New York Orders Large Web Retailers To Charge Sales Tax
Posted by RangerLG on 24 April 2008 - 23:30 · 30 comments & 10052 views
About the Author
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: RangerLG
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Full name: Unknown
Forum name: RangerLG
Contact: via forum PM
Submissions: Normal · Headline
Slashdot It!
Submit to reddit
Submit to blinklist
Bookmark on del.icio.us
Add to furl
Share on Facebook
Add to Windows Live
Add to Google- Advertisement
-
-
#1 Posted by +Dakkaroth on 24 Apr 2008 - 23:34
- Like we need to fork over more money to the government...
-
#2 Posted by nemo on 25 Apr 2008 - 00:24
- Awesome. I love paying taxes. Especially with the economy the way it is. Thanks a lot, democrats of NY.
-
(1 reply)
#3 Posted by naap51stang on 25 Apr 2008 - 01:20
- It won't bring in "millions". THAT is a lie.
If everyone who visited these sites in the past, STILL bought from those same sites, then yes it would bring
in the "millions", but, you can bet some will shop elsewhere, which in the end will decrease the money
coming in. Dumba** politicians.
-
(2 replies)
#4 Posted by Troll on 25 Apr 2008 - 02:05
- More taxes to stop consumers from buying. Don't they realize that *lower* taxes gives consumers more money to spend and put back into the economy? (Yes that question is rhetorical)
-
#4.1 Posted by sphbecker on 25 Apr 2008 - 14:16
- To me it's about fairness. I don't enjoy paying taxes anymore than the next guy and I do agree that lower taxes encourage consumer spending. But, how is it fair that one company gets what amounts to a government subsidization (being able to operate tax-free) when another company doing the same thing is required to charge tax just because they choose to have a physical store front?
I think online orders should have the same tax as if you bought the item at a store. If sales tax needs to be reduced then it should be across the board. -
#4.2 Posted by kirkdickinson on 25 Apr 2008 - 22:36
- (sphbecker said @ #4.1)To me it's about fairness.
....
I think online orders should have the same tax as if you bought the item at a store.
And it is fair that a company that isn't in NY and doesn't receive any benefit from NY should pay taxes there? Brick and Mortar stores are tax payers, but also tax beneficiaries - the sales tax that is collected help to fund the benefits they receive through the infrastructure, parking lots, roads, electric, water, police force, fire protection, etc... from that state where they reside.
Why should a company that doesn't benefit from those services have to pay taxes there? What did the state of NY do to earn those taxes? NOTHING! Is that FAIR?
It also violates a very basic principle that this country is founded on - remember that little tea party a while back?
No taxation without representation!
-
(2 replies)
#5 Posted by JamesWeb on 25 Apr 2008 - 02:13
- Wow, people don't like paying taxes, there's a surprise.
-
#5.1 Posted by mel00 on 25 Apr 2008 - 03:13
- (JamesWeb said @ #5)Wow, people don't like paying taxes, there's a surprise.
hold on. hold on.
I pay taxes for school, roads, defenses, medical, food stamp but cut them off after certain month and get them job.
but not for some politician sit on his fat ass and collect money from corp and taxes.
waste money on bullsh!t wars.
I don't mine paying taxes(not arm and leg "pay checks"
but I hate it when goes to ****. I hate paying retail taxes they suck ass. -
#5.2 Posted by sphbecker on 25 Apr 2008 - 14:08
- The three common types are income tax, property tax and sales tax. Between them I think income tax and sales tax are more fair than property tax. I live in Texas and 70% of our state is funded by property tax (we have no income ta
. What sucks is that if you lose your job or get a pay cut you are still paying just as much taxes until you downsize your house. With sales tax you would pay less because you would be spending less without a job.
-
(3 replies)
#6 Posted by jwjw1 on 25 Apr 2008 - 02:47
- this shouldn't be no surprise...not only was the retailer making a killing by not having to collect taxes...but also made a fortune on 'overpriced' shipping charges.....if they would have charged 'actual normal' shipping charges and added 3-5% for the state taxes..then they would have been better off...but retailer greed is the culprit..not the government.
-
#6.1 Posted by Brandon on 25 Apr 2008 - 03:08
- (jwjw1 said @ #6)this shouldn't be no surprise...not only was the retailer making a killing by not having to collect taxes...but also made a fortune on 'overpriced' shipping charges.....if they would have charged 'actual normal' shipping charges and added 3-5% for the state taxes..then they would have been better off...but retailer greed is the culprit..not the government.
Most stuff from Amazon and Buy.com ship free -
#6.3 Posted by Justin- on 25 Apr 2008 - 06:08
- Have you ever purchased anything from Amazon? lol
I've bought more from Amazon.com than I have from any consumer store in the past 5 years. It's cheaper. Heck, if I'd have bought my MBP at a store where I live it would have cost me well over $2200. I bought it from Amazon.com for less, with a rebate. We have 10% sales tax, it's a rip off.
-
#7 Posted by The Walker on 25 Apr 2008 - 03:09
- Why would the governemt deserve to make money on internet purchasing?.. they are in no way involved in it and there is no investment in it to 'claw back'.. cynical grasp for the honey pot.
-
#8 Posted by Tha Bloo Monkee on 25 Apr 2008 - 03:30
- The government wanting more money, what a surprise!
I think it's just a matter of time before all internet sites (or most of it) start charging tax. Maybe not in the next few years, but one day I think there will be a tax on the majority of things.
-
(1 reply)
#9 Posted by leesmithg on 25 Apr 2008 - 08:32
- I don't think anyone should have to pay taxes for buying goods on-line.
If you sell good from Jersey and they are £17.50 or less you pay zero v.a.t. that is why amazon.co.uk sell their music and videos via Jersey.
Why should retailers have to collect v.a.t. anyway.
v.a.t. should be scrapped everywhere, then we would buy more and the lousy governments of the world would
start serving the people rather than the other way around. -
#9.1 Posted by Frazell Thomas on 25 Apr 2008 - 12:56
- The government needs revenue to pay for its functions. As a result taxes on internet purchases will come someday.
I don't mind taxes on internet purchases, but I do mind the increased cost it would add to online businesses (having to track and remit taxes to 50 seperate state tax agencies in the US on the state level and even more on the local level).
But I also think the government needs to remove taxes on income and only tax on purchases.
-
(2 replies)
#10 Posted by Julius Caro on 25 Apr 2008 - 10:16
- What's the big deal?
Inside europe, if you're buying from an europe-based amazon website, you pay the taxes of your local country. If you order vista "alternate media" (64-bit dvd or the 32-bit cds), microsoft will charge you 10 euro plus local taxes in your country...
I always thought that in the US it would be similar but depending on the State -
#10.1 Posted by leesmithg on 25 Apr 2008 - 11:52
- Interesting as I have purchased 3 softwares recently via the net, 1 in Germany, 1in Italy and 1 in the United States and each one charged me the v.a.t. for that country.
Germany being the greatest at 19% -
#10.2 Posted by RangerLG on 25 Apr 2008 - 12:49
- Here in the US, if a I buy something online and the store does not have a store in my state (in my case Texas), then I do not have to pay a sales tax. Amazon and Newegg, for example, are outside my state with no retail stores located here. Thus, no tax. If I was to buy something online at Wal-Mart, I would have to pay tax since there are stores located in the state. When I buy online though, it isn't so much the lack of tax (which does help), but also the fact that online is usually cheaper than most retail stores. Buying a hard drive from Newegg is a no brainer when you compare to the local Best Buy retail.
-
(2 replies)
#11 Posted by time2flex on 25 Apr 2008 - 12:26
- Taxing system sucks!. The world needs a new way of keeping the economy without screwing the working class. It is all about keeping the poor and the rich in a constant disbalance.
-
#11.1 Posted by Frazell Thomas on 25 Apr 2008 - 12:53
- You can argue that the implementation of a tax somewhere is done in a biased fashion, but taxes in general aren't about ruining the poor. The government needs money to function! That's what taxes are for my good friend.
-
#11.2 Posted by time2flex on 26 Apr 2008 - 13:12
- I don't know where you live, but in New York for example. Gas prices have tripple for the past year. It takes 30% of someones salary to do the weekly fillups and then again they refuse to lower or stop the fuel tax. which is the highest in the nation. Who is hurting?. Certenly not the Rich neighbor down the block.
-
#12 Posted by LipSmacker on 25 Apr 2008 - 18:31
- I'm shocked that you guys are so up in arms about this. Technically you are already supposed to be reporting these purchases on your tax returns. OF course no one probably does this, but hey take the past decade + of tax free shopping online as a blessing. At least it's lasted this long.
-
#13 Posted by DJ Dez on 26 Apr 2008 - 03:10
- Right when I was loving the Tax-Freeness too. Oh well, time to move!
-
(1 reply)
#14 Posted by astrokat on 26 Apr 2008 - 06:23
- Correct me if i am wrong, but the article said this will only effect on companies "if they allow sales via "click-throughs" from New York-based Web sites". So if I click on a amazon banner or link on www.nytimes.com, I will get charged sales tax. If I go directly to amazon.com, i won't?
-
#14.1 Posted by time2flex on 26 Apr 2008 - 13:24
- Is a guive and take situation. NYS doesn't loose any revenue at all. New Yorkers buy in Texas and Texans buy in New York. It's a simple math. The problem is they wan it all...Greedy politicians want to make up for all the money wasted on rediculous contracts guiven to their " Famiglia". If you know what I mean!.
-
(1 reply)
#15 Posted by Burst404 on 26 Apr 2008 - 17:23
- The only reason they [Amazon] is rejecting is because they don't want to loose any money. As soon as that goes into effect just about every New York resident who shops at Amazon will jump ship. That's a lot of people, and a lot of money.
-
#15.1 Posted by time2flex on 26 Apr 2008 - 19:02
- They should stop buying from Amazon and start buying in Jersey or Connecticut or somewhere out of NY. No state can dictate where I should buy with my hard earned money. But NYS is notorious for going to the extreams when it comes to Money and control. Like sending inspectors over to Ikia parking lot over in Newark, NJ to ticket people coming out of the store with a purchase and getting into a car with a NY license plate... Talk about Democracy!!.
However, in the midst of a budget crisis, New York is now telling Amazon and certain other large Internet-only vendors they must collect state and local sales tax -- if they allow sales via "click-throughs" from New York-based Web sites. The new rule is set to go into effect on June 1. The state estimates this new Internet tax will bring in $50 million this year and $75 million next year. But the new rulings aren't sitting well with the Internet giants. Amazon, the largest Internet retailer, is objecting to the decision, saying "this is the wrong time to increase taxes on New Yorkers."