The Supreme Court will throw this out in a heartbeat. Interstate commerce can only be regulated by Congress.
California Assembly Approves $1 Billion "Internet Tax"
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Why is this "worse"? At least people are actually GETTING something for their money that way, albeit at an inflated price. And granted that the government shouldn't be in charge of utilities anyway. Or roads. Or health care. Or anything *at all* besides the army, the court system, and the police. And our army certainly shouldn't be out trying to be the world's police force and building infrastructure in random countries around the globe or rushing aid to every natural disaster anywhere. It should be protecting the people who PAID FOR IT. The most overseas work it should ever do is to go to a country that has actually attacked us, level its entire military infrastructure, then leave.odd function said:
Income tax is the worst kind of tax because it penalizes people for earning more money--i.e. for doing something well enough that other people are willing to pay more for it.
I like the idea that government should be paid for by people who make use of its non-military services, namely the court system. Want to insure a legal agreement? Pay a fee. Want to take your business partner to court over the wording of a contract? Pay a fee. Want to incorporate as an LLC? Pay a fee. Not only will this cut down enormously on frivolous lawsuits while making government financing entirely voluntary, it has the additional happy side effect to the egalitarians out there that it's the wealthy who will be paying the lion's share of those fees. I don't need much in the way of contract insurance when I pay my neighbor to trim my bushes. However a multi-billion-dollar company REALLY needs contract insurance when THEIR business partners screw up.
The military constitutes the greatest expenditure, of course, but even if you take today's bloated and inefficient defense (hah) spending as an absolute number, it'd still cut the government down from something like a $4 trillion budget (Obama's budget for 2012 is $3.7 trillion in outlays) to about $500 billion. That's not small potatoes. That's an ENORMOUS tax burden that falls almost entirely on the middle class. Trim down the military to its actually necessary functions and you can even pay off the federal debt off that $500 billion budget. That's about 3% GDP as opposed to the current budget, which is about 24% GDP.
I'm just pissed because I had to pay New York state and city sales tax on the gift I bought my brother for Christmas. I live in South Dakota, and the billing address was in South Dakota, but because the delivery address was in New York City, I had to pay all their damn taxes. If taxes on internet purchases are to be enforced, they should go by the billing address, not the delivery address. You know, because the billing address is for the person who actually paid for the item, and hence I saw no benefit to my community due to those taxes, and neither did the shipper who I believe was in Illinois. But hey NYC got my few extra bucks with no involvement whatsoever, the NYC post office was paid by the shipping, but the sale apparently took place there. Bastards.
As if we aren't already overtaxed enough. All I have to say is no. Trust me, once you include income tax, vehicle maintenance and rent, it all adds waaaay the hell up. Sales tax is far higher than it needs to be to begin with, and to top it all of studies show that a down economy benefits far more from less taxation rather than more because it promotes free trade and leaves people with more money to spend in general. This looks like just another attempt by California legislators to get themselves out of the bottomless pit they've dug.
How does this make any sense? Shopping online is like browsing through a catalogue you get in the mail (or used to anyway). Why should you have to pay tax on an item unless it is either manufactured or distributed in the state that holds the tax? If the item is made in made in Japan and sold by a vendor from an office in New York, I would be taxed by the state of California? That's brilliant right there. I'm sure someone brought up some kind of jurisdiction thing, but they're hurting for money so bad in California I'm sure they'd pass just about anything right now.
Another thing they should remember since part of that law extends to companies operating in California. Unless physical products are made there, they don't HAVE to be stationed in California if it means they'll be spending significantly more on taxation. That's the beauty of running a business online. They can pack up and leave.
Another thing they should remember since part of that law extends to companies operating in California. Unless physical products are made there, they don't HAVE to be stationed in California if it means they'll be spending significantly more on taxation. That's the beauty of running a business online. They can pack up and leave.
But... we already have an income tax... Unless your information is listed incorrectly, I'm seeing American in your profile.Worgen said:
Incorporate the tax-fee into the sales price, and have Amazon pay the state for each product sold.Cipher1 said:
That's how it works over here.
I don't want to get into a tax-debate with any US citizens, but really, the public outcry of citizens angry because the "government will take our money" is going to be hilarious.
I rarely, if ever, say this, but when it is compared to the US..I love my country.
Then you should also be able to remind us how well that worked out for New York, Texas, and (I believe) Virginia, all of whom attempted to pass similar laws over the past few years.qbanknight said:
This laws like this run into two simultaneous problems. The first is the interstate commerce clause which places transactions that occur across state borders under Federal jurisdiction. The second is a lack of personal jurisdiction. What New York learned when they attempted to pass the law was that they had no way to enforce it. Amazon is based out of Seattle, WA, someplace that New York's legislature has no authority over. They attempted to enforce it by seizing Amazon property in New York (I forget if this was shipments, or if it was actually shops owned by people who used Amazon as an online retailer) only to end up in a court battle they lost.
Texas approached this more recently, and more in line with what this law sounds like. Rather than trying to force online retailers to tax their shipments, they targeted businesses with holdings in the state. In this case they can get around the personal jurisdiction issue because they can actually seize company assets to compel compliance, though the first time they do this they'll end up in Federal court defending their actions.
The California law lets them target businesses that are owned by the online retailer, and that could get messy fast. Especially if the company they're pressuring for compliance doesn't have any direct interests and isn't a majority owner of the business that ends up being leaned on.
As a caveat, I haven't looked at the California law in any detail yet.
not everyone is registered obviously though, there is a ridiculous amount of people who do tax evasion based on that fact alone, including many of the richWorgen said:
thats why we need to switch purely to a national sales tax while getting rid of the other taxes, so based on how much you consume, and not how much you make, is what you get taxed, which obviously rich fuck heads would be screwed on that, and all the illegal drug dealers would be screwed and end up paying taxes on all the new houses and cars they buy.
Hmmm so you have no idea of the actual numbers. But CA seems pretty big and you think it has insanely high taxes...therefore fuck liberals? They are cutting money, and they are at the point of cutting money from police fire and education. You don't know what your talking about so don't talk about it. How dare they collect the taxes people are already supposed to be paying but are arent due to a loophole.Low Key said:
I love your conservative ignorance.
Stay classy
Stay classy
Oh, thank god, there's still people who really understand both arguments on the tax debate!Greg Tito said:
What most of us Democrats (myself included) tend to forget is that Republicans actually have real, and quite logical, reasons for not wanting to raise taxes other than "I don't want to pay higher taxes!"
They don't want higher taxes because then more people are likely to practice tax-evasion, and corporations might move their business (or use loopholes) so that they pay taxes in a country with a lower tax rate instead of here(which some already do).
In this case, their argument is that it is far too much of a hassle to track internet transactions, and I kinda agree with them.
In any rate, while this doesn't affect me yet, since I live in a highly-Democrat-controlled state, this is a real possibility in my future. I better get my online shopping done now while I still can!
