Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

ambush · Apr 13, 2006, 03:12 PM

http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-6060...0450&subj=news

Sucks to live in the US

Dakar · Apr 13, 2006, 03:16 PM

Pennsylvania directs most of its use tax collection effort at companies rather than individuals, said Steve Kniley, press secretary for the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue. "We have just begun a pretty concerted effort to encourage use tax payments by business," Kniley said.

Yay for my state.

Dark Helmet · Apr 13, 2006, 03:21 PM

"If we find out you have made purchases you haven't reported to us, not only are you going to be liable for the amount owed, the tax liability, but also interest and penalties, which...could be up to three times as much as what you actually owe."

Nice.

Todd Madson · Apr 13, 2006, 03:26 PM

They need to keep funding those 600 dollar toilet seats and 200 dollar hammers.

Actually, they're funding those black aircraft we hear about from time to time.

rickey939 · Apr 13, 2006, 03:28 PM

Bah.

Dark Helmet · Apr 13, 2006, 03:32 PM

It will be interesting to see what the conservative apologists here will have to say about this.

I'm sure they will find a plus side.

andi*pandi · Apr 13, 2006, 04:03 PM

if they don't put it on the bill when I check out... what a PITA to keep track of.

Mastrap · Apr 13, 2006, 04:10 PM

Originally Posted by ambush

Sucks to live in the US

Same here. On Canadian online purchases you'll get charged GST and PST, on US purchases the custom boys make sure they get their share.

The ****ers tried to charge me $183 in import duty on a pair of llbean boots that I had forgotten in the UK and that my friends were sending over to me.

Dark Helmet · Apr 13, 2006, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Same here. On Canadian online purchases you'll get charged GST and PST, on US purchases the custom boys make sure they get their share.

Really? I never do when dealing with ebay. Coming across the border I SOMETIMES do.

HackManDan · Apr 13, 2006, 04:21 PM

“If Californians travel to a state with a 5 percent tax and shop there, the law requires them to write a check to the state tax agency for up to the 3.75 percent difference upon their return.”

Now tell me, what business is it of California’s how I spend my money OUTSIDE of the state? If I buy something in Oregon for zero sales tax, I was obeying the rules of the state in which that transaction occurred. Where does California get off saying that I owe them sales tax (oh, I mean “use tax”) on something I didn’t purchase in their jurisdiction?

I guess it’s true, nothing's certain in life but death and taxes.

-HMD

itai195 · Apr 13, 2006, 04:24 PM

Misnamed, these are state tax agencies not the IRS

I travelled to Arizona last year and some areas there had a 10% tax. My sales tax here is 8.25%. Where should I address my bill to the State of California?

Eug Wanker · Apr 13, 2006, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Same here. On Canadian online purchases you'll get charged GST and PST, on US purchases the custom boys make sure they get their share.

GST yes, but PST only if that store has a presence in your province. If you order from out of province, that is not the case. Unfortunately, companies like Apple have a "presence" in all Canadian provinces for this purpose.

On US purchases, it is variable. On large purchases, they almost always charge tax, and on small purchases often they let it go.

Mastrap · Apr 13, 2006, 04:29 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

Really? I never do when dealing with ebay. Coming across the border I SOMETIMES do.

If you don't declare it, you're breaking the law. If the seller on ebay is GST registered and not charging it, he's breaking the law. If GST is included, all is well.

Eug Wanker · Apr 13, 2006, 04:32 PM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

If you don't declare it, you're breaking the law. If the seller on ebay is GST registered and not charging it, he's breaking the law. If GST is included, all is well.

For declared products, customs doesn't always charge GST.

I think it's exempt under CAD$20 but I'm not sure. But even for stuff that is say $30 I often do not get charged, even when it's declared as such. I guess it's too much of a hassle to bother trying to collect $2.10 GST.

Dark Helmet · Apr 13, 2006, 04:41 PM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

If you don't declare it, you're breaking the law. If the seller on ebay is GST registered and not charging it, he's breaking the law.

For some reason I don't sleep any worse knowing that.

Railroader · 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by itai195

Misnamed, these are state tax agencies not the IRS

Considering the OP, I am not surprised at the ignorance he displayed, even with an article HE supplied. I guess his reading comprehension is not quite university standards eh?

It's amazing the people who don't understand they are breaking the law when purchasing something "tax free" on the internet. Ever notice how Apple makes sure the charge you appropriate taxes for your local government? They are helping you adhere to the law and keep you honest.

When I worked retail, it was more common than not to have Canadian shoppers ask for a "special, separate receipt" that understated the price they had paid for the goods so they could cheat their fellow countrymen out of taxes.

I don't understand why people think they can break the laws of their state without consequence? Do they think they have no say in how those laws were created? Do they think they are getting back at "da man"? Don't they realize that taxes are what pay for the many things they take for granted everyday.

I fully expect those who don't respect copyright laws to think that they shouldn't have to pay state taxes on purchase from out of state retailers either. They simply don't have respect for their fellow man.

Railroader · Apr 13, 2006, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

For some reason I don't sleep any worse knowing that.

I'm not surprised. You have never show much respect for your fellow man.

ambush · Apr 13, 2006, 04:46 PM

Originally Posted by Mastrap

Same here. On Canadian online purchases you'll get charged GST and PST, on US purchases the custom boys make sure they get their share.

The ****ers tried to charge me $183 in import duty on a pair of llbean boots that I had forgotten in the UK and that my friends were sending over to me.

I never paid a single cent in tax and I order online like all the time. I buy my clothes online

ambush · Apr 13, 2006, 04:48 PM

rail rodent

Railroader · Apr 13, 2006, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by ambush

rail rodent

copy cat

Railroader · Apr 13, 2006, 04:59 PM

Originally Posted by ambush

I never paid a single cent in tax and I order online like all the time. I buy my clothes online

Thank you for validating my point.

ambush · Apr 13, 2006, 05:23 PM

Well, we have our derail-blican right here

Railroader · Apr 13, 2006, 05:26 PM

It's like arguing with my cousin's 4-year old. Why do I waste my time?

Railroader · Apr 13, 2006, 05:27 PM

It's too bad you can't fix your thread topic to be accurate and not look like a complete ignorant fool.

ambush · Apr 13, 2006, 05:30 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

It's like arguing with my cousin's 4-year old. Why do I waste my time?

Good question.

But what counts is: I know you can't stop arguing.

olePigeon · Apr 13, 2006, 05:35 PM

When my dad's over in Geneva at a standards meeting, he's techincally a representative of the U.S. He gets to shop in the Ambassador Lounge wich has no sales tax and isn't collected on returning to the U.S.

vmarks · Apr 13, 2006, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by Railroader

It's amazing the people who don't understand they are breaking the law when purchasing something "tax free" on the internet. Ever notice how Apple makes sure the charge you appropriate taxes for your local government? They are helping you adhere to the law and keep you honest.

Taxes are at their root people making a claim on your money. The only difference between a single individual stealing out of my pocket and government coming and doing it is that everyone will agree that the former is wrong. There is no other difference.

I don't understand why people think they can break the laws of their state without consequence? Do they think they have no say in how those laws were created? Do they think they are getting back at "da man"? Don't they realize that taxes are what pay for the many things they take for granted everyday.

They aren't getting back at 'da man', they're getting back at their fellow citizens who have declared it the right of fellow citizens to pickpocket each other.

I fully expect those who don't respect copyright laws to think that they shouldn't have to pay state taxes on purchase from out of state retailers either. They simply don't have respect for their fellow man.

Copyright law intends to protect the property of the creater/owner.

Tax law does the opposite, essentially saying that the money a person earns is not really their property, but that of the tax collectors who graciously let the person keep a little.

itai195 · Apr 13, 2006, 08:00 PM

Originally Posted by vmarks

Taxes are at their root people making a claim on your money. The only difference between a single individual stealing out of my pocket and government coming and doing it is that everyone will agree that the former is wrong. There is no other difference.

Except that you get various services in return for the government taking that money, which is what you were just about to say, right...?

Secret__Police · Apr 13, 2006, 08:05 PM

It will be an easy task to track you down, using those 'not so secret anymore' rooms at AT&T.
You know, the room where the NSA has that traffic analyser wired in directly to AT&T's peer to peer hubs.

ambush · Apr 13, 2006, 08:31 PM

^lol^

SimeyTheLimey · Apr 13, 2006, 08:52 PM

Originally Posted by Dark Helmet

It will be interesting to see what the conservative apologists here will have to say about this.

I'm sure they will find a plus side.

To shop online, you have to have a computer and debit or credit card. Increasngly, you have to have broadband access as well. Is your position that the wealthy who have these things shouldn't pay state sales taxes, while those who can't afford to shop online should shop in bricks and mortar stores and pay state sales taxes?

Railroader · Apr 13, 2006, 09:37 PM

Good point SimeyTheLimey. As usual.

ghporter · Apr 13, 2006, 10:17 PM

The U.S. Congress has consistently and vigorously slapped down states that have tried to collect taxes on purchase from companies outside their borders. This is because of something called the "Interstate Commerce Clause." It says that interstate commerce is Congress' to regulate, NOT the states.

As Eug pointed out, Canadian provinces collect both taxes (federal and provincial) only on online purchases from firms with a presence in the buyer's province. Similarly, U.S. states can only collect taxes (their own state sales tax) on transactions with companies they can legally regulate. They hate this-in good part because they dislike the fact that some states have much lower sales taxes, and that a lot of companies choose to stay in such states and not establish a presence elsewhere because they get more online business.

Congress will NOT abandon their primacy in regulating interstate commerce (it gives them tremendous leverage in a huge number of areas of the law), and states hate that. If these states would simply examine their tax structure and figure out they're bleeding their citizens dry with sales taxes (many states still collect sales tax on the barest essentials of survival, such as bread, milk, and prescription drugs), then rebuilt that tax system to be fair and less of a burden, things would be different.

But remember, sales taxes bleed the poor at a much higher percentage of their gross income than they do the rich, so these states can cash in on their poor people with sales taxes... Food for thought.

Dr Reducto · Apr 13, 2006, 10:29 PM

Originally Posted by itai195

Except that you get various services in return for the government taking that money, which is what you were just about to say, right...?

The problem is that businesses outside the state recieve none of the benefits that taxpayers provide, so why should they have to pay taxes to that state?

Sales taxes don't simply exist as a cash grab by the government.

Suppose I buy from B&H, and don't pay sales tax. They have recieved no benefits of Maryland taxes, why/how should they be compelled to collect taxes for Maryland.

Cody Dawg · Apr 13, 2006, 10:35 PM

The Democrats are behind this 100%.

Thank them.

Andy8 · Apr 13, 2006, 10:43 PM

No sales tax here, no GST or VAT. Actually not much tax of any kind here!

ambush · Apr 13, 2006, 10:58 PM

ITUNES WILL BE TAXED

news.com.com/The+tax+man+cometh+after+iTunes/2009-1022_3-6059914.html?tag=nl

euchomai · Apr 13, 2006, 11:05 PM

So let me get this straight:
The guy posting this thread is ignorant of US law. Therefore he says the IRS is coming after people, when really it is a states rights issue. Then he makes fun of America, only for other Canadians to point out that they already pay even more taxes in Canada. Now, I'm supposed to think that he is not an idiot?

Did I summarize this correctly?

Cody Dawg · Apr 13, 2006, 11:43 PM

Yes, you did.

itai195 · Apr 14, 2006, 01:49 AM

Originally Posted by Cody Dawg

The Democrats are behind this 100%.

Thank them.

Is that really necessary?

itai195 · Apr 14, 2006, 01:53 AM

Originally Posted by Dr Reducto

Suppose I buy from B&H, and don't pay sales tax. They have recieved no benefits of Maryland taxes, why/how should they be compelled to collect taxes for Maryland.

Reread the post I was responding to, which directly equated all taxation with theft.

lavar78 · Apr 14, 2006, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by vmarks

Copyright law intends to protect the property of the creater/owner.

You forgot the word "temporarily." Its primary, long-term goal is to enrich society as a whole.

SimeyTheLimey · 06:37 AM

Originally Posted by ghporter

The U.S. Congress has consistently and vigorously slapped down states that have tried to collect taxes on purchase from companies outside their borders. This is because of something called the "Interstate Commerce Clause." It says that interstate commerce is Congress' to regulate, NOT the states.

As Eug pointed out, Canadian provinces collect both taxes (federal and provincial) only on online purchases from firms with a presence in the buyer's province. Similarly, U.S. states can only collect taxes (their own state sales tax) on transactions with companies they can legally regulate. They hate this-in good part because they dislike the fact that some states have much lower sales taxes, and that a lot of companies choose to stay in such states and not establish a presence elsewhere because they get more online business.

Congress will NOT abandon their primacy in regulating interstate commerce (it gives them tremendous leverage in a huge number of areas of the law), and states hate that. If these states would simply examine their tax structure and figure out they're bleeding their citizens dry with sales taxes (many states still collect sales tax on the barest essentials of survival, such as bread, milk, and prescription drugs), then rebuilt that tax system to be fair and less of a burden, things would be different.

But remember, sales taxes bleed the poor at a much higher percentage of their gross income than they do the rich, so these states can cash in on their poor people with sales taxes... Food for thought.

This is half right. States can and do require their own citizens to pay use tax on their out of state purchases. That is regulating their own citizens, not out of state businesses. What states have been prevented from doing is requiring sister states to collect their sales taxes for them on sales in those sister states where the customers order online and are residents of the state with the sales tax. Congress has passed a statute banning such efforts, but it comes up periodically for review.

Without that statute, states probably could require vendors to collect their taxes in that way with the penalty being loss of rights in the state where they aren't resident but where they do business. Right now, if you are in state A and you make sales in state B, you have a legal presence in state B. State B can and usually will require you to have some form of certificate of doing business in state B and will require you to have a registered agent in state B to accept process. If not, you will usually lose the ability to sue in State B to enforce your contracts. There is also a complex legal doctrine on how much effort and how much sales are required for you to be doing business in a foreign state which I will go into. It has to do with whether people in State B can sue you for your defective products, etc. Or rather, which court has jurisdiction.

This is all under US law, where the country is one country dispite the different states. I recall we had a discussion a couple of years ago where the EU floated the idea that the US should be required to collect its VAT taxes for it. The EU doesn't like the US competitive advantage of lower tax rates. I recall that there were some voices supporting the notion that countries should be able to require other countries to collect their taxes for them. Of course, the EU apparently dropped the idea. The relationship between the EU and completely separate countries is much different than the relationship between states of the EU, or states of the US. What states within a country can do does not carry thte political baggage that comes from a nation (or proto-nation) misusing its economic power to try to regulate foreign citizens. But again, the EU probably cound do it to individual companies that do business within its borders from outside its borders with the penalty being loss of rights inside the EU. It would just be a really politically dumb idea.

Anyway, right now in the US, if you buy goods from out of state, in many states you are supposed to pay your state use tax on the goods. For example, when I bought a camera from a dealer in Hong Kong, I paid use tax to Virginia. This has nothing to do with Hong Kong, everything to do with the law of the state in which I live. It's also not because Virginia can regulate a business in Hong Kong, but rather because they can regulate me.

Cody Dawg · Apr 14, 2006, 07:11 AM

I think it's just great how we get taxed over and over and over again...

What's a buck worth nowadays? Federal taxes. State sales tax. All other kinds of taxes - they just want to take it all away and leave nothing for the average person to survive on.

Kevin · Apr 14, 2006, 07:29 AM

Originally Posted by euchomai

So let me get this straight:
The guy posting this thread is ignorant of US law. Therefore he says the IRS is coming after people, when really it is a states rights issue. Then he makes fun of America, only for other Canadians to point out that they already pay even more taxes in Canada. Now, I'm supposed to think that he is not an idiot?

Did I summarize this correctly?

You can pretty much repeat this in any thread started by Ambush.

euchomai · Apr 14, 2006, 07:44 AM

Originally Posted by Kevin

You can pretty much repeat this in any thread started by Ambush.

vmarks · Apr 14, 2006, 09:51 AM

Originally Posted by lavar78

You forgot the word "temporarily." Its primary, long-term goal is to enrich society as a whole.

You are correct. I left it out because I was making the point on property. Also, Congress has lengthened 'temporarily' to be about 175 years, causing that primary long-term goal to be so long-term as to take a back seat to the property rights issue.

Eternity minus a day, et tu Bono?

ghporter · Apr 14, 2006, 09:53 AM

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

This is half right. States can and do require their own citizens to pay use tax on their out of state purchases. That is regulating their own citizens, not out of state businesses. What states have been prevented from doing is requiring sister states to collect their sales taxes for them on sales in those sister states where the customers order online and are residents of the state with the sales tax. Congress has passed a statute banning such efforts, but it comes up periodically for review.

I left out details I didn't feel I could explain well; enforcement is the key to the whole issue, and there's no way to force companies a state has no control over to collect sales taxes. Your explanation is, as usual, clear. Thanks.

I should also have quibbled about the title of the thread. The IRS has nothing to do with this; it's STATE taxes that are at issue, not federal taxes.

vmarks · Apr 14, 2006, 10:09 AM

Thread title adjusted. Was IRS coming after your ONline purchases.
revised: State Tax Collectors coming after your ONline purchases.

turtle777 · Apr 14, 2006, 10:24 AM

Originally Posted by ambush

[url]Sucks to live in the US

Doesn't suck half as bad as having the IQ of a 5 year old.

Uhm, no, wait, your ARE 5 years old, right ?

Originally Posted by euchomai

So let me get this straight:
The guy posting this thread is ignorant of US law. Therefore he says the IRS is coming after people, when really it is a states rights issue. Then he makes fun of America, only for other Canadians to point out that they already pay even more taxes in Canada. Now, I'm supposed to think that he is not an idiot?

Did I summarize this correctly?

Niceeeee

-t