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 can't buy fireworks in the State of Illinois. This ban adversely impacts consumers and harms online retail. Should States no longer be allowed to regulate explosives?
You know, if I were a state hoping to attract online businesses, I'd start working on making the middleware for complying with sale taxes on online orders a tax writeoff.
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 can't buy fireworks in the State of Illinois. This ban adversely impacts consumers and harms online retail. Should States no longer be allowed to regulate explosives?
It's not a good analogy, because there is a notable difference between the legality of selling an item within a state border, and the requirement to collect taxation on behalf of a state because parts of a legal transaction happened on a device located there.
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 can't buy fireworks in the State of Illinois. This ban adversely impacts consumers and harms online retail. Should States no longer be allowed to regulate explosives?
It's not a good analogy, because there is a notable difference between the legality of selling an item within a state border, and the requirement to collect taxation on behalf of a state because parts of a legal transaction happened on a device located there.
You mean because the sale took place at the request of the purchaser who resides or invoices from that location, and so is under the purview of that State's tax and regulatory regime?
"how accurately can we determine the location of the buyer" is a separate issue that we probably should set aside until we have the first answer of "should a seller be required to abide by the laws of a different state if that's where the buyer is?"
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.
I firmly disagree that a company that ships purchased goods regularly into the state from a website readily accessed from the state has no presence in the state. They are absolutely doing business in the state. They should, like all other companies doing business in the state, but subject to the same laws covering said business activities.
Note never have I once said this is a trivial change, though I think you are overblowing it. It's not, it's a big change. But I don't think it is the catastrophe and philosophically I think we obviously differ on how "fair" it is that online companies have been avoiding paying these taxes* all these years.
*Understood, I hope, that this phrase encompasses the idea that they charge customers the tax and remit it to the state. I understand how it works.
Arguments suggesting that it's super hard to link zip code to percentages are drastically overplaying the impact.
But you can't actually link tax rates to zip codes as there's no correlation between the two. You've got state, county, city, and "special taxing district" taxes that require you to get down to the specific address to be correct. Then you have to know whether it's an origin or destination tax, whether shipping is taxed, and account for all those wierd use-case tax laws among other things. Charging correct tax is horribly complicated. Yes, there are private companies that sell that service, so all is not lost. But in my opinion, it's stupid that that is your only option when it should be a service provided for free by the government since they're the ones collecting the tax.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
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 can't buy fireworks in the State of Illinois. This ban adversely impacts consumers and harms online retail. Should States no longer be allowed to regulate explosives?
It's not a good analogy, because there is a notable difference between the legality of selling an item within a state border, and the requirement to collect taxation on behalf of a state because parts of a legal transaction happened on a device located there.
Why would you not be subject to the laws of the state where the transaction occurred?
Moreover, do you believe that it should be illegal at all for states to require businesses to collect and remit sales tax? Because that is the only reasonable construction i am getting out of your argument. But there is no way online retailers are going to get a ruling that breaks basically all state and federal taxation schemes by negating the ability of the government to collect it.
Arguments suggesting that it's super hard to link zip code to percentages are drastically overplaying the impact.
But you can't actually link tax rates to zip codes as there's no correlation between the two. You've got state, county, city, and "special taxing district" taxes that require you to get down to the specific address to be correct. Then you have to know whether it's an origin or destination tax, whether shipping is taxed, and account for all those wierd use-case tax laws among other things. Charging correct tax is horribly complicated. Yes, there are private companies that sell that service, so all is not lost. But in my opinion, it's stupid that that is your only option when it should be a service provided for free by the government since they're the ones collecting the tax.
I mean I'm all for the calculation being provided by the government.
But I'm not really open to the idea that calculating this is some impossible, company sinking task destroying everyone but Amazon and ebay.
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
Arguments suggesting that it's super hard to link zip code to percentages are drastically overplaying the impact.
But you can't actually link tax rates to zip codes as there's no correlation between the two. You've got state, county, city, and "special taxing district" taxes that require you to get down to the specific address to be correct. Then you have to know whether it's an origin or destination tax, whether shipping is taxed, and account for all those wierd use-case tax laws among other things. Charging correct tax is horribly complicated. Yes, there are private companies that sell that service, so all is not lost. But in my opinion, it's stupid that that is your only option when it should be a service provided for free by the government since they're the ones collecting the tax.
Somehow the bodega down the street is able to correctly calculate the sales tax when I buy a pop. And I'm pretty sure the teen who helps out is the only person that can competently read/write in English. That calculations will require the full address that I have to enter with my credit card rather than just a portion of the address that I'm obligated to put in with my credit card payment makes it more complicated, but again, this is not a new problem and has existing solutions on the shelf.
Arguments suggesting that it's super hard to link zip code to percentages are drastically overplaying the impact.
But you can't actually link tax rates to zip codes as there's no correlation between the two. You've got state, county, city, and "special taxing district" taxes that require you to get down to the specific address to be correct. Then you have to know whether it's an origin or destination tax, whether shipping is taxed, and account for all those wierd use-case tax laws among other things. Charging correct tax is horribly complicated. Yes, there are private companies that sell that service, so all is not lost. But in my opinion, it's stupid that that is your only option when it should be a service provided for free by the government since they're the ones collecting the tax.
Somehow the bodega down the street is able to correctly calculate the sales tax when I buy a pop. And I'm pretty sure the teen who helps out is the only person that can competently read/write in English. That calculations will require the full address that I am also having to enter with my credit card rather than just a portion of the payment that I'm obligated to put in with my credit card makes it more complicated, but again, this is not a new problem and has existing solutions in the shelf.
Bad example. Their tax rates are fixed because the shop location and buyer location is fixed.
Just remember that half the people you meet are below average intelligence.
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 can't buy fireworks in the State of Illinois. This ban adversely impacts consumers and harms online retail. Should States no longer be allowed to regulate explosives?
It's not a good analogy, because there is a notable difference between the legality of selling an item within a state border, and the requirement to collect taxation on behalf of a state because parts of a legal transaction happened on a device located there.
The sales tax law that this case was about states that it is for the sale of items that are shipped to an address within that state.
Not where the device used to make the order was.
Not where the billing address of the form of payment used is.
But the shipping address, nothing else. Until we get states trying to tax things based on the above, you are making it way more complex than it actually is.
And honestly, the arguments that businesses suffer from having to deal with extra sale tax calculations, or that people will ship it to a 0 tax place where they can travel/have someone deliver it from kinda feels a bit hollow to me when I live in a city where crossing the goddamn street can put you in a different state, with a different sales tax.
Arguments suggesting that it's super hard to link zip code to percentages are drastically overplaying the impact.
But you can't actually link tax rates to zip codes as there's no correlation between the two. You've got state, county, city, and "special taxing district" taxes that require you to get down to the specific address to be correct. Then you have to know whether it's an origin or destination tax, whether shipping is taxed, and account for all those wierd use-case tax laws among other things. Charging correct tax is horribly complicated. Yes, there are private companies that sell that service, so all is not lost. But in my opinion, it's stupid that that is your only option when it should be a service provided for free by the government since they're the ones collecting the tax.
Somehow the bodega down the street is able to correctly calculate the sales tax when I buy a pop. And I'm pretty sure the teen who helps out is the only person that can competently read/write in English. That calculations will require the full address that I am also having to enter with my credit card rather than just a portion of the payment that I'm obligated to put in with my credit card makes it more complicated, but again, this is not a new problem and has existing solutions in the shelf.
Bad example. Their tax rates are fixed because the shop location and buyer location is fixed.
The buyer location will always be fixed. You have to deliver your good or service to somewhere and bill them.
moniker on
+2
Options
BrodyThe WatchThe First ShoreRegistered Userregular
The esoteric application of sales tax based on increasing granular jurisdictions isn't the point of this SCOTUS decision.
"I will write your name in the ruin of them. I will paint you across history in the color of their blood."
Does this ruling mean that interest charged to me by a Delaware Credit Card Company is now taxable by my state? They "shipped" that interest to me in the mail or online.
Does this ruling mean that interest charged to me by a Delaware Credit Card Company is now taxable by my state? They "shipped" that interest to me in the mail or online.
WASHINGTON — Internet retailers can be required to collect sales taxes in states where they have no physical presence, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.
Brick-and-mortar businesses have long complained that they are disadvantaged by having to charge sales taxes while many of their online competitors do not. States have said that they are missing out on tens of billions of dollars in annual revenue under a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that helped spur the rise of internet shopping.
On Thursday, the court overruled that ruling, Quill Corporation v. North Dakota, which had said that the Constitution bars states from requiring businesses to collect sales taxes unless they have a substantial connection to the state.
Shares in Amazon were down just 1 percent in morning trading after the ruling, at $1,731.59. But other e-commerce companies suffered far tougher blows: Shares in Etsy, the marketplace for artisanal crafts, fell 4.5 percent, to $42.21, while those in Wayfair, a popular home goods seller, were down 3.2 percent, at $112.42.
Writing for the majority in the 5-to-4 ruling, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the Quill decision had distorted the nation’s economy and had caused states to lose annual tax revenues between $8 billion and $33 billion.
“Quill puts both local businesses and many interstate businesses with physical presence at a competitive disadvantage relative to remote sellers,” he wrote. “Remote sellers can avoid the regulatory burdens of tax collection and can offer de facto lower prices caused by the widespread failure of consumers to pay the tax on their own.”
Score: 5-4: Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsbug, Alito, Gorsuch in favor, Roberts, Meyer, Sotomayor, Kagan against. Overall, I am of the opinion that online retailers should pay a lot more taxes than they do (Bezos's net worth is ridiculous), so this is good news.
Shit news that will retard the new economy. Amazon will be fine, smaller retailers will be Proper Fucked Forever while trying to calculate and collect 50 sales taxes.
If you’re not big enough to figure out how to collect the tax you’re not worth going after to go get the tax back. It will do nothing for the new economy except reduce the value of large companies that were cheating on their taxes earlier
Edit: fulfillment issues don’t really matter since endpoint is al that had ever mattered
So businesses are supposed to rely on government largesse and flying under the radar in order to be successful? What a great regime we just put in place.
Taxes are competition neutral. At the very least you’re on an even playing field rather than having a leg up over retailers in that state
This is just silly to say. Every online retailer is immediately liable for whatever sales tax laws all 50 states pass. It's not an even playing field if you get to catch one ball at a time and your competition is required to catch four dozen.
No. Look if you're not liable for state sales tax in WA because you're located in Oregon but selling to Washingtonians and shipping to them then you have nearly a 10% price advantage on Washington run businesses by avoiding the method by which our state generates revenue. This extrapolated to every state.
It was a big point of contention for Amazon years ago because by shipping from out of state warehouses they were able to claim that they did not owe any state sales tax to any state. Fortunately they ended that practice because it was bullshit*. But that didn't prevent other online retailers from doing and so getting an unfair price advantage until this decision came down.
*though to be fair i am guessing what actually happened was that the price advantage they could gain from the taxes ended up being less than the price advantage from having local warehouses in as many states as possible. But they still ended the practice and gave states their due.
This is a moral argument -- companies ought to stop dodging their fair share of tax liabilities -- that completely fails to answer spool's reasonable economic argument: That compliance costs are trivial for large companies, but are likely to be non-trivial for some small companies, thereby driving them out of the market and reducing competition
I made a game! Hotline Maui. Requires mouse and keyboard.
WASHINGTON — Internet retailers can be required to collect sales taxes in states where they have no physical presence, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday.
Brick-and-mortar businesses have long complained that they are disadvantaged by having to charge sales taxes while many of their online competitors do not. States have said that they are missing out on tens of billions of dollars in annual revenue under a 1992 Supreme Court ruling that helped spur the rise of internet shopping.
On Thursday, the court overruled that ruling, Quill Corporation v. North Dakota, which had said that the Constitution bars states from requiring businesses to collect sales taxes unless they have a substantial connection to the state.
Shares in Amazon were down just 1 percent in morning trading after the ruling, at $1,731.59. But other e-commerce companies suffered far tougher blows: Shares in Etsy, the marketplace for artisanal crafts, fell 4.5 percent, to $42.21, while those in Wayfair, a popular home goods seller, were down 3.2 percent, at $112.42.
Writing for the majority in the 5-to-4 ruling, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy said the Quill decision had distorted the nation’s economy and had caused states to lose annual tax revenues between $8 billion and $33 billion.
“Quill puts both local businesses and many interstate businesses with physical presence at a competitive disadvantage relative to remote sellers,” he wrote. “Remote sellers can avoid the regulatory burdens of tax collection and can offer de facto lower prices caused by the widespread failure of consumers to pay the tax on their own.”
Score: 5-4: Kennedy, Thomas, Ginsbug, Alito, Gorsuch in favor, Roberts, Meyer, Sotomayor, Kagan against. Overall, I am of the opinion that online retailers should pay a lot more taxes than they do (Bezos's net worth is ridiculous), so this is good news.
Shit news that will retard the new economy. Amazon will be fine, smaller retailers will be Proper Fucked Forever while trying to calculate and collect 50 sales taxes.
If you’re not big enough to figure out how to collect the tax you’re not worth going after to go get the tax back. It will do nothing for the new economy except reduce the value of large companies that were cheating on their taxes earlier
Edit: fulfillment issues don’t really matter since endpoint is al that had ever mattered
So businesses are supposed to rely on government largesse and flying under the radar in order to be successful? What a great regime we just put in place.
Taxes are competition neutral. At the very least you’re on an even playing field rather than having a leg up over retailers in that state
This is just silly to say. Every online retailer is immediately liable for whatever sales tax laws all 50 states pass. It's not an even playing field if you get to catch one ball at a time and your competition is required to catch four dozen.
No. Look if you're not liable for state sales tax in WA because you're located in Oregon but selling to Washingtonians and shipping to them then you have nearly a 10% price advantage on Washington run businesses by avoiding the method by which our state generates revenue. This extrapolated to every state.
It was a big point of contention for Amazon years ago because by shipping from out of state warehouses they were able to claim that they did not owe any state sales tax to any state. Fortunately they ended that practice because it was bullshit*. But that didn't prevent other online retailers from doing and so getting an unfair price advantage until this decision came down.
*though to be fair i am guessing what actually happened was that the price advantage they could gain from the taxes ended up being less than the price advantage from having local warehouses in as many states as possible. But they still ended the practice and gave states their due.
This is a moral argument -- companies ought to stop dodging their fair share of tax liabilities -- that completely fails to answer spool's reasonable economic argument: That compliance costs are trivial for large companies, but are likely to be non-trivial for some small companies, thereby driving them out of the market and reducing competition
Compliance costs are minimal though. We have gone over it. If you’re not exempt it’s in the cents per transaction.
Plus, as already mentioned, if we are weighing the value of the cost versus the value of being able to collect taxes the value of being able to collect taxes wins every time
+3
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
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.
This is tax fraud, and most likely a lot more trouble than just paying the dang tax. How do you plan on getting the good from the PO Box to the final destination? You want to pay for shipping twice?
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Arguments suggesting that it's super hard to link zip code to percentages are drastically overplaying the impact.
But you can't actually link tax rates to zip codes as there's no correlation between the two. You've got state, county, city, and "special taxing district" taxes that require you to get down to the specific address to be correct. Then you have to know whether it's an origin or destination tax, whether shipping is taxed, and account for all those wierd use-case tax laws among other things. Charging correct tax is horribly complicated. Yes, there are private companies that sell that service, so all is not lost. But in my opinion, it's stupid that that is your only option when it should be a service provided for free by the government since they're the ones collecting the tax.
Somehow the bodega down the street is able to correctly calculate the sales tax when I buy a pop. And I'm pretty sure the teen who helps out is the only person that can competently read/write in English. That calculations will require the full address that I am also having to enter with my credit card rather than just a portion of the payment that I'm obligated to put in with my credit card makes it more complicated, but again, this is not a new problem and has existing solutions in the shelf.
Bad example. Their tax rates are fixed because the shop location and buyer location is fixed.
You think the POS software is written for that one location? My money's on it taking that as a setting somewhere.
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 can't buy fireworks in the State of Illinois. This ban adversely impacts consumers and harms online retail. Should States no longer be allowed to regulate explosives?
It's not a good analogy, because there is a notable difference between the legality of selling an item within a state border, and the requirement to collect taxation on behalf of a state because parts of a legal transaction happened on a device located there.
The sales tax law that this case was about states that it is for the sale of items that are shipped to an address within that state.
Not where the device used to make the order was.
Not where the billing address of the form of payment used is.
But the shipping address, nothing else. Until we get states trying to tax things based on the above...
Every digital-delivery software transaction in the nation fits the description that strikes you as so unlikely.
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.
This is tax fraud, and most likely a lot more trouble than just paying the dang tax. How do you plan on getting the good from the PO Box to the final destination? You want to pay for shipping twice?
for digital delivery it doesn't matter as long as the junk mail goes somewhere real.
I'm not really sure if it's fraud either. Lots of people who travel as a core part of their employment pick a state with the most advantageous tax laws to maintain a home address. Long haul truckers pick hub cities in states with low/no income tax and favorable gas prices/taxes. I work with lots of medical professionals who have been at this facility for at least the last 11 months with a permanent home address 2200 miles away where they rent a room and collect mail.
Online retailers have been collecting sales tax since the early 00's. It's not some new or difficult task, it's just weird that brick and mortar retail advocates think this is somehow going to "stick it" to online retailers.
Yo my dude's it seems you're trying to map an ephemeral world to concrete one. Its gunna be a little weird, but it seems we've decided on some facsimile of "congratulations with the ever continuing death of the storefront you, or where you're shipping to, are now the stand in for the brick ands mortar storefront".
For steam games its real easy... grab the approximate location of the device when you process the transaction (meaning the device initiating the purchase)... thats your taxes... welcome to the dystopian future. While counterable i don't see how you couldn't make that a solid case of tax fraud.
Overall, the ruling that close the online retailer loophole is a good thing.
It's a bit ironic to see someone bemoaning how that increases costs on an online retailer, while ignoring how that gave said online retailer an unfair advantage over local businesses that cannot weasel their way out of the sales tax. Chances are pretty good that all online retailers will continue to be cheaper than brick and mortar retailers, but they won't be able to bank on ignoring state sales taxes as part of why they can be cheaper.
Not to mention by not paying those sales taxes, those online retailer and their consumers get a partial free ride on state infrastructure that was used to ship the product. Every product still has to go down state roads, which means wear and tear that will eventually need to be repaired. I'd need to do further digging, but I'm sure there are a few other areas that are funded in part or wholly by state money and not federal money that some of these goods need to travel through. The removal of the loophole means states will get more revenue and some of that is likely to go into infrastructure because good lord is some of the infrastructure in urgent need of repair or straight up upgrades to accommodate current needs.
Yes, sales taxes are shitty flat taxes and that hit the non-rich hardest, but letting online retailers skirt around neither fixed the problem with flat taxes and in fact just created new problems. I'd also argue if no one can skirt around the sales tax, it make sit easier to make push for a better approach, whereas the status quo made it easier for many to ignore the problem.
Overall, the ruling that close the online retailer loophole is a good thing.
It's a bit ironic to see someone bemoaning how that increases costs on an online retailer, while ignoring how that gave said online retailer an unfair advantage over local businesses that cannot weasel their way out of the sales tax. Chances are pretty good that all online retailers will continue to be cheaper than brick and mortar retailers, but they won't be able to bank on ignoring state sales taxes as part of why they can be cheaper.
Not to mention by not paying those sales taxes, those online retailer and their consumers get a partial free ride on state infrastructure that was used to ship the product. Every product still has to go down state roads, which means wear and tear that will eventually need to be repaired. I'd need to do further digging, but I'm sure there are a few other areas that are funded in part or wholly by state money and not federal money that some of these goods need to travel through. The removal of the loophole means states will get more revenue and some of that is likely to go into infrastructure because good lord is some of the infrastructure in urgent need of repair or straight up upgrades to accommodate current needs.
Yes, sales taxes are shitty flat taxes and that hit the non-rich hardest, but letting online retailers skirt around neither fixed the problem with flat taxes and in fact just created new problems. I'd also argue if no one can skirt around the sales tax, it make sit easier to make push for a better approach, whereas the status quo made it easier for many to ignore the problem.
None of this connects in the slightest. It is the citizens of the State in question who are dodging tax and using their own infrastructure without paying for it.
The businesses are now able to be coerced into doing the work of collecting the tax now, regardless of where the purchase and the business and the storefront and the merchandise are located (or not located, as in the case of digital downloads), but the tax regime has remained the same.
The removal of the "loophole" (lol), i.e. the states gaining the ability to coerce businesses over which they have literally no other jurisdiction whatever into collecting tax for them, will raise somewhere between 8 and 33 billion in new revenue, all of which (plus more for overhead and liability and on and on) will appear in the form of higher prices paid by poorer people.
Overall, the ruling that close the online retailer loophole is a good thing.
It's a bit ironic to see someone bemoaning how that increases costs on an online retailer, while ignoring how that gave said online retailer an unfair advantage over local businesses that cannot weasel their way out of the sales tax. Chances are pretty good that all online retailers will continue to be cheaper than brick and mortar retailers, but they won't be able to bank on ignoring state sales taxes as part of why they can be cheaper.
Not to mention by not paying those sales taxes, those online retailer and their consumers get a partial free ride on state infrastructure that was used to ship the product. Every product still has to go down state roads, which means wear and tear that will eventually need to be repaired. I'd need to do further digging, but I'm sure there are a few other areas that are funded in part or wholly by state money and not federal money that some of these goods need to travel through. The removal of the loophole means states will get more revenue and some of that is likely to go into infrastructure because good lord is some of the infrastructure in urgent need of repair or straight up upgrades to accommodate current needs.
Yes, sales taxes are shitty flat taxes and that hit the non-rich hardest, but letting online retailers skirt around neither fixed the problem with flat taxes and in fact just created new problems. I'd also argue if no one can skirt around the sales tax, it make sit easier to make push for a better approach, whereas the status quo made it easier for many to ignore the problem.
None of this connects in the slightest. It is the citizens of the State in question who are dodging tax and using their own infrastructure without paying for it.
The businesses are now able to be coerced into doing the work of collecting the tax now, regardless of where the purchase and the business and the storefront and the merchandise are located (or not located, as in the case of digital downloads), but the tax regime has remained the same.
The removal of the "loophole" (lol), i.e. the states gaining the ability to coerce businesses over which they have literally no other jurisdiction whatever into collecting tax for them, will raise somewhere between 8 and 33 billion in new revenue, all of which (plus more for overhead and liability and on and on) will appear in the form of higher prices paid by poorer people.
This is not a good thing.
It was a loophole. The states were already owed the sales tax. It was just supposed to be voluntarily reported and paid by buyers. Which is laughable, as the vast majority definitely didn't know.
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
They’re selling goods in the states. To residents of the states. Who pay sales tax for most purchases in states that have sales tax. Carving out an exception (which is the definition of a loophole lol) for internet sales gives an unfair advantage to those retailers, and costs the states much-needed revenue.
If your state doesn’t collect sales tax, you don’t have to worry about this either way.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
On reading the rulings now, i'm at least slightly persuaded. I think Kennedy probably has it right... because the law is ridiculously out of date and completely unsuited to a modern economy. Roberts is correct on the impact.
The law should not be as it is, and the resulting shitshow will demonstrate that. I hope retailers do start dumping states onto no-service ghettos. Maybe if we fragment the ever-loving fuck out of the online market and set ourselves back a decade, we can start grappling with new economy realities instead of grafting this idiocy onto ourselves like a corpse and claiming we made a new friend.
Overall, the ruling that close the online retailer loophole is a good thing.
It's a bit ironic to see someone bemoaning how that increases costs on an online retailer, while ignoring how that gave said online retailer an unfair advantage over local businesses that cannot weasel their way out of the sales tax. Chances are pretty good that all online retailers will continue to be cheaper than brick and mortar retailers, but they won't be able to bank on ignoring state sales taxes as part of why they can be cheaper.
Not to mention by not paying those sales taxes, those online retailer and their consumers get a partial free ride on state infrastructure that was used to ship the product. Every product still has to go down state roads, which means wear and tear that will eventually need to be repaired. I'd need to do further digging, but I'm sure there are a few other areas that are funded in part or wholly by state money and not federal money that some of these goods need to travel through. The removal of the loophole means states will get more revenue and some of that is likely to go into infrastructure because good lord is some of the infrastructure in urgent need of repair or straight up upgrades to accommodate current needs.
Yes, sales taxes are shitty flat taxes and that hit the non-rich hardest, but letting online retailers skirt around neither fixed the problem with flat taxes and in fact just created new problems. I'd also argue if no one can skirt around the sales tax, it make sit easier to make push for a better approach, whereas the status quo made it easier for many to ignore the problem.
None of this connects in the slightest. It is the citizens of the State in question who are dodging tax and using their own infrastructure without paying for it.
The businesses are now able to be coerced into doing the work of collecting the tax now, regardless of where the purchase and the business and the storefront and the merchandise are located (or not located, as in the case of digital downloads), but the tax regime has remained the same.
The removal of the "loophole" (lol), i.e. the states gaining the ability to coerce businesses over which they have literally no other jurisdiction whatever into collecting tax for them, will raise somewhere between 8 and 33 billion in new revenue, all of which (plus more for overhead and liability and on and on) will appear in the form of higher prices paid by poorer people.
This is not a good thing.
It was a loophole. The states were already owed the sales tax. It was just supposed to be voluntarily reported and paid by buyers. Which is laughable, as the vast majority definitely didn't know.
So throw your citizens in jail instead of chasing me down a thousand miles away to try and squeeze out what your residents wouldn't cop to. It's a farce.
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Also, there is no requirement for states that do not currently collect sales tax on online sales to begin doing so. Constituents are free to lobby their legislature to not seize this opportunity for increasing revenue. It’s that legislative solution you’re always encouraging us to take advantage of on other issues.
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
They’re selling goods in the states. To residents of the states. Who pay sales tax for most purchases in states that have sales tax. Carving out an exception (which is the definition of a loophole lol) for internet sales gives an unfair advantage to those retailers, and costs the states much-needed revenue.
If your state doesn’t collect sales tax, you don’t have to worry about this either way.
That's partly wrong, because there are a dozen states who levy origin taxes and you'll have to pay it if you buy from a business located there.
It's also wrong because at least in some cases, they aren't selling the goods in the states.
Where does an online transaction take place? Not on the buyer's computer. Not on the seller's web portal.
On reading the rulings now, i'm at least slightly persuaded. I think Kennedy probably has it right... because the law is ridiculously out of date and completely unsuited to a modern economy. Roberts is correct on the impact.
The law should not be as it is, and the resulting shitshow will demonstrate that. I hope retailers do start dumping states onto no-service ghettos. Maybe if we fragment the ever-loving fuck out of the online market and set ourselves back a decade, we can start grappling with new economy realities instead of grafting this idiocy onto ourselves like a corpse and claiming we made a new friend.
Since amazon already does collect and pay sales tax... good luck
Edit: keep in mind Spool that your alternative is for individuals to track every out of state purchase they make and then record and remit the tax. They have to know your physical location so they know if they need to remit or not. Plus they then have to have records of everything they buy.
In terms of “regulatory burden” it’s a lot lower to require businesses than individuals to do this.
Also, there is no requirement for states that do not currently collect sales tax on online sales to begin doing so. Constituents are free to lobby their legislature to not seize this opportunity for increasing revenue. It’s that legislative solution you’re always encouraging us to take advantage of on other issues.
I think you're right. It needs a legislative solution banning the collection of sales tax for online orders.
Fat fucking chance of that ever happening. Instead we'll just shit up the economy until everybody forgets that stuff was 10% cheaper back in 2018 and never really recover from it.
Overall, the ruling that close the online retailer loophole is a good thing.
It's a bit ironic to see someone bemoaning how that increases costs on an online retailer, while ignoring how that gave said online retailer an unfair advantage over local businesses that cannot weasel their way out of the sales tax. Chances are pretty good that all online retailers will continue to be cheaper than brick and mortar retailers, but they won't be able to bank on ignoring state sales taxes as part of why they can be cheaper.
Not to mention by not paying those sales taxes, those online retailer and their consumers get a partial free ride on state infrastructure that was used to ship the product. Every product still has to go down state roads, which means wear and tear that will eventually need to be repaired. I'd need to do further digging, but I'm sure there are a few other areas that are funded in part or wholly by state money and not federal money that some of these goods need to travel through. The removal of the loophole means states will get more revenue and some of that is likely to go into infrastructure because good lord is some of the infrastructure in urgent need of repair or straight up upgrades to accommodate current needs.
Yes, sales taxes are shitty flat taxes and that hit the non-rich hardest, but letting online retailers skirt around neither fixed the problem with flat taxes and in fact just created new problems. I'd also argue if no one can skirt around the sales tax, it make sit easier to make push for a better approach, whereas the status quo made it easier for many to ignore the problem.
None of this connects in the slightest. It is the citizens of the State in question who are dodging tax and using their own infrastructure without paying for it.
The businesses are now able to be coerced into doing the work of collecting the tax now, regardless of where the purchase and the business and the storefront and the merchandise are located (or not located, as in the case of digital downloads), but the tax regime has remained the same.
The removal of the "loophole" (lol), i.e. the states gaining the ability to coerce businesses over which they have literally no other jurisdiction whatever into collecting tax for them, will raise somewhere between 8 and 33 billion in new revenue, all of which (plus more for overhead and liability and on and on) will appear in the form of higher prices paid by poorer people.
This is not a good thing.
It was a loophole. The states were already owed the sales tax. It was just supposed to be voluntarily reported and paid by buyers. Which is laughable, as the vast majority definitely didn't know.
So throw your citizens in jail instead of chasing me down a thousand miles away to try and squeeze out what your residents wouldn't cop to. It's a farce.
Yes. Go and chase down 99.9% of people buying things online for not paying maybe $50 each, average, or something. This is surely economical and won't bankrupt the state to try.
There's a reason sales tax is collected at retailers.
Overall, the ruling that close the online retailer loophole is a good thing.
It's a bit ironic to see someone bemoaning how that increases costs on an online retailer, while ignoring how that gave said online retailer an unfair advantage over local businesses that cannot weasel their way out of the sales tax. Chances are pretty good that all online retailers will continue to be cheaper than brick and mortar retailers, but they won't be able to bank on ignoring state sales taxes as part of why they can be cheaper.
Not to mention by not paying those sales taxes, those online retailer and their consumers get a partial free ride on state infrastructure that was used to ship the product. Every product still has to go down state roads, which means wear and tear that will eventually need to be repaired. I'd need to do further digging, but I'm sure there are a few other areas that are funded in part or wholly by state money and not federal money that some of these goods need to travel through. The removal of the loophole means states will get more revenue and some of that is likely to go into infrastructure because good lord is some of the infrastructure in urgent need of repair or straight up upgrades to accommodate current needs.
Yes, sales taxes are shitty flat taxes and that hit the non-rich hardest, but letting online retailers skirt around neither fixed the problem with flat taxes and in fact just created new problems. I'd also argue if no one can skirt around the sales tax, it make sit easier to make push for a better approach, whereas the status quo made it easier for many to ignore the problem.
None of this connects in the slightest. It is the citizens of the State in question who are dodging tax and using their own infrastructure without paying for it.
The businesses are now able to be coerced into doing the work of collecting the tax now, regardless of where the purchase and the business and the storefront and the merchandise are located (or not located, as in the case of digital downloads), but the tax regime has remained the same.
The removal of the "loophole" (lol), i.e. the states gaining the ability to coerce businesses over which they have literally no other jurisdiction whatever into collecting tax for them, will raise somewhere between 8 and 33 billion in new revenue, all of which (plus more for overhead and liability and on and on) will appear in the form of higher prices paid by poorer people.
This is not a good thing.
It was a loophole. The states were already owed the sales tax. It was just supposed to be voluntarily reported and paid by buyers. Which is laughable, as the vast majority definitely didn't know.
So throw your citizens in jail instead of chasing me down a thousand miles away to try and squeeze out what your residents wouldn't cop to. It's a farce.
Yes. Go and chase down 99.9% of people buying things online for not paying maybe $50 each, average, or something. This is surely economical and won't bankrupt the state to try.
There's a reason sales tax is collected at retailers.
(the reason is that it's easier to coerce a business into doing the State's tax job by threatening their livelihood)
Posts
I can't buy fireworks in the State of Illinois. This ban adversely impacts consumers and harms online retail. Should States no longer be allowed to regulate explosives?
There is that one sex store that actually obeyed all those weird obscenity laws that prevented them from selling to certain counties.
It's not a good analogy, because there is a notable difference between the legality of selling an item within a state border, and the requirement to collect taxation on behalf of a state because parts of a legal transaction happened on a device located there.
You mean because the sale took place at the request of the purchaser who resides or invoices from that location, and so is under the purview of that State's tax and regulatory regime?
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 firmly disagree that a company that ships purchased goods regularly into the state from a website readily accessed from the state has no presence in the state. They are absolutely doing business in the state. They should, like all other companies doing business in the state, but subject to the same laws covering said business activities.
Note never have I once said this is a trivial change, though I think you are overblowing it. It's not, it's a big change. But I don't think it is the catastrophe and philosophically I think we obviously differ on how "fair" it is that online companies have been avoiding paying these taxes* all these years.
*Understood, I hope, that this phrase encompasses the idea that they charge customers the tax and remit it to the state. I understand how it works.
But you can't actually link tax rates to zip codes as there's no correlation between the two. You've got state, county, city, and "special taxing district" taxes that require you to get down to the specific address to be correct. Then you have to know whether it's an origin or destination tax, whether shipping is taxed, and account for all those wierd use-case tax laws among other things. Charging correct tax is horribly complicated. Yes, there are private companies that sell that service, so all is not lost. But in my opinion, it's stupid that that is your only option when it should be a service provided for free by the government since they're the ones collecting the tax.
Why would you not be subject to the laws of the state where the transaction occurred?
Moreover, do you believe that it should be illegal at all for states to require businesses to collect and remit sales tax? Because that is the only reasonable construction i am getting out of your argument. But there is no way online retailers are going to get a ruling that breaks basically all state and federal taxation schemes by negating the ability of the government to collect it.
I mean I'm all for the calculation being provided by the government.
But I'm not really open to the idea that calculating this is some impossible, company sinking task destroying everyone but Amazon and ebay.
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
Somehow the bodega down the street is able to correctly calculate the sales tax when I buy a pop. And I'm pretty sure the teen who helps out is the only person that can competently read/write in English. That calculations will require the full address that I have to enter with my credit card rather than just a portion of the address that I'm obligated to put in with my credit card payment makes it more complicated, but again, this is not a new problem and has existing solutions on the shelf.
Bad example. Their tax rates are fixed because the shop location and buyer location is fixed.
The sales tax law that this case was about states that it is for the sale of items that are shipped to an address within that state.
Not where the device used to make the order was.
Not where the billing address of the form of payment used is.
But the shipping address, nothing else. Until we get states trying to tax things based on the above, you are making it way more complex than it actually is.
And honestly, the arguments that businesses suffer from having to deal with extra sale tax calculations, or that people will ship it to a 0 tax place where they can travel/have someone deliver it from kinda feels a bit hollow to me when I live in a city where crossing the goddamn street can put you in a different state, with a different sales tax.
The buyer location will always be fixed. You have to deliver your good or service to somewhere and bill them.
The Monster Baru Cormorant - Seth Dickinson
Steam: Korvalain
Interest is not a sales transaction so, no.
This is a moral argument -- companies ought to stop dodging their fair share of tax liabilities -- that completely fails to answer spool's reasonable economic argument: That compliance costs are trivial for large companies, but are likely to be non-trivial for some small companies, thereby driving them out of the market and reducing competition
Compliance costs are minimal though. We have gone over it. If you’re not exempt it’s in the cents per transaction.
Plus, as already mentioned, if we are weighing the value of the cost versus the value of being able to collect taxes the value of being able to collect taxes wins every time
This is tax fraud, and most likely a lot more trouble than just paying the dang tax. How do you plan on getting the good from the PO Box to the final destination? You want to pay for shipping twice?
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
You think the POS software is written for that one location? My money's on it taking that as a setting somewhere.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Every digital-delivery software transaction in the nation fits the description that strikes you as so unlikely.
for digital delivery it doesn't matter as long as the junk mail goes somewhere real.
Online retailers have been collecting sales tax since the early 00's. It's not some new or difficult task, it's just weird that brick and mortar retail advocates think this is somehow going to "stick it" to online retailers.
For steam games its real easy... grab the approximate location of the device when you process the transaction (meaning the device initiating the purchase)... thats your taxes... welcome to the dystopian future. While counterable i don't see how you couldn't make that a solid case of tax fraud.
It's a bit ironic to see someone bemoaning how that increases costs on an online retailer, while ignoring how that gave said online retailer an unfair advantage over local businesses that cannot weasel their way out of the sales tax. Chances are pretty good that all online retailers will continue to be cheaper than brick and mortar retailers, but they won't be able to bank on ignoring state sales taxes as part of why they can be cheaper.
Not to mention by not paying those sales taxes, those online retailer and their consumers get a partial free ride on state infrastructure that was used to ship the product. Every product still has to go down state roads, which means wear and tear that will eventually need to be repaired. I'd need to do further digging, but I'm sure there are a few other areas that are funded in part or wholly by state money and not federal money that some of these goods need to travel through. The removal of the loophole means states will get more revenue and some of that is likely to go into infrastructure because good lord is some of the infrastructure in urgent need of repair or straight up upgrades to accommodate current needs.
Yes, sales taxes are shitty flat taxes and that hit the non-rich hardest, but letting online retailers skirt around neither fixed the problem with flat taxes and in fact just created new problems. I'd also argue if no one can skirt around the sales tax, it make sit easier to make push for a better approach, whereas the status quo made it easier for many to ignore the problem.
battletag: Millin#1360
Nice chart to figure out how honest a news source is.
None of this connects in the slightest. It is the citizens of the State in question who are dodging tax and using their own infrastructure without paying for it.
The businesses are now able to be coerced into doing the work of collecting the tax now, regardless of where the purchase and the business and the storefront and the merchandise are located (or not located, as in the case of digital downloads), but the tax regime has remained the same.
The removal of the "loophole" (lol), i.e. the states gaining the ability to coerce businesses over which they have literally no other jurisdiction whatever into collecting tax for them, will raise somewhere between 8 and 33 billion in new revenue, all of which (plus more for overhead and liability and on and on) will appear in the form of higher prices paid by poorer people.
This is not a good thing.
It was a loophole. The states were already owed the sales tax. It was just supposed to be voluntarily reported and paid by buyers. Which is laughable, as the vast majority definitely didn't know.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
If your state doesn’t collect sales tax, you don’t have to worry about this either way.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
The law should not be as it is, and the resulting shitshow will demonstrate that. I hope retailers do start dumping states onto no-service ghettos. Maybe if we fragment the ever-loving fuck out of the online market and set ourselves back a decade, we can start grappling with new economy realities instead of grafting this idiocy onto ourselves like a corpse and claiming we made a new friend.
So throw your citizens in jail instead of chasing me down a thousand miles away to try and squeeze out what your residents wouldn't cop to. It's a farce.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
That's partly wrong, because there are a dozen states who levy origin taxes and you'll have to pay it if you buy from a business located there.
It's also wrong because at least in some cases, they aren't selling the goods in the states.
Where does an online transaction take place? Not on the buyer's computer. Not on the seller's web portal.
Since amazon already does collect and pay sales tax... good luck
Edit: keep in mind Spool that your alternative is for individuals to track every out of state purchase they make and then record and remit the tax. They have to know your physical location so they know if they need to remit or not. Plus they then have to have records of everything they buy.
In terms of “regulatory burden” it’s a lot lower to require businesses than individuals to do this.
Sales taxes suck. Get rid of them.
(Also, start voting by mail.)
I think you're right. It needs a legislative solution banning the collection of sales tax for online orders.
Fat fucking chance of that ever happening. Instead we'll just shit up the economy until everybody forgets that stuff was 10% cheaper back in 2018 and never really recover from it.
Yes. Go and chase down 99.9% of people buying things online for not paying maybe $50 each, average, or something. This is surely economical and won't bankrupt the state to try.
There's a reason sales tax is collected at retailers.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
(the reason is that it's easier to coerce a business into doing the State's tax job by threatening their livelihood)