States Can Require Internet Tax Collection, Supreme Court Rules • Hacker News Board

Re: States Can Require Internet Tax Collection, Supreme Court Rules

#531

Post by pishpash » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 1:31 AM UTC

ballenf wrote: post #390

ajross wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$100k of South Dakota revenue is either an almost exclusively local single-owner business or a much larger internet shop. But regardless, that kind of number is a full time job. If you're selling over the internet and making a full time job out of it, you can handle computing sales tax for SD residents. Yes, it's burdensome. Yes, it would be good to have a simpler federal framework for this. No, it's not the end of t…

I think you've got it kind of backwards. The absence of tax collection is what allowed Amazon to become Amazon and this change is now a barrier to a new entity challenging Amazon. Amazon voluntarily started collecting taxes nationwide without a blip to its bottom line. The new law will in fact put Amazon's first-party goods in parity with 3rd party sales. Third party sellers could often undercut Amazon's own pricing…

Perhaps. It could also incentive a new round of internationally based direct-to-consumer dropshippers to take e-commerce to the next logical level, now taking advantage of the differential in international sales tax regimes. Aliexpress is an example.

Re: States Can Require Internet Tax Collection, Supreme Court Rules

#532

Post by dsfyu404ed » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 1:34 AM UTC

rconti wrote: post #472

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>here’s zero national economic gain from _any_ variation in law from state to state Yes there is. States compete with each other and this prevents any one of them from having laws that are much crappier and more oppressive than average because when that happens businesses and people leave.

Wrong. You'd move to New Hampshire if this was true.

How do you know I'm not planning to?

Re: States Can Require Internet Tax Collection, Supreme Court Rules

#533

Post by SubiculumCode » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 1:53 AM UTC

mikeash wrote: post #456

lightbyte wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So this is another needless regulation that creates more useless rent-seekers?

Governments need to fund their operations, and allowing some businesses to dodge taxes because of arbitrary geographical differences is unfair and distorts markets.

How does one legally define where one buys a product? Shipping address? Home address? Point of sale?

Re: States Can Require Internet Tax Collection, Supreme Court Rules

#534

Post by SubiculumCode » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 1:57 AM UTC

Maybe the problem is sales tax. Its regressive. Its complicated in the multi-jurisdictional context.

Re: States Can Require Internet Tax Collection, Supreme Court Rules

#535

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 2:04 AM UTC

ajross wrote: post #380

mlindner wrote: post #356

Earlier quoted context omitted.

$100,000 in sales is a very low bar. That's equivalent to a business with a single employee, the owner, and they're probably not making a livable wage yet.

$100k of South Dakota revenue is either an almost exclusively local single-owner business or a much larger internet shop. But regardless, that kind of number is a full time job. If you're selling over the internet and making a full time job out of it, you can handle computing sales tax for SD residents. Yes, it's burdensome. Yes, it would be good to have a simpler federal framework for this. No, it's not the end of t…

[deleted]

Re: States Can Require Internet Tax Collection, Supreme Court Rules

#536

Post by jessaustin » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 2:07 AM UTC

jmj42 wrote: post #420

ecommerceguy wrote: post #327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tax Increment Financing is used so much (abused) by local jurisdictions for infrastructure improvements, sales tax will never go away. It's a mess.

TIF is a property tax financing scheme. Abuse or not, its use has very little impact on sales tax.

It has a very large effect on what shows up next to the "sales tax" label on your receipt. Sure if they were honest it would say "fee to make the developer's interest payments", but it never says that.

Re: States Can Require Internet Tax Collection, Supreme Court Rules

#537

Post by mikeash » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 2:11 AM UTC

SubiculumCode wrote: post #533

mikeash wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments need to fund their operations, and allowing some businesses to dodge taxes because of arbitrary geographical differences is unfair and distorts markets.

How does one legally define where one buys a product? Shipping address? Home address? Point of sale?

Seems to be the shipping address.

Re: States Can Require Internet Tax Collection, Supreme Court Rules

#538

Post by pseingatl » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 2:12 AM UTC

dsr_ wrote: post #371

michaelt wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not moral, but some would say being a single country imposes a certain practical requirement that the taxes not be too complicated, if we agree commerce is a good thing and waste is a bad thing.

The United States of America is, in the terms of other countries, 50 states that have given up certain powers and responsibilities to a federal government but retain their own powers, including the ability to set tax policy inside their own borders. The Commerce Clause gives Congress the power: "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." This has been widely…

More importantly, it is now clear that American States can tax non-residents, even FOREIGN non-residents who have no connection with the U.S. whatsoever. There will be collateral consequences to this decision. For example, why should I have to pay out-of-state university tuition if I became a state taxpayer due to the sales--and soon to come other--taxes? Drive a car into my state? You have to pay a roads tax. It will be interesting to see how far this goes. Long-arm jurisdiction will become more robust, at the least; another rationale for diversity jurisdiction is removed.

Re: States Can Require Internet Tax Collection, Supreme Court Rules

#539

Post by mikeash » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 2:12 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #516

mikeash wrote: post #456

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Governments need to fund their operations, and allowing some businesses to dodge taxes because of arbitrary geographical differences is unfair and distorts markets.

The problem is not the general idea of paying sales tax. It's the complication of having ten thousand different sales tax jurisdictions. Complying with the law should not be such a nightmare you need to hire a middleman.

I don't think the proper solution to that is to just declare that you don't have to pay taxes at all when you sell to someone far enough away. Simplify things if needed, but don't give a nonsensical advantage to certain businesses.

Re: States Can Require Internet Tax Collection, Supreme Court Rules

#540

Post by dumbfoundded » Fri, Jun 22, 2018, 2:14 AM UTC

rbritton wrote: post #373

dumbfoundded wrote: post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, the state doesn't expect anyone to get this completely right except the largest companies. If you make a good faith effort to comply with laws, in the vast majority of cases, you're fine.

I don't find that to be a valid excuse. If a law is worded in such a way that companies or individuals will frequently get it wrong, it's probably a bad law. Call me paranoid, but that seems like it just sets a person up with an easy reason to audit.

It's not an excuse. It's just that laws are enforced by people. Think of what happens if you get caught speeding. Does everyone always get a ticket every time they speed? Of course not. Even when you get pulled over you can behave politely and maybe get off with a warning. This is how every law and regulation works.