's "pollyanna shit" to explore why your strong reaction may not be fully warranted.
Yes, this will effect online businesses, I don't think anyone is denying that.
That it will crush small businesses and retard innovation, for example, I think is a stretch.
The online market would not have grown as it had without Quill. Now that it's gone, some of that revenue must go to compliance instead of innovation. Either that, or we get ready for as much as $33 billion in price increases for the tax alone, not to mention the overhead of collecting and remitting it.
Okay, I don't agree that you've proven your premise here at all, but suppose you're correct - do you think it was fair or equitable to the states with sales tax that these companies, including very large national retailers, could so effectively avoid paying sales tax? Do you think it was appropriate, and still is, to expect states to go after every consumer in their state that bought something online and did not report it and pay the appropriate tax?
If the market is predicated on tax loopholes and avoiding touching a state even though you absolutely do business there, I feel like I'm okay with the market being corrected.
P.S. I live in a state with income tax, and no sales tax. So I'm already living the dream I guess.
Well, I think your question is flawed because the companies don't pay the tax. They're just forced to collect the tax for the state, then remit it to them. The consumer is paying the tax.
Let's look an example of this that really highlights how wrong this is: steam games.
So, do I think it's fair for a state government to force a company that has no presence in that state, and consumer that may or may not be in that state, using systems and software that may exist in neither the buyers state nor the seller's, and perhaps not even in the country at all, to collect tax because the zipcode on the address associated with the card used to purchase the data falls within their border?
Nope.
Well everyone in the world could pay Washington Sales tax. Would that be a better option?
Spoiler alert: not for you.
Some states generate revenue by taxing sales. Its a shit way to raise revenue but they do. Because of this, states which tax sales need to be able to well... tax sales. If sales that are digital or shipped in are exempted then states cannot raise revenues via sales taxes. The downside is that, for some things, consumers which are in a different state at time of purchase may be taxed as if they reside where their credit card is. Well too bad. If they move or are on vacation they should consider getting pre-paid options so as to not have to pay taxes when making said purchases*
*though since they're probably going back to that state with the digital good it could also be a tax dodge to do so.
The problem with his argument is that none of these sales have ever been exempted from the tax. It's the companies which have been exempted from the burden of collecting the tax.
So now, because someone in Washington bought a widget from Spool Industries Online of Texas, I have to do the State of Washington's job even if I'm not even shipping anything to Washington!
That's kind of bullshit.
How? If I walk up to your Spool Industries Salesfloor and Breakfast Nook, you have to do the State of Texas' job for it. Because we have a mixed-market economy rather than a totalitarian State controlled economy.
I don't think it's "pollyanna shit" to explore why your strong reaction may not be fully warranted.
Yes, this will effect online businesses, I don't think anyone is denying that.
That it will crush small businesses and retard innovation, for example, I think is a stretch.
The online market would not have grown as it had without Quill. Now that it's gone, some of that revenue must go to compliance instead of innovation. Either that, or we get ready for as much as $33 billion in price increases for the tax alone, not to mention the overhead of collecting and remitting it.
Okay, I don't agree that you've proven your premise here at all, but suppose you're correct - do you think it was fair or equitable to the states with sales tax that these companies, including very large national retailers, could so effectively avoid paying sales tax? Do you think it was appropriate, and still is, to expect states to go after every consumer in their state that bought something online and did not report it and pay the appropriate tax?
If the market is predicated on tax loopholes and avoiding touching a state even though you absolutely do business there, I feel like I'm okay with the market being corrected.
P.S. I live in a state with income tax, and no sales tax. So I'm already living the dream I guess.
Well, I think your question is flawed because the companies don't pay the tax. They're just forced to collect the tax for the state, then remit it to them. The consumer is paying the tax.
Let's look an example of this that really highlights how wrong this is: steam games.
So, do I think it's fair for a state government to force a company that has no presence in that state, and consumer that may or may not be in that state, using systems and software that may exist in neither the buyers state nor the seller's, and perhaps not even in the country at all, to collect tax because the zipcode on the address associated with the card used to purchase the data falls within their border?
Nope.
Well everyone in the world could pay Washington Sales tax. Would that be a better option?
Spoiler alert: not for you.
Some states generate revenue by taxing sales. Its a shit way to raise revenue but they do. Because of this, states which tax sales need to be able to well... tax sales. If sales that are digital or shipped in are exempted then states cannot raise revenues via sales taxes. The downside is that, for some things, consumers which are in a different state at time of purchase may be taxed as if they reside where their credit card is. Well too bad. If they move or are on vacation they should consider getting pre-paid options so as to not have to pay taxes when making said purchases*
*though since they're probably going back to that state with the digital good it could also be a tax dodge to do so.
The problem with his argument is that none of these sales have ever been exempted from the tax. It's the companies which have been exempted from the burden of collecting the tax.
So now, because someone in Washington bought a widget from Spool Industries Online of Texas, I have to do the State of Washington's job even if I'm not even shipping anything to Washington!
That's kind of bullshit.
Well no. If you do business in Washington you have to handle the collection of sales tax. Every business that does business in Washington has to handle the collection of sales tax. If you want to do business in Washington you have to handle the collection of sales tax. Its no different than any other regulation saying "you must do this in order to do business in Washington". Like... you cannot sell illegal goods in Washington simply because you say you're from Texas. I fail to see how this burden is any different than that one.
Now, you're not responsible for fraud, which is to say so long as you make a reasonable effort to determine location (address on card or pinged location of the computer) you're fine. But it still doesn't change the fact that if you're going to do Business in states that have sales taxes, you're going to have to do the same thing that any business does in those states (which is collect the sales tax)
So you're buying something from Washington for use in Arizona.
You pay Arizona sales tax, assuming Arizona has a use tax.
All the other steps in your scenario are meaningless!
It's not from Washington of course, the data is served from a cloud scattered all over the nation, sold through a market place run by a Washington company but not by a company from there, and of course there's no guarantee the title will be downloaded to a device in Arizona either.
I don't think it's "pollyanna shit" to explore why your strong reaction may not be fully warranted.
Yes, this will effect online businesses, I don't think anyone is denying that.
That it will crush small businesses and retard innovation, for example, I think is a stretch.
The online market would not have grown as it had without Quill. Now that it's gone, some of that revenue must go to compliance instead of innovation. Either that, or we get ready for as much as $33 billion in price increases for the tax alone, not to mention the overhead of collecting and remitting it.
Okay, I don't agree that you've proven your premise here at all, but suppose you're correct - do you think it was fair or equitable to the states with sales tax that these companies, including very large national retailers, could so effectively avoid paying sales tax? Do you think it was appropriate, and still is, to expect states to go after every consumer in their state that bought something online and did not report it and pay the appropriate tax?
If the market is predicated on tax loopholes and avoiding touching a state even though you absolutely do business there, I feel like I'm okay with the market being corrected.
P.S. I live in a state with income tax, and no sales tax. So I'm already living the dream I guess.
Well, I think your question is flawed because the companies don't pay the tax. They're just forced to collect the tax for the state, then remit it to them. The consumer is paying the tax.
Let's look an example of this that really highlights how wrong this is: steam games.
So, do I think it's fair for a state government to force a company that has no presence in that state, and consumer that may or may not be in that state, using systems and software that may exist in neither the buyers state nor the seller's, and perhaps not even in the country at all, to collect tax because the zipcode on the address associated with the card used to purchase the data falls within their border?
Nope.
... they could just not sell to customers in that state.
As a Canadian who often views US online retail products and then can't buy the item because they won't deliver to Canada or because the shipping cost is through the roof, this seems more like opposition to taxes than it is a serious comment about this ruling. Tax codes are complicated -> we shouldn't have taxes, is basically the gist I'm getting here. States could just simplify their tax codes, but they don't, which can pose a burden to retailers/individuals/businesses, so... what, SCOTUS is supposed to rule that they can't collect taxes any more?
If there's any ruling today to get worked up over, it's that stocks aren't monetary compensation.
I'm amazed that this sales tax thing is where all the activity is, since as people have noted it's just treating online retail the same as anyone else - you collect the sales tax at time of sale. As opposed to the old self-reporting that never, ever happened. The whole complexity thing sounds terrible but really just amounts to paying someone else to deal with it (which, per prior posts, is <$20 a month for smaller businesses, at which point... if that was the margin keeping you afloat you were dead anyways)
entirely physically located within a single state - all employees, warehouses, buildings
but you ship to many states
you're not already using a tax management platform
or the tax management platform you're using is somehow only for your state
while also, you had no plans to expand your physical business to another state, necessitating a multi-state setup anyway
and you do a low enough volume of orders that the state-by-state filing fees effect your bottom line
but not so low of a volume that you are exempted from those states
and your overall margins are so thin that a couple extra grand a year tanks your company
I mean, its not a GOOD thing that Spool's customers will face additional pseudo random sales taxes depending on where they live. Sales taxes are not a good way to collect tax. But, if they must exist then they must be applied fairly.
Sales tax isn't pseudo-random depending on where you live? If anything this reduces regulatory arbitrage which makes the market fairer for everyone overall.
Spool I'm about to get on the bus home so no more typing for me but,
I would be interested in your thoughts re: the State's right to enforce their own laws regulating business in the state.
let's leave aside purely digital transactions for the moment
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I don't think it's "pollyanna shit" to explore why your strong reaction may not be fully warranted.
Yes, this will effect online businesses, I don't think anyone is denying that.
That it will crush small businesses and retard innovation, for example, I think is a stretch.
The online market would not have grown as it had without Quill. Now that it's gone, some of that revenue must go to compliance instead of innovation. Either that, or we get ready for as much as $33 billion in price increases for the tax alone, not to mention the overhead of collecting and remitting it.
Okay, I don't agree that you've proven your premise here at all, but suppose you're correct - do you think it was fair or equitable to the states with sales tax that these companies, including very large national retailers, could so effectively avoid paying sales tax? Do you think it was appropriate, and still is, to expect states to go after every consumer in their state that bought something online and did not report it and pay the appropriate tax?
If the market is predicated on tax loopholes and avoiding touching a state even though you absolutely do business there, I feel like I'm okay with the market being corrected.
P.S. I live in a state with income tax, and no sales tax. So I'm already living the dream I guess.
Well, I think your question is flawed because the companies don't pay the tax. They're just forced to collect the tax for the state, then remit it to them. The consumer is paying the tax.
Let's look an example of this that really highlights how wrong this is: steam games.
So, do I think it's fair for a state government to force a company that has no presence in that state, and consumer that may or may not be in that state, using systems and software that may exist in neither the buyers state nor the seller's, and perhaps not even in the country at all, to collect tax because the zipcode on the address associated with the card used to purchase the data falls within their border?
Nope.
Well everyone in the world could pay Washington Sales tax. Would that be a better option?
Spoiler alert: not for you.
Some states generate revenue by taxing sales. Its a shit way to raise revenue but they do. Because of this, states which tax sales need to be able to well... tax sales. If sales that are digital or shipped in are exempted then states cannot raise revenues via sales taxes. The downside is that, for some things, consumers which are in a different state at time of purchase may be taxed as if they reside where their credit card is. Well too bad. If they move or are on vacation they should consider getting pre-paid options so as to not have to pay taxes when making said purchases*
*though since they're probably going back to that state with the digital good it could also be a tax dodge to do so.
The problem with his argument is that none of these sales have ever been exempted from the tax. It's the companies which have been exempted from the burden of collecting the tax.
So now, because someone in Washington bought a widget from Spool Industries Online of Texas, I have to do the State of Washington's job even if I'm not even shipping anything to Washington!
That's kind of bullshit.
ok but
nobody made Spool Industries offer sales to Washington
the law in question (and presumably others that follow it) would totally exempt you if it's just the one! It didn't kick in until $100k or 200 transactions
also, from a realist perspective, if states start setting the minimums too low, low volume retailers will just ignore it
WA state's not gonna come after Spool Industries for failing to collect $40 in taxes, the same way they don't go after their own citizen for failing to report their out-of-state purchases (unless they're very large like a car or something)
That I might slip by unnoticed is no argument for whether I should be liable.
But yeah I guess I could somehow discover and block all Washingtonians from my storefront.
And we are back to adversely impacting the online market and harming consumers.
I don't think it's "pollyanna shit" to explore why your strong reaction may not be fully warranted.
Yes, this will effect online businesses, I don't think anyone is denying that.
That it will crush small businesses and retard innovation, for example, I think is a stretch.
The online market would not have grown as it had without Quill. Now that it's gone, some of that revenue must go to compliance instead of innovation. Either that, or we get ready for as much as $33 billion in price increases for the tax alone, not to mention the overhead of collecting and remitting it.
Okay, I don't agree that you've proven your premise here at all, but suppose you're correct - do you think it was fair or equitable to the states with sales tax that these companies, including very large national retailers, could so effectively avoid paying sales tax? Do you think it was appropriate, and still is, to expect states to go after every consumer in their state that bought something online and did not report it and pay the appropriate tax?
If the market is predicated on tax loopholes and avoiding touching a state even though you absolutely do business there, I feel like I'm okay with the market being corrected.
P.S. I live in a state with income tax, and no sales tax. So I'm already living the dream I guess.
Well, I think your question is flawed because the companies don't pay the tax. They're just forced to collect the tax for the state, then remit it to them. The consumer is paying the tax.
Let's look an example of this that really highlights how wrong this is: steam games.
So, do I think it's fair for a state government to force a company that has no presence in that state, and consumer that may or may not be in that state, using systems and software that may exist in neither the buyers state nor the seller's, and perhaps not even in the country at all, to collect tax because the zipcode on the address associated with the card used to purchase the data falls within their border?
Nope.
Well everyone in the world could pay Washington Sales tax. Would that be a better option?
Spoiler alert: not for you.
Some states generate revenue by taxing sales. Its a shit way to raise revenue but they do. Because of this, states which tax sales need to be able to well... tax sales. If sales that are digital or shipped in are exempted then states cannot raise revenues via sales taxes. The downside is that, for some things, consumers which are in a different state at time of purchase may be taxed as if they reside where their credit card is. Well too bad. If they move or are on vacation they should consider getting pre-paid options so as to not have to pay taxes when making said purchases*
*though since they're probably going back to that state with the digital good it could also be a tax dodge to do so.
The problem with his argument is that none of these sales have ever been exempted from the tax. It's the companies which have been exempted from the burden of collecting the tax.
So now, because someone in Washington bought a widget from Spool Industries Online of Texas, I have to do the State of Washington's job even if I'm not even shipping anything to Washington!
That's kind of bullshit.
ok but
nobody made Spool Industries offer sales to Washington
the law in question (and presumably others that follow it) would totally exempt you if it's just the one! It didn't kick in until $100k or 200 transactions
also, from a realist perspective, if states start setting the minimums too low, low volume retailers will just ignore it
WA state's not gonna come after Spool Industries for failing to collect $40 in taxes, the same way they don't go after their own citizen for failing to report their out-of-state purchases (unless they're very large like a car or something)
That I might slip by unnoticed is no argument for whether I should be liable.
But yeah I guess I could somehow discover and block all Washingtonians from my storefront.
And we are back to adversely impacting the online market and harming consumers.
by... not shipping to WA? that isn't too hard
life's a game that you're bound to lose / like using a hammer to pound in screws
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Also Illinois, at least, has something similar for car purchases to reduce the race to the bottom effect for sales tax on such a large purchase. Taxes and fees are determined by your residence for registration, not the location of the dealership. Unless things have changed since my folks bought their car some years back.
I don't think it's "pollyanna shit" to explore why your strong reaction may not be fully warranted.
Yes, this will effect online businesses, I don't think anyone is denying that.
That it will crush small businesses and retard innovation, for example, I think is a stretch.
The online market would not have grown as it had without Quill. Now that it's gone, some of that revenue must go to compliance instead of innovation. Either that, or we get ready for as much as $33 billion in price increases for the tax alone, not to mention the overhead of collecting and remitting it.
Okay, I don't agree that you've proven your premise here at all, but suppose you're correct - do you think it was fair or equitable to the states with sales tax that these companies, including very large national retailers, could so effectively avoid paying sales tax? Do you think it was appropriate, and still is, to expect states to go after every consumer in their state that bought something online and did not report it and pay the appropriate tax?
If the market is predicated on tax loopholes and avoiding touching a state even though you absolutely do business there, I feel like I'm okay with the market being corrected.
P.S. I live in a state with income tax, and no sales tax. So I'm already living the dream I guess.
Well, I think your question is flawed because the companies don't pay the tax. They're just forced to collect the tax for the state, then remit it to them. The consumer is paying the tax.
Let's look an example of this that really highlights how wrong this is: steam games.
So, do I think it's fair for a state government to force a company that has no presence in that state, and consumer that may or may not be in that state, using systems and software that may exist in neither the buyers state nor the seller's, and perhaps not even in the country at all, to collect tax because the zipcode on the address associated with the card used to purchase the data falls within their border?
Posts
they already do!
all of this already exists, for every state with a sales tax!
it's just now instead of you checking off each state where you have a building/employee, you also get automatically checked off for any states who:
presumably the tax management platforms will just update those rules automatically as they become aware of the new laws, they already need to be constantly updating to keep up with changes in tax rates
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Also please do not ignore this, which I already pointed out earlier: http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/index.php?page=State-Guide
this has been around since 2000
different states having different taxes isn't suddenly a new thing for businesses to deal with
Well, I think your question is flawed because the companies don't pay the tax. They're just forced to collect the tax for the state, then remit it to them. The consumer is paying the tax.
Let's look an example of this that really highlights how wrong this is: steam games.
So, do I think it's fair for a state government to force a company that has no presence in that state, and consumer that may or may not be in that state, using systems and software that may exist in neither the buyers state nor the seller's, and perhaps not even in the country at all, to collect tax because the zipcode on the address associated with the card used to purchase the data falls within their border?
Nope.
This right here is high-grade bullshit up there with “bribery isn’t bribery unless a sack cloth overflowing with money is passed between the parties”
How is getting stock you can liquidate into cash not a form of compensation? How?
Avalara, one of the companies that does this, just IPOd last week. What are the odds of that? Paging Alex Jones.
― Marcus Aurelius
Path of Exile: themightypuck
It's certainly different for every online retailer in every state to suddenly need to evaluate their exposure everywhere. Arguments suggesting that this is trivial are drastically downplaying the impact.
It's hard for an individual who doesn't want to/can't afford some middleware to handle their storefront.
It's basically a slightly less shitty version of this:
It's not hard to get middleware to take care of it for you, but given we're talking about a payment processing thing, that's PROBABLY going to cost money. That being said, I don't know if I'd want to trust a storefront that doesn't use some sort of standard payment processing thing?
I'm not in a state, but I pay a different amount for my Steam games because of my location.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
nobody forced you to do business in that state
I'll admit with purely digital it's a bit more hinky because you're right, the CC zip is not a perfect stand in for the buyers location (physical delivery address isn't perfect either but it's about as close as you're going to get and trying to be even more accurate you start pulling at the strings of 'state residency')
also, presumably, if the buyer is in some place where they're not obligated to pay taxes they should work on getting themselves a credit card that accurately reflects their location!
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Because brick and mortar also pay for shipping before it's in the store and it's baked into the cost?
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Alternately, get a PO Box and a bank account in SiG's state and never pay any tax for digital purchases at all.
yeah. The important takeaway is that costs will go up, and not just by the amount of supposedly 'lost' tax revenue. Also by the cost of the middleware and the cost of the implementation and the cost of compliance and the cost of litigation and the man-hours of lost productivity associated with all those things.
Assuming the compounded cost and effort doesn't just make the retailer pack it in.
you could do this!
it's also technically tax fraud in my state
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
Well everyone in the world could pay Washington Sales tax. Would that be a better option?
Spoiler alert: not for you.
Some states generate revenue by taxing sales. Its a shit way to raise revenue but they do. Because of this, states which tax sales need to be able to well... tax sales. If sales that are digital or shipped in are exempted then states cannot raise revenues via sales taxes. The downside is that, for some things, consumers which are in a different state at time of purchase may be taxed as if they reside where their credit card is. Well too bad. If they move or are on vacation they should consider getting pre-paid options so as to not have to pay taxes when making said purchases*
*though since they're probably going back to that state with the digital good it could also be a tax dodge to do so.
See, this is where we deviate a bit.
I see it going one of three ways.
1. The online retailer already uses a payment processor which probably has a monthly fee for usage, and the payment processor takes care of it because everyone needs it now anyway. Total effort: adding one extra form on their front page earlier in the process to properly reflect the new price, or no effort and the real price doesn't get applied until it's in their cart.
2. The online retailer doesn't use a payment processor and coded their own, looks at the difficulty, and goes "whelp" and starts paying for a payment processor (which is probably a good thing for the consumer ANYWAY, because it's probably more secure with their credit card info).
3. The online retailer can't afford to pay for a payment processor, which means they probably were close to insolvent in the first place, and shuts down (but probably a month or two earlier than they would have in the first place).
Net result: online shopping is probably marginally more secure, new companies just starting out need to budget for a bit more expenses a month than they would have if they didn't plan on having a payment processor (which most do anyway).
The problem with his argument is that none of these sales have ever been exempted from the tax. It's the companies which have been exempted from the burden of collecting the tax.
So now, because someone in Washington bought a widget from Spool Industries Online of Texas, I have to do the State of Washington's job even if I'm not even shipping anything to Washington!
That's kind of bullshit.
You do realize that you already pay different prices for games on steam based on your country right?
...and I don't mean because of exchange rates, the real value of a game can and will change based on what the publisher thinks the market there will support. Paradox got into hot water with their player base a year or so back when they raised the prices on several games across several, but not all, countries (which they did roll back, IIRC with refunds and freebies to those affected as an apology to boot)
Now, IIRC steam does that by checking where your pinged location is, not the zip code of the CC used (which wouldn't work anyway if it was paid with PayPal or a store bought Steam card) Could people use VPNs to change their location to somewhere that has no sales tax? Sure, but as you mentioned, it's not Valve's duty to pay those taxes or to ensure that the customer isn't cheating on their taxes, only that they collect them on behalf of the state.
It's so easy! I have Texas residency but I'm logged into a PC in Massachusetts through VPN while on vacation in Ohio, using a card with a Delaware address to buy a software title from a retailer with an office on Washington and deliver it to my friend's workstation in Arizona.
Simple!
Well you see, because its not "money" and because congress in 1938 could not possibly conceive of non-currency monies despite many of them almost certainly having participated in the creation of the federal reserve and arguments over whether or not to run on the gold or silver standard. Similarly they must have all forgotten all of the financial instruction they had received over the past 10 years in the form of the great depression
You pay Arizona sales tax, assuming Arizona has a use tax.
All the other steps in your scenario are meaningless!
your company would need to be
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
ok but
nobody made Spool Industries offer sales to Washington
the law in question (and presumably others that follow it) would totally exempt you if it's just the one! It didn't kick in until $100k or 200 transactions
also, from a realist perspective, if states start setting the minimums too low, low volume retailers will just ignore it
WA state's not gonna come after Spool Industries for failing to collect $40 in taxes, the same way they don't go after their own citizen for failing to report their out-of-state purchases (unless they're very large like a car or something)
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
I mean, its not a GOOD thing that Spool's customers will face additional pseudo random sales taxes depending on where they live. Sales taxes are not a good way to collect tax. But, if they must exist then they must be applied fairly.
How? If I walk up to your Spool Industries Salesfloor and Breakfast Nook, you have to do the State of Texas' job for it. Because we have a mixed-market economy rather than a totalitarian State controlled economy.
That would have been an excellent question for Kennedy to address in his decision but he handwaved it.
Well no. If you do business in Washington you have to handle the collection of sales tax. Every business that does business in Washington has to handle the collection of sales tax. If you want to do business in Washington you have to handle the collection of sales tax. Its no different than any other regulation saying "you must do this in order to do business in Washington". Like... you cannot sell illegal goods in Washington simply because you say you're from Texas. I fail to see how this burden is any different than that one.
Now, you're not responsible for fraud, which is to say so long as you make a reasonable effort to determine location (address on card or pinged location of the computer) you're fine. But it still doesn't change the fact that if you're going to do Business in states that have sales taxes, you're going to have to do the same thing that any business does in those states (which is collect the sales tax)
It's not from Washington of course, the data is served from a cloud scattered all over the nation, sold through a market place run by a Washington company but not by a company from there, and of course there's no guarantee the title will be downloaded to a device in Arizona either.
... they could just not sell to customers in that state.
As a Canadian who often views US online retail products and then can't buy the item because they won't deliver to Canada or because the shipping cost is through the roof, this seems more like opposition to taxes than it is a serious comment about this ruling. Tax codes are complicated -> we shouldn't have taxes, is basically the gist I'm getting here. States could just simplify their tax codes, but they don't, which can pose a burden to retailers/individuals/businesses, so... what, SCOTUS is supposed to rule that they can't collect taxes any more?
I'm amazed that this sales tax thing is where all the activity is, since as people have noted it's just treating online retail the same as anyone else - you collect the sales tax at time of sale. As opposed to the old self-reporting that never, ever happened. The whole complexity thing sounds terrible but really just amounts to paying someone else to deal with it (which, per prior posts, is <$20 a month for smaller businesses, at which point... if that was the margin keeping you afloat you were dead anyways)
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Sales tax isn't pseudo-random depending on where you live? If anything this reduces regulatory arbitrage which makes the market fairer for everyone overall.
I would be interested in your thoughts re: the State's right to enforce their own laws regulating business in the state.
let's leave aside purely digital transactions for the moment
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
That I might slip by unnoticed is no argument for whether I should be liable.
But yeah I guess I could somehow discover and block all Washingtonians from my storefront.
And we are back to adversely impacting the online market and harming consumers.
by... not shipping to WA? that isn't too hard
fuck up once and you break your thumb / if you're happy at all then you're god damn dumb
that's right we're on a fucked up cruise / God is dead but at least we have booze
bad things happen, no one knows why / the sun burns out and everyone dies
This is about the definition of a nothing post.