Online Sales Tax For All Inches Closer To Reality

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Damn, not this again. I think most people would die of shock if, instead of raising taxes, the government (federal, state and local ) learned to live within their means. You know, kinda like the rest of us have to.

Online retailers raked in around $200 billion in sales in the U.S. last year. But it should be noted that sales tax was collected on some of these sales, as many of the largest e-tail sites are operated by bricks-and-mortar retailers. And some of that $200 billion came from items that some states don't consider taxable -- like clothing and unprepared food or prescription drugs -- regardless of whether it's sold online or in a store.
Click to expand...
 
Of course you read the article about Amazon.....

Now that they are collecting taxes, their strategy is to go ahead and build multiple centers in many large states so as to begin to provide same day delivery.

A brilliant concept, but how many other tax collecting business will fold in their wake?:eek:
 
All because Walmart complained that it wasn't fair for them to try and compete. Talk about BS...
 
Steve said:
Damn, not this again. I think most people would die of shock if, instead of raising taxes, the government (federal, state and local ) learned to live within their means. You know, kinda like the rest of us have to.
Click to expand...
Tell the voters to stop voting in politicians who promise hand outs.
 
I pay taxes on Amazon purchases anyways. There's a warehouse in Indiana. Oh well.

Sucks for everyone else though!
 
the crazy thing about the Amazon tax deals (at least in CA), is that they ,Amazon, actually gets to keep a LARGE percentage of the actual sales tax instead of the city general fund

so you are paying, in essence more for the product, and a little sales tax to benefit the local economy
 
Political rant: So you have never tried to earn more money to pay for more expensive things?

Everyone should live within the means of the first job they have, with the only raises accounting for inflation?


Yes, the government should try to minimize its spending. But when programs are desired by a majority of the population (yes, social security, medicare, the military at the federal level, and fire, police, and schools at the local level, are supported by an overwhelming majority,) we have to pay for them. And sometimes that means increasing revenue.

A few years ago, I decided that I wanted a new car. Partly, I started 'tightening the belt' on other expenses - but I also looked for and found a new job that pays more so I could afford it. If I had kept the job I had, I would NEVER have been able to afford it.

</political rant>
 
Good for Amazon. Hopefully I can order groceries online from them soon. I will die a happy man not needing to ever step into another Walmart again.
 
Trimlock said:
Tell the voters to stop voting in politicians who promise hand outs.
Click to expand...

members of Congress are doing more than just talking about the issue. Next Tuesday, the House Judiciary Committee will hold a hearing on the merits of creating a law allowing states to compel online retailers to collect sales taxes.
Click to expand...

When Texas first attempted this, Amazon responded by closing its distribution center there.
Click to expand...

Last I checked, Congressional majority and Texas consist of Republicans. Not sure where you're going with that obvious Democrat reference.
 
That's alright, they'll figure way around it. They'll move POS (Point of Sale) servers to states that are sales-tax free and argue where the point of sale takes place.

And for those wondering which states are currently tax free -

Alaska
Delaware
Montana
New Hampshire
Oregon
 
SilverSliver said:
Good for Amazon. Hopefully I can order groceries online from them soon. I will die a happy man not needing to ever step into another Walmart again.
Click to expand...

Why not buy from your local markets instead? That way you support your local businesses.
 
Azhar said:
Last I checked, Congressional majority and Texas consist of Republicans. Not sure where you're going with that obvious Democrat reference.
Click to expand...

Where did you get "obvious democrat reference" out of my post?

Im talking about steve asking the government to live within their means.
 
priley said:
Why not buy from your local markets instead? That way you support your local businesses.
Click to expand...

I can't see amazon being able to beat local stores in pricing. But good on them if they think they can.
 
Trimlock said:
Where did you get "obvious democrat reference" out of my post?

Im talking about steve asking the government to live within their means.
Click to expand...

I think they do need to live within their means, b/c the sales tax that is being talked about is not going to fed gov and won't help that part. The local govs have repeatedly spend above what they should have and are in hot water. I live in FL and when they introduced the lottery it was shown how much extra money was going to be generated for education. Well now that "extra" money is still spent on education but what was coming from the state/fed is being spent elsewhere and not on education. It is unfortunately the polical power struggles that we live in. I am ready to vote against the incumbent regardless of any other issue (probably won't do any good but can't get much worse).
 
priley said:
Why not buy from your local markets instead? That way you support your local businesses.
Click to expand...

I love to support local businesses but when they charge 20-30% more than online I'm going to go with the cheaper option.
 
CharonPDX said:
Political rant: So you have never tried to earn more money to pay for more expensive things?

Everyone should live within the means of the first job they have, with the only raises accounting for inflation?


Yes, the government should try to minimize its spending. But when programs are desired by a majority of the population (yes, social security, medicare, the military at the federal level, and fire, police, and schools at the local level, are supported by an overwhelming majority,) we have to pay for them. And sometimes that means increasing revenue.

A few years ago, I decided that I wanted a new car. Partly, I started 'tightening the belt' on other expenses - but I also looked for and found a new job that pays more so I could afford it. If I had kept the job I had, I would NEVER have been able to afford it.

</political rant>
Click to expand...

SSShhh!! Don't talk your nonsense logic!
 
bbenz33 said:
I think they do need to live within their means, b/c the sales tax that is being talked about is not going to fed gov and won't help that part. The local govs have repeatedly spend above what they should have and are in hot water. I live in FL and when they introduced the lottery it was shown how much extra money was going to be generated for education. Well now that "extra" money is still spent on education but what was coming from the state/fed is being spent elsewhere and not on education. It is unfortunately the polical power struggles that we live in. I am ready to vote against the incumbent regardless of any other issue (probably won't do any good but can't get much worse).
Click to expand...

Mine wa really a blanket statement to a blanket statement. But I do agree with you.
 
fdiaz78 said:
I love to support local businesses but when they charge 20-30% more than online I'm going to go with the cheaper option.
Click to expand...

For hardware, etc I agree. But food etc?
I guess one thing Walmart has done right there is by going to local farmers for their produce.

Ok-- so as to keep on topic: I already pay taxes to Amazon and Newegg due to living in Indiana. Though I have found that some days they seem to not charge me taxes.. which can make things tricky for the end-of-year tax crunch.
 
Trimlock said:
Where did you get "obvious democrat reference" out of my post?

Im talking about steve asking the government to live within their means.
Click to expand...

My bad. I was going by the popular attack that Democrats are socialist and wants everyone to live on hand-outs. :p
 
Its going to happen. Its a simple reality. We all knew when the Internet got popular that online taxing was going to be a reality at some point in the future. If we are smart about it and don't destroy it with the same kind of tax code we use for income tax it could actually dig us out of this massive mess we're currently in.

Fighting it is pointless. We can only delay it because its seemingly inevitable in our current massive debt climate that we find new opportunities to take advantage of. Of course we could simply cut the Defend budget in half from $653 Billion to $325.6 Billion and start actually paying off our massive debt instead of throwing it at our children to deal with.
 
CharonPDX said:
Political rant: So you have never tried to earn more money to pay for more expensive things?

Everyone should live within the means of the first job they have, with the only raises accounting for inflation?


Yes, the government should try to minimize its spending. But when programs are desired by a majority of the population (yes, social security, medicare, the military at the federal level, and fire, police, and schools at the local level, are supported by an overwhelming majority,) we have to pay for them. And sometimes that means increasing revenue.

A few years ago, I decided that I wanted a new car. Partly, I started 'tightening the belt' on other expenses - but I also looked for and found a new job that pays more so I could afford it. If I had kept the job I had, I would NEVER have been able to afford it.

</political rant>
Click to expand...

This is the internet, we will have none of that here!
 
Azhar said:
Last I checked, Congressional majority and Texas consist of Republicans. Not sure where you're going with that obvious Democrat reference.
Click to expand...

Despite what each political party might want you to think, they each love money one and the same.
 
CharonPDX said:
Political rant: So you have never tried to earn more money to pay for more expensive things?

Everyone should live within the means of the first job they have, with the only raises accounting for inflation?


Yes, the government should try to minimize its spending. But when programs are desired by a majority of the population (yes, social security, medicare, the military at the federal level, and fire, police, and schools at the local level, are supported by an overwhelming majority,) we have to pay for them. And sometimes that means increasing revenue.

A few years ago, I decided that I wanted a new car. Partly, I started 'tightening the belt' on other expenses - but I also looked for and found a new job that pays more so I could afford it. If I had kept the job I had, I would NEVER have been able to afford it.

</political rant>
Click to expand...

I agree with you on most of that. I believe as a first world country, we should be able to provide all our citizens with the right to education, health care and jobs. And by provide, I don't mean "hand outs". The biggest problem is, programs like social security DO work, if the politicians would keep their fucking hands off of the money. Thanks LBJ! :rolleyes:
 
CharonPDX said:
Political rant: So you have never tried to earn more money to pay for more expensive things?

Everyone should live within the means of the first job they have, with the only raises accounting for inflation?


Yes, the government should try to minimize its spending. But when programs are desired by a majority of the population (yes, social security, medicare, the military at the federal level, and fire, police, and schools at the local level, are supported by an overwhelming majority,) we have to pay for them. And sometimes that means increasing revenue.

A few years ago, I decided that I wanted a new car. Partly, I started 'tightening the belt' on other expenses - but I also looked for and found a new job that pays more so I could afford it. If I had kept the job I had, I would NEVER have been able to afford it.

</political rant>
Click to expand...

Your argument is well taken, but you combine communism and capitalism, which are like acid and water.
You want better, so you focus, get a better job, energetically work harder and earn your goal.
You want more, you do more, you earn more.....no one gives it to you.....and I applaud that behaviour.

The government only wants more, to spend more......to hire more, to give away more, to expand and essentially invade everything. When have you ever seen ANY government faction cut spending or trim "waste"?

Until the government returns to it's fundemental function.....protecting the populace, this will expand until wage earners are taxed 100% of their income.
Partly because there will be no workers, because everyone will be subsidized, or everyone will work for the government.
 
CharonPDX said:
Political rant: So you have never tried to earn more money to pay for more expensive things?

Everyone should live within the means of the first job they have, with the only raises accounting for inflation?


Yes, the government should try to minimize its spending. But when programs are desired by a majority of the population (yes, social security, medicare, the military at the federal level, and fire, police, and schools at the local level, are supported by an overwhelming majority,) we have to pay for them. And sometimes that means increasing revenue.

A few years ago, I decided that I wanted a new car. Partly, I started 'tightening the belt' on other expenses - but I also looked for and found a new job that pays more so I could afford it. If I had kept the job I had, I would NEVER have been able to afford it.

</political rant>
Click to expand...

That meant you weren't maximizing your income before you switched jobs. It is independent from your spending. You should have switched long before, if only to maximize your contribution to the economy.

Godmachine said:
Its going to happen. Its a simple reality. We all knew when the Internet got popular that online taxing was going to be a reality at some point in the future. If we are smart about it and don't destroy it with the same kind of tax code we use for income tax it could actually dig us out of this massive mess we're currently in.

Fighting it is pointless. We can only delay it because its seemingly inevitable in our current massive debt climate that we find new opportunities to take advantage of. Of course we could simply cut the Defend budget in half from $653 Billion to $325.6 Billion and start actually paying off our massive debt instead of throwing it at our children to deal with.
Click to expand...

Why not just cut the entire budget by 10%, across all programs? It'll save more than halving defense, and it'll be easier to swallow for all the programs, and hopefully the shit that gets squeezed out of the programs are the junk that's not that useful anyways.
 
CharonPDX said:
Political rant: So you have never tried to earn more money to pay for more expensive things?

Everyone should live within the means of the first job they have, with the only raises accounting for inflation?


Yes, the government should try to minimize its spending. But when programs are desired by a majority of the population (yes, social security, medicare, the military at the federal level, and fire, police, and schools at the local level, are supported by an overwhelming majority,) we have to pay for them. And sometimes that means increasing revenue.

A few years ago, I decided that I wanted a new car. Partly, I started 'tightening the belt' on other expenses - but I also looked for and found a new job that pays more so I could afford it. If I had kept the job I had, I would NEVER have been able to afford it.

</political rant>
Click to expand...


I'm wondering if you've ever seen the difference between a government run operation and a for-profit one. The problem is, the government knows that they can say 'raise taxes' and everyone has to deal with it. In a business, you don't have that luxury.

Some might say that you can always elect someone else, but the problem with that logic is that all of the politicians are exactly that, politicians. They work in government, all of them. Therefore, it is in their best interest to have more money to do those projects. Also, they don't have that same mentality of thinning down to survive, mainly because thinning down means pissing off people who rely on the other things currently eating up the money.

If you are given the choice between a project with a budget and a project without one, im sure youll choose the one without every time.
 
Godmachine said:
Its going to happen. Its a simple reality. We all knew when the Internet got popular that online taxing was going to be a reality at some point in the future. If we are smart about it and don't destroy it with the same kind of tax code we use for income tax it could actually dig us out of this massive mess we're currently in.

Fighting it is pointless. We can only delay it because its seemingly inevitable in our current massive debt climate that we find new opportunities to take advantage of. Of course we could simply cut the Defend budget in half from $653 Billion to $325.6 Billion and start actually paying off our massive debt instead of throwing it at our children to deal with.
Click to expand...

The blatant math fail here makes me think this is sarcasm.
 
Guys, I see a lot of you making references to "living within our means" and "tightening our belts". The apparent concern is that the government will "run out of money" or "be at the mercy of foreigners" and similar things.

There is a HUGE difference between a family that makes use of the currency and the federal government who creates the currency. It is a meaningless and erroneous comparison.

There is an Australian economist named Bill Mitchell whom I have been following for a few months. His school of economic thinking is MMT, or modern monetary theory. A few other prominent thinkers in this economic field are L. Randall Wray and Bill Black. You may have seen Bill Black on NPR or Bill Moyers or RT if you like those programs.

Please read this blog entry by Bill Mitchell where he gives a simple explanation of how governments create fiat money (money with no intrinsic value that is created by legislative decree). http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=1075

If you are interested in economics please go to the 'Teaching models' section of his blog and look at those entries. They build on the above article and are highly informative.
 
well IL already expects you to pay taxes on any online purchase through its IL "use" tax.
 
Trimlock said:
All I have heard is bitch and moan about that Tax, is it really that bad?
Click to expand...

Seems silly your supposed to track and pay 6.5% tax on any out of state purchase . They give you the option of paying a flat fee. I just pay the flat fee, i really have no want or desire to track all of my purchases. Not to mention I have friends/family members coming to me all of the time to order stuff for them, so half of the purchases aren't even mine
 
orvil01 said:
Seems silly your supposed to track and pay 6.5% tax on any out of state purchase . They give you the option of paying a flat fee. I just pay the flat fee, i really have no want or desire to track all of my purchases. Not to mention I have friends/family members coming to me all of the time to order stuff for them, so half of the purchases aren't even mine
Click to expand...

It just didn't seem like the tax amount was really that big, its smaller then most states but then again it is on all "out of state" purchases. I thought there might of been more to it then that but that flat fee sounds pretty cool. I'd charge my family members!
 
Godmachine said:
Of course we could simply cut the Defend budget in half from $653 Billion to $325.6 Billion and start actually paying off our massive debt instead of throwing it at our children to deal with.
Click to expand...

The problem with this logic is assuming that the funds reclaimed from cutting the defense budget will be used to pay on the debt. Any time the government sees more money coming in due to a cut in one place they just spend more elsewhere. The only way to reign it in is to pass a constitutional amendment that requires a 75% majority in both houses to pass any Federal tax increase, requires a balanced budget, and requires any revenue surplus to be paid against the deficit, and if for some reason the debt should ever actually be paid off, any surplus must then be refunded to the citizens. Good luck getting that to pass with either party in power.

As for wasteful spending, how about other wasteful spending, like these so-called "green" companies like Solyndra? How about all the money that went over to Fisker for their $100,000 luxury hybrid car that's built in Finland? How about the bailouts to the banks, and GM, etc? Waste goes far beyond defense spending. It needs to be cut everywhere. The problem with Washington is that they look at all money as theirs first to be taxed, and then people get to keep what's left. That's why they overspend and want to increase taxes after the fact. For proof of this attitude, just look at Obama's speech over the weekend. It's an attitude not limited to Democrats, either. A lot of Republicans think this way as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top