EU mad at US for a change

[Aperson]

So the states want to tax physical items. Makes complete sence to me. However, Soback's example had to do with software, there is a difference (or at least, my goverment seems to think so).

[John Prezioso]

Nomad-

The distinction is two fold:

1) That the sales taxes collected by the retailers are done according to the state you are in, and it is not mandated by the federal government.

Personal example:

I used to buy all of my pc parts from www.newegg.com, but they started charging sales tax to people ordering from Tennessee. (The online retailer apparently uses its discretion based on individual state taxation laws as to which buyers from which states are charged sales tax on online purchases). So I simply started buying all of my hardware from www.tigerdirect.com , and avoid all sales tax.

2) The taxes are imposed by states in the U.S., and not by a foreign power(in this hypothetical case, the EU), as is the concern. So you're not quite discussing the same situations in my opinion.

As it stands right now, as far as I can tell, just about anyone not in California (the tax happy liberal capitol of the U.S. )can find an online retailer that will not charge sales tax for online purchases. Any future legislation that would change this would be done in our system, and we could just vote the greedy jerks calling for it out of office. Theoretically, anyway.

Edit:

quote:

---

I have the impression that people's integrity is the only guarantee against abuses. Even the most carefully designed system may be vulnerable to insiders if enough convergence of dubious interest exist at a certain point. We may never find the best model in objective terms, because imperfection is human.

---

True enough, to a certain extent. But the Founding Fathers knew that power could corrupt the most decent of men, and created a system that at every level mitigates the potential damaging effects of corruption.

[Grizzle]

Mind you, I don't agree with excessive taxation but the VAT tax is really no surprise, nor is the US internet commerce tax. It is interesting to note that the federal government DID decide to leave the issue up to individual states when they decided not to renew the moratorium on internet taxation in 2003.

The problem with the US internet tax thing is, now that they've found ways to accommodate it for internet transactions, it will bleed into catalog/phone sales and all other forms of interstate commerce. As I said before, I don't think it'll be a big deal and when you think about it, it's amazing something like this didn't happen sooner.

As for the main topic of discussion, I really couldn't care less, as long as the Internet continues to provide me with value at a reasonable cost there's nothing to complain about. Doesn't matter to me who shares what. As for privacy and control, I'm fairly sure our gov't is already monitoring internet traffic under the powers of the Patriot Act.

[LostInSpace]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nomad:

That's surprising, given the adamant tone of people who intervened in this thread screaming against internet sales taxation like if it was an exclusive EU heresy.

---

That's why I didn't jump into this thread right away. I knew all too well that it would eventually happen. Remember, I live in NY with one of the highest tax rates in the U.S.. We just had a fiasco here in NY about internet tax about six months ago concerning the tax collected on internet sales of cigarettes. The state went after these retailers with everything they had. Some retailers handed over their database files so the state could go after the customers located in NY and collect the taxes from these sales, with fire and brimstone, going back to a year or more. I thought I was safe because I was buying these cigarettes from a NY indian reservation which is suppose to be sovereign territory but even they caved into the state. So much for the concept of sovereignty. One good thing though they didn't hand over their database they just refused to sell anymore to residents of NY state. How screwed up is that.

[Soback]

"Other states have deeper reservations about the project's tax collection method. One sticking point has been the group's decision to tax online sales at a destination -- that is, the locality where the customer is -- instead of at the purchase point (as done in brick-and-mortar stores). Some local governments with distribution warehouses are worried that they will lose millions in sales taxes because the tax money would go to another jurisdiction."

---That's EXACTLY why US retailers, SHOULD NOT, be collecting taxes for EU. It's EU's responsibility, not US retailers, or any other retailers.

If I go to another state, and buy there, I pay their taxes, NOT the taxes of where I live.

LIS, if you would physically go to that reservation and buy cigarettes, would you have to pay taxes? If not, then I think you would be a prime candidate for: read the next paragraph.

Maybe we can either find a group to join, or create a group and file a class action suit against the government and this ludicrous taxation scheme.

[Grizzle]

Spooky...

Not 15 minutes after my last post I lost my internet connection...

Ha...where's Wolferz and his government conspiracy theories when you need him?