Version: 2008
  • On GameSpot: So-called 'Halo killer' gets 23 to life

Comments on: Renewing the push to collect Net taxes

Thirteen states soon will begin simplifying administration of their sales taxes. But will out-of-state retailers ever collect them?

Add a Comment (Log in or register) (13 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
Simple, or nothing.
by Steve Jordan September 9, 2005 5:53 AM PDT
As a prospective online businessman, I can see charging taxes to customers, and I'm okay with that. But if it's not simple, it's not worth the hassle. The idea of even having to keep track of sales taxes for 50 states is crazy enough, never mind for thousands of zip codes! If I was making serious money from online sales, I'd move offshore just to avoid all that!
Reply to this comment
There's a reason this is so complicated
by aabcdefghij987654321 September 9, 2005 7:06 AM PDT
The idea of sales tax being paid to the state where the purchaser lives is flawed. They should be charging sales tax for the point of sale.

But that's just one more flaw in a system rife with flaws. When the government applies both income and sales taxes it's burning the candle at both ends, when they add in property taxes, capital gains taxes and estate (death) taxes they've lit fires at several places along the middle of the candle too. That's why the "flat tax" idea is resisted so hard, if the public truly knew how much they pay in taxes (which would be shown by a flat tax) there'd be another tax revolt.
Reply to this comment
Collect - Yes! Pay - No!
by mikey001 September 9, 2005 7:08 AM PDT
It's not so much of a case that on-line retailers won't collect the sales tax; they will be more then happy to add 3-8% onto the sale. The problem is then insuring that these retailers actually pay the states that they are collecting taxes for. As with many of the local computer shows, where the businesses come into the show from out of state, they are happy to add tax to the final sale price, but rarely (if ever) actually send the tax to the state comptroller.
Reply to this comment
Tired of being nothing more than a revenue stream
by m.meister September 9, 2005 8:04 AM PDT
I am growing extremely tired of being nothing more than a
revenue stream to my state and local government.

California is a great example of this absurd behavior (you the
taxpayer are supposed to calculate the difference of the tax you
paid somewhere else and what you would have paid and then
send the state the difference). I say "Up Yours!"

The use tax is absolutely absurd in its nature and shows how
arrogant these states have become.

The Income tax is nothing more than indentured servitude to the
state and federal government. Simply by the act of working, you
owe money -- ridiculous. Combine that with the bizarre sales
tax approaches and you realize that we, the people, are nothing
more than a source of revenue to the folks in the various
legislatures.

Income Tax, Sales Tax, Property Tax, Use Tax, Gas Tax and then
Fees every time I want to actually use services these taxes
should have used for and I think it's time to start holding these
folks accountable before they get one dime more. I'm tired of
working just to supply my various government leaders with
money they can pass off to their buddies and their companies.

I say make income tax unconstitutional (now there's a reason to
change the Constitution), issue a flat tax and start holding these
politicians accountable for all the back-door corporate welfare.
Reply to this comment
It may be different in the States...
by ross brown--2008 September 9, 2005 8:32 AM PDT
"The Income tax is nothing more than indentured servitude to
the state and federal government. Simply by the act of working,
you owe money -- ridiculous. Combine that with the bizarre
sales tax approaches and you realize that we, the people, are
nothing more than a source of revenue to the folks in the
various legislatures."

Apologies if this is a difference in the tax systems between the
US and the UK (where I live) but, er, isn't all that tax generated
by your "indentured servitude" used to pay for pesky things like,
oh I don't know, education, welfare, defence, roads etc. You
know, those awkward little parts of life that none of us could get
along without.

As for state sales tax; you guys can't really have it all ways can
you? Either you have a Federal government and individual states
have a lot of devolved responsibility, or they don't. If you do,
then those States need a way of raising cash to run their State.
And whilst I agree that individual sales taxes for each state can
be confusing, surely you allow each state to dictate it's own
needs - and therefore the budget it requires.

Apologies for the mini diatribe, especially from a bloke in the UK
who may not have a perfect handle on America's tax system -
but when I see comments such as "indentured servitude" I see a
person speaking without thinking.

Ross
Which 13 States?
by dusher September 9, 2005 8:23 AM PDT
The journalist would do well to identify in the piece the 13 states that have taken the pledge?
dusher
Reply to this comment
The List of States
by rhyssleary September 9, 2005 12:58 PM PDT
? Oct. 1, 2005: Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, West Virginia.


? Within two years: Arkansas, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, Wyoming.


? States with no sales tax: Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon.
View reply
A Simple Suggestion
by bluemist9999 September 9, 2005 9:03 AM PDT
If the states want to collect such a confusing set of sales taxes, I feel the states should do something like this:

The states would setup and maintain a distributed web service which implements these rules.

The vendors would each have a vendor ID, would submit a description of the item and the price being paid. The vendor would submit this information to the clearinghouses' web service. Based on this, the vendor would receive a tax amount to charge and location to send it.

Include some random audits of vendors to ensure they are being honest.

Otherwise, forcing online vendors to implement such a complex scheme is an unfair burden.
Reply to this comment
a recipe for total abuse
by m.meister September 9, 2005 9:48 AM PDT
Unfortunately, that would be a recipe for total abuse by the
states, the entity running the shared service and/or vendors.

One of the arguments used is that it gives etailers an unfair
advantage compared with local stores, so to really be fair -- the
shipping costs should be subtracted from any tax owing as well.

States essentially want a tax increase (they say there is $15
Billion in lost "revenue"), so they need to justify this increase as
well. We need to stop giving to these folks blinding and praying
they'll do the right thing -- because they haven't been doing a
great job. When they run out of money, they just TAKE MORE.
No way...I'll buy more fron individuals
by bobby_brady September 9, 2005 8:41 PM PDT
if I'm being forced to pay for sales taxes online. We're already getting screwed by so many taxes, why cave in? I'll buy more from Ebay where the government will have a hard time collecting from individuals.
If I'm forced to pay online sales tax...No more buying
by bobby_brady September 9, 2005 8:37 PM PDT
online for me. I love buying from Amazon, no sales taxes and free shipping are $$$ in my pocket. But once government tries to screw people AGAIN and force us to pay more taxes for their ineffiecent government programs, forget it. I'm gone.
Reply to this comment
All taxes are . . .
by jmmejzz September 11, 2005 5:44 PM PDT
All taxes are an income tax, whether it is determined by
purchase or by property owned, they are are all income taxes.
The only difference is that a sales tax ( and property tax ) is
regressive in that it punishes the poor, those less able to pay.
Reply to this comment
(13 Comments)
  • prev
  • 1
  • next
advertisement

Latest tech news headlines

RSS Feeds

Add headlines from CNET News to your homepage or feedreader.

More feeds available in our RSS feed index.

advertisement