Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Almighty Buck

Ban on Internet Taxes to Expire 106

Posted by michael from the pound-of-flesh dept.
slacknet writes: "Well, it looks like the government could be lifting the ban on taxes related to the Internet, CNN reports here. While the House of Representatives has already passed a two-year extension on the ban, the Senate has not. Newsbytes.com also has an article on this matter here. I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks this probably isn't the best time economically to be discussing any sort of additional taxes." I think Newsbytes has it right - the federal ban is likely to be reinstated soon, they just didn't get around to it this week.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Ban on Internet Taxes to Expire More

Ban on Internet Taxes to Expire

Comments Filter:

  • Economic Stimulus (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Arctic Fox ( 105204 )
    NOthing stimulates a sagging economy like a tax cut. The federal government would be insane to pass a tax cut at this time. George W isn't going to make the same mistakes as his father....
    <br>Bills to raise taxes have to originate in the House, and clearly they are not interested.

  • Background Info (Score:5, Informative)

    by m_evanchik ( 398143 ) <michel_evanchikATevanchik...net> on Saturday October 20, 2001 @11:39AM (#2454604) Homepage

    Nolo.com has a nice short primer on Internet taxation [nolo.com] issues, with plenty of additional links for more breadth.



    As this NYT article [nytimes.com] suggests, the taxation ban expiring will have little effect in the short to medium term, as the ban itself was really very limited in scope, and no local politician wants to increase taxes, especially to affluent voters who would be primarily affected.

    • Re:Background Info (Score:3, Informative)

      by alen ( 225700 )
      I think the beauty of this is that states will be able to tax those who don't live within their borders. New Jersey currently does this. If you work for a New Jersey based company, but not a resident you pay NJ income tax. Even if you don't work within NJ.

      My last network admin I worked for used to work for a NJ based consulting company. He worked at the client's site in NYC and lived in NYC. He had to pay NJ income tax. NYC and NY state used to do the same thing but stopped a few years ago.
      • We deal with this as well. My dad lives in Pennsylvania, but works in Delaware. As a result, we pay both states' income taxes. Each is not quite as high as it would be normally, but the total sum is more than we'd pay if he lived and worked in the same state.

    • Repeat after me... (Score:3, Informative)

      by frankie ( 91710 )
      Please take the following statement as a mantra, and pass it along to your local CongressGoon [house.gov]:

      Internet commerce should be taxed exactly the same as phone sales and mail orders.

      No more, no less; no sooner, no later.

  • One sure thing (Score:4, Insightful)

    by antis0c ( 133550 ) on Saturday October 20, 2001 @11:41AM (#2454606)
    If you want to kill whats left of "dot coms" and online commerce, begin taxing it nationwide. I usually can find certain things online cheaper than in a store even with shipping figured in, however if you add tax it's going to be nearly the same, or more. So it'll just be worth going and getting it and having it "now", so yeah, they need to get their act together and instate the extension.

  • Not now, but... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by JanneM ( 7445 ) on Saturday October 20, 2001 @11:41AM (#2454607) Homepage
    A bad idea right now to be sure, but for the long haul, having exemptions for net trading is maybe not such a good idea. It does penalize local merchants, and gives rise to a whole lot of unnecessary transports. Some framework is needed so that local governments can decide on this without creating scewed markets (just deciding whether taxes should be paid at the salesman's or customer's jurisdiction would go a long way).

    OK, I'm ready to get flamed...

    /Janne

    • Re:Not now, but... (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Some framework is needed so that local governments can decide on this without creating scewed markets (just deciding whether taxes should be paid at the salesman's or customer's jurisdiction would go a long way).

      What a utopian view! Can you really believe that any government (no matter the level) is or will be in a position to create such a framework? Each one will do what they've always done, which is look out for their own jurisdiction and constituents.

      I'd hate to be in the ecomm shoes, can you imagine how many localities are going to pass the "non-local merchant" sales tax law in order to protect the huddled, quivering local merchants from the ecomm sites who are raking in money hand over fists.

      Hey, wait a sec, this could be good, It might create a spike in my billable hours in order to retool for a multitude of sales tax regulations!!! 8-)

  • .com migration? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by alen ( 225700 ) on Saturday October 20, 2001 @11:43AM (#2454612)
    If localities start imposing internet taxes on anything bought within their juridictions I think we'll see a migration to other states. We should start seeing localities try to entice .com's to move with tax breaks, zoning law breaks, and everything else that governments use to lure businesses into their borders.
    • What makes you think this will work out any better than it has with brick-and-mortar corporations?

      Municipal governments have routinely offered massive financial breaks and all manner of exemptions to local regulations, only to have the businesses they've lured in stay a few months or years, then -- once they've gleefully soaked the taxpayers for all they can get -- lay off workers or even close up shop.

      Maybe someone else remembers the precise date of the Time cover story on this -- I don't. But in practice these schemes don't benefit the municipalities that try them.

  • They want to tax Internet based sales (Score:4, Informative)

    by darnellmc ( 524699 ) on Saturday October 20, 2001 @11:43AM (#2454613)
    The Senate did not pass the extention because they want to setup a method to tax internet based sales while still banning internet access taxes.

    They are changing the rules because many states want a cut of the money that the few successful on-line businesses make.

    If on-line businesses must pay sales tax on every sale, then mail-order companies should have to do the same. But I agree that there should be no new internet taxes of any kind. No taxes on sales or Internet access. It is too soon.

    Contact your congressperson at Congress.org [congress.org] or via the site of your choice.

  • The House matters a lot here... Don't worry (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fosh ( 106184 ) on Saturday October 20, 2001 @11:44AM (#2454617) Journal

    Although we bash the house a lot, it is quite significant here. In terms of Federal taxes, what the house says goes. After all, all tax bills must originate in the house, so if the Federal government was planning on taxing the internet, we needn't worry. "All bills raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representives..." (Article I, section 7)

    If people are worried about State Taxes, which could theoretically be passed if no Federal law prohibits them, they should also relax. As you know, states can only tax intra-state commerce. THey can't tax anythinhg at the comes in at thier borders under any circumstances. So, very few internet transactions are at risk here. Also, considering it would probably be difficult to argue that anything you do over the internet is entirely within one state. (Did you use a router in another state?)

    FInally, in the current economic climate, I can't imagine any government would ever want to pass a law discouraging commerce.



    I don't thing we have to worry about this,
    --Alex Fishman
    • Pooh.

      The House just has to sit on their hands and they will. On one hand, the constitutional argument is inapplicable as the previous poster said. Neither house is trying to impose new taxes technically. And 45 of 50 states are in a budget crisis.

      But on state taxes, the previous poster does not quite realize that the goods end up in a particular state where they may then be taxed. In the state of Washington, we have had something called a use tax on the books for years. This obligates me to pay sales tax on stuff I buy out of state. Except they call it a use tax. I bet most states with sales tax have something similar. The trick is that the use tax is very hard to enforce on private individuals. They do try to enforce it on businesses as part of their sales tax audits.My take again is that given the state revenue crisus, we will see the ban lapse. And for politiicians, dot-coms are a bucket of warm spit these days, IMO. So right now, the dot-com effect is a non-issue.

      What we are seeing is a little manuvering towards a workable interstate sales tax system. We will get a little chaos, and the pain will move this forward, IMO.
    • "All bills raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representives..." (Article I, section 7)
      You mean just like:

      "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;" (Article I, Section 8)

      "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." (Amendment I)

      "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized." (Amendment IV)

    • On the first point, that the house has the power of the purse, it doesn't mean squat. All it means is that bills must originiate in the house. The normal rules of bills matter. So if the Senate drags its heels than it doesn't matter. The bill does not be come law. Don't you remember your School House Rock [aol.com].

      And on the second point, all items must have sales tax collected. If you buy mail-order dog food from California and you live in Kansas, you are still legally required to pay Kansas sales tax on the item. With mail-order it is the responsiblity of the purchaser and not the seller to pay the tax. This has been generally ignored and not enforced by the states because its not worth it and in the end it all pretty much evens out. With the Internet, the ban was extened to include e-transactions into mail order. Taxes were still required to be paid, although no one did it. Now the times is up, the states have simplified the system between themselves to ease the collection and they are going to do so. They are losing quite a bit of money on transactions and they want their cut back. Some states like, Tennessee need the money badly.

      So yes, you are going to be taxed. You are going to be taxed soon, and there is nothing to either worry about or prevent it.

      Have a nice day.

  • I thought that (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    this is just because the senate hasn't had time to ratify the extension.

    If that's true, this is a non-story.

  • Ohio (Score:2, Interesting)

    by zarathustra93 ( 164244 )
    Ohio has already passed a taxation law based on what you purchase over the internet. I don't remember the name of the law exactly, but essentially you are required to put down on your taxes the amount of goods you purchased over the internet. Last year I entered in about $100. They take you on your word, but I have a feeling if a person was ever audited about this 'voluntary' tax, that they could possibly find themselves in state tax hell.

    I could see many other states following Ohio's example, simply because this sort of thing would be very difficult to track on the state level- that is unless carnivore is a *lot* better than I suspect it really is :-)
    • How is this different from the 'mail order' tax? Perhaps Ohio and others are different - in Michigan you're supposed to report the value of anything purchased on which you didn't pay a sales tax (mail order, etc.), calculate the tax on that, then pay it.
      • The primary difference is in the verbiage. it acts pretty much the same as a mail order tax. I think that purchases over the internet in Ohio have a different rate of taxation though.

    • Re:Ohio (Score:2)

      by ZxCv ( 6138 )
      There's a few things that suck about living in a place like Vegas. But the fact that I don't even have to file state taxes sure isn't one of them.
    • This sounds a lot like the early articles of confederation (1770's) that said that the government could ask for tax money, but not make laws to enforce it. IE,

      GOV:(please,please can we have some money?)
      ME: (Umm.... no. You'll use it to pay people to make laws that I disagree with.)
    • When I moved to Vermont in 1988 they already had that law on the books. I was informed by neighbors that "Real Vermonters" just put down zero for the amount of out of state purchases. I remember one year the tax return had a message pretty much begging people to report their out of state purchases.

      Another scam they were running is charging sales/use tax on vehicles owned by people who moved into the state, even though they had already paid sales tax to the state where they lived when they bought the vehicle. The US Supreme court eventually knocked this down, so I got my money back.

  • ....but e-commerce is kind of dead.
    • Maybe for the likes of eToys and Furniture.com. Look at the money going through eBay. Or the volume of visitors that PriceWatch.com gets. E-commerce is well-suited to several types of businesses (computers, electronics), but obviously not so well-suited to others (toys, furniture).
  • Since the internet is a global thing, no country or state can have the jurisdiction to tax it except for sales tax when the buyer lives in that country/state.[


  • We are under constant attack by terrorists.

    The government keeps saying they need more money to defend the country, they need more money to buy better tools to secure us.

    How are they going to get this money without raising taxes? Please think about that and then tell me raising taxes is bad.

    If we dont raise taxes, then while the economy might be slightly better, terrorists will have a field day (like they are having right now) because we wont have ANY defense.

    We currently dont have enough medicine, we dont have any nuclear defenses at all, none. Our airports are defended but wheres this money coming from exactly? The NSA doesnt have enough money for intelligence purposes. The CIA doesnt have enough money. The military doesnt have enough money.

    I say instead of changing our laws, what we should do is raise taxes temperarly. I myself would be happy to pay double a 10% increase in taxes for 5 years knowing that this country will be safe!

    The choice is all yours, if you want the country to be safe, you have to give the money needed to protect it.
    • I replied to you in another thread, but you have popped up here as well.

      Do you know what the U.S. government taxes? If you say 'money', 'wealth' or 'income', you're wrong.

      The U.S. government taxes *activity*. I buy something from you, the *transaction* is taxed. If you go stuff that money in your mattress and don't touch it for 10 years, it's effectively out of circulation. The moment you use it to buy anything, that *transaction* is taxed.

      If people have less money because the IRS is taking it, they have less money to create transactions with. The fewer transactions there are, the less revenue the government has.

      It's pretty basic, really. If the government takes more money, short term (1 year? 2 years?) it'll have "more" money, but people will be able to create fewer transactions, leading to less tax revenue.

    • Constant attacks? There was a single day of terrorist attacks 40 days ago. There have been a few isolated incidents involving Anthrax spores targeted towards tabloid media and Congress. I think the majority of us are safe.

      Our airports aren't safe. Despite the changes already made, several journalists and inspectors have successfully boarded commercial flights carrying metal weapons since 9/11. The security people are too busy arresting passengers for bringing their personal stash aboard.

      Sorry to burst your feel-good bubble, but nearly 40% of every dollar paid in federal taxes goes toward the military and intelligence agencies, as it has for years. If that can't protect us from terrorism, I don't see what can. Maybe we should focus on prevention; for example, we could stop choosing sides in other peoples' conflicts and making new enemies in the process. We could retire from the business of being the #1 wholesaler of weapons to the ROTW. We could stop going to war for cheap oil. We could stop selling the pesticides to other countries that are banned for use here because they are carcinogenic. We could stop subsidizing businesses who get third-world countries addicted to cigarettes and cola. We could steer clear of Free Trade agreements that solidify the gap between rich and poor worldwide.

      Raising taxes is kinda stupid when Bush is giving over $100,000,000,000 US to elite business owners.

      If we want our country to be safe, perhaps we should start practicing some of the philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, whom a majority of theistic Americans claim for a saviour.


      • If we want our country to be safe, perhaps we should start practicing some of the philosophy of Jesus of Nazareth, whom a majority of theistic Americans claim for a saviour.


        "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's and give to God what is God's" - Matthew 22:21

        (i.e. pay your taxes)

        • It's more like this:
          You have heard that it was said,
          "You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy." But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, so that you may be children of your Father who is in heaven; for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good, and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the Gentiles do the same? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.
      • Sorry to burst your feel-good bubble, but nearly 40% of every dollar paid in federal taxes goes toward the military and intelligence agencies, as it has for years. If that can't protect us from terrorism, I don't see what can.

        Well then, we need to raise the taxes our else 50-60-70% will go to military which means less for what we actually want.

    • Re:Alot of you forget the fact that (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      We currently dont have enough medicine,

      I don't need cipro. 99.999999999999999999999999% of the U.S. population has never been exposed to anthrax and never will. Taking cipro will more likely make them sick than protect them from anthrax.

      we dont have any nuclear defenses at all, none.

      We have thousands of friggin missiles and too many at that. A straightforward case can be made for a non-Mutually Assured Destruction defense, but the technology for implementing even a workable deterrent to replace our existing missile deterrent isn't there yet.

      Our airports are defended but wheres this money coming from exactly?

      The pilot unions had to beg congress for the right to carry their own damn weapons to defend themselves even though we routinely place them completely in charge of the safety of hundreds of passengers daily.


      The NSA doesnt have enough money for intelligence purposes. The CIA doesnt have enough money. The military doesnt have enough money.

      If they think they can collect it just by hiring a few people to sit behind monitors and sift through surveillance information from million dollar satellites and listening posts, they're going to continue to fail.

      But the worst problem is ignorant couch potatoes who see the latest press report and demand that something, who know$ what that $omething i$, be done to "fix" the problem.
    • The government keeps saying they need more money to defend the country, they need more money to buy better tools to secure us.

      How are they going to get this money without raising taxes?

      By doing the same thing you and I do if we have unanticipated emergency expenses: cut back on lower-priority spending.

  • I think that this will be causing a great conflict amongst those around the world. How can they perfectly limit these taxes that they get?

    And who is to say where *you are from* Should I be paying state taxes if I'm from New York but bring my laptop over to New Jersey for a day and buy something while I am there? I'm dialing into (heh) a connection in new york, bouncing through the routers in NYC and then out to some company in another state but purchasing from a company in NY.

    HRM>
    This plays great controversy, even for myself. I own an ISP along with two others. One is from MN, another from KY and I'm from NY. Our servers are located in WA and MN,.. so who pays taxes to whom? Does that mean we have to start paying taxes to major internet backbones? Will they want a piece of the pie, when they already have a nice chunk?

    Hrm.
  • Parts are exspensive. Making about a hundred bucks a week working at CompUSA(people want four year degrees for data entry here- morons) money means quite a bit to me.


    But even with an employee discount, the parts I need are still cheaper from places out of state, such as TCWO [tcwo.com].


    Mostly, (and here comes my point) because If I buy something from a company that is online, but officially in the state of New York, I still have to pay the taxes on it. Fortunately, most of the sites that I would order from are out of state, just because of the large degree of taxes that new york state levies.


    To quote someone who I cannot remember on slashdot-

    "Will the last geek to leave america please turn slashdot off?"

  • This is nothing new, except for the technology.

    My in-laws in northern Mass. regularly go into New Hampshire to buy appliances and other large items in order to avoid the Massachusutts sales tax.

    It happens everywhere a state is bordered by one with lower sales taxes, gas taxes, liquor taxes, what have you. E-commerce is just a new variation on that theme.

    E-commerce would be a serious concern if it could truly take the place of brick and mortar, but it can't and it won't. It's a little dent. It's more of the same.

  • Telephone sales (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Therlin ( 126989 ) on Saturday October 20, 2001 @12:57PM (#2454761)
    I can call a catalog, say PC Connection, and buy something without being charged any taxes.

    I wonder if this could be used to get around Internet sales taxes. I could add things to my shopping cart, receive a "pin code", call a toll-free number, punch in my credit card number and my sale is now a telephone sale and not an Internet sale.
  • Not only do I have to tango with Customs to get those wonderful toys I keep buying out of the USA in the first place, now I get to play chess with the tax people to get my money back under the FTA!

    Doncha just love this whole "government" thing you've got running there? Really respects the will of the masses....

    You Americans (or rather, your leaders... I have nothing against Americans themselves... for the most part ;)) are really quite arrogant in trying to tax a GLOBAL economy. I do hope your Senate realizes that it isn't your place to try to tax the world.

    -Canadian, and damned proud of it.
    • This coming from a country whose government ORDERS foreign companies to collect its GST.

      Why the heck should an American company charge and collect GST for the Canadian government when something gets sent to Canada?

      That's why many companies won't sell to Canada. They don't need the business. And the tax paperwork and hassle is too expensive, besides.

      Think before you mouth off. Engage brain, then speak.

  • shipping companies (Score:3, Insightful)

    by crazyprogrammer ( 412543 ) on Saturday October 20, 2001 @01:14PM (#2454792) Homepage
    If online stores start charging taxes nation wide, then there will probably be a decrease in sales for them.

    This would not be good for companies like UPS, Fedex, Airborne Express, and the USPS. They would start losing business because they will have less to ship.

    UPS has already reported that their earnings are down 19 percent [yahoo.com]. If people quit buying merchandise online, then UPS will lose some more business and their earnings will fall even more.

  • I think it's important to be realistic with respect to taxing the Internet. Internet businesses are no different than stores in the mall in that they can be regulated and taxed by the government. Congress chose to ban taxes on the Internet out of a desire to help support net commerce. Because the economy is currently on a downturn, Congress and the states are unlikely to enstate any sort of new tax structure on the Internet in the near future. (It would be political suicide to do so.) But, it's only a matter of time until the Internet is taxed because that's how our economy works...You buy something and then pay a tax on that item to the government. If you don't have a problem paying a tax on an item in a store why should it be any different online? The only way to get out of taxes forever is to buy everything on the black market.
  • Internet tax is the lamest idea, wait. Nevermind about that, but it does rank up there with some of the lamest ideas ever conceived.

    Lets refer to the very old equation of time = money. Also keep in mind the inequalities of time > money and time < money.

    Now lets say we have two equivilent products from some manufacturer. Given that time = money, it's going to cost more money from Besy buy because you go there, buy it, return home with it and use it, so since there is less time involved, time < money you pay for it.

    The same product far away may cost less money online than Best Buy, but it'll take a few days to get to you. Therefore, time > money.

    In the end it all costs roughly the same. The reason why internet tax was thought up is because tons of people can wait for what they want, so retailers were losing money. And the government spent tons of money because of Sept. 11th, so of course they wouldn't mind some additional income.

    If the balance between internet and retail store is broken, it would screw over everything.

    If buying over the internet costed more money AND time than retail stores, it would screw over the world. If those people who normally order stuff at home went out to retail stores, traffic would be a mess, gas prices would go up since the demand would be greater, stores would be overcrowded, global warming will happen faster and we'll all die.

    conversely, if internet became far more attractive than retail, elecricity, S&H, and possibly the product itself would cost a lot more.

    This is all bad for the consumer. Very bad. to be short and to the point, the government just needs to fuck off. That's what it comes down to.

    In fact, no taxation without representation! With the internet, putting up a poll is easy and it doesn't cost as much money as sending letters to every American citizen, and since it's easier and faster to go online, click a button and press "submit" than driving out to cast your vote, there will be more representation. Then if you go REALLY crazy, the House of Representatives would end up being disolved. After all, it was made so one person could represent a whole bunch of people. Seeing as how shitty of a job they do, especially when someone (RIAA, movie industry, Microsoft, etc.) gives money to them and how that the technology is availible that allow people to represent themselves, the house of representatives would serve little to no purpose. We hear all the time that we should take an active role in government, so why aren't the most advanced (ok, more advanced) technologies being applied so the people get as much representation as possible? Good question, and I'll tell you. As you slashdotters know, the government is owned by corporations. If the consumer had their way, companies wouldn't be making nearly as much profit as they are today, and prices would be low as hell for everything. Not good for greedy people.

    Damn. I just thought all of that up inside of 10 minutes. Maybe I should run for president...
    • In the end it all costs roughly the same.

      Yes, but the government is punishing one behaviour (purchasing from the retailer) and rewarding the other. This tilts the playing field.

      The reason why internet tax was thought up is because tons of people can wait for what they want, so retailers were losing money.

      No, the tax was thought up, because it's inconsistent to have items taxed when they're purchased locally but not taxed if they're purchased by mail order.

      If the balance between internet and retail store is broken, it would screw over everything.

      It already is broken, because one behaviour is taxed, and the other isn't.

      If buying over the internet costed more money AND time than retail stores, it would screw over the world.

      No it wouldn't. It just wouldn't be very good for the internet stores.

      If those people who normally order stuff at home went out to retail stores, traffic would be a mess, gas prices would go up since the demand would be greater, stores would be overcrowded, global warming will happen faster and we'll all die.

      Not at all. Obviously, traffic levels, gas prices etc are an obstruction to travelling, and consequently an incentive to buy mail-order.Instead of causing us all to die, the result would be that it would cause us to consider buying mail order, even though the items were taxed.

      In fact, no taxation without representation!

      I'm a foreign national residing in the US. Are you telling me I shouldn't have to pay any taxes in the US ? And would you argue that someone who produces a NY drivers license shouldn't have to pay sales tax in NJ ?

      • No, the tax was thought up, because it's inconsistent to have items taxed when they're purchased locally but not taxed if they're purchased by mail order.

        Mail-order stores only use the local infrastructure in those jurisdictions where they have a physical presence. Ergo, the current law (requiring sales tax to be collected in jurisdicitons of physical presence) is the correct approach. Collecting sales taxes outside areas of physical presence is simply pandering to politicians' greed.

    • In the end it all costs roughly the same. The reason why internet tax was thought up is because tons of people can wait for what they want



      As of yet, there is no special "internet tax." The tax you get assessed on online sales is your SALES tax, at the exact same rate as if you bought the goods in question at the retailer down the street.



      If the balance between internet and retail store is broken, it would screw over everything.



      Yeah. One of them has to actually charge and account for sales taxes. The other one does it on the honor system with no enforcement effort. Really balanced.



      If buying over the internet costed more money AND time than retail stores, it would screw over the world.



      Makes you wonder just how the world got along for so long without the internet.

      In fact, no taxation without representation!



      You've got representation. It's in your city council and state assembly where they actually pass sales tax laws. (Except in Colorado, where a lot of the sales taxes are for special districts and are actually passed by referendum. Direct democracy, which explains why the Broncos are fucking us over again. How's that for representation?)

  • the constitution states that all new laws must come from the House and not the senate, so if the house has passed another 2 yr ban, what can the senate do?
  • ...is over here [libertypetitions.com]

    Go sign it, and don't forget to write snail mail to your representatives too.

    PS: do not put white powder in the envelopes. That will result in them not being read. ;-)
  • Personally, I wouldn't mind paying upto a 5% tax on internet sales. I think this would help the economy out a lot.

  • In that case (Score:2, Insightful)

    by rjamestaylor ( 117847 )
    so will the main reason people are willing to buy over the Internet -- saving on taxes. Once taxes are factored in with shipping costs it's hard to have a low enough price to beat the guy down the street.

  • Nauseating "Ban" (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by Baldrson ( 78598 )
    Any legislated "Ban" against subsequent legislation can be overturned by subsequent legislation.

    The sole purpose of this so-called "Ban" is to condition the public to accept a future Internet tax by making it appear that the Feds are actively granting a favor to the populus by not taxing the Internet.

    It's nauseating, which is typical of politics.

  • "I think Newsbytes has it right - the federal ban is likely to be reinstated soon, they just didn't get around to it this week."

    Oh, well that's just fine then. I'm sure Congress won't mind when I send them a bill for the sales tax some greedy official in Greater Podunk will stick me with the next time I try to buy something online.

    Way to go, guys. Way to show you REALLY care about getting out of this recession. Pffft.

    -Kasreyn

  • For instance, in MD and PA, you need to periodically (quarterly in MD, monthly in PA) send in use taxes (equal in percentage to sales tax) for any out-of-state purchases, whether the purchases are over the phone, by mail catalog, Internet or I think even when physically visiting another state and bringing the goods back (but in this last case, one can subtract the sales tax one paid in the other state from what is owing, and presumably, one can seek a refund from the other state if one paid a higher rate there; so, if a MD resident buys goods in VA, then since the VA sales tax is 0.5% lower than the MD one, the MD resident owes his state 0.5% of the purchase price).

    The "ban" on Internet taxes only meant that the states couldn't ENFORCE this in the case of Internet sales, so that this was an honor-system tax: i.e., a tax on the honest.

    ARP
  • Since Internet is a unique entity,i should really like to know the international repurcussions of the same.

    Suppose a company based in Germany sells something to someone in US,who pays what to whom(tax i mean)?

    the other way around,Us company and singaporean customer?

    any body?
  • I bought a book from BAMM.com and was charged Illinois sales tax even though I don't live in Illinois. I questioned it and was told that was just the way it was. This was a few weeks ago.

    My last purchase from BAMM, BTW.

Slashdot Top Deals

Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer

Close