Posted on 04/16/2018 6:52:39 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Sales Tax: $0.
Online shoppers have gotten used to seeing that line on checkout screens before they click "purchase." But a case before the Supreme Court could change that.
At issue is a rule stemming from two, decades-old Supreme Court cases: If a business is shipping to a state where it doesn't have an office, warehouse or other physical presence, it doesn't have to collect the state's sales tax.
That means large retailers such as Apple, Macy's, Target and Walmart, which have brick-and-mortar stores nationwide, generally collect sales tax from customers who buy from them online. But other online sellers, from 1-800 Contacts to home goods site Wayfair, can often sidestep charging the tax.
The case now before the Supreme Court involves South Dakota, which has no income tax and relies heavily on sales tax for revenue. South Dakota's governor has said the state loses out on an estimated $50 million a year in sales tax that doesn't get collected by out-of-state sellers.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbsnews.com ...
Doesn’t seem to here in Texas. We get reamed in property taxes every year, DESPITE having 2/3’s Republicans in our legislature.
Amazon is already charging sales tax.
If out of your business address you make a sale, you collect state and/or city taxes on that transaction. Why is this so hard?
The responsibility for paying sales tax on such transactions rests with the side of the transaction that exists within the state - the purchaser of the item.
Don’t you also have no state tax?
I believe that is how it already works. But if you contact someone from another state and send them money and they send you a product for that money, they have no relationship with your state’s government
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
They DO have a relationship with my local government.
The package does not arrive by magic. It is, in many cases, delivered by the post office, delivery services etc all of whom have a direct relationship with the local government.
My city pays a ton of money so they can have three giant dumpsters available so everyone can fill them will all the cardboard boxes their stuff came in.
Why do you folks cite this stuff? That is the constitution and applies to the US govt.
The takers have certainly figured that out.
This is the challenge. The fifty states are really countries within an overarching governmental body (US) that has authority regarding relationships between the states, not individuals within the states - e.g. buyers and sellers of products.
This is why it is set up currently the way it is.
The Supreme Court is an entity of, by and for government. As such, it seldom rules against government interests.
It’ the reason there is no sales tax now.
FedGov can print money. States can’t.
That is not relevant. The package carrier is who has a relationship with the local government. And by law they have no idea what is in the package.
The package carrier pays all taxes they are responsible to pay.
“Good.”
So, when you purchase online and tax is NOT collected, do you file the appropriate paperwork with your state and send in the tax yourself?
Because that is what is SUPPOSED to happen. If you check your state tax site, they say YOU are responsible for out of state taxes.
But, no one files this paperwork, surprisingly enough.
The problem with out of state businesses doing it is that they have to know the nuance of all states, many of which don’t have consistent tax rates because of municipalities, some of which can tax sales as well. There is no forgiveness when business makes mistakes in that regard. They get fined immediately. Expect more smaller guys going out of business with this.
The legal reason for not doing this in the past is described as that there is no “nexus” between the business and the state.
On and individual level (as opposed to business) let’s say you work in Texas as an employee and take a trip to NYC for a vacation. While there, you are receiving payment from your employer for your vacation time, possibly earning capital gains, interest and dividends in that time period.
So, in that case, should the Texan be paying taxes to NYC for that week because he was earning money while present there?
I think not, and also think when there is no nexus between state and business - the same.
The real problem, as usual, is that government spends like a drunken sailor, putting all its effort into nickel and diming wherever they can instead of putting that effort into cutting spending.
Supporting the taxman? There’s one for you,nineteen for me!
I’ve got an idea, hows about the states shove the tax up their a$$?
I’m so sick of liberals and their freaking taxes!!
I think the real effort is to get businesses (sellers) to collect and pay sales taxes to government because there is ample information that proves customers (buyers) do not declare or pay online sales taxes. So this is an effective unfunded mandate on businesses, just like individual income tax withholdings.
So SCOTUS is going to reverse itself on years of precedent and stare decisis because South Dakota is crying waaaah....waaaaaah.....waaaaah over lost revenue?
Sadly I think it could happen.
No it isn’t. It varies by state.
Citing the constitution and pretending it applies to state law is shady st best. Context is everything. For example claiming free speech rights when the government has done nothing to make such speech illegal is nutso. You can say whatever you want. If it offends a private entity they may act to remove you (in a restaurant for example).
The Constitution is primarily for defining and limiting the federal government
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.