California Assembly Approves $1 Billion "Internet Tax"
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Well, they could only legally tax sellers located in state, since sellers in other place like Texas or Guam don't actually have a say in the tax process. (Taxation without representation is illegal y'know) Not exactly a great stimulus plan. On the other hand, if they intend to only tax the buyer, they will need to monitor all internet sales, which means another government agency, which means more government employees, which means more cost to the government... This tax thing is supposed to be making money right?snfonseka said:
Says the guy this proposal will effect the least...Worgen said:
The premise is that any time someone from California makes an online purchase with a company outside of California, the company would be responsible for collecting the use tax from the customer, which is the same rate as the sales tax, then sending those monies to the California Tax Board.snfonseka said:
The current situation is that Californians are supposed to pay the use tax with their state income taxes every year, but no one ever does.
While I agree that enforcement may be difficult, this tax "increase" is completely fair in that it is money we should be paying to the state anyways. It's not that people are dishonest, but simply that honest people don't have any practical means to do the right thing, and I think this bill can provide that means.
I compare it to the downloadable music issue: that people illegally downloaded music simply because there was no easy means to download that music legitimately. Now that we have easier-to-use services such as iTunes with which to legally acquire music, most people use those services.
So many people who don't understand how taxes work will nevertheless complain about them as loud as possible.
"The Internet" is not a separate world, it is a communication tool. Very elaborate, yes, but nothing more. It is no more exempt than a phone or mail order (which aren't exempt, to make that clear).
If I buy something to ship or pickup in my own state, I owe sales tax. The end. Most vendors will calculate, collect, and submit the sales tax for you, but many internet retailers do not.
This law is not for the retailers. The citizens of each state are required to claim their sales tax. At my work, if a vendor does not invoice us for sales tax, we still allocate the funds and cut a check to the state.
The phrasing of the header in this article is also a little misleading. California estimates that they are losing $1 Billion in sales tax to internet sales that are not collecting sales tax, and citizens who are not reporting it.
As for this nonsense about certain taxes favoring certain income levels, no. The sales tax is the most equitable as applied in the United States. You pay a certain amount per dollar no matter how much you spend. At 1%: if I spend $1, I am taxed $0.01; if I spend $100.00, I am taxed $1. So it depends on how much you spend. Those who spend more (the "rich"), will pay more taxes, but the same proportion as a "poor" person who spends less. It doesn't matter how much you spend, you still pay the same rate. That is the definition of equity.
Compare that to a progressive income tax (this is purely as an example; 5% per $10,000 earned starting at 10% for up to $10,000).
I earn $10,000.00, and it is all taxed at 10%, I keep $9,000. I keep 90% of what I earn.
Next Year: I earn $12,000.00, and now $2,000.00 of that is taxed at 15%, I have earned $12,000.00, I am taxed $1,300, I keep $10,700.00. I keep 89% of what I earn.
The following year: I earn $100,000.00; I am taxed $32,500. I keep 67% of what I earn.
So, how is it more equitable that I am taxed a higher rate simply by earning more? I don't just pay more taxes, I pay more taxes relative to my income. With a flat rate, I would pay the same proportion of taxes to income as anyone. Sales tax is a flat rate.
When people talk about "fair" they aren't talking about "equitable", they are talking about what suits them best. Flat rate tax (not to be confused with a flat tax), is the most equitable.
Add in lump sum deductions and credits and the progressive/incentive based income tax is one of the least efficient or equitable means of taxation.
"The Internet" is not a separate world, it is a communication tool. Very elaborate, yes, but nothing more. It is no more exempt than a phone or mail order (which aren't exempt, to make that clear).
If I buy something to ship or pickup in my own state, I owe sales tax. The end. Most vendors will calculate, collect, and submit the sales tax for you, but many internet retailers do not.
This law is not for the retailers. The citizens of each state are required to claim their sales tax. At my work, if a vendor does not invoice us for sales tax, we still allocate the funds and cut a check to the state.
The phrasing of the header in this article is also a little misleading. California estimates that they are losing $1 Billion in sales tax to internet sales that are not collecting sales tax, and citizens who are not reporting it.
As for this nonsense about certain taxes favoring certain income levels, no. The sales tax is the most equitable as applied in the United States. You pay a certain amount per dollar no matter how much you spend. At 1%: if I spend $1, I am taxed $0.01; if I spend $100.00, I am taxed $1. So it depends on how much you spend. Those who spend more (the "rich"), will pay more taxes, but the same proportion as a "poor" person who spends less. It doesn't matter how much you spend, you still pay the same rate. That is the definition of equity.
Compare that to a progressive income tax (this is purely as an example; 5% per $10,000 earned starting at 10% for up to $10,000).
I earn $10,000.00, and it is all taxed at 10%, I keep $9,000. I keep 90% of what I earn.
Next Year: I earn $12,000.00, and now $2,000.00 of that is taxed at 15%, I have earned $12,000.00, I am taxed $1,300, I keep $10,700.00. I keep 89% of what I earn.
The following year: I earn $100,000.00; I am taxed $32,500. I keep 67% of what I earn.
So, how is it more equitable that I am taxed a higher rate simply by earning more? I don't just pay more taxes, I pay more taxes relative to my income. With a flat rate, I would pay the same proportion of taxes to income as anyone. Sales tax is a flat rate.
When people talk about "fair" they aren't talking about "equitable", they are talking about what suits them best. Flat rate tax (not to be confused with a flat tax), is the most equitable.
Add in lump sum deductions and credits and the progressive/incentive based income tax is one of the least efficient or equitable means of taxation.
I am not sure the scope of this proposed law, because first of all California has a terrible budget. they waste billions of dollars on illegal immigrants and other frivolous things. Giving more money to someone who doesn't spend money wisely rarely fixes the problem.
But regardless the idea of a sales tax is to tax the goods that are sold in your STATE. the internet is not 'in' the state. charging a company a tax for commerce when they are not doing business in your STATE technically is dumb. How exactly this is going to be run is a big question. are they just taxing amazon the company for their sales or are they charging someone else a tax who doesn't even live in there state? if so...WTF?
This is a sticky grey area. CA is looking for huge cash injections, which if they where doing what they were suppose to be doing with their money might be a good thing. Frankly Government spends way too much time looking for free cash. Everyone else in this country busts their ass to make a dollar, the government 90% percent of the time holds there hand out and says, "more?"
Somewhere in the constitution there should have been a law where if the government needs more money, then they need to get a god damn paper route and make it themselves.
The times are a changing.
But regardless the idea of a sales tax is to tax the goods that are sold in your STATE. the internet is not 'in' the state. charging a company a tax for commerce when they are not doing business in your STATE technically is dumb. How exactly this is going to be run is a big question. are they just taxing amazon the company for their sales or are they charging someone else a tax who doesn't even live in there state? if so...WTF?
This is a sticky grey area. CA is looking for huge cash injections, which if they where doing what they were suppose to be doing with their money might be a good thing. Frankly Government spends way too much time looking for free cash. Everyone else in this country busts their ass to make a dollar, the government 90% percent of the time holds there hand out and says, "more?"
Somewhere in the constitution there should have been a law where if the government needs more money, then they need to get a god damn paper route and make it themselves.
The times are a changing.
I don't even pretend to know what you meant by that statement. I called you out for making claims about CA when you don't seem to know what you are talking about then bitching about liberal hypocracy. CA's problem is in its constitution and specificly its referendum system which we can talk about if you like. But you seem to be content with making assumptions and pointing fingers. Hense, called out.Low Key said:
Right, You make up some generalizations, whine about liberals and then complain when your baseless claims are challanged and I'm the troll?Low Key said:
How bout you not post on something you don't have any knowledge about and you wont be exposed.
lol.
well if you can't police yourselves.... blammo! someone does it for you. lost tax revenue is serious business friend. sorry but not paying taxes is a crime and you should go to jail!. we get taxed up here on stuff and guess what? nobody seems to mind.