Paying tax is a must in a country, but as the tax payers pays for their everyday vital needs, such as food, appliances, or clothing. We Californians pays 8-9% Tax, that means if you go and buy some thing that costs $100, you are paying around 9bucks to the government, now that may not sound much, but think, the ENTIRE country, and their purchases, everywhere, everyday... Our government is still telling us that we owe money to other countries, because our government is "poor", HOW? And here we are. them trying to add more tax to our purchases... this is a sign of wanting more money, they are lurking for extra cash... not a sign of them DOING anything, but just "digging" around for extra cash.
State Legislature Attempts to Tax All Digital Downloads
- Thread starter Greg Tito
- Start date
Work in purchasing for any organization. If your purchasing agents are worth their pay, they'll let you know that you have to account for sales tax even if the vendor doesn't quote or invoice it, and then pay the state directly.
Sales tax has always been the onus of the consumer. It applies to goods and services. The internet isn't "no man's land"; the companies are based in physical locations, the customers are based in physical locations. If your town/state/country has a sales tax, you need to pay it on all goods and services purchased.
If this was a separate tax for digital media, that might be a problem, but all they are doing is adding it to the definition of all taxable goods.
EDIT:
I hate to speak with authority without references, so what I'm talking about is a Use Tax.
As a former tax accountant and current purchasing accountant for the IT department of an organization of 1500 employees, I know that my purchases are subject to tax whether the vendor collects it or not.
http://dor.wa.gov/content/findtaxesandrates/usetax/
It matches sales tax in Washington State.
Every state has one.
The purchasing department at the Themis Group should be able to verify this. They are based in NC, yes?
http://www.dor.state.nc.us/faq/use.html
Connecticut is not "adding a tax to digital media", they are adding digital media to their existing tax structure. Rather, they are removing an existing exemption to the current tax structure.
Man that's quite the URL [http://askdrs.ct.gov/scripts/drsrightnow.cfg/php.exe/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=411&p_created=1153838317&p_sid=J619r9Tk&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=419&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MjIsMjImcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPTQ3LDU3JnBfcHY9JnBfY3Y9Mi41NyZwX3NlYXJjaF90eXBlPWFuc3dlcnMuc2VhcmNoX25sJnBfcGFnZT0x&p_li=&p_topview=1]
For business, but the same rules [http://www.ct.gov/drs/cwp/view.asp?a=1510&Q=270228&drsPNavCtr=|40829|#40958]
Sales tax has always been the onus of the consumer. It applies to goods and services. The internet isn't "no man's land"; the companies are based in physical locations, the customers are based in physical locations. If your town/state/country has a sales tax, you need to pay it on all goods and services purchased.
If this was a separate tax for digital media, that might be a problem, but all they are doing is adding it to the definition of all taxable goods.
EDIT:
I hate to speak with authority without references, so what I'm talking about is a Use Tax.
As a former tax accountant and current purchasing accountant for the IT department of an organization of 1500 employees, I know that my purchases are subject to tax whether the vendor collects it or not.
http://dor.wa.gov/content/findtaxesandrates/usetax/
It matches sales tax in Washington State.
Every state has one.
The purchasing department at the Themis Group should be able to verify this. They are based in NC, yes?
http://www.dor.state.nc.us/faq/use.html
Connecticut is not "adding a tax to digital media", they are adding digital media to their existing tax structure. Rather, they are removing an existing exemption to the current tax structure.
Man that's quite the URL [http://askdrs.ct.gov/scripts/drsrightnow.cfg/php.exe/enduser/std_adp.php?p_faqid=411&p_created=1153838317&p_sid=J619r9Tk&p_accessibility=0&p_redirect=&p_lva=419&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPTEmcF9zb3J0X2J5PSZwX2dyaWRzb3J0PSZwX3Jvd19jbnQ9MjIsMjImcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPTQ3LDU3JnBfcHY9JnBfY3Y9Mi41NyZwX3NlYXJjaF90eXBlPWFuc3dlcnMuc2VhcmNoX25sJnBfcGFnZT0x&p_li=&p_topview=1]
For business, but the same rules [http://www.ct.gov/drs/cwp/view.asp?a=1510&Q=270228&drsPNavCtr=|40829|#40958]
I'd say, judging by these forums, it's about 50-50, which it usually is in politics. And I'm not really trying to "sway" people, as much as I'm reminding them what they stand for when they take a position concerning this bill.Zachary Amaranth said:
But if I was trying to sway people, I'd definitely say that some might take a step back and think about siding with the Republicans on this one. After all, the gaming community does tend to veer to the liberal side of government, since the political right will sometimes still brand gaming as something almost "evil".
That's not really true. Conservatives tend to have a larger placement in US politics (Which is the country where this taxation issue lies). and especially when it comes to an issue like "do you want to pay more for games?" They're really going to swing towards the "conservative" side of things. It's one of the things that makes "liberal positions" so untenable. "Do you want to pay more of your hard earned money? You don't, don't you?"Farther than stars said:
A position they're probably fine with, even if they're only fine on it in this one instance.
People are rarely unilateral creatures.
You mean the same liberals who backed SOPA? Some of them even penned SOPA and PIPA? Tipper Gore's thirty-something year crusade against just this sort of thing? Joe Lieberman? If you think the "liberals" in this country are supporting gaming rights, you've got another thing coming.
And even then, "liberal" gamers only came together when it directly benefitted them. Funny that.
Really????MorganL4 said:
My department at Uni stopped a exchange project with Californian Uni because no-one was coming back, the students had discovered that an unfinished degree got them more over there than a finished one here. And that was back when you got $2 for your pound not the measly amount you do now.
The state will tell companies to fix it, but some of them will just tell the state to get bent, and block sales in the state.jcb1337 said:
I was actually talking about the gaming community specifically here, hence "judging by these forums". On a larger scale it's very debatable which of the two parties is the most powerful, especially when considering that you just made that statement while the current president is a Democrat.Zachary Amaranth said:
Ok, generally, I don't like to increase taxes, however, I always wondered how long digital purchases would go before they were taxed. I mean, we have a sales tax on everything else. I think the only reason this has been avoided so far is that you have to do something about the state in which the purchase is made - which I guess is going to be the state in which the customer is currently. However, now that I think about this, this could have privacy implications...
And then you said "which it usually is in politics" which either ascribes to a false notion of these boards politically or ascribes to a false notion of politics in general. Since you used a generic and vague phrase, don't blame me for choosing the false notion that seemed more likely in context (indication of this board as a microcosm of politics at large).Farther than stars said:
The President might be a Democrat, by the way, but we're not seeing liberal policies put into place. Hell, last election the Dems lost the house and only didn't lose the senate because of the seats up for grabs. So where is the "debatable" part? When the Democratic President had a Democratic SUPERMAJORITY, he couldn't push through campaign promises like sweeping healthcare reform. Instead, we got Romneycare, a Republican idea that is not only being blasted as leftist but pooh-poohed by the general public for being "socialism." Cap and Trade, that liberal proposition by Bob Dole and other liberal thinkers? Opposition.
Wow, this is so debatable. Who has the power when the dude with a supermajority cannot get the points on which he was elected agreed upon....
And thanks for ignoring the bit about liberals backing SOPA/PIPA and other such "liberal" bills set to screw gamers. I guess they were an inconvenient truth.
And I didn't even get into stuff like the NDAA, which was bilaterally supported and signed by our Democrat President. I'm sorry, does any of this sound liberal to you? Did supporting Democrats make the NDAA less likely to include that garbage? Did Democrat Pat Leahy opt not to co-author PIPA because he's a Democrat?
Serious question, which you may ignore as it's both inconvenient and not in my first paragraph, but what of this sounds leftist to you? Does it sound worthy of gamer's support? Do you really think a Democratic body that helped establish SOPA/PIPA is one gamers should support based on their views of gaming?
I'm not sure how "requiring to do what you're already legally obligated to do" is "depressing business."Triality said:
And for the record, online sales were no exception to the "tax on everything" and fall under general rules for purchases out of state. The only thing that changes is you're no longer on your honour.grigjd3 said:
There's no actual tax increase.
Further, I'm not sure what privacy implications this carries. To purchase something, you already give out personal information to the e-tailer. I don't see why using your state of residence to determine your sales tax is any more privacy violating than it is now.
It's not your state of residence. Where my apartment is has nothing to do with what sales tax I pay. If I take a trip to San Diego, I don't pay Tennessee sales tax when I go to the drug store. I pay California sales tax. If I buy something from my smartphone, some information needs to be processed about where I am. That's the problem. If I use the steam app to buy a game, steam has to determine where I currently am to determine what taxes are owed. It's possible, if this legislation is worded badly, the government will be requiring companies to track my movements. That's where this gets into privacy issues.Zachary Amaranth said: