@RogerB said:
What's the practical difference between paying state sales tax and the virtually-mandatory "grading tax?" Nearly everyone here and on other coin boards insist that "grading" is required in today's market. So why the gripe about 2% to 4% sales tax in light of the 50% or more "grading tax?"
au contraire. Grading is NOT required. It's mostly highly desireable and of course, it must be cost effective. just because some think it is, doesn't make it so. Who would grade a $10 coin with the expectation of selling it for a profit? Not many I'm afraid.
Every time this question has come up, members here and elsewhere have insisted that coins be "graded" and in TPG slabs. That, in a practical sense, makes it a requirement and little different than a sales tax -- although it is a "tax" that is much, much greater than any imposed by a state or locality, and which offers no benefit to the public in general.
Every time this question has come up, members here and elsewhere have insisted that coins be "graded" and in TPG slabs. That, in a practical sense, makes it a requirement and little different than a sales tax -- although it is a "tax" that is much, much greater than any imposed by a state or locality, and which offers no benefit to the public in general.
Grading is a service rather than a tax. It's also optional. People have been known to collect raw coins.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
Every time this question has come up, members here and elsewhere have insisted that coins be "graded" and in TPG slabs. That, in a practical sense, makes it a requirement and little different than a sales tax -- although it is a "tax" that is much, much greater than any imposed by a state or locality, and which offers no benefit to the public in general.
Many, many coins are sold raw. As to whether slabbing is "much, much greater" than a sales tax depends on the price of the coin. But I understand your basic point. We've had this argument many times about various costs. People are not consistent, it's human nature. For example, they hate Heritage for their 20% but love GC even though low end coins end up costing more than 20% at GC. They hate Chinese counterfeits but love Omega coins. Etc.
No sales tax in my state but we sure make up for it in property and state taxes. I think, now in 2018, one has to spend $5245 retail every month to make the difference worth it.
@giorgio11 said:
I just signed. On our website we must add 5.3% tax for any Virginia residents unless they provide us a valid resale (e.g. dealer) number. Guess what? No one from Virginia EVER (well, hardly ever) orders from the website.
Kind regards,
George
To point out the absurdity of state sales taxes on coins a bit more clearly, let me point out Today's Little-Known Fact: We are a registered dealer in the city of Bristol, Virginia--but there is also a Bristol, Tennessee, and it's just on the other side of the state line. In other words, Bristol is a city in two states. It (we) have different governments, tax structures, police forces ... it's kinda kludgy but it works for us. State Street (no idea where they got that name ) runs right through downtown. One side is Tennessee, the other side is Virginia.
Anyway. I do get quite a few orders through the website from people who know me (I guess that's a good recommendation, right?), people whom I go to church with, people I know from past jobs, friends of friends, whatever ... but EVERY ONE OF THEM lives in Bristol Tennessee!
(Virginia, thanks to the efforts of David Lawrence and a cadre of Virginia dealers, did recently get passed a limited exemption for bullion purchases.) But we don't sell bullion.
@halfhunter said:
Amazon should have fought this tooth-&-nail to.
Is this what The Donald was referring to when he claims that Amazon doesn't pay any taxes?
Amazon already collects sales taxes for items it sells directly. Trump is referring to sales taxes not being collected by the third party sellers via the Amazon platform. It's a lot easier to just say "Amazon doesn't pay taxes" than to clearly state that it is referring to third party sales. In the long run there probably will be some kind of tax on internet sales. It's getting to be a pretty big chunk of change that the states are losing out on. The solution needs to be simplified so that it would be easier to collect and remit to the states. It not very feasible for individuals to do the tax reporting, so you can expect it will have to be the platforms that have the burden of collection and remitting on behalf of the individuals that are buying and selling on Amazon, Ebay, etc... Since consumers will see this as a tax increase, the congress is slow to act. They don't want to be the "bad guy".
@derryb said:
So, they want to make ebay sellers collect state sales tax on behalf of their buyers? Don't all retail stores already do this and why should an on-line seller be exempt?
The problem is that this would require every seller to know every tax law in every state, which is an impossible burden for all but the biggest sellers. As an example, I'm based in Washington state. Conveniently for me, there's no sales tax on coins or bullion here, so I don't have to worry about sales tax. However, having had to read up on everything (and simply experiencing sales tax laws), there are different rates in every county, and there are 39 counties. There may be some different rates by municipality, as well (since I don't need to know, I haven't read this far). If I sold taxable items, I'm not sure if I'd just charge my local rate or the rate for the buyer's location (again, didn't read that far). But let's say I'm out of state and have no location, so naturally I'd charge based on the buyer's location. So now I have to figure out where the buyer lives and whether the item is taxable. Then I'd have to do that for every buyer I sell to. There's no way I have the resources to do that and keep my business afloat.
This doesn't exempt buyers from paying use tax, but as a seller, that's not on me. Just the same, if I go to Portland (OR) to buy something, they don't have to ask if I'm bringing it back to WA. No sales tax in OR, so I'd owe use tax in WA. Paying it is my responsibility, not the seller's.
Is it even legal for a state to charge sales tax for an item bought, sold and delivered in another state when the item is only shipped from that state.
Need the following OBW rolls to complete my 46-64 Roosevelt roll set: 1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S. Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
@halfhunter said:
Is it even legal for a state to charge sales tax for an item bought, sold and delivered in another state when the item is only shipped from that state.
This is like a family going on vacation and having to pay tax on their souvenirs and crappy t-shirts upon returning home.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@halfhunter said:
Amazon should have fought this tooth-&-nail to.
Is this what The Donald was referring to when he claims that Amazon doesn't pay any taxes?
Amazon already collects sales taxes for items it sells directly. Trump is referring to sales taxes not being collected by the third party sellers via the Amazon platform. It's a lot easier to just say "Amazon doesn't pay taxes" than to clearly state that it is referring to third party sales. In the long run there probably will be some kind of tax on internet sales. It's getting to be a pretty big chunk of change that the states are losing out on. The solution needs to be simplified so that it would be easier to collect and remit to the states. It not very feasible for individuals to do the tax reporting, so you can expect it will have to be the platforms that have the burden of collection and remitting on behalf of the individuals that are buying and selling on Amazon, Ebay, etc... Since consumers will see this as a tax increase, the congress is slow to act. They don't want to be the "bad guy".
But The Donald was bashing Amazon for not paying taxes. Why should Amazon's sellers not collecting sales taxes for smoe state somewhere even be a concern for Trump? It's not like Unka Sugar is making up for it. Trump clearly doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground when it comes to these same issues. Walmart has a similar platform for sellers and I don't think they collect sales taxes for stuff sold by those sellers. Trumpy was pist because Bezos owns WaPo.
@halfhunter said:
Is it even legal for a state to charge sales tax for an item bought, sold and delivered in another state when the item is only shipped from that state.
This is like a family going on vacation and having to pay tax on their souvenirs and crappy t-shirts upon returning home.
If you pay the tax in the state where you bought the item/s, you don't need to pay a second time.
@derryb said:
So, they want to make ebay sellers collect state sales tax on behalf of their buyers? Don't all retail stores already do this and why should an on-line seller be exempt?
The problem is that this would require every seller to know every tax law in every state, which is an impossible burden for all but the biggest sellers. As an example, I'm based in Washington state. Conveniently for me, there's no sales tax on coins or bullion here, so I don't have to worry about sales tax. However, having had to read up on everything (and simply experiencing sales tax laws), there are different rates in every county, and there are 39 counties. There may be some different rates by municipality, as well (since I don't need to know, I haven't read this far). If I sold taxable items, I'm not sure if I'd just charge my local rate or the rate for the buyer's location (again, didn't read that far). But let's say I'm out of state and have no location, so naturally I'd charge based on the buyer's location. So now I have to figure out where the buyer lives and whether the item is taxable. Then I'd have to do that for every buyer I sell to. There's no way I have the resources to do that and keep my business afloat.
This doesn't exempt buyers from paying use tax, but as a seller, that's not on me. Just the same, if I go to Portland (OR) to buy something, they don't have to ask if I'm bringing it back to WA. No sales tax in OR, so I'd owe use tax in WA. Paying it is my responsibility, not the seller's.
If the states wouldn't provide the necessary info or software, they'd be pounding sand. Also, they should get together and provide a uniform system.
@halfhunter said:
Amazon should have fought this tooth-&-nail to.
Is this what The Donald was referring to when he claims that Amazon doesn't pay any taxes?
Amazon already collects sales taxes for items it sells directly. Trump is referring to sales taxes not being collected by the third party sellers via the Amazon platform. It's a lot easier to just say "Amazon doesn't pay taxes" than to clearly state that it is referring to third party sales. In the long run there probably will be some kind of tax on internet sales. It's getting to be a pretty big chunk of change that the states are losing out on. The solution needs to be simplified so that it would be easier to collect and remit to the states. It not very feasible for individuals to do the tax reporting, so you can expect it will have to be the platforms that have the burden of collection and remitting on behalf of the individuals that are buying and selling on Amazon, Ebay, etc... Since consumers will see this as a tax increase, the congress is slow to act. They don't want to be the "bad guy".
But The Donald was bashing Amazon for not paying taxes. Why should Amazon's sellers not collecting sales taxes for smoe state somewhere even be a concern for Trump? It's not like Unka Sugar is making up for it. Trump clearly doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground when it comes to these same issues. Walmart has a similar platform for sellers and I don't think they collect sales taxes for stuff sold by those sellers. Trumpy was pist because Bezos owns WaPo.
Amazon didn't pay any Fed taxes for 2017 and even got a $789 million tax break because of the new tax laws.
Hey it's not like a politician is going to tell you the truth. Dem's or Repub's are guilty of this.
It is important to note that under the proposed legislation (The Marketplace Fairness Act), sellers that make $1 million or less in annual sales and have no physical presence in the state would be exempt.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
I wish Trump would address what I consider one of the biggest unfair trade practices! Most of the countries I sell to outside the US have a pretty steep VAT Tax! Most are around 20% give or take I believe. Unless an item is expensive(not sure $1000?) If I buy something from those countries there is no tax!
@halfhunter said:
Is it even legal for a state to charge sales tax for an item bought, sold and delivered in another state when the item is only shipped from that state.
This is like a family going on vacation and having to pay tax on their souvenirs and crappy t-shirts upon returning home.
That already exists, it's called an import duty if you take your vacation in a foreign country.
@halfhunter said:
Is it even legal for a state to charge sales tax for an item bought, sold and delivered in another state when the item is only shipped from that state.
It depends on how you define locus. Is the point of sale defined as the place of sale or place of purchase?
@halfhunter said:
Is it even legal for a state to charge sales tax for an item bought, sold and delivered in another state when the item is only shipped from that state.
This is like a family going on vacation and having to pay tax on their souvenirs and crappy t-shirts upon returning home.
That already exists, it's called an import duty if you take your vacation in a foreign country.
Yes but we're talking domestically.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@halfhunter said:
Is it even legal for a state to charge sales tax for an item bought, sold and delivered in another state when the item is only shipped from that state.
This is like a family going on vacation and having to pay tax on their souvenirs and crappy t-shirts upon returning home.
That already exists, it's called an import duty if you take your vacation in a foreign country.
Yes but we're talking domestically.
I'm aware. The point is that it's not as ridiculous as it seems. This is especially true if you want to avoid one state wiping out another state with tax policy. They've played the game with corporate taxes for years. They can also play the game with sales tax if they desire, especially border towns.
It is not so ridiculous that one wants to level the playing field with an internet sales tax. Even though no one likes taxes.
@halfhunter said:
Amazon should have fought this tooth-&-nail to.
Is this what The Donald was referring to when he claims that Amazon doesn't pay any taxes?
Amazon already collects sales taxes for items it sells directly. Trump is referring to sales taxes not being collected by the third party sellers via the Amazon platform. It's a lot easier to just say "Amazon doesn't pay taxes" than to clearly state that it is referring to third party sales. In the long run there probably will be some kind of tax on internet sales. It's getting to be a pretty big chunk of change that the states are losing out on. The solution needs to be simplified so that it would be easier to collect and remit to the states. It not very feasible for individuals to do the tax reporting, so you can expect it will have to be the platforms that have the burden of collection and remitting on behalf of the individuals that are buying and selling on Amazon, Ebay, etc... Since consumers will see this as a tax increase, the congress is slow to act. They don't want to be the "bad guy".
But The Donald was bashing Amazon for not paying taxes. Why should Amazon's sellers not collecting sales taxes for smoe state somewhere even be a concern for Trump? It's not like Unka Sugar is making up for it. Trump clearly doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground when it comes to these same issues. Walmart has a similar platform for sellers and I don't think they collect sales taxes for stuff sold by those sellers. Trumpy was pist because Bezos owns WaPo.
Amazon didn't pay any Fed taxes for 2017 and even got a $789 million tax break because of the new tax laws.
Hey it's not like a politician is going to tell you the truth. Dem's or Repub's are guilty of this.
@halfhunter said:
Is it even legal for a state to charge sales tax for an item bought, sold and delivered in another state when the item is only shipped from that state.
This is like a family going on vacation and having to pay tax on their souvenirs and crappy t-shirts upon returning home.
That already exists, it's called an import duty if you take your vacation in a foreign country.
Yes but we're talking domestically.
I'm aware. The point is that it's not as ridiculous as it seems. This is especially true if you want to avoid one state wiping out another state with tax policy. They've played the game with corporate taxes for years. They can also play the game with sales tax if they desire, especially border towns.
It is not so ridiculous that one wants to level the playing field with an internet sales tax. Even though no one likes taxes.
For once I'd like the field leveled for the person spending the money. That would be a refreshing change.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
@derryb said:
It is important to note that under the proposed legislation (The Marketplace Fairness Act), sellers that make $1 million or less in annual sales and have no physical presence in the state would be exempt.
Of course if you bought a $1,000 item from one of those places and had it delivered to you, you'd still owe ST to your state.
played the game with corporate taxes for years. They can also play the game with sales tax if they desire, especially border towns.
It is not so ridiculous that one wants to level the playing field with an internet sales tax. Even though no one likes taxes.
For once I'd like the field leveled for the person spending the money. That would be a refreshing change.
Honestly, it IS level for the buyer. Just not in the way you want.
For example, I live in NY State. While you are blissfully buying tax free from just about everyone because you live in Idaho, I have to pay sales tax on most things from any major retailer (including Amazon) because they almost all have locus in NY State. California residents also have the same unfair bias relative to other buyers.
I could not buy any coins from Heritage or Stacks if I weren't a reseller. They both have locus in NY.
@amwldcoin said:
I wish Trump would address what I consider one of the biggest unfair trade practices! Most of the countries I sell to outside the US have a pretty steep VAT Tax! Most are around 20% give or take I believe. Unless an item is expensive(not sure $1000?) If I buy something from those countries there is no tax!
So do you have to collect the VAT for those countries when you sell there?
@amwldcoin said:
I wish Trump would address what I consider one of the biggest unfair trade practices! Most of the countries I sell to outside the US have a pretty steep VAT Tax! Most are around 20% give or take I believe. Unless an item is expensive(not sure $1000?) If I buy something from those countries there is no tax!
So do you have to collect the VAT for those countries when you sell there?
I believe customs collects it.
I actually had a customer refuse to pick up his package because I properly listed what was in it on the customs form. LOL. The customer - now blocked - let it sit in customs for 6 weeks until they sent it back to me and then asked for a refund. When I asked why he refused to claim it, he said he didn't want to pay the fee and complained that I listed the value ($40) on the customs form.
Of course, I had no choice but to refund him. So I was out $11.25 in shipping.
Its a pain in the arse, I used to have to collect tax on NC sales until NC changed it laws and exempted most sales, not all(so no where near as much involved). I had to break each and every county sold into during the month (up to 100 counties potentially) and break out sales tax totals. If the law passes, literally every state you ship too, you would be required to collect the tax, report it and send it in. It would be an accounting nightmare. Much worse headache that an individual business in one location in one state filing sales for the month.
@derryb said:
It is important to note that under the proposed legislation (The Marketplace Fairness Act), sellers that make $1 million or less in annual sales and have no physical presence in the state would be exempt.
Of course if you bought a $1,000 item from one of those places and had it delivered to you, you'd still owe ST to your state.
You have always owed sales tax to your state for on-line purchases. Very few, if any, buyers actual tell their state about the purchase. This is why states are seeking legislation to require sellers to collect it. Remember when there was no such thing as a 1099?
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
@amwldcoin said:
I wish Trump would address what I consider one of the biggest unfair trade practices! Most of the countries I sell to outside the US have a pretty steep VAT Tax! Most are around 20% give or take I believe. Unless an item is expensive(not sure $1000?) If I buy something from those countries there is no tax!
So do you have to collect the VAT for those countries when you sell there?
@derryb said:
It is important to note that under the proposed legislation (The Marketplace Fairness Act), sellers that make $1 million or less in annual sales and have no physical presence in the state would be exempt.
Of course if you bought a $1,000 item from one of those places and had it delivered to you, you'd still owe ST to your state.
You have always owed sales tax to your state for on-line purchases. Very few, if any, buyers actual tell their state about the purchase. This is why states are seeking legislation to require sellers to collect it. Remember when there was no such thing as a 1099?
Understood fully, merely re-emphasizing that fact. No, I don't remember a time before 1099s because they didn't really apply to me way back when.
As I mentioned earlier, Iowa has had a "mail order" tax on the books since the 30s. Yes, before Al Gore invented the internet we had mail orders and phone orders.
@giorgio11 said:
I just signed. On our website we must add 5.3% tax for any Virginia residents unless they provide us a valid resale (e.g. dealer) number. Guess what? No one from Virginia EVER (well, hardly ever) orders from the website.
Kind regards,
George
Then you should kind of be in favor of the tax law. Since Virginia residents would pay Virginia sales tax to every vendor, your website would no longer be at a disadvantage.
No. This means every other state is willing to buy without the extra tax. I will gladly take 49 states paying full price instead of 50 states paying slightly less.
Then you should kind of be in favor of the tax law. Since Virginia residents would pay Virginia sales tax to every vendor, your website would no longer be at a disadvantage.
No. This means every other state is willing to buy without the extra tax. I will gladly take 49 states paying full price instead of 50 states paying slightly less.
Short term adjustment. If everyone was paying tax, there would be no "slightly less" or "slightly more". How often do you go to buy a shirt and stop to consider the sales tax when buying? (Unfortunately) we are conditioned to just accept the sales tax. Now, the internet someone changed that. We started looking for cheaper, tax-free alternatives. While that has its consumer advantages, it has also hollowed out B&M retail because it is NOT a level playing field.
As I have said earlier, in case you didn't read the entire thread, I have mixed feelings on this idea. Especially when you move past coins. Toys R Us went bankrupt, Sears & Kmart are teetering on complete collapse. Remember when there used to be actual big box computer stores? Not any more. Some of that is the efficiency of central warehousing versus distributed inventory. But some of that is also the built in tax advantage.
Then you should kind of be in favor of the tax law. Since Virginia residents would pay Virginia sales tax to every vendor, your website would no longer be at a disadvantage.
No. This means every other state is willing to buy without the extra tax. I will gladly take 49 states paying full price instead of 50 states paying slightly less.
Short term adjustment. If everyone was paying tax, there would be no "slightly less" or "slightly more". How often do you go to buy a shirt and stop to consider the sales tax when buying? (Unfortunately) we are conditioned to just accept the sales tax. Now, the internet someone changed that. We started looking for cheaper, tax-free alternatives. While that has its consumer advantages, it has also hollowed out B&M retail because it is NOT a level playing field.
As I have said earlier, in case you didn't read the entire thread, I have mixed feelings on this idea. Especially when you move past coins. Toys R Us went bankrupt, Sears & Kmart are teetering on complete collapse. Remember when there used to be actual big box computer stores? Not any more. Some of that is the efficiency of central warehousing versus distributed inventory. But some of that is also the built in tax advantage.
Your points keep proving MY point. If tax advantage is keeping internet places alive and killing off stores, why would we want to spread those taxes to all internet places too? To kill even more businesses off?
Then you should kind of be in favor of the tax law. Since Virginia residents would pay Virginia sales tax to every vendor, your website would no longer be at a disadvantage.
No. This means every other state is willing to buy without the extra tax. I will gladly take 49 states paying full price instead of 50 states paying slightly less.
Short term adjustment. If everyone was paying tax, there would be no "slightly less" or "slightly more". How often do you go to buy a shirt and stop to consider the sales tax when buying? (Unfortunately) we are conditioned to just accept the sales tax. Now, the internet someone changed that. We started looking for cheaper, tax-free alternatives. While that has its consumer advantages, it has also hollowed out B&M retail because it is NOT a level playing field.
As I have said earlier, in case you didn't read the entire thread, I have mixed feelings on this idea. Especially when you move past coins. Toys R Us went bankrupt, Sears & Kmart are teetering on complete collapse. Remember when there used to be actual big box computer stores? Not any more. Some of that is the efficiency of central warehousing versus distributed inventory. But some of that is also the built in tax advantage.
IMO, it's the price differential that causes the unlevel playing field [buy local vs out of state] and not the sales tax. Generally if the price plus shipping is a better deal over local price plus ST, I go with the out of state order. If local is competitive then they get my business. Why pay local mark-up when I can buy from the same place [and usually for the same price] as he does? Also, if local doesn't have what I want then I go elsewhere.
@halfhunter said:
Amazon should have fought this tooth-&-nail to.
Is this what The Donald was referring to when he claims that Amazon doesn't pay any taxes?
Amazon already collects sales taxes for items it sells directly. Trump is referring to sales taxes not being collected by the third party sellers via the Amazon platform. It's a lot easier to just say "Amazon doesn't pay taxes" than to clearly state that it is referring to third party sales. In the long run there probably will be some kind of tax on internet sales. It's getting to be a pretty big chunk of change that the states are losing out on. The solution needs to be simplified so that it would be easier to collect and remit to the states. It not very feasible for individuals to do the tax reporting, so you can expect it will have to be the platforms that have the burden of collection and remitting on behalf of the individuals that are buying and selling on Amazon, Ebay, etc... Since consumers will see this as a tax increase, the congress is slow to act. They don't want to be the "bad guy".
<<< It's getting to be a pretty big chunk of change that the states are losing out on. >>>
No offense but that sounds as if the states are entitled to our money. They are not "losing out" on anything.
States should only offer services that the citizens of that state can afford. The poor, elderly, even the middle class cannot afford any more taxes. And none of us can afford giving more money to states who only windup squandering the money anyway on assorted pork projects.
as much as I agree with your assessment, the facts are different.
we have the ever so stupid GST or HST which varies from provice to province.
the law here in BC is clear.
If you purchase and import from another jurisdiction (province or country) you are supposed to use the honor system and submit the tax due to the provincial Coffers. That is the law. Probably nobody sticks to it.
The only way to get rid of this ever so stupid system both in Canada and the USA is this:
Get rid of the state / provincial taxing authorities and have a country wide tax for everyone in the country.
The same goes for Medical plans and divers licenses and many stupid individual laws. Heck, it is ONE country!
example how stupid it is: we live in one country and if we step into another province / State we can become a criminal by doing someting what is normal where your second foot still is, before you finish your step.
it works in most countries around the world, WHY not in the USA and Canada?
as much as I agree with your assessment, the facts are different.
we have the ever so stupid GST or HST which varies from provice to province.
the law here in BC is clear.
If you purchase and import from another jurisdiction (province or country) you are supposed to use the honor system and submit the tax due to the provincial Coffers. That is the law. Probably nobody sticks to it.
The only way to get rid of this ever so stupid system both in Canada and the USA is this:
Get rid of the state / provincial taxing authorities and have a country wide tax for everyone in the country.
The same goes for Medical plans and divers licenses and many stupid individual laws. Heck, it is ONE country!
example how stupid it is: we live in one country and if we step into another province / State we can become a criminal by doing someting what is normal where your second foot still is, before you finish your step.
it works in most countries around the world, WHY not in the USA and Canada?
@halfhunter said:
Amazon should have fought this tooth-&-nail to.
Is this what The Donald was referring to when he claims that Amazon doesn't pay any taxes?
Amazon already collects sales taxes for items it sells directly. Trump is referring to sales taxes not being collected by the third party sellers via the Amazon platform. It's a lot easier to just say "Amazon doesn't pay taxes" than to clearly state that it is referring to third party sales. In the long run there probably will be some kind of tax on internet sales. It's getting to be a pretty big chunk of change that the states are losing out on. The solution needs to be simplified so that it would be easier to collect and remit to the states. It not very feasible for individuals to do the tax reporting, so you can expect it will have to be the platforms that have the burden of collection and remitting on behalf of the individuals that are buying and selling on Amazon, Ebay, etc... Since consumers will see this as a tax increase, the congress is slow to act. They don't want to be the "bad guy".
<<< It's getting to be a pretty big chunk of change that the states are losing out on. >>>
No offense but that sounds as if the states are entitled to our money. They are not "losing out" on anything.
States should only offer services that the citizens of that state can afford. The poor, elderly, even the middle class cannot afford any more taxes. And none of us can afford giving more money to states who only windup squandering the money anyway on assorted pork projects.
It's not the state/s that are offering goods and services, it's the businesses; altho the state/s' tax practices can affect a business.
If a local merchant is competitive he gets my business [much of which is discretionary]. If he is too high on price or doesn't have what I want, I go elsewhere.
I'm not a merchant, but I have NO INTEREST in incurring the cost of collecting sales tax for any state. my own state just approved an income tax cut, so I see no reason to write them a bunch of piddly little checks for ST for my measly few OOS purchases.
Of course it would be done that way...that's the way Amazon is doing it. And of course the sellers will windup paying for these higher processing costs in the way of higher seller fees in some way, shape or form.
However small businesses with websites would have to collect and remit the tax by themselves, according to some government plan that will no doubt be burdensome.
Let's also not forget that sales tax is a very regressive tax. The poor and middle class struggling to get by as it is, when they buy online, would now have to fork-up more money for the products that they need. For example a senior citizen shut-in who is disabled and can't go out to shop, would be forced to pay more money for online purchases.
Out of state or online purchases aren’t exempt from sales tax.
Most states already require the reporting and paying of Use tax by individuals of online purchases. You pay the sales tax to your own state either on your yearly income tax return or on a different form for states with no income tax. If you aren’t paying it to your state the tax you owe for that online purchase you are avoiding sales tax. If people “purchasers” actually followed the current law and paid the taxes like they were supposed to the states would be getting the revenue and wouldn’t be going after the sellers to collect.
Of course it would be done that way...that's the way Amazon is doing it. And of course the sellers will windup paying for these higher processing costs in the way of higher seller fees in some way, shape or form.
However small businesses with websites would have to collect and remit the tax by themselves, according to some government plan that will no doubt be burdensome.
Let's also not forget that sales tax is a very regressive tax. The poor and middle class struggling to get by as it is, when they buy online, would now have to fork-up more money for the products that they need. For example a senior citizen shut-in who is disabled and can't go out to shop, would be forced to pay more money for online purchases.
Out of state or online purchases aren’t exempt from sales tax.
Most states already require the reporting and paying of Use tax by individuals of online purchases. You pay the sales tax to your own state either on your yearly income tax return or on a different form for states with no income tax. If you aren’t paying it to your state the tax you owe for that online purchase you are avoiding sales tax. If people “purchasers” actually followed the current law and paid the taxes like they were supposed to the states would be getting the revenue and wouldn’t be going after the sellers to collect.
Yes, but they have no real way to enforce it so they rely on the honor system. It would cost them more to investigate someone's purchase history than they'd ever recoup in recovered taxes. I wonder how many citizens or states would accept a flat payment like say $250 to call it even?
Of course it would be done that way...that's the way Amazon is doing it. And of course the sellers will windup paying for these higher processing costs in the way of higher seller fees in some way, shape or form.
However small businesses with websites would have to collect and remit the tax by themselves, according to some government plan that will no doubt be burdensome.
Let's also not forget that sales tax is a very regressive tax. The poor and middle class struggling to get by as it is, when they buy online, would now have to fork-up more money for the products that they need. For example a senior citizen shut-in who is disabled and can't go out to shop, would be forced to pay more money for online purchases.
Out of state or online purchases aren’t exempt from sales tax.
Most states already require the reporting and paying of Use tax by individuals of online purchases. You pay the sales tax to your own state either on your yearly income tax return or on a different form for states with no income tax. If you aren’t paying it to your state the tax you owe for that online purchase you are avoiding sales tax. If people “purchasers” actually followed the current law and paid the taxes like they were supposed to the states would be getting the revenue and wouldn’t be going after the sellers to collect.
Pasted: ARTICLE I, SECTION 10, CLAUSE 2 of our Constitution
"No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress."
So an example of what this basically means is that if I ship product to say California and they tax it, they are violating the Constitution. Which is why states instead call it a "use tax" on their citizens, as you mentioned.
Without question, the use tax violates the Constitution, but courts have upheld it because for some out there, fleecing money from others is more important than our Constitution.
Of course it would be done that way...that's the way Amazon is doing it. And of course the sellers will windup paying for these higher processing costs in the way of higher seller fees in some way, shape or form.
However small businesses with websites would have to collect and remit the tax by themselves, according to some government plan that will no doubt be burdensome.
Let's also not forget that sales tax is a very regressive tax. The poor and middle class struggling to get by as it is, when they buy online, would now have to fork-up more money for the products that they need. For example a senior citizen shut-in who is disabled and can't go out to shop, would be forced to pay more money for online purchases.
Out of state or online purchases aren’t exempt from sales tax.
Most states already require the reporting and paying of Use tax by individuals of online purchases. You pay the sales tax to your own state either on your yearly income tax return or on a different form for states with no income tax. If you aren’t paying it to your state the tax you owe for that online purchase you are avoiding sales tax. If people “purchasers” actually followed the current law and paid the taxes like they were supposed to the states would be getting the revenue and wouldn’t be going after the sellers to collect.
Pasted: ARTICLE I, SECTION 10, CLAUSE 2 of our Constitution
"No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress."
So an example of what this basically means is that if I ship product to say California and they tax it, they are violating the Constitution. Which is why states instead call it a "use tax" on their citizens, as you mentioned.
Without question, the use tax violates the Constitution, but courts have upheld it because for some out there, fleecing money from others is more important than our Constitution.
In 1869, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Import-Export Clause only applied to imports and exports with foreign nations and did not apply to imports and exports with other states,[1] although this interpretation has been questioned by modern legal scholars.[2]
Sales taxes use to capture almost 100% of purchasing activity within a state by it's residents if the states chose that method of taxation, now that is not the case.
States and local government also get money from the residents via payroll tax, property tax, use tax, estate tax and misc fees. If they don't get it via one method they will find a different way to get it. The beast must be feed
Of course it would be done that way...that's the way Amazon is doing it. And of course the sellers will windup paying for these higher processing costs in the way of higher seller fees in some way, shape or form.
However small businesses with websites would have to collect and remit the tax by themselves, according to some government plan that will no doubt be burdensome.
Let's also not forget that sales tax is a very regressive tax. The poor and middle class struggling to get by as it is, when they buy online, would now have to fork-up more money for the products that they need. For example a senior citizen shut-in who is disabled and can't go out to shop, would be forced to pay more money for online purchases.
Out of state or online purchases aren’t exempt from sales tax.
Most states already require the reporting and paying of Use tax by individuals of online purchases. You pay the sales tax to your own state either on your yearly income tax return or on a different form for states with no income tax. If you aren’t paying it to your state the tax you owe for that online purchase you are avoiding sales tax. If people “purchasers” actually followed the current law and paid the taxes like they were supposed to the states would be getting the revenue and wouldn’t be going after the sellers to collect.
Pasted: ARTICLE I, SECTION 10, CLAUSE 2 of our Constitution
"No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress."
So an example of what this basically means is that if I ship product to say California and they tax it, they are violating the Constitution. Which is why states instead call it a "use tax" on their citizens, as you mentioned.
Without question, the use tax violates the Constitution, but courts have upheld it because for some out there, fleecing money from others is more important than our Constitution.
In 1869, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Import-Export Clause only applied to imports and exports with foreign nations and did not apply to imports and exports with other states,[1] although this interpretation has been questioned by modern legal scholars.[2]
Sales taxes use to capture almost 100% of purchasing activity within a state by it's residents if the states chose that method of taxation, now that is not the case.
States and local government also get money from the residents via payroll tax, property tax, use tax, estate tax and misc fees. If they don't get it via one method they will find a different way to get it. The beast must be feed
Intrastate taxation is not the debate here though. It's interstate taxation which is the concern, and in my view it's obvious that whatever was that ruling back in 1869, it wasn't considered applicable to allowing interstate tax collection, otherwise the states would have already been actively doing it a very long time ago.
The historical fact is that our Founding Fathers did not want states taxing goods from other states which would have grossly interfered with free trade and commerce between the states...and the Founding Fathers were absolutely right.
I do agree with ya 100% about the beast...and the beast wishes to get bigger.
IIRC The Constitution doesn't disallow the states from collecting sales tax and it wouldn't apply anyway since modern sales taxes started around 1934 so it would have been tough for the Founding Fathers to argue against them.
Comments
Mixed feelings:
Three thoughts:
I signed.
ANA LM
USAF Retired — 34 years of active military service! 🇺🇸
au contraire. Grading is NOT required. It's mostly highly desireable and of course, it must be cost effective. just because some think it is, doesn't make it so. Who would grade a $10 coin with the expectation of selling it for a profit? Not many I'm afraid.
RE: "Grading is NOT required."
Every time this question has come up, members here and elsewhere have insisted that coins be "graded" and in TPG slabs. That, in a practical sense, makes it a requirement and little different than a sales tax -- although it is a "tax" that is much, much greater than any imposed by a state or locality, and which offers no benefit to the public in general.
Grading is a service rather than a tax. It's also optional. People have been known to collect raw coins.
Worry is the interest you pay on a debt you may not owe.
"Paper money eventually returns to its intrinsic value---zero."----Voltaire
"Everything you say should be true, but not everything true should be said."----Voltaire
>
Can’t imagine that being a smart move by NewEgg. I doubt they will be getting too many return customers with that policy.
Many, many coins are sold raw. As to whether slabbing is "much, much greater" than a sales tax depends on the price of the coin. But I understand your basic point. We've had this argument many times about various costs. People are not consistent, it's human nature. For example, they hate Heritage for their 20% but love GC even though low end coins end up costing more than 20% at GC. They hate Chinese counterfeits but love Omega coins. Etc.
No sales tax in my state but we sure make up for it in property and state taxes. I think, now in 2018, one has to spend $5245 retail every month to make the difference worth it.
To point out the absurdity of state sales taxes on coins a bit more clearly, let me point out Today's Little-Known Fact: We are a registered dealer in the city of Bristol, Virginia--but there is also a Bristol, Tennessee, and it's just on the other side of the state line. In other words, Bristol is a city in two states. It (we) have different governments, tax structures, police forces ... it's kinda kludgy but it works for us. State Street (no idea where they got that name
) runs right through downtown. One side is Tennessee, the other side is Virginia.
Anyway. I do get quite a few orders through the website from people who know me (I guess that's a good recommendation, right?), people whom I go to church with, people I know from past jobs, friends of friends, whatever ... but EVERY ONE OF THEM lives in Bristol Tennessee!
(Virginia, thanks to the efforts of David Lawrence and a cadre of Virginia dealers, did recently get passed a limited exemption for bullion purchases.) But we don't sell bullion.
Kind regards,
George
Amazon already collects sales taxes for items it sells directly. Trump is referring to sales taxes not being collected by the third party sellers via the Amazon platform. It's a lot easier to just say "Amazon doesn't pay taxes" than to clearly state that it is referring to third party sales. In the long run there probably will be some kind of tax on internet sales. It's getting to be a pretty big chunk of change that the states are losing out on. The solution needs to be simplified so that it would be easier to collect and remit to the states. It not very feasible for individuals to do the tax reporting, so you can expect it will have to be the platforms that have the burden of collection and remitting on behalf of the individuals that are buying and selling on Amazon, Ebay, etc... Since consumers will see this as a tax increase, the congress is slow to act. They don't want to be the "bad guy".
https://cnbc.com/2018/03/29/heres-the-controversial-tax-practice-by-amazon-thats-got-trump-so-upset.html
https://cnbc.com/2018/03/28/what-trump-could-do-to-amazon-tax-treatment.html
The problem is that this would require every seller to know every tax law in every state, which is an impossible burden for all but the biggest sellers. As an example, I'm based in Washington state. Conveniently for me, there's no sales tax on coins or bullion here, so I don't have to worry about sales tax. However, having had to read up on everything (and simply experiencing sales tax laws), there are different rates in every county, and there are 39 counties. There may be some different rates by municipality, as well (since I don't need to know, I haven't read this far). If I sold taxable items, I'm not sure if I'd just charge my local rate or the rate for the buyer's location (again, didn't read that far). But let's say I'm out of state and have no location, so naturally I'd charge based on the buyer's location. So now I have to figure out where the buyer lives and whether the item is taxable. Then I'd have to do that for every buyer I sell to. There's no way I have the resources to do that and keep my business afloat.
This doesn't exempt buyers from paying use tax, but as a seller, that's not on me. Just the same, if I go to Portland (OR) to buy something, they don't have to ask if I'm bringing it back to WA. No sales tax in OR, so I'd owe use tax in WA. Paying it is my responsibility, not the seller's.
Is it even legal for a state to charge sales tax for an item bought, sold and delivered in another state when the item is only shipped from that state.
1947-P & D; 1948-D; 1949-P & S; 1950-D & S; and 1952-S.
Any help locating any of these OBW rolls would be gratefully appreciated!
This is like a family going on vacation and having to pay tax on their souvenirs and crappy t-shirts upon returning home.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
But The Donald was bashing Amazon for not paying taxes. Why should Amazon's sellers not collecting sales taxes for smoe state somewhere even be a concern for Trump? It's not like Unka Sugar is making up for it. Trump clearly doesn't know his butt from a hole in the ground when it comes to these same issues. Walmart has a similar platform for sellers and I don't think they collect sales taxes for stuff sold by those sellers. Trumpy was pist because Bezos owns WaPo.
If you pay the tax in the state where you bought the item/s, you don't need to pay a second time.
If the states wouldn't provide the necessary info or software, they'd be pounding sand. Also, they should get together and provide a uniform system.
Amazon didn't pay any Fed taxes for 2017 and even got a $789 million tax break because of the new tax laws.
Hey it's not like a politician is going to tell you the truth. Dem's or Repub's are guilty of this.
They have to keep the sheep entertained
https://itep.org/amazon-inc-paid-zero-in-federal-taxes-in-2017-gets-789-million-windfall-from-new-tax-law/
It is important to note that under the proposed legislation (The Marketplace Fairness Act), sellers that make $1 million or less in annual sales and have no physical presence in the state would be exempt.
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
I wish Trump would address what I consider one of the biggest unfair trade practices! Most of the countries I sell to outside the US have a pretty steep VAT Tax! Most are around 20% give or take I believe. Unless an item is expensive(not sure $1000?) If I buy something from those countries there is no tax!
Doesn't an overseas buyer pay the VAT either way, if he buys from the US or in his own country?
Yes, US buyers have the advantage of not paying foreign VATs.
That already exists, it's called an import duty if you take your vacation in a foreign country.
It depends on how you define locus. Is the point of sale defined as the place of sale or place of purchase?
Yes but we're talking domestically.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
I'm aware. The point is that it's not as ridiculous as it seems. This is especially true if you want to avoid one state wiping out another state with tax policy. They've played the game with corporate taxes for years. They can also play the game with sales tax if they desire, especially border towns.
It is not so ridiculous that one wants to level the playing field with an internet sales tax. Even though no one likes taxes.
I remember Le Grande Donald being EXTREMELY proud of his tax obligation minimization skills.
For once I'd like the field leveled for the person spending the money. That would be a refreshing change.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Of course if you bought a $1,000 item from one of those places and had it delivered to you, you'd still owe ST to your state.
Honestly, it IS level for the buyer. Just not in the way you want.
For example, I live in NY State. While you are blissfully buying tax free from just about everyone because you live in Idaho, I have to pay sales tax on most things from any major retailer (including Amazon) because they almost all have locus in NY State. California residents also have the same unfair bias relative to other buyers.
I could not buy any coins from Heritage or Stacks if I weren't a reseller. They both have locus in NY.
So do you have to collect the VAT for those countries when you sell there?
I believe customs collects it.
I actually had a customer refuse to pick up his package because I properly listed what was in it on the customs form. LOL. The customer - now blocked - let it sit in customs for 6 weeks until they sent it back to me and then asked for a refund. When I asked why he refused to claim it, he said he didn't want to pay the fee and complained that I listed the value ($40) on the customs form.
Of course, I had no choice but to refund him. So I was out $11.25 in shipping.
Its a pain in the arse, I used to have to collect tax on NC sales until NC changed it laws and exempted most sales, not all(so no where near as much involved). I had to break each and every county sold into during the month (up to 100 counties potentially) and break out sales tax totals. If the law passes, literally every state you ship too, you would be required to collect the tax, report it and send it in. It would be an accounting nightmare. Much worse headache that an individual business in one location in one state filing sales for the month.
You have always owed sales tax to your state for on-line purchases. Very few, if any, buyers actual tell their state about the purchase. This is why states are seeking legislation to require sellers to collect it. Remember when there was no such thing as a 1099?
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
No....If I ship directly it is held until the taxes are paid...through the ebay Global shipping...ebay does.
Understood fully, merely re-emphasizing that fact. No, I don't remember a time before 1099s because they didn't really apply to me way back when.
As I mentioned earlier, Iowa has had a "mail order" tax on the books since the 30s. Yes, before Al Gore invented the internet we had mail orders and phone orders.
No. This means every other state is willing to buy without the extra tax. I will gladly take 49 states paying full price instead of 50 states paying slightly less.
Short term adjustment. If everyone was paying tax, there would be no "slightly less" or "slightly more". How often do you go to buy a shirt and stop to consider the sales tax when buying? (Unfortunately) we are conditioned to just accept the sales tax. Now, the internet someone changed that. We started looking for cheaper, tax-free alternatives. While that has its consumer advantages, it has also hollowed out B&M retail because it is NOT a level playing field.
As I have said earlier, in case you didn't read the entire thread, I have mixed feelings on this idea. Especially when you move past coins. Toys R Us went bankrupt, Sears & Kmart are teetering on complete collapse. Remember when there used to be actual big box computer stores? Not any more. Some of that is the efficiency of central warehousing versus distributed inventory. But some of that is also the built in tax advantage.
Your points keep proving MY point. If tax advantage is keeping internet places alive and killing off stores, why would we want to spread those taxes to all internet places too? To kill even more businesses off?
IMO, it's the price differential that causes the unlevel playing field [buy local vs out of state] and not the sales tax. Generally if the price plus shipping is a better deal over local price plus ST, I go with the out of state order. If local is competitive then they get my business. Why pay local mark-up when I can buy from the same place [and usually for the same price] as he does? Also, if local doesn't have what I want then I go elsewhere.
<<< It's getting to be a pretty big chunk of change that the states are losing out on. >>>
No offense but that sounds as if the states are entitled to our money. They are not "losing out" on anything.
States should only offer services that the citizens of that state can afford. The poor, elderly, even the middle class cannot afford any more taxes. And none of us can afford giving more money to states who only windup squandering the money anyway on assorted pork projects.
Double Eagle
as much as I agree with your assessment, the facts are different.
we have the ever so stupid GST or HST which varies from provice to province.
the law here in BC is clear.
If you purchase and import from another jurisdiction (province or country) you are supposed to use the honor system and submit the tax due to the provincial Coffers. That is the law. Probably nobody sticks to it.
The only way to get rid of this ever so stupid system both in Canada and the USA is this:
Get rid of the state / provincial taxing authorities and have a country wide tax for everyone in the country.
The same goes for Medical plans and divers licenses and many stupid individual laws. Heck, it is ONE country!
example how stupid it is: we live in one country and if we step into another province / State we can become a criminal by doing someting what is normal where your second foot still is, before you finish your step.
it works in most countries around the world, WHY not in the USA and Canada?
AMEN!
It's not the state/s that are offering goods and services, it's the businesses; altho the state/s' tax practices can affect a business.
If a local merchant is competitive he gets my business [much of which is discretionary]. If he is too high on price or doesn't have what I want, I go elsewhere.
I'm not a merchant, but I have NO INTEREST in incurring the cost of collecting sales tax for any state. my own state just approved an income tax cut, so I see no reason to write them a bunch of piddly little checks for ST for my measly few OOS purchases.
Out of state or online purchases aren’t exempt from sales tax.
Most states already require the reporting and paying of Use tax by individuals of online purchases. You pay the sales tax to your own state either on your yearly income tax return or on a different form for states with no income tax. If you aren’t paying it to your state the tax you owe for that online purchase you are avoiding sales tax. If people “purchasers” actually followed the current law and paid the taxes like they were supposed to the states would be getting the revenue and wouldn’t be going after the sellers to collect.
My Ebay Store
Yes, but they have no real way to enforce it so they rely on the honor system. It would cost them more to investigate someone's purchase history than they'd ever recoup in recovered taxes. I wonder how many citizens or states would accept a flat payment like say $250 to call it even?
Pasted: ARTICLE I, SECTION 10, CLAUSE 2 of our Constitution
"No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Control of the Congress."
So an example of what this basically means is that if I ship product to say California and they tax it, they are violating the Constitution. Which is why states instead call it a "use tax" on their citizens, as you mentioned.
Without question, the use tax violates the Constitution, but courts have upheld it because for some out there, fleecing money from others is more important than our Constitution.
In 1869, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the Import-Export Clause only applied to imports and exports with foreign nations and did not apply to imports and exports with other states,[1] although this interpretation has been questioned by modern legal scholars.[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Import-Export_Clause
Sales taxes use to capture almost 100% of purchasing activity within a state by it's residents if the states chose that method of taxation, now that is not the case.
States and local government also get money from the residents via payroll tax, property tax, use tax, estate tax and misc fees. If they don't get it via one method they will find a different way to get it. The beast must be feed
Intrastate taxation is not the debate here though. It's interstate taxation which is the concern, and in my view it's obvious that whatever was that ruling back in 1869, it wasn't considered applicable to allowing interstate tax collection, otherwise the states would have already been actively doing it a very long time ago.
The historical fact is that our Founding Fathers did not want states taxing goods from other states which would have grossly interfered with free trade and commerce between the states...and the Founding Fathers were absolutely right.
I do agree with ya 100% about the beast...and the beast wishes to get bigger.
IIRC The Constitution doesn't disallow the states from collecting sales tax and it wouldn't apply anyway since modern sales taxes started around 1934 so it would have been tough for the Founding Fathers to argue against them.
It's simple. Those who love paying taxes don't sign the petition.
Those who are sick and tired of paying taxes sign the petition.
Great transactions with oih82w8, JasonGaming, Moose1913.
Don't tax you..
Don't tax me..
Tax the guy..
Behind the tree.
Burma Shave!