Supreme Court Sales Tax Ruling

[KFoster]

Alabama, at least, charges businesses a license fee based on sales and property tax based on whatever property is owned (got to pay or you don’t get to keep what you bought). So, if a business does really well and has a warehouse or vehicles or whatever, the state gets money. They also get money based on your overall sales as the license fee goes up with sales dollars. If you do business in the state, county, city, you pay taxes based on that to support what you are doing in that area. If you survive all that and make a profit you get to pay income taxes. So, no, they don’t deserve sales tax on anything outside their jurisdiction in my opinion. If a state is faltering because of high cost of living, squandering what funds they do get or just being poorly run, then to bad for them. They are already reimbursed for what little they provide so you can sale goods nationwide and they do get sales tax on what you sale in the state in addition to all the other license fees and taxes they collect from you. This is just another way for the rest of the country to support poorly run states and municipalities.


Sent from my iPhone using ZR-1 Net Registry

[DRM500RUBYZR-1]

Originally Posted by spork2367

Just my .02.

Don't be at the mercy of anyone or anything.



Most of what you wrote is patently wrong, but you are entitled to your opinion.
105 years ago you tied up your horse.
You are correct on bloated government.
Your big small argument sounds like Bernie wrote it.
You simply ignore Walmart charges and collects tax, Amazon does not.

That is somehow fair?
Tax all or tax none.

There are laws that regulate interstate commerce.
That would be the simplest and fairest way to handle it.
It does affect my business, thank you.
I will ignore some of your more crass statements.
Better take about 2-4 more economics and finance courses.
It will help.
Guess you never heard of ICC.


I got a very good laugh on your view of dividends, as I did on most else.
Again, a finance course or two might not be a bad idea.

You may feel free to discuss this further with yourself.
I am out of this one.


Marty

[spork2367]

Originally Posted by DRM500RUBYZR-1

Don't be at the mercy of anyone or anything.

Most of what you wrote is patently wrong, but you are entitled to your opinion.

No, it isn't. And the fact that you haven't posted anything to prove that, is pretty telling.

105 years ago you tied up your horse.
You are correct on bloated government.
Your big small argument sounds like Bernie wrote it.
You simply ignore Walmart charges and collects tax, Amazon does not.

That is somehow fair?

The difference between tying up your horse and parking a car is relevant to this conversation how?

When I can get out of state and local taxes by opening a business grossing less than 500k a year, go ahead and talk to me about the advantages and disadvantages of big vs. small. I thought you wanted a level playing field?

You simply ignore that Walmart has brick and mortar stores in every state in the country. Amazon doesn't have one brick and mortar store anywhere. And many small businesses have one brick and mortar location in one state. But you want one law that makes things equal for all three situations....

None the less, that changed last year. Amazon now collects state and local taxes per state law, from all 45 states with sales tax. So your argument in moot.

The new legislation removes the physical presence clause of the "Amazon Tax." It would also ease the removal of the revenue and sales number limits some states use to exempt small business from the Amazon Tax and Nexus laws.

Tax all or tax none.

Says a guy who sells an item in his state but collects no state sales tax on the sale of said items...

Under current law, if the playing field were level, as you've said you desire, you wouldn't have a business. You'd be obligated to collect NJ sales tax. Every car dealer would be selling cars in neighboring Delaware where there isn't any sales tax.

Under the proposed law, you should be responsible for bearing that burden like everyone else. Which you may say wouldn't change much (since your sales volume is low compared to other businesses), but think about the number of people who go back to their respective states and lie about what they paid for a used car. Right now this works to your advantage.

If you have to remit the tax, there is no getting out of it for the buyer and it will certainly push many buyers out of the market for certain cars.

But you'll still be safe with your anything but level playing field.

And under the new law,

There are laws that regulate interstate commerce.
That would be the simplest and fairest way to handle it.
It does affect my business, thank you.
I will ignore some of your more crass statements.
Better take about 2-4 more economics and finance courses.
It will help.
Guess you never heard of ICC.

Feel free to elaborate on any of that. You've ignored the fact that we already have the Amazon Law, and that almost all states have Nexus laws that establish business presence when no physical presence exists. The realized income from this change will be minimal as far as state budgets are concerned but will be huge to small businesses.

It doesn't really affect your business. You're welcome?.... How many non-vehicle internet sales do you have? You already don't collect or remit sales tax for the cars you sell and that won't change. Plus you seemingly don't understand any of the current law.

I got a very good laugh on your view of dividends, as I did on most else.
Again, a finance course or two might not be a bad idea.

As far as the dividends comment, there are dozens of situations. You brought up 401ks. As far as a straight personal investment account paying dividends, yes, that is taxable income. As far as a 401k, no taxes until it's withdrawn. So you can collect and reinvest dividends with no taxes until that money is withdrawn as income. So my statement was 100% correct.

You may feel free to discuss this further with yourself.
I am out of this one.


Marty

The fact that you are just walking out of this conversation without backing up any of the contradictions to what I posted tells me that you may not have a strong argument if you indeed have one at all.

No statements I made were crass. Honest, sure.

You may have had more to add to the conversation if you had an understanding of how current tax laws affect internet sales, but you are several years behind in your knowledge there.

Like Jerry, I run a small business for which this has large implications. I have my 07 FFL and SOT. I manufacture and sell firearms across the country. I already have to comply with federal firearms laws as well as complying with every state's individual laws. Add to that the collection and remittance of sales taxes for 45 states in a business that already has small margins and I doubt my business will continue.

To put some perspective to this, the claimed tax shortfall from uncollected internet sales is 33.9 billion. New Jersey's budget is 37.4 billion. If you calculate NJ's portion of that 33.9 billion based on population, it's about 678 million. That's less than 2% of the budget to be gained. Plus you're going to lose small businesses who are paying property tax, sales tax for in state sales, income tax, etc.

The result in some states will be a net loss. Most states will piss that 2% away on nothing. Others will use it just to make government larger which will just require more money and more taxation.

[Mystic ZR-1]

🎶
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MbQiVQuiu04

[spork2367]

Originally Posted by Mystic ZR-1

🎶
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MbQiVQuiu04

For some reason, that is my son's favorite beetle's song.