• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

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

S

Scrith

Member
From a news item today:

A coalition of 18 states representing 20% of the U.S. population made a pact to begin collecting sales taxes on Internet purchases. The agreement provides a tax-collection procedure for online retailers . Retailer participation isn?t mandatory. The National Conference of State Legislatures says states lose as much as $8.9 bil annually from taxes that aren?t collected on online sales.
 
Originally posted by: Scrith
From a news item today:

A coalition of 18 states representing 20% of the U.S. population made a pact to begin collecting sales taxes on Internet purchases. The agreement provides a tax-collection procedure for online retailers . Retailer participation isn?t mandatory. The National Conference of State Legislatures says states lose as much as $8.9 bil annually from taxes that aren?t collected on online sales.
Click to expand...

Wow. I hope NY isn't included...... This will totally kill alot of online retailers.
 
Originally posted by: Scrith
Retailer participation isn?t mandatory.
Click to expand...
That's because what they're doing is unconstitutional, the states can't regulate interstate commerce. I wonder what companies will participate. :roll:

 
http://www.imediaconnection.com/news/6873.asp
The states that have signed on are Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota and West Virginia. Five more -- Arkansas, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming -- are in the process of finalizing the requirements needed to join.
Click to expand...

I bet they will be giving the businesses that join a tax cut to justify charging the tax...otherwise, why would the businesses join?
 
Originally posted by: pxc
Originally posted by: Scrith
Retailer participation isn?t mandatory.
Click to expand...
That's because what they're doing is unconstitutional, the states can't regulate interstate commerce. I wonder what companies will participate. :roll:
Click to expand...

DING DING DING We have a winner! 🙂

There comes a point however when the states will try to enforse this and the retailer will roll over. It is easier to just pay than fight it.
 
LOL, so it really boils down to 18 states offering online retailers a procedure to give them money for nothing. LOL.

The government has PLENTY of money, they just throw it away on idiotic things.
 
Originally posted by: integramodder
http://www.imediaconnection.com/news/6873.asp
The states that have signed on are Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota and West Virginia. Five more -- Arkansas, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah and Wyoming -- are in the process of finalizing the requirements needed to join.
Click to expand...

I bet they will be giving the businesses that join a tax cut to justify charging the tax...otherwise, why would the businesses join?
Click to expand...

Thank goodness...my state isn't one of them (yet), but just about every state neighboring mine has signed on. Hopefully Mark Warner understands what that'll mean for the Northern Virginia tech corridor.
 
Originally posted by: worldcomingdown
yep KS figured that...they cant get a good model for a budget so they will tax more!!! great plan guys!
Click to expand...

Amen

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

I love being able to order from Newegg and Dell tax free. This will suck big time. Damn Sebelius and her money grubbin arse.
 
Originally posted by: morkus64
not MD, VA or DC... 🙂
Click to expand...


Dont be too happy, if they start charging taxes for these 18, im sure other states will have to follow someday soon 🙁

But until then, no Cali 😛
 
f*$#@ WHY NJ!?!?!?! we already get taxed from NEWEGG!!! NOOOOOOOOOO bbooooooooooooo to unconstitutional bs that is an infringement not only upon commercial rights but consumer rights as well. Booooooooo No taxation without constitution!!!
 
Uhh, isn't it the law though that when you mail order something out of state you are required to pay your state the sales tax?
 
Originally posted by: Hacp
if all 50 states agree, then the constitution doesn't apply right?
Click to expand...

First of all Constitution always applies but what your trying to ask is whether or not it would be constitutional if all 50 states got in on this program and the answer is still no. It is still unconstitutional because only the Federal Government can tax interstate commerce and even if all 50 State Governments decide to implement this (which is not likely) it will still not be a Federal legislation. Therefore taxation of interstate commerce by States no matter how many or few is and always will be UNconstitutional
 
States can't regulate interstate commerce? Interesting question. I bet you can take this to court by claiming that this is an undue burden on interstate commerce and that any federal court who takes the issue will rule that Congress has discussed the issue and has decided the matter. However I don' believe interestate commerce cases usually work like this, the more conservative judges seem to treat the Dormant Commerce Clause as only applicable when there is actual discrimination occurring between states, you can't argue there is discrimination when the states themselves are forming the pact.

So basically, if you voted for Bush, you probably voted for internet taxes.
 
So basically, if you voted for Bush, you probably voted for internet taxes.
Click to expand...

You may be right about this, but your argument does not support your conclusion. You argue that judges could use legislative precident to decide a constitutional issue. I don't see how this connects to Bush unless you are implying that the judges he puts on the bench are conservative, in which case you can also blame the legistlature cause they confirm his judicial nominees.

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

So maybe you are right about Bush, but if Kerry won I bet we would already have internet taxes. Your damned if you do and your damned if you dont.
 
Originally posted by: vanionBB
So basically, if you voted for Bush, you probably voted for internet taxes.
Click to expand...

You may be right about this, but your argument does not support your conclusion. You argue that judges could use legislative precident to decide a constitutional issue. I don't see how this connects to Bush unless you are implying that the judges he puts on the bench are conservative, in which case you can also blame the legistlature cause they confirm his judicial nominees.

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

So maybe you are right about Bush, but if Kerry won I bet we would already have internet taxes. Your damned if you do and your damned if you dont.
Click to expand...

Hey, they've got to get the money somewhere. Give tax breaks for a few years, ratchet up the taxes and levies elsewhere below the radar to make the difference.

You're paying through the nose, and if not they're stealing it from the change jar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top