Keep your Ford a Ford!

[Richard L]

Scott & Bill,

My disagreement with the previous statement that a Tax advisor said “Most States” have enacted similar Sales Tax laws, is with the use of the phrase “Most States”.



People tend to use inexact terms or phrases like “Most” or “Many” when they don’t really know the exact count. They often claim that these inexact terms are 100% reliable because they came from some “Expert” who has intimate knowledge of the subject. I feel that if they were such experts, they would confidently know the exact numbers, and not throw around meaningless facts that are subject to misinterpretation.



Perhaps the Tax advisor said “Some States, or even “Many States”, but that got translated to “Most States”?



This is not meant to say anyone is purposely lying. It’s just human nature, and I now I am guilty of using the same inexact phrases.



To me “Most States” would mean more than just 26 of the 50 states, but at least a 2/3 majority of the States would have to have enacted these Sales Tax laws. That would mean about 34-35 States. 2 States or 6 States still does not even come close to "Most States" So I stand by my original statement that “I doubt that “Most” States have passed these Sales Tax laws. You are free to search the web if you wish, but I don't feel it's necessary and a waste of time.



Bill, I’m not sure what you are talking about regarding sales taxes on vehicles. I was in the military for 20 years and purchased and registered many vehicles in different states. I have found States that do not charge any additional taxes if the vehicle was registered in the other State for more than 2 years.



I have also encountered States that will charge you additional taxes if that State has a higher tax rate than the original state where you paid taxes on the vehicles. And I have also encountered States that will charge sales tax on the current wholesale value on the vehicle



States can do this because vehicles are required to be titled and registered. Paying Sales taxes are usually required to register the vehicle, so you can purchase and own a vehicle and still not pay any Sales taxes as long as you do not register the vehicle. That’s basically the way Car Dealers buy and sell vehicles without paying Sales Taxes,



Scott,

My statement regarding that these laws are not enforceable and cannot go beyond voluntary payment of Sales taxes for purchases from other States, and could actually border on being illegal. States are not permitted to levy import taxes or tariffs on goods from other states. While states may call it a Sales Tax, if it is applied to sales and purchases made in other states, it could be interpreted as an import tariff on goods from another state…That is illegal, and goes against the basic concept in the word “United” in the “United States”.



I agree that you as a merchant could care less about the sales taxes other states collect since you are only responsible for collecting California Sales Taxes because that’s where your business is located. I have to collect Texas Sales Taxes for sales made in Texas and I must pay my taxes quarterly.



Those states that require or request residence to make voluntary Sales tax payments for purchases made outside their state cannot go beyond voluntary payment of Sales taxes.



There are really only two ways to enforce mandatory compliance. One way would require that selling businesses in other states to report purchases to each state where individuals made purchases. That would require a seller to obtain positive identification from the buyer such as their SSAN, since that is what Federal and State Tax authorities currently use to link tax revenue to tax payers. I don’t think Sellers would want to accept that additional burden or responsibility.



The other way would be to get sellers to collect Sales taxes at the time of the Sale and forward the collected taxes and repo

 

[Ethan X]

No sales tax here in Oregon! I recently bought something online from NC. When I investigated the charges I dicovered they had charged me their local sales tax on the purchase. Now I ask you, how is it fair that I have never been to NC, and never plan to go, don't use their schools, roads, emergency services or libraries, yet I am paying to support said services. For this reason I will never purchase from that vendor again.

 

[The Ape]

The more I read this, the more my lower intestine trys to creep up and strangle my brain.



And Tom (Caymen), just lay off dude, how about we all say you are right and be done with it. Why is it that most of the threads you contribute to end up like this?



Oh, and 93 Octane.



Nuff Said.



Ape Out.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

RichardL says:

so the best the states can hope for is that people will be ... nieve enough to voluntarily pay something that is probably illegal since it constitutes a tax or tariff on goods from another state

So another person who claims that a practice that states are doing today is probably illegal. Man, no one here trusts our government!



Think of it not as a tax on goods from another state, but a use tax for using goods purchased tax-free from another state within your state of residence. If the other state were collecting taxes, that would be taxation without representation, and of course, that is illegal. But for my state of residence to charge a use tax on things I buy tax-free outside of the state, well there are a lot of good reasons to want to do that, and it isn't illegal. A taxing authority can tax just about anything and if you are within that authorities jurisdiction, well you can vote for or against, or lobby your congressman, etc.



Hey, I'm not saying I like it, but I don't think it's an illegal practice. Nor do I think the fact that it is impossible to enforce is a reason NOT to abide.



The Dude abides!



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

Ape,



When the names started getting thrown around, I requested it to be taken offline. Scott has not done that.



Also, Scott was the one trying show me that what I was doing was wrong. I did not care. He wouldn't drop it. I am the bad guy here causing problems on the website? Not hardly!



So please, keep your comments to yourself.



Nuff said.



Caymen out.

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Is "Not hardly!" the same as softly? Is that a double negative? Just wondering.



TJR (aka salt for wound).

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

A state taxing authority can only tax things legally! If the State constitution allows, they can levy a State, County or even city Sales Tax on merchandize or services that were sold by merchants in that state. They can even levy Use taxes for you to drive your vehicle down the street, but they are confined to taxing within their own juristiction. There is no authority to collect Sales Taxes from merchandise or services purchased from merchants outside their state.



The wording on the California State tax form states that it's a "California Use tax for purchases made from out-of-state sellers" That would mean it applies only to purchases from states other than California and is attempting to collect a tax on mechandise purchased and imported to California. You can call it a Use tax or a Sales tax, but it sounds like a California Import Tax, and the Federal governement states that it is illegal to place taxes or tariffs on goods imported from other states.



As I previously stated, the California tax and states with similar taxes cannot enforce these laws, cannot verify who is or is not paying, and can only hope for voluntary compliance.



...Rich

 

[Thomas Rogers]

RichardL, you are right, but then again, you are wrong. You are right that PA and other states that do this have no jurisdiction to impose and collect a sales tax in another state. That is why it isn't a sales tax, it's a use tax. A use tax that just so happens to be at the same rate as their state sales tax, and just so happens to only apply to purchase made out of state that are not taxed (because to apply it to those purchases out of state that ARE taxed would be contrary to the "reciprocating" intent of the tax with respect to other states that have sales taxes and have a similar program).



I agree that a sales tax by any other name is still a tax...but by the letter of the law a use tax is NOT a sales tax.



For example, Connecticut and I assume other states have luxury taxes, taxes that you pay on boats and expensive cars, etc, and I am pretty sure you are supposed to pay them regardless of where you purchased the vehicles. Someone from Conn, chime in if I am incorrect.



And, your keep saying that this is illegal, and you keep saying that it cannot be enforced or purchases verified. Yeah, so what. Nice opinions.



The fact is that it isn't illegal, for if it were, don't you think our government would stop the practice? Seriously?



Just because you don't like something our government is doing doesn't make it illegal.



Oh, and RichardL, I *HIGHLY* recommend you read the link below as it is full of factual information on this very subject (Internet Commerce and State Use Tax law).





For those not wanting to read the PDF, I can summarize a few key points:



- It describes that the main problem is the loss of state tax revenue to Internet-based sales, and the history of using a "use tax" to recoup such lost sales taxes (this is NOT a new problem, what with catalog sales, crossing the border to buy stuff, etc).



- Nowhere in the document, which is a report to Congress, does it describe "use tax" as illegal, and I don't find that as an omission as the report is quite exhaustive giving commentary and viewpoints on both sides of the issues and its proposed resolutions.



- A "passive" solution for solving this problem is described as one in which we DO NOTHING, and by doing nothing states that have sales taxes lose more and more tax base until they realize that they have to inact some other, different, non-sales tax and abolish their sales tax in the process (commentary: do you really think that is likely?)



- One of the "active" solutions for potentially solving this problem is to have the vendors in the remote state that sells the product collect the use tax for the state of residence of the buyer. (commentary: Wow, Richard...what do you think of that?)



TJR

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

I have seen that article several years ago, but still does not answer the question, only creates more questions.



I may have used the term "Illegal" too librally, however I feel that these states are stretching the "Use" tax too far. As the old saying goes, "A rose by anyother name is still a rose".



It is illegal for states to levy a tax or tariff on goods made or sold in other states, that is a fact.

The fact that states are taxing purchases made from out-of-state sellers and calling it a "Use" tax is just a symantic loophole.



While they may currently have a temporary loophole that allows them to call it a Use tax doesn't mean it is completely legal, but that something the politicians and lawyers will have to fight about. The problem is that that Congress and the States who levy this Use tax only see this as another source of revenue.



The only hope the states have to collect this tax is if and when Congress passes any law that requrest merchants to collect taxes for other states. I don't think anyone in Congress wants to stick their necks out on that one, and that is why they keep extending the temporary Internet Moritorium.



Remember, The Revolutionary War was fought because of unfair taxes, and it can happen again. The Federal and State governments need to get a handle on spending. And they need to take a serious look at our existing tax laws. Normal people adjust their spending to fall within their income. The government needs to do the same thing, but they keep trying to increase their income to match their spending!



nuff said!



...Rich

 

[Tom Schindler]

Scott,



Again I never called you a name. You read it that way, not my fault.



When I say lets take it off list, I am not saying "Lets shake and make up". That was not my point. Taking it off list will allow both sides to say what they want to say without offending someone reading it here that doesn't want to read it.



Going back to Tax's.



Most people, including yourself since you said so, don't pay sales tax to thier state for online sales. Frankly, most people dont care. People speed, they roll through stop signs, speak loudly in the library, use thier cell phone in a restraunt, and many other things that are legal and other things that are just rude to others. That is a choice every ne of us make. We pull up to a stop sign and see nobody is coming, honestly why should we stop. Should stop signs be replaced with yield signs? In some areas I think they should. Traffic lights. There is no reason there should be a red light on a main road in the city at 1 in the morning. Nobody is on the roads. All it does it burn gas to wait for the light to change then burn even more getting back to the legal speed. No wonder people wait at a red light, see nobody is even on the road and drive through it.



I could go on, but frankly it doesn't matter. People say I like to argue, but they fail to see it takes two to argue. You are just as guilty of doing it as much as I am.



People make choices. I downloaded MP3's back when Napster was the big thing. It was being fought in the court systems, but I did not care. I downloaded songs. If I liked them, I looked for the CD to buy. The recording industry was sued for overchargind us on CD's. The punishment, pay each person, regardless of the amount of CD's they own, $5 bucks. I have 1000 CD's. At an average cost of $10.00/CD I have over $10,000 invested in CD's. How much money did the recording industry rip off of me? 1 grand? More? I got $5.00 back. When the recording industry won the Napster lawsuit, I quit buying CD's. I might buy a new Jimmy Buffett CD because he rules, but besides that, I don't. Screw the recording industry.



That is a choice I make.



The same goes with speeding, stop signs, red lights, and tax's. If I chose not to wear my seatbelt, so be it. It is my choice. If I am injured because I did not wear my seatbelt, I do not feel anyone should have to pay my medical bills, if wearing the seatbelt I wuld not have been hurt. That was the choice I made. I stand by my choice.



I know we are suposed to pay sales tax for internet sales. Some people choose not to. Until that loophole gets closed, people will continue to do that to be able to put more food on thier table.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen I respectfully support your right to your opinion, but before someone else points out the flaw in analogy, might I?



You seem to imply that not voluntarily paying use taxes is akin to speeding or not wearing your seatbelt as those latter are laws that are chronically broken.



To that, I have to disagree.



The difference is that in the no-seatbelt and speeding violations (barring any accident happening as a result), no one is injured. In other words, there is no victim.



If someone chooses not to pay use taxes there are victims. The victims are the citizens of the state that are provided less tax money due to the tax evader.



Again, I support your opinion and I don't judge your actions. I just think you should work on your analogy.



A better analogy might be those that claim higher than actual charitable contributions on thier tax returns. Like the use tax evaders it is difficult if not impossible to stop, and many people do it.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

TJR,



Good points. I know there could be better analogies out there, but I think most people understand exactly where I am coming from by the ones I used. I will keep yours in mind if I never have to use it again.



Remomber, those that use tax write offs are the same ones that don't need them...honestly. They are not putting food on the table paycheck to paycheck, live in a crappy apartment, and drive an old car. They live in big houses, drive fancy cars, and if the stoped working today, they would never have to work again.



Honestly, I don't think there are that many people here that make over $80,000/year that can take advantage of the tax loopholes.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

Caymen says:

Remember, those that use tax write offs are the same ones that don't need them...honestly.

Wow, that's a very anti-rich, liberal kind of statement, seriously (no I am not calling you those things, just characterizing the statement as similar to those touted by those said).



So, I will combat with my pro-rich, conservative statement as follows:



"People that use legit deductions are entitled to do so, are not breaking the law, and are simply getting back THEIR money that they LENT the government. It's not the government's money. However, it is our society's responsibility to make sure people don't live in poverty. That's why I donate some of my money and time to charities."



Boy this is fun...then again, maybe, just maybe...



[Broken External Image]:





TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

TJR<



I make 45K+ a year. My last job I made about 60K+ a year. If I chose to, I can work OT and make 80K+ a year. I am not anti-rich. Trust me on that.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

My point is that "need" has nothing to do with it. The rich already pay higher taxes because they make higher incomes. The fact that they own homes, pay into charities, and have higher deductions than the standard deductions of the lower income doesn't mean that they are getting something they don't deserve. Need has nothing to do with it.



Unless you think, generally, that the rich should pay more because "they can". I don't subscribe to that philosophy.



www.Fairtax.org all the way.



TJR

 

[Tom Schindler]

I think Tax's should be fair across the board. Eliminate tax loopholes and make everyone pay the same percentage. It is a win-win for all.



I do not think those tha make more should pay more. I feel it punishes those that try to get ahead.





Tom

 

[Thomas Rogers]

What about a flat national sales tax, instead of an income tax? Isn't consumption tax more fair and might it not spur saving and reduce credit card debt....both good things?

 

[TrainTrac]

I think Tax's should be fair across the board. Eliminate tax loopholes and make everyone pay the same percentage. It is a win-win for all.



I do not think those tha make more should pay more. I feel it punishes those that try to get ahead.

The Fair Tax will do all of that and more. It will grow our economy and allow the U.S. to become the world's tax haven and the most prosperous economy on the planet.



Read The FairTax Book for more info!

 

[Tom Schindler]

TJR,



I could not agree more. With a national sales tax, and eliminating income tax, I can choose how much money I want to spend and how much I want to save. My $850.00 weekly paycheck would actually be $850.00 and not be $500.00 plus tax on anything I want to buy.



We need to realize it will never happen. Something that simple is impossible to impliment,





Tom

 

[Richard L]

TJR,

I think you may be too nieve if you think the money you volountarily pay to your state's USE tax is actually going to help some poor person get food. I would be willing to donate that Use tax to a true approved charity rather than give it to the politicians to use as they see fit.



About 15 years ago, Paul Harvey talked about a survey that was done on the people that were on the existing welfare rolls in the United States, and that was compared to all the government programs used to aid those same people on welfare. The question was, If the govenrment eliminated all the buracracy related to administering welfare system and just paid the people on welfare a salary. what would that minimum salary be.



It turns out that there was enough money allocated to welfare of Americans by all Federal, State and local governments to pay every man, woman, and child on welfare a minimum salary of $70,000 each! Again, that is not per houshold, that's for every man, woman, and chlild on welfare! The budget for welfare is going to furnish the officies and pay the salaries of the buracrats administering the welfare system.



Then the politician only want to provoke class warfare by saying the rich are not paying their fair share, while other politicians are saying that the people on welfare or dragging down the economy. The real problem is that the money collected for taxes is being wasted on political pet-projects and when they run short of money, they invent new ways to gouge the public for more money in the form of taxes. When ever anyone questions why there is so much spending on stupid stuff, the politicians just point their fingers at the other guy, Democrats blaming the Reblicans, or the Reblicans blaming the Demoncrats.



If someone does come up with good idea, it's shot down by the other political party because they don't want the other party to get any credit for doing something good if they can help it.



It getting so that this forum is begining to sound like Capita Hill in Washington.



...Rich