Don't care one way or the other.

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

So if you haven't been paying it, it's not because the tax doesn't exist, it's because you've been breaking the law.

Haha...hey, everyone. We've been breaking the law!

Oh no!

quote:

I bought a safe from you. I assume I am not the only out-of-state sale you've made or will make. Would the necessity to file a sales-tax return in 50 states not dampen your desire and ability to sell to out of state buyers?

Not one bit. As soon as it's required there will be some form of private or government web portal that will make it possible with a few key strokes.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

I bought a safe from you. I assume I am not the only out-of-state sale you've made or will make. Would the necessity to file a sales-tax return in 50 states not dampen your desire and ability to sell to out of state buyers?

Not one bit. As soon as it's required there will be some form of private or government web portal that will make it possible with a few key strokes.

If I have to pay taxes on something I buy from you out of state, I'm likely not going to buy it from you any longer. I purposefully pick third party retailers on Amazon so I don't have to pay the tax. Take away this benefit and Amazon will get all my business and you little guys won't get jack.

I didn't buy my safe from Cabela's because of the the tax. I purchased it out of state from a smaller business. If this can't be done in the future, the big guys who are normally cheaper than you little guys, will get everyone's business.

I don't know why you see this as a good thing.

The way I imagine this happening is that it'll add significant burden to online retailers due to the insane amount of state and local nuances they'll be expected to deal with.

quote:

If I have to pay taxes on something I buy from you out of state, I'm likely not going to buy it from you any longer.

If there's a local retailer near any of my customers I usually steer them away from me and towards them. The type of stuff I deal with is best purchased locally if possible. It often needs to be professionally moved and it may need service down the road.

We have a policy where if a safe is purchased online, and that safe is sold by us or anybody we do delivery work for locally, we will not deal with it.

Unlike internet based "safe companies", I don't need to sell a single safe on the internet to remain in business.

quote:

If this can't be done in the future, the big guys who are normally cheaper than you little guys, will get everyone's business.

The manufacturers have finally come around to getting a handle on this. The small local guys can sell their products for the same prices the big guys can should they desire.

I do not have the same overhead as others in my business, and is absolutely no problem for me to meet and/or beat the pricing of some of the best known online names.

quote:

I don't know why you see this as a good thing.

Because I'm consistent. It doesn't matter what is beneficial or harmful to my particular situation. What's right is right.

quote:

The way I imagine this happening is that it'll add significant burden to online retailers due to the insane amount of state and local nuances they'll be expected to deal with.

Online retailers have just about zero empathy for the locals that they are hurting. I doubt many brick and mortar retailers will feel bad about the online guys facing a few additional burdens.

I really don't think it will be a problem though. No different than Amazon's system. Your shipping address determines your local tax rate. Just a matter of paying a third party to distribute the money collected for a few percentage points. That additional cost can be passed on to the consumer.

There have already been a couple of SCOTUS cases on this subject. The Quill case was mentioned previously. There's also Bellas Hess vs Illinois.

Thus is a settled issue. Nothing has legally changed that would justify changing existing precident. The fact that the states don't like it and lose revenue because of it is legally irrelevant. They should get there congressional delegations to change the law. But of course, that would be hugely unpopular.

When the state gives a damn, I will.

Until then my dirty law breaking brown boxes of crap will scream across the border untaxed.

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

So if you haven't been paying it, it's not because the tax doesn't exist, it's because you've been breaking the law.

Haha...hey, everyone. We've been breaking the law!

Oh no!

https://pa1.narvii.com/6417/81...8a562b5fd880e_hq.gif

You're clearly missing the point. The point is it's not true that the "internet sales tax" (which is a BS term itself), is a "new" tax, as some keep claiming It is an already existing tax. Just because it has been easy to break the law regarding that tax doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

quote:

Originally posted by a1abdj:

quote:

What part of "interstate commerce" do they not understand? Those decisions were made for a reason.

The tax has always been owed. Nothing will change aside from the fact that somebody will actually be collecting it.

On average, my online competition can "beat my price" by $150.00 because they don't collect tax and I have to. That $150.00 is still due to the state of Missouri. It's called "sales tax" when I collect it, and "use tax" when you itemize your out of state purchases and file that along with the tax due.

You do file use tax, don't you?

Yep, I can’t compete with the online gun sellers like Buds Gun Shop mainly due to sales tax. If online retailers are required to charge it will change the Internet gun sales businesses tremendously and make it easier for local shops to compete. The state of Texas already requires residents to pay taxes on their online purchases where it was not paid but nobody does it.

quote:

Originally posted by trapper189:

quote:

Originally posted by fatmanspencer:
I can't believe how many people here dont understand it doesnt matter what SCOTUS says, they dont regulate taxes, so its a moot point. This means nothing, and will change nothing. Because I live in Ga, I do not have to pay ANY out of state tax when I am buying within my own state. Otherwise, I'm being taxed without my consent or being represented, since its not a native to my state tax. And somewhere IIRC there was a war fought over this. Not sure though.

What are you talking about?

The issues at hand is whether or not a state such as Georgia can compel a company in another state to collect Georgia sales/use tax on sales made to Georgia residents such as youself. It's a tax already on the books of your state that you owe. It would be collected from Georgia residents and remitted to the government of Georgia no different than if you had made your purchase from a retailer in Georgia.

The crux of the problem is enforcement. There is no way to enforce use tax on out of state purchases. In Florida, for example, it isn't feasible to audit 22 million people.

See I thought the issue was could the state I was buying it from make me pay theirs. I honestly cant think of one of the hundreds of stuff I've bought in the last... 15 years that did not get taxed by my state/someone. So now I'm even more confused, since looking at it I already pay like a tax, and from what my math says its not the GA tax. It looks like a fed tax, which doesnt that mean you bypass the state anyways?

Edit, it seems after looking it up its that amazon tax deal. That explains why its lower. Nvm.

This has been an interesting discussion.

Probably the thing I find most fascinating is that I usually perceived a group like this as not having many members who are part of the nearly 50 percent of Americans who don’t pay any income tax. Whenever that subject comes up, there is usually a lot of resentment, and I don’t recall anyone’s ever saying, “Ha! Suck it, you chumps, I don’t pay a cent in income tax, and I’m more than happy to let the rest of you pay for the services I enjoy so much.”

One thing that’s touted as an advantage of various “flat” taxes is that they would get everyone. In this case that’s what sales and use taxes do. I might not have to work due to a disability scam or because I’m a never-married woman with six meal tickets, but I still have to pay a little back to the community when I buy my RC and Moon Pies at the local Family Dollar. The same is true if Amazon collects a few cents on the case of Charmin I order.

There are of course plenty of rationalizations for anyone to fall back on. “The government just wastes the money,” “Those kind of people don’t order stuff via the Internet anyway,” or “Nobody [else] pays them [so why should I?]” but that’s all they are: feeble, self-serving rationalizations. If you believe everyone ought to be taxed the same way, consumer use taxes on stuff purchased from out of state are a small step in that direction.

The issue of the myriad state and local taxing entities is something that will be interesting to follow if the Supreme Court rules that it’s legal to require all vendors to collect the taxes. I wouldn’t be surprised to see some sort of law implemented that set one fixed tax percentage for the entire country. It would probably be less than many individual rates, but it would be better for those jurisdictions than the mostly nothing they get now.

And as a final comment, many people would probably be happier if they understood how things like this issue actually work. If Internet sales taxes come about, it won’t be “thanks” to the Supreme Court. It will be because the states where most of us live have laws on the books mandating such taxes. Without those laws there would be nothing for the Supreme Court to even consider.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: sigfreund,

I'm on the border of NH, there is a reason there is NO shopping on this side of the Connecticut River...People are always going to avoid tax when possible. Just the way it is. Always has been always will be.

quote:

Originally posted by steve495:

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by ugeesta:
This will help the local shops too since the tax disadvantage would be gone. Something the retail industry has been screaming for.

They can scream all they want, but taxes are but a small part of why people buy on-line. They don't matter in my decisions one whit.

Trust me, collecting sales taxes from online retailers will not be a panacea for the local retail industry. The primary reason folks buy online is they can quickly locate, order and have an item delivered.

I'm all for buying local. But buying local frequently does not work out for me since I can not find what I'm looking for.

This. Taxes aren't the reason local stores suffer. Try poor service, ignorant staff, and crap merchandise. None of this will change when tax collection is enforcement. I can't count the number of gun shops I've been in that would rather stock Hi Point and Fobus than Colt and Safariland.

quote:

Originally posted by sigfreund:
This has been an interesting discussion.


One thing that’s touted as an advantage of various “flat” taxes is that they would get everyone. In this case that’s what sales and use taxes do. I might not have to work due to a disability scam or because I’m a never-married woman with six meal tickets, but I still have to pay a little back to the community when I buy my RC and Moon Pies at the local Family Dollar. The same is true if Amazon collects a few cents on the case of Charmin I order.

We need a flat consumption tax and we can do away with income tax, that way nobody gets around it. Everyone has to buy things, whether individual, businesses, honest or criminal. I don’t worry about how much the rich pay but it bothers me that a couple friends with multiple kids get by with paying virtually nothing due to all the child credits. I don’t think the poor should get a free pass, they need to pay in too. I think everyone needs to pay the same percentage although it will be different amounts depending on spending.

I'll do my best to save money anyway I can but the primary reason I don't buy from local gun stores is lack of inventory and price. If a local store can offer the same price as an online retailer I'll pay the tax just for the convenience of getting something right then and there. But typically the local guys are $75 to $100 or more higher than online stores. I'm not giving them a premium and paying taxes.

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

So if you haven't been paying it, it's not because the tax doesn't exist, it's because you've been breaking the law.

Haha...hey, everyone. We've been breaking the law!

Oh no!

https://pa1.narvii.com/6417/81...8a562b5fd880e_hq.gif

You're clearly missing the point. The point is it's not true that the "internet sales tax" (which is a BS term itself), is a "new" tax, as some keep claiming It is an already existing tax. Just because it has been easy to break the law regarding that tax doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I think the bigger point is that Justice Kennedy wants to change settled constitutional precedent, not because it was wrongly decided, but because the Internet was invented. That isn't how the Constitution works.

Just so we're all on the same page, the main holding of Quill was unanimous. And here's the first paragraph of Justice Scalia's concurring opinion, which Kennedy joined:

quote:

Justice Scalia , with whom Justice Kennedy and I also agree that the Commerce Clause holding of Bellas Hess should not be overruled. Unlike the Court, however, I would not revisit the merits of that holding, but would adhere to it on the basis of stare decisis. American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Smith, 496 U.S. 167, 204 (1990) (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). Congress has the final say over regulation of interstate commerce, and it can change the rule of Bellas Hess by simply saying so. We have long recognized that the doctrine of stare decisis has "special force" where "Congress remains free to alter what we have done." Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U.S. 164, 172-173 (1989). See also Hilton v. South Carolina Pub. Railways Comm'n, 502 U. S. ___, ___ (1991) (slip op., at 4); Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 720, 736 (1977). Moreover, the demands of the doctrine are "at their acme . . . where reliance interests are involved," Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. ___, ___ (1991) (slip op., at 18). As the Court notes, "the Bellas Hess rule has engendered substantial reliance and has become part of the basic framework of a sizeable industry," ante, at 17.

Quite the change of heart. Kennedy has apparently reconsidered not only the sales tax issue, but also the fundamental principles of stare decisis and separation of powers.

quote:

Originally posted by Dallas239:

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

quote:

Originally posted by Balzé Halzé:

quote:

Originally posted by DMF:

So if you haven't been paying it, it's not because the tax doesn't exist, it's because you've been breaking the law.

Haha...hey, everyone. We've been breaking the law!

Oh no!

https://pa1.narvii.com/6417/81...8a562b5fd880e_hq.gif

You're clearly missing the point. The point is it's not true that the "internet sales tax" (which is a BS term itself), is a "new" tax, as some keep claiming It is an already existing tax. Just because it has been easy to break the law regarding that tax doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

I think the bigger point is that Justice Kennedy wants to change settled constitutional precedent, not because it was wrongly decided, but because the Internet was invented. That isn't how the Constitution works.

Yes, but that's a separate issue from the false claims that this is a "new tax." The tax is not new, it's just not easily enforced. This is a new attempt at creating an easier enforcement mechanism, but the tax itself is not new.

Frankly, I'm surprised more states haven't followed Colorado in this, as decided by the 10th Circuit in the 2013 case Direct Marketing Assoc. v. Brohl. Gorsuch wrote a concurring opinion on that case, and the US Supreme Court denied cert in 2016.

It doesn't surprise me that dealers like a1abdj or any brick and mortar dealer most notable high ticket items to want their competitive advantage to be increased.
Nevertheless it doesn't make me want to resist.
I think it could have a devastating effect on Internet Commerce (and the stock market) and not in a good way.