- Related Stories
-
IRS warns of online tax filing scams
April 16, 2007 -
Selling stuff online? Here comes the IRS
April 13, 2007 -
IRS trudges on with aging computers
April 12, 2007 -
Senators mull new taxes to fund 911 Net upgrade
April 10, 2007 -
Silicon money
March 27, 2006 -
Senators propose taxing Internet shopping
December 21, 2005 -
Phishers use IRS tax refund as bait
November 30, 2005 -
States yearn to collect online sales taxes
April 15, 2005 -
States push for piece of online sales
April 9, 2004 -
The Massachusetts Internet tax mystery
November 10, 2003 -
Fighting Internet taxes to the end
January 4, 2002 -
Selling a new Net tax system
November 15, 2001 -
Net taxes may be inevitable
October 30, 2001
(continued from previous page)
Of course, online purchases from sites like Amazon and eBay only seem to arrive tax-free. Legally speaking, however, purchasers are required to pay their own state's sales tax rate--the concept is called a "use tax"--and then voluntarily report the amount owed at tax time.
California residents, for instance, are burdened with a sales and use tax of at least 7.25 percent. State law is strict: if Californians travel to a state with a 5 percent tax and shop there, the law requires them to cough up the 2.25 percent difference when they return. Online purchases are taxed as well.
But compliance is spotty at best. California's Board of Equalization estimates the state lost $1.34 billion in 2003 because residents aren't paying use taxes--and attributes $208 million of that to online purchases.
Pro-sales tax lobbyists say the losses nationally are far higher. A 2004 report from the National Governors Association and the National Conference of State Legislatures puts the figure at $15.5 billion in lost e-commerce revenue nationwide.
David Quam, director of federal relations for the National Governors Association, says mandatory sales tax collection will help retailers and tax collectors alike by simplifying the system. "It does mean the ability to collect the taxes that are due and owing, and more importantly, it's a simplification of definitions and your tax base and making more sense out of the tax codes," he said. "Those are all net positives."
A rift among business groups
The governors have found allies among large retailers like Staples and Wal-Mart Stores that have physical presence virtually everywhere--and therefore already
What remains unclear is whether the big-business-and-state-politician coalition will be able to muster enough support in a Democratic Congress to enact a law making sales tax compliance mandatory. Osten, from the National Conference of State Legislatures, said: "There will be members of both parties supporting the passage of this legislation.
While it's not a traditional left-right issue--the pro-sales tax legislative proposal is being co-authored by Republican Sen. Mike Enzi of Wyoming and Democratic Sen. Byron Dorgan of North Dakota--it does have some partisan overtones.
Statements from members of federal commission on electronic taxation in 2000 indicated that the Republicans tended to be more skeptical of mandatory sales tax collection. James Gilmore, the Republican governor of Virginia at the time, said that "no sales or use taxes should be imposed on interstate business-to-consumer transactions." Grover Norquist, a Republican insider and operative, blasted fellow panelists for engaging in a stealth campaign to raise taxes on Americans.
They largely took the side of online-only retailers and Silicon Valley companies, which argue that state politicians' claims of lost revenue are inflated (PDF), and say that even a simplified sales tax system will impose additional compliance costs that will be passed on to consumers.
Dallas Mayor Ron Kirk, a Democrat, protested (PDF), however, that "small Main Street retailers are severely handicapped by the absence of a level playing field vis-a-vis e-tailers."
Neither Dorgan and Enzi, who have introduced a mandatory sales tax collection bill in previous years and are drafting a revised version right now, would say when to expect the new version of their legislation.
"As more states continue passing laws securing the collection of this tax and as the amount of revenue being lost by states and municipalities increases, there will naturally be more emphasis on and support for Sen. Enzi's bill," said Elly Pickett, Enzi's deputy press secretary. "When that support will hit critical mass and we will be able to pass the bill is hard to determine, but Sen. Enzi is continuing to work on the issue."
This is unrelated to the debate over the Internet tax moratorium, which only limits taxes on access charges such as DSL or dialup connections. Congress renewed the ban in 2004, and it expires this November.
See more CNET content tagged:
tax, legislation, Governor, retailer, food






--mark d.
You aren't being taxed for using the roadway; you are being taxed for using the printer after you receive it. However, to answer your question, you used the roadway when you hired UPS to act as your agent in transporting it.
While the Use Tax theoretically pays for the upkeep of the infrastructure, that is only because your representatives who enacted the tax decided to spend it that way - they could just as easily decide to spend it on a condo for their mistresses.
in your home state for a product that you bought out of state.
Thus denying the state revenue it should have to pay for roads
that everyone else paid for by buying their printers in-state.
The word USE is pretty much not the point. The point is that you
are not paying your fair share of the State's infrastructure and
governing burden.
Call it a FRED tax if you wish. The point is, you are avoiding
paying taxes and some other state is benefiting from that
choice.
As far as I can tell, no matter what they do this is going to end
up a mess and the consumer is the one that's going to be hurt.
And state revenue will not fully benefit. I can call my parents in
Oregon and ask them to buy me a camera and send it to me as a
gift. And I'll send them some other gift later. Oregon has no
sales tax. I just got around the tax thing, an there's no way to
enforce that in an economically feasible way.
The ONLY way to have a fair taxation system is a flat tax on
income. Say half of what we pay now. If everyone paid (with the
exception of those in poverty) a flat tax of 15 percent, the
government would be flush with funds, the IRS would become a
simple organization that takes payroll taxes and hands monies
over the the government to be distributed. Hundreds of billions
would be saved, and our government would be fully funded, and
we would end up with more money in our pockets in the end.
The US government's position is to impose a flat tax on the Iraqi
people. If they think that's the democratic way to tax a people,
then why the heck are we not so fortunate to have such a tax
system choice here?
Oh yeah, I forgot. The Plutocrats don't like paying taxes. Well,
some day the middle class is going to wake up to the fact we are
being robbed by robber barons once again and then we'll have a
revolution. I only hope it's a peaceful one waged in voting
booths.
One would assume that as the world's most powerful nation we need governmnt to keep our standard of living so high, at least subconsciously we do.
Accountability is always being fostered on any revenue generating entity, be it person or business.
There are too, too many business that whine and complain and lobby that they are so hard done by and in conjunction with the governments themselves who do the same and get downright mean and nasty, partly enforced by the no-mind public adminstration that has been instituted, that is just greedy, grabby glutonous, godless goofing on the over burden half of the population that can not really afford it.
The time is neigh to start making use of your citizenships and vote no for anyone in favor of further taxation.
Without a public scrutiny in place, without the government acting accountably, without the public e-mailing, phoning, writing your representative, it will just be another nail in the coffin of a free and just society, one that has real representation.
In the end, it's all about the money. The Government, wether local or national, sees a way to make alot of money with very little effort, just tax everything.
I have no objection to the streamlined sales tax initiative,per se, but anymsolution that presumes to take my time and effort to give the State its "due" is one I don't care to support.
If I open a company that selles exclusively on the internet, it's not practical for me to be expected to know and apply sales tax regulations for all 413+ sovereign countries of the world, every one of the thousands of states, territories, counties parrishes, cities, townships, etc.
Adding a qualifier of "significant presence" automatically means an unfair, subjective, discriminatory burden has placed on a business.
Taxes, no matter who levies them, should always be equitably and fairly applied, and should always be earmarked for a specific purpose. Otherwise, they are a tool of greedy politicians to steal other people's hard-earned money for their own selfish, pork-barrelled interests that ultimately benefit them and their small circles of cronies.
You're telling me they are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts? I don't think so. The reason why this law is irrelevant is that individual states already have their own online sales tax laws in place. And if the online business operates outside of the US the law is unenforceable anyway.
Here's a new idea. How about cut spending?
Sell your Google stock if this happens because most of their advertisers are ecommerce and will be less likely to advertise to an audience that is no longer their base.
Are other sites doing it? I don't want to sign up for just any amount
of new taxation, but I don't think the usual percentage would deter
me from internet purchases all that much.
As for this killing the sellings of things on the net, please people get a brain. When you end up spending $200 more for something by buying it locally plus tax verses buying it online for $200 less plus tax and shipping you are still going to go with the online purchase. Unless of course your a moron.
I just went through this. I bought a Sony camcorder. To buy it locally it would have been over $700. I got it only for less than $500. Even if the place where I bought it collected tax and even with shipping costs I would have saved a great deal of money.
Most local stores charge suggested retail. Frankly they are the ones I can figure out how they stay in business.
Either way the sellers should have to deal with the tax, they are the ones selling and in business no the consumers.
Maybe the states should consider collecting only half the tax amount for online sales.
Robert
Not quite. It's true they're very effective at collecting use taxes from companies, but individual taxpayers are a different story.
If you reread the story, you'll see we said:
"But compliance is spotty at best. California's Board of Equalization estimates the state lost $1.34 billion in 2003 because residents aren't paying use taxes."
It is too bad all of you swallow and none of you knows how to keep track of all the things the various levels of government are spending tax dollars on. None of you really has a clue even when brought to the brink for a drink.
Do you for half a second imagine the government is losing out? NO!!! They see an opportunity to exploit the dimbulbs and are making a play for it. If you guys let them, then that just continues to be your hard luck.
Maybe you should kneel while you are swallowing all that malarky they are feeding you.
I guess if it feels good then why bother asking to even see the books or get an explanation - hahahah the ol' u.s. of a. comes out of the closet.
Not saying the Democrats are innocent of your claims, but c'mon let's be fair here.
republican majority congress with a republican president. To me it
is when the republicans get in it is spend,spend,spend.
Frankly, we really need to go to no income tax and no sales tax.
As people have been pointing out, up until 1917 our federal government survived WITHOUT those two things. Why couldn't they do it now?
The reason: Because they keep on spending more and more money on our military, which is NOT necessary if the United States would butt out of disputes in countries that have nothing to do with us.
Sure, have a SMALL military to send to help stop things like the Genocide in Darfur, but other than that...... our nukes and police agencies protect us better than our military ever did and ever will.
A
SO unless this gets repealed, I say to the rest of the country, welcome to our world.
And I dont want to hear any complaining - this is the 'change' everyone appearently wanted. I hope you enjoy.
That has to be one of the stupidest things I have read. The Federal Government will just keep spending every penny they get and Lord knows that you never get out what you put in with them.
The tax rates is too high all around, people expect the government to do for them what they should be doing for others and it will only be a matter of time before we are all working for bloated pig (I mean the government).
- Its called Politics
- by Zupek April 17, 2007 2:01 PM PDT
- You wont find any politician actually looking our for the true good of the people(MAYBE russ feingold). There has never been a democracy that has looked out for its people, just the illusion that it is....do some research you'll find out how "great" this country ISNT
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
-
- "You wont find any politician....
- by Commander_Spock April 17, 2007 2:57 PM PDT
- ... actually looking our for the true good of the people(MAYBE russ feingold). There has never been a democracy that has looked out for its people, just the illusion that it is..."; Yet we have the Representatives of the Armed Services putting their lives on the lines for politicians and others to do what ever they are doing (inadequate equipment...). What happens to a country without an army to adequately defend it?
- Like this
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (72 Comments)