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

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

#611

Post by verelo » Sun, Jun 24, 2018, 11:24 PM UTC

nsnick wrote: post #610

verelo wrote: post #590

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This ultimately comes down to the fact that each state in the US behaves like an individual country in many ways, especially when we talk about taxation. It doesn’t jive well with the current lay of the Internet, and it will be interesting to see the reaction here. In Australia a single GST was introduced (long ago, July 1 2000) and it’s a big simplification for online transactions. The catch: everyone would need to…

"jibe well"

Thanks, too long back to correct it now :(

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

#612

Post by mgkimsal » Fri, Jun 29, 2018, 3:46 AM UTC

jakejohnson wrote: post #170

mgkimsal wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

have been using taxjar.com with... ok results so far - they seem to only provide a sandbox/playground for 'pro' accounts ("call for pricing" - ugh).

You can sign up for a free trial with TaxJar right away without calling a sales rep, no CC required. Sandbox API environment is included for all plans, but marketed toward Plus plans. Once you log in, generate prod / sandbox keys from the account page.

Nope. I've logged in. Registered. I'm a paying customer, using it in production, and there's no visible way to generate a sandbox key, except 'go to plus'.

From their docs: https://developers.taxjar.com/api/reference/#sandbox-environ...

* Sandbox Environment

TaxJar provides a sandbox environment for automated testing and development on all TaxJar Plus plans. After generating a sandbox API token, point your API client to the sandbox environment...

There is no sandbox API available without 'plus'. Perhaps you had an earlier version and are grandfathered in?

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

#613

Post by techsin101 » Sun, Jul 01, 2018, 7:04 AM UTC

gnicholas wrote: post #602

techsin101 wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The incentive to be wealthy is far more greater than 4% tax on wealth could be a disincentive. Beauty of this is you only pay if you are rich, not if you are poor or even if you earn a lot and still have lot of expenses (medical, live in nyc, or have children etc)

A perpetual 4% tax on wealth is a great disincentive to saving. It's like compounding interest, but in reverse. I would be curious to know if any politician or scholar has ever proposed relying on a single tax like this? I studied tax in law school and practiced as a tax lawyer for the better part of a decade, and I have never heard it mentioned. I'm not up on all the latest developments since I left law to build a s…

you say that but then what about inflation .. that is worse than 4% tax now as it hurts poor more whose most savings are in cash form, and inflation doesn't really affect say land value, it automatically adjusts. While person with $3k saving becomes poorer.

I forgot to add... to me ideal is this.

- no artificial inflation. - fixed currency rate. - taxes on wealth only. - interest free limited loan by government. (ie. you can borrow x amount of money in lifetime, x increases if your wealth increases)

That's perfect to me.

The only system that can't be endlessly manipulated by conglomerate/old money/corporations/lobbyists.