Internet Sales Tax Decision is...

[seacaptain]

I've always assume that anything one does online can be tracked and accessed, certainly at the surface. Privacy doesn't exist online. So that possibility is real enough. And if there's a revenue gain, there's motive. We'll see.

True. I still doubt it will ever be worth their while to go after individuals for a 10 year old ebay purchase though.
Even if they did, can you image the uproar from a couple of million constituents getting a retroactive tax bill in the mail? Especially considering that many of those people will be in the lower "poor" classes of people.
They'll be talk of exemptions and "fairness" because "rich" people buy high priced items locally and "poor" people buy cheap goods over the internet. It won't be fair to stick "poor" people with a retroactive tax bill.
I think any politician would correctly see retroactive enforcement as a political disaster.

 

[craiginthecorn]

Honestly, I have to agree with the Supreme Court on this. Of course, it's wishful thinking that some other tax will be lowered due to this windfall, especially here in The Land of Lincoln Crooks. It will help level the playing field for B&M retailers, whom we need for a thriving local economy.
Tobacco is a special case, though. The state and local excise taxes for tobacco often dwarf the sales tax. Although I haven't read the decision, my guess is that it is narrowly focused upon state sales taxes. In Illinois, the sales tax is 6.75% statewide, but higher in many counties where local sales taxes are added. The statewide tobacco tax is 36%. I wonder when that shoe will drop?

 

[hoosierpipeguy]

Unless you live in FL or another State with a oppressive sales tax, this isn't a huge deal. Sales Tax in Indiana is 7%. If I purchase $2400 per year ($200 monthly) worth of online tobacco, it will cost me an additional $168. Depending on what you smoke, that's 2 to 4 lbs of tobacco per month (approximately). I don't think that's going to make or break most people. Further, I'm guessing the majority of people don't average spending $200 per month on tobacco. Yes, there are certainly those that do but they're in the minority in the big picture.
This also will not come close to "closing the gap" between local B&M's and the large internet sellers. I suppose the local B&M's forgot about that shipping cost thing the consumer pays unless they purchase volume. The reality is, in general, the local B&M doesn't have the purchasing volume to compete with the large online retailers. If I understood correctly, at least the smaller B&M's have to purchase GLP, H&H and a few other brands from Pipes & Cigars at the same price everyday Customers pay. Obviously, paying sales tax isn't going to overcome the markup difference there. Local B&M's didn't close primarily due to the competition from internet retailers. They closed because there are less and less pipe and cigars smokers in a world being dominated by anti smoking Nazis. They closed because they failed and/or were unable to create a friend smoking lounge environment in their shop to attract smokers to come in, spend time and spend money even if the prices were slightly higher.
In some places, you can order booze online at cheaper prices. I don't see that causing local bars and restaurants to go out of business.

 

[mrenglish]

Ohio has a 7.5% sales tax so 75 cents per $10 dollar tin of tobacco is not going to break the bank here, considering the prices SPC (for instance) charges. Heck, at one shop 100g McClelland tins were going for $25 as their regular price. While I try to support the B&M, it just is not economical if I want to stock up nor is there the selection that can be found online.
The merchants are going to have a crazy time with this due to the huge variances in what States and municipalities charge.

 

[seacaptain]

The merchants are going to have a crazy time with this due to the huge variances in what States and municipalities charge.

And there's another good point about the "fairness" of the ruling allowing states to regulate businesses in other states.
The Amazons of the world will have no trouble buying/updating the software needed to comply with the literally thousands of different combinations of state/county/city taxes in the country. Mom and Pop businesses, not so much.
The unintended consequences of this ruling are going to be to create burdens on small businesses and no doubt drive some of them out of business, which helps Amazon.

 

[perdurabo]

Trump administration backed this in court via the South Dakota law. Most states will have to go through legislative action to tax. Stop it there, if you can out vote the morons in your state.

 

[perdurabo]

Seacap' who cares about small business, They're only the largest creators of jobs out there. :rofl:

 

[jpmcwjr]

So, I buy an estate pipe from a small company in, say, Maine. They are supposed to report to the State of CA who will then dun me for sales tax at CA rates? Or are they supposed to charge me for it and send the proceeds to my state? Or simply charge their state's tax and remit locally. Or some other convoluted way. All of them suck big time.

 

[seacaptain]

Or are they supposed to charge me for it and send the proceeds to my state?

This is the intent of the ruling.

 

[brian64]

The unintended consequences of this ruling are going to be to create burdens on small businesses and no doubt drive some of them out of business, which helps Amazon.

I see no reason to assume it's unintended.

 

[admin]

Guys - Please keep the politics out of this so we don't have to close the thread.

 

[carolinachurchwarden]

Wait, so I got confused. When you buy something online, what sales tax would be enforced? The sales tax rate in the state that the product I purchase "resides" or the state I live in? In other words, I live in North Carolina. If I buy a tin of tobacco or a pipe from a company that is located in California, do I pay the sales tax for CA or NC? I mean it makes sense that I would pay it in CA, since if I were there in person, I would anyways, but does that mean you might be paying more tax in some states than others? Not that it's that much for my one purchase, but they add up.

 

[jaytex1969]

I suspect, with technology, compliance should be routine.
A clearinghouse, funded by the recipients of the tax funds, sets up a database of tax rates by state. Each recipient is responsible to submit the correct info by the arbitrary date of compliance.
Each vendor uses the database to apply the rate to a sale and the tax funds are channeled to the recipients' troughs. Oink!

 

[briarbuck]

FUBAR trust me...
Think about this Cali (probably) will want to split this up by county. That means that I (the small biz guy who employees 25 people) have to:
Account for all sales in Cali

Accrue all st revenues

SPLIT it among all the counties

Remit all taxes to the appropriate county
And I have to do this in 50 States.
If you read the ruling, it's not going to be clear who this apples to and who it will not. I hate government. They do nothing but make my life a pain in the arse. Less is better of all of those Thieves.

 

[prairiedruid]

Wait, so I got confused. When you buy something online, what sales tax would be enforced? The sales tax rate in the state that the product I purchase "resides" or the state I live in? In other words, I live in North Carolina.

You'll be charged the North Carolina tax rate.

 

[jaytex1969]

I just saw a preview of the new 1040 Super EZ Form.
Line 1 says, "How much did you make?"
Line 2 says, "Send it to us." :nana:
I feel your pain, folanator, literally. But I do believe I benefit from some governmental activities. I sure enjoy clean, safe drinking water and relatively smooth, safe roads to rocket down at 80mph on 2 wheels.
In all total online commerce, the lost revenues are just too tempting for taxing authorities to ignore. Pressure has been building for years and I'm surprised it has taken this long. Not agreeing, just observing.

 

[aldecaker]

"I feel your pain, folanator, literally. But I do believe I benefit from some governmental activities. I sure enjoy clean, safe drinking water and relatively smooth, safe roads to rocket down at 80mph on 2 wheels."
It's no fun trying to protect your homestead and womenfolk from gangs of marauding bandits with no law around, either.

 

[perdurabo]

Yea this one will be hard to keep from the political rampage section. But dang it's hard to believe the voting on this one. The Nine don't hang out and talk these decisions over, they vote and that's it. I'm wondering if this was done so more law suits are filed and a better decision can be hammered out in the long run. im inferring this based on Kenndy's opinion.

 

[aldecaker]

Yeah, you'd think they would hang out and chat a lot more than they actually do.

 

[perdurabo]

Any alteration to those rules with the potential to disrupt the develop- ment of such a critical segment of the economy should be undertaken by Congress.

^^^^This is From Roberts, he's addressing small business here. And he is right as well as Kennedy's opinion, Congress has to take up this matter and it's in the end up to the states to decide what they are going to do. This decision is for South Dakota. Not every state in the union. Can't wait for Mark Levin to dress this down.
I would ask my state as well as South Dakota to address their spending before they disrupt an engine for economical growth for the small business man.