PDA

View Full Version : Internet Sales Tax



indago
12-19-2014, 03:27 PM
Journalist Ross Ramsey wrote for The New York Times 18 December 2014:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The goods you buy online and through mail-order catalogs from out of state are not tax free. It’s just that the state has a hard time collecting the taxes that are due. Retailers do not pay sales taxes. Consumers do. Retailers just collect them and remit them to the state. And not all retailers are required to play. Texas has no way to force sellers in other states to collect taxes. The retailers that are not required to collect the taxes — a group that includes out-of-staters who sell online and through mail-order catalogs — are not the ones violating state tax laws.

Consumers are the deadbeats, and hardly anyone in politics wants to go door to door to straighten them out. ...Texas and other states have been trying for years to get the federal government to set up a system to get retailers all over the country to collect the taxes and remit them.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/19/us/the-texas-state-tax-that-consumers-are-ignoring.html?ref=todayspaper)


Retailers do not pay sales taxes. Consumers do.

And that is what's wrong with the system. Retailers should be PAYING the sales tax.

Every business is required to keep books and records, and to render them up for examination by the State at the State's discretion. In the case of Miles Laboratories v Simon (33 Federal Supplement 962), a case concerning the state sales tax, it is declared: "The tax has been held to be a privilege fee imposed upon persons doing business at retail. ...The tax is not imposed upon the consumer, but upon those 'engaged in the business of making sales at retail, as hereinbefore defined.'"

It was also noted that the company has the option of adding the sales tax amount to the receipt or not to. Some stores have a fixed price on their goods, and when you go to the register to pay, the price that is on the price tag is the price that is charged. The tax that the company is liable for has already been included in the price as a cost of doing business. Most stores, however, calculate the tax and place it on the receipt, making it appear that the customer is the one liable for the tax.

Concerning an internet sales tax, governments are making a problem where one doesn't exist. Companies that make sales on the internet can make their sales the same as they would in their brick-and-mortar structures, with the sales taxes embedded into the price of the product as a cost of doing business. When they make a sale on the internet, it doesn't matter where the item is going. When the company makes their reports to their State, they send the money for the amount of the tax imposed upon them by that State.

It's not really all that complicated.

Example: An item that you want is found on Amazon.com. It is shipped from a supplier in the State of Washington to you in Michigan.

From the Washington State Sales Tax site:
The seller is liable to the Department of Revenue for sales tax, whether or not it is collected.

With the tax system being promoted in the congress, you will pay Washington sales tax, and Michigan sales tax also. Now, how fair is that? It's a double taxation.

aboutime
12-19-2014, 04:17 PM
Easy way around it. Put your own shoes, or flip-flops on, get in your car, or walk to the store, and pay for whatever you need....IN PERSON. Problem solved.

Think about this for a second. I remember a time, not long ago. When nobody had a computer, nor was there anything called the INTERNET. And somehow. We all managed to survive getting everything we needed because WE ACTUALLY WENT TO THE STORE.

It might even be good for some FAT ASSES to get off their ASS, from behind their keyboard, and WALK.

Bilgerat
12-19-2014, 05:59 PM
I buy quite a bit of stuff off the internet, because quite frankly it makes my life easier.

So far, I've only had one incident of tax being applied, but I know it's coming soon.

And if I see a tax that's usury, I just won't make the purchase. :coffee:

indago
12-19-2014, 06:13 PM
I buy quite a bit of stuff off the internet, because quite frankly it makes my life easier.

So far, I've only had one incident of tax being applied, but I know it's coming soon.

And if I see a tax that's usury, I just won't make the purchase. :coffee:

If the tax is embedded in the selling price you won't know whether there is usury or not.

aboutime
12-19-2014, 06:44 PM
I buy quite a bit of stuff off the internet, because quite frankly it makes my life easier.

So far, I've only had one incident of tax being applied, but I know it's coming soon.

And if I see a tax that's usury, I just won't make the purchase. :coffee:


I fully understand why you, me, or anyone else buys from the Internet. It's so much easier than going out in traffic, fighting idiots in line, or not being able to find what you want, at the right price...RIGHT AWAY.

Guess I'm just getting too old now, but. Does anyone remember what life was like, and how easy it was BEFORE the Internet anymore?

Kinda makes you wonder how any of us managed to get this far WITHOUT having a CELLPHONE next to our ear all the time?

When I was growing up. We always heard the older folks tell us "How easy life was in the olden days."
Too bad we can't slow things down for about a year, and actually find out. There really are other people, just like us out there. Rather than imagining or pretending to like, smile, and always agree with people we don't know?????

indago
12-19-2014, 07:29 PM
When I was growing up. We always heard the older folks tell us "How easy life was in the olden days."
Too bad we can't slow things down for about a year...

Reminds me of the old Twilight Zone "A Stop at Wiloughby"


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_R7GAx_w7-4

fj1200
12-20-2014, 07:46 AM
It's not really all that complicated.

Example: An item that you want is found on Amazon.com. It is shipped from a supplier in the State of Washington to you in Michigan.

From the Washington State Sales Tax site:

The seller is liable to the Department of Revenue for sales tax, whether or not it is collected.

With the tax system being promoted in the congress, you will pay Washington sales tax, and Michigan sales tax also. Now, how fair is that? It's a double taxation.

I don't think that means what you think it means. AFAIK is just means that you are liable to pay the use tax to the State of Michigan, not Washington.

I do think though that all on-line retailers should be on the same playing field tax wise as the local brick-and-mortars.

indago
12-20-2014, 09:38 AM
I don't think that means what you think it means. AFAIK is just means that you are liable to pay the use tax to the State of Michigan, not Washington.

I do think though that all on-line retailers should be on the same playing field tax wise as the local brick-and-mortars.

Why should a consumer pay two sales taxes?

fj1200
12-20-2014, 10:04 AM
Why should a consumer pay two sales taxes?

They shouldn't.


... just means that you are liable to pay the use tax to the State of Michigan, not Washington.

:dunno:

indago
12-20-2014, 10:24 AM
They shouldn't.



:dunno:

And why should a consumer pay to taxes on the sale of the same item?

tailfins
12-20-2014, 10:26 AM
Easy way around it. Put your own shoes, or flip-flops on, get in your car, or walk to the store, and pay for whatever you need....IN PERSON. Problem solved.

Think about this for a second. I remember a time, not long ago. When nobody had a computer, nor was there anything called the INTERNET. And somehow. We all managed to survive getting everything we needed because WE ACTUALLY WENT TO THE STORE.

It might even be good for some FAT ASSES to get off their ASS, from behind their keyboard, and WALK.

It may not be practical to travel to one of the six states with no sales tax. Also for example Best Buy is notorious for charging higher prices in store. Sometimes its necessary to turn on your 4G in store, order the item with your smart phone, mill around the store for 18 minutes, then get the item at the pickup counter to get some discounts.

fj1200
12-20-2014, 04:12 PM
And why should a consumer pay to taxes on the sale of the same item?

:confused: Who said they should?

Jeff
12-20-2014, 08:23 PM
It may not be practical to travel to one of the six states with no sales tax. Also for example Best Buy is notorious for charging higher prices in store. Sometimes its necessary to turn on your 4G in store, order the item with your smart phone, mill around the store for 18 minutes, then get the item at the pickup counter to get some discounts.

Tiger Direct is the same way , you find unreal sales and go to the store ( I have a huge warehouse with a small store in the corner of it not far from me ) and when you go in to get the sale price they tell you no that price is only if you order off line, they may have the same exact thing sitting right there for 30 bucks more but if you order it you save, go figure.

indago
12-22-2014, 06:50 PM
Journalist David Eggert wrote for The Associated Press 19 December 2014:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Amazon.com and other online stores will have to collect Michigan's sales tax on purchases under legislation headed to Gov. Rick Snyder. The bills are intended to level the playing field for brick-and-mortar businesses that must assess the 6 percent tax on customers. ...Wal-Mart and other Michigan stores must collect the sales tax when selling items over the Internet. ...They aren't specifically linked to a road funding plan headed to the May ballot. But talk of boosting funding for transportation and education in the negotiations gave the so-called "Amazon" bills a boost.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/19/internet-sales-tax-amazon-wal-mart/20631023/)

One commenter wrote: "If the people of Michigan are lame enough to increase the sales tax to 7% in May 2015 all purchased items except food will increase. If you purchase a big ticket item you will be paying a 7% tax instead of a 6% tax. Also your car registration fees will be increased. So don't be fooled by this 1% sales tax inccrease scam being put out by these lame politicians. the cost of your internet and regular store purchases will increase if you vote to raise the sales tax. Rasing the sales tax does nothing to help the people on main street. Slick Rick and his pals are doing nothing but making up for the 1.2 billion dollar yearly tax cut given to businesses by increasing taxes on the people of Michigan."



From The Detroit News 19 December 2014:
---------------------------------------------------------------
At about 5:30 a.m. Friday, the Michigan Senate narrowly approved a proposed constitutional amendment asking voters to increase the 6 percent sales tax to 7 percent during the May general election.

The Senate's action followed approval of an 11-bill package that will pump $1.2 billion more annually into road repairs and provide public education with an extra $300 million annually if voters approve the sales tax increase. The Senate vote was 26-12, just barely getting the required two-thirds support for a constitutional amendment to be sent to voters.
---------------------------------------------------------------

article (http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2014/12/19/michigan-legislature-starts-voting-road-package/20627561/)

One commenter wrote: "once again, lansing failed to DO THEIR JOB. i sure as hell am voting NO on this. they need to reprioritize the $52 billion they already collect, reduce truck weights, and make road construction companies guarantee their work for longer than 15 minutes. this was a total failure of leadership. in my world, this type of performance gets you canned."

aboutime
12-22-2014, 09:59 PM
Everyone in this story is proving how RIGHT Gruber actually was when he called most Americans DUMB.

Everything is taxed, and has been taxed already. Look at your ISP bill. See the word TAX anywhere?

Stupid really is...as Stupid Does. Gruber was right.

indago
12-23-2014, 07:12 AM
Everyone in this story is proving how RIGHT Gruber actually was when he called most Americans DUMB.

Everything is taxed, and has been taxed already. Look at your ISP bill. See the word TAX anywhere?

Stupid really is...as Stupid Does. Gruber was right.

If the inhabitants of the State turn down the 7% sales tax permanently embedded into the State Constitution, the Governor will no doubt say that it looks like they didn't want the roads fixed after all.

fj1200
12-23-2014, 08:58 AM
Journalist ...

And? Are you for brick-and-mortars being on the same playing field as on-line?

aboutime
12-23-2014, 02:36 PM
If the inhabitants of the State turn down the 7% sales tax permanently embedded into the State Constitution, the Governor will no doubt say that it looks like they didn't want the roads fixed after all.


Sure thing. You mean, just like they voted to increase Tobacco taxes POLITICIANS said, would help the Education-School systems...then they removed access to Tobacco products, and took away the source of that Education-School funding? Politicians will always blame the other party for everything. And the people are JUST TOO DUMB, and SELFISH to understand when they are being played for the fools they are.

indago
12-23-2014, 03:59 PM
And? Are you for brick-and-mortars being on the same playing field as on-line?

You must have missed the first post in this thread...

fj1200
12-23-2014, 04:11 PM
You must have missed the first post in this thread...

Not really considering I responded to it.

indago
12-23-2014, 05:55 PM
Not really considering I responded to it.

Then you have a reading comprehension problem...

aboutime
12-23-2014, 05:58 PM
Then you have a reading comprehension problem...



indago. You cannot present TRUTH to fj. Honesty is not part of fj's vocabulary. Nice try though. He's also not aware of, or familiar with the word Comprehension. Just watch.

tailfins
12-23-2014, 06:33 PM
And? Are you for brick-and-mortars being on the same playing field as on-line?

I'm for the consumer to have as many ways possible to get out of paying sales tax. New Hampshire has a level playing field since there is no sales tax except on restaurants and hotels.

indago
12-24-2014, 05:21 AM
I'm for the consumer to have as many ways possible to get out of paying sales tax. New Hampshire has a level playing field since there is no sales tax except on restaurants and hotels.

In the example noted in the OP, the seller pays the sales tax to his State, and the tax, being included in the cost of doing business, is passed on to the consumer. So, in this example, the consumer does pay a sales tax within the price of the product purchased.

fj1200
12-24-2014, 02:42 PM
Then you have a reading comprehension problem...

Yeah, I'm sure that's the way to go with this one. :rolleyes:


I'm for the consumer to have as many ways possible to get out of paying sales tax. New Hampshire has a level playing field since there is no sales tax except on restaurants and hotels.

Interesting. I think retailers should be on the same playing field.


In the example noted in the OP, the seller pays the sales tax to his State, and the tax, being included in the cost of doing business, is passed on to the consumer. So, in this example, the consumer does pay a sales tax within the price of the product purchased.

I'm pretty sure you don't have that correct. Sales taxes are not embedded in the COGS.

tailfins
12-24-2014, 04:47 PM
Interesting. I think retailers should be on the same playing field.

As long as the result is lower taxes for the consumer, I'm for it. So let's agree the solution is to repeal the sales tax, not collecting the sales tax on more transactions.

indago
12-25-2014, 07:21 AM
I'm pretty sure you don't have that correct. Sales taxes are not embedded in the COGS.

Any good business will include ALL costs for a product, adding an amount for a company profit. To sell a product below costs is a losing proposition for a business.

fj1200
12-25-2014, 11:34 AM
As long as the result is lower taxes for the consumer, I'm for it. So let's agree the solution is to repeal the sales tax, not collecting the sales tax on more transactions.

I'm all for lower taxes equally. But what sort of taxation would you prefer at the state level? Sales, income, or property; assuming the collection of at least some taxes.


Any good business will include ALL costs for a product, adding an amount for a company profit. To sell a product below costs is a losing proposition for a business.

Um, of course. Sales taxes are added on after. :confused:

tailfins
12-25-2014, 04:19 PM
I'm all for lower taxes equally. But what sort of taxation would you prefer at the state level? Sales, income, or property; assuming the collection of at least some taxes.



Um, of course. Sales taxes are added on after. :confused:

This attempt to collect sales taxes from internet purchases is just a move to squeeze more money from the consumer and give nothing in return. However if it must be done, then insist on lowering the sales tax rate. Isn't it interesting when "fairness" and government are together for some proposal, the average person winds up paying more.

fj1200
12-25-2014, 05:21 PM
This attempt to collect sales taxes from internet purchases is just a move to squeeze more money from the consumer and give nothing in return. However if it must be done, then insist on lowering the sales tax rate. Isn't it interesting when "fairness" and government are together for some proposal, the average person winds up paying more.

I'm not really disputing any of that but I don't think internet purchases should have a tax-based competitive advantage over the locals.

indago
12-25-2014, 07:39 PM
Sales taxes are added on after. :confused:

Here is an example of an online sales invoice, and I don't see where "Sales taxes are added on after." How do you know that they are not embedded within the cost of the item?


http://i61.tinypic.com/2eeftb8.jpg

tailfins
12-25-2014, 10:13 PM
Here is an example of an online sales invoice, and I don't see where "Sales taxes are added on after." How do you know that they are not embedded within the cost of the item?


http://i61.tinypic.com/2eeftb8.jpg


Try using a shipping address that is in the same state as the seller.

indago
12-26-2014, 03:24 AM
Some have argued that the reason to buy online is to avoid paying a sales tax. Here is an example of an item to buy online:

Oster Professional 103 Stim-U-Lax Massager

Sold by: myBeautyWarehouse.............$81.99

Sold by: Quick E Shop........................$83.95

Sold by: DiscountsJungle....................$74.95

Sold by: always bargain.....................$74.99

Sold by: BYPLE.................................$89.00

Sold by superior sales.......................$89.95

Sold by: Best Buy Beauty & Barber......$84.99

Sold by SKYBOK..............................$143.28

page (http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=sr_pg_1?rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Aoster+massager&keywords=oster+massager&ie=UTF8&qid=1419581573)

Which one would you buy, and why?

fj1200
12-26-2014, 08:00 AM
Here is an example of an online sales invoice, and I don't see where "Sales taxes are added on after." How do you know that they are not embedded within the cost of the item?


http://i61.tinypic.com/2eeftb8.jpg

You don't see "sales taxes added on after" because sales taxes were not added on after. Why would they have a 'sales tax' line and then embed the sales tax within the price. Further, I'm not aware of any state that requires the sales tax be embedded in the price. If you have an example showing otherwise I'd be happy to be wrong.

The issue with sales taxes and on-line purchases is that retailers are not required to collect and remit sales tax unless the retailer has a physical location in the same state as the buyer. That is why when you buy something from Best Buy (for example) you will always see sales tax added to the price (if applicable) and why some obscure website with one location in one state will not be adding sales tax on purchases to buyers in another state. Does that make sense now?

indago
12-26-2014, 08:36 PM
You don't see "sales taxes added on after" because sales taxes were not added on after. Why would they have a 'sales tax' line and then embed the sales tax within the price. Further, I'm not aware of any state that requires the sales tax be embedded in the price. If you have an example showing otherwise I'd be happy to be wrong.

The issue with sales taxes and on-line purchases is that retailers are not required to collect and remit sales tax unless the retailer has a physical location in the same state as the buyer. That is why when you buy something from Best Buy (for example) you will always see sales tax added to the price (if applicable) and why some obscure website with one location in one state will not be adding sales tax on purchases to buyers in another state. Does that make sense now?


Every business is required to keep books and records, and to render them up for examination by the State at the State's discretion. In the case of Miles Laboratories v Simon (33 Federal Supplement 962), a case concerning the state sales tax, it is declared: "The tax has been held to be a privilege fee imposed upon persons doing business at retail. ...The tax is not imposed upon the consumer, but upon those 'engaged in the business of making sales at retail, as hereinbefore defined.'"

It was also noted that the company has the option of adding the sales tax amount to the receipt or not to. Some stores have a fixed price on their goods, and when you go to the register to pay, the price that is on the price tag is the price that is charged. The tax that the company is liable for has already been included in the price as a cost of doing business. Most stores, however, calculate the tax and place it on the receipt, making it appear that the customer is the one liable for the tax.

Make sense now???

fj1200
12-26-2014, 08:52 PM
Make sense now???

That it essentially restated what I told you?


Every business is required to keep books and records, and to render them up for examination by the State at the State's discretion. In the case of Miles Laboratories v Simon (33 Federal Supplement 962), a case concerning the state sales tax, it is declared: "The tax has been held to be a privilege fee imposed upon persons doing business at retail. ...The tax is not imposed upon the consumer, but upon those 'engaged in the business of making sales at retail, as hereinbefore defined.'"

It was also noted that the company has the option of adding the sales tax amount to the receipt or not to. Some stores have a fixed price on their goods, and when you go to the register to pay, the price that is on the price tag is the price that is charged. The tax that the company is liable for has already been included in the price as a cost of doing business. Most stores, however, calculate the tax and place it on the receipt, making it appear that the customer is the one liable for the tax.

Here is something that is actually on point though. :)


In Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, the Supreme Court ruled that a business must have a physical presence in a state for that state to require it to collect sales taxes. However, the court explicitly stated that Congress can overrule the decision through legislation.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quill_Corp._v._North_Dakota#cite_note-FindLaw-1)

indago
12-27-2014, 09:35 AM
From The Associated Press 11 March 2011:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Two major Internet retailers followed through Friday on threats to cut ties with Illinois businesses over a new law requiring them to collect sales taxes. Amazon.com Inc. and Overstock.com Inc. both announced they're dumping Illinois-based "affiliates" -- people and businesses that refer customers to the Internet giants and then collect a commission on any sales. Under the new law, having affiliates in Illinois requires an Internet company to collect sales taxes on all transactions with Illinois customers. Amazon said it will end relations with Illinois affiliates on April 15. Overstock said it will do the same on May 1. Democratic Gov. Pat Quinn signed the law Thursday. The companies call it unconstitutional because they don't have offices, warehouses or personnel in Illinois.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

The "Internet retailers" did the right thing. It is the obligation of the State to collect the sales taxes from the businesses that are licensed to do business within that State. Why should an internet "middleman" do their work for them?

"The Department of Revenue is the primary agency for collecting tax revenues that support state and local governments in Mississippi."


http://www.dor.ms.gov/

fj1200
12-28-2014, 09:43 AM
Every business is required to keep books and records, and to render them up for examination by the State at the State's discretion. In the case of Miles Laboratories v Simon (33 Federal Supplement 962), a case concerning the state sales tax, it is declared: "The tax has been held to be a privilege fee imposed upon persons doing business at retail. ...The tax is not imposed upon the consumer, but upon those 'engaged in the business of making sales at retail, as hereinbefore defined.'"

It was also noted that the company has the option of adding the sales tax amount to the receipt or not to. Some stores have a fixed price on their goods, and when you go to the register to pay, the price that is on the price tag is the price that is charged. The tax that the company is liable for has already been included in the price as a cost of doing business. Most stores, however, calculate the tax and place it on the receipt, making it appear that the customer is the one liable for the tax.

Make sense now???

BTW, where did this come from? I did a search and all I could find is posts that you seem to have made on multiple forums?

indago
12-28-2014, 10:52 AM
BTW, where did this come from? I did a search and all I could find is posts that you seem to have made on multiple forums?

It's in the OP!

fj1200
12-28-2014, 10:55 AM
It's in the OP!

Ah, I can't find a link to the Miles Laboratories decision.

indago
12-28-2014, 11:12 AM
Ah, I can't find a link to the Miles Laboratories decision.

Try the law library...

fj1200
12-28-2014, 02:17 PM
Try the law library...

Ah, so it's up to others to just accept your posts. Not particularly likely when your OP is flawed as pointed out.

In re: Miles. A 1940 decision. You don't think something may have changed in the MFTA since then? It is possible. And even what you state is suspect per the decision:


Counsel agree that the precise question is without precedent in any jurisdiction, although it seems that one or two of the state fair trade acts in express terms require addition of the sales tax to established minimum retail prices. The Michigan act, as already pointed out, is silent in this respect.The sales tax being, therefore, merely a privilege fee exacted from the retailer by the State for the right of doing business and there appearing to be no obligation on the part of the retailer to pass the amount of the tax on to the consumer, it should be held that the minimum prices established by plaintiff are met when they are exacted without addition of the tax. No violation of the Michigan Fair Trade Act ensues thereby.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/194099533FSupp962_1721

The case wasn't even about sales taxes.

Your Washington link was also short of all the relevant information:




The seller is liable to the Department of Revenue for sales tax, whether or not it is collected.
Use tax is paid by the consumer when the retail sales tax was not collected by the seller/service provider.


http://dor.wa.gov/content/findtaxesandrates/retailsalestax/


Invoices from out-of-state vendors
If you know the out-of-state vendor has an in-state business presence, contact the vendor and ask why sales tax wasn’t charged. Depending on the response, you may want to ask them to send a new invoice that includes sales tax.
However, many out-of-state businesses have no business presence, or “nexus,” in Washington. Such businesses are not required to register with the Department of Revenue and are not required to charge retail sales tax to their Washington customers.If you purchase goods from one of these businesses, you must pay use tax to the Department on the value of your purchases. You can pay use tax by using either a Consumer Use Tax Return (http://dor.wa.gov/Docs/forms/UseTx/ConsumerUseTxRtrn.pdf) (if you are not a registered business) or the use tax lines on your Excise Tax Return (http://dor.wa.gov/Content/GetAFormOrPublication/FormBySubject/excise/default.aspx). Be sure to make a note on the invoice when you pay use tax in this manner.
http://dor.wa.gov/Content/GetAFormOrPublication/PublicationBySubject/TaxTopics/RSTonInvoice.aspx

tailfins
12-28-2014, 04:24 PM
Ah, so it's up to others to just accept your posts. Not particularly likely when your OP is flawed as pointed out.

In re: Miles. A 1940 decision. You don't think something may have changed in the MFTA since then? It is possible. And even what you state is suspect per the decision:



http://www.leagle.com/decision/194099533FSupp962_1721

The case wasn't even about sales taxes.

Your Washington link was also short of all the relevant information:


http://dor.wa.gov/content/findtaxesandrates/retailsalestax/


http://dor.wa.gov/Content/GetAFormOrPublication/PublicationBySubject/TaxTopics/RSTonInvoice.aspx

Use taxes are generally not enforced. Some Gestapo like tactics to enforce them have been met with huge public resistance. For example, Massachusetts State Police officers tried taking down license plate numbers of cars at New Hampshire Wal-Marts, with the intent of prosecuting those that didn't file any use tax. If I remember correctly, the NH police threatened to arrest the MA police for loitering.

Why are you cheerleading for more ways for ordinary citizens to be taxed?

indago
12-28-2014, 07:17 PM
Use taxes are generally not enforced. Some Gestapo like tactics to enforce them have been met with huge public resistance. For example, Massachusetts State Police officers tried taking down license plate numbers of cars at New Hampshire Wal-Marts, with the intent of prosecuting those that didn't file any use tax. If I remember correctly, the NH police threatened to arrest the MA police for loitering.

Why are you cheerleading for more ways for ordinary citizens to be taxed?

Yes, only a government toady would declare that a law can be made to subvert the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The individual has no obligation whatsoever to deliver up his papers and effects to anyone, let alone governments.

Bill of Rights and Most State Constitutions: "The person, houses, papers and possessions of every person shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures."

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights. ...Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the State. It is presumed to be incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the State and the limitations of its charter. Its powers are limited by law. It can make no contract not authorized by its charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the laws of its creation." — Hale v Henkel 201 US 43, 74 (1905)

An order was issued by government to produce certain papers for examination, or the allegations of government would be admitted as confessed. Justice Bradley delivered the opinion of the Court, noting the argument of government that the order did not authorize a search and seizure, but ordered that the papers be produced by defendant. Justice Bradley declared:

"That is so; but it declares that if he does not produce them, the allegations which it is affirmed they will prove shall be taken as confessed. This is tantamount to compelling their production; ...It is true that certain aggravating incidents of actual search and seizure, such as forcible entry into a man's house and searching amongst his papers, are wanting, ...but it accomplishes the substantial object of those acts in forcing from a party evidence against himself. It is our opinion, therefore, that a compulsory production of a man's private papers to establish a criminal charge against him, or to forfeit his property, is within the scope of the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, in all cases in which a search and seizure would be; because it is a material ingredient, and effects the sole object and purpose of search and seizure." — 116 US 616

indago
12-28-2014, 09:46 PM
Ah, so it's up to others to just accept your posts. Not particularly likely when your OP is flawed as pointed out.

Only in your wildest hallucinations...

indago
12-29-2014, 05:32 AM
The seller is liable to the Department of Revenue for sales tax, whether or not it is collected.
Use tax is paid by the consumer when the retail sales tax was not collected by the seller/service provider.



That's a rather redundant declaration. If the seller is still liable for the sales tax, then the onus is on the revenue department to collect it from the seller, not put the onus upon the purchaser.

fj1200
12-29-2014, 08:45 AM
Use taxes are generally not enforced. Some Gestapo like tactics to enforce them have been met with huge public resistance. For example, Massachusetts State Police officers tried taking down license plate numbers of cars at New Hampshire Wal-Marts, with the intent of prosecuting those that didn't file any use tax. If I remember correctly, the NH police threatened to arrest the MA police for loitering.

Why are you cheerleading for more ways for ordinary citizens to be taxed?

Point of order: they are already taxed, collection is the issue. All I'm cheerleading for is equal application. And I agree, use taxes would be impossible to enforce.


Yes, only a government toady would declare that a law can be made to subvert the Constitution and Bill of Rights. The individual has no obligation whatsoever to deliver up his papers and effects to anyone, let alone governments.

Bill of Rights and Most State Constitutions: "The person, houses, papers and possessions of every person shall be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures."

... except under warrant of the law. — Hale v Henkel 201 US 43, 74 (1905)

No. Did you read your own link? Or the Constitution?


Only in your wildest hallucinations...

That was non-responsive to me taking apart your post. :)


That's a rather redundant declaration. If the seller is still liable for the sales tax, then the onus is on the revenue department to collect it from the seller, not put the onus upon the purchaser.

Um, no. Do you understand the difference between a use tax and a sales tax in the state of Washington? Nice try at cherry picking your argument though. :)

tailfins
12-29-2014, 09:26 AM
Point of order: they are already taxed, collection is the issue. All I'm cheerleading for is equal application. And I agree, use taxes would be impossible to enforce.

If equal application means the consumer pays more, I'm again' it.

fj1200
12-29-2014, 09:40 AM
If equal application means the consumer pays more, I'm again' it.

I'd say here that under the status quo the honest and local consumers pay more.

tailfins
12-29-2014, 10:06 AM
I'd say here that under the status quo the honest and local consumers pay more.

You should know enough about politics to understand the newly collected revenue will go 100% to fatten government.

fj1200
12-29-2014, 10:17 AM
You should know enough about politics to understand the newly collected revenue will go 100% to fatten government.

Well I can't really argue with that. I'm more concerned about the unfair competition that local retailers need to deal with. The playing field should be level with no advantage based upon legislation. :)

tailfins
12-29-2014, 10:42 AM
Well I can't really argue with that. I'm more concerned about the unfair competition that local retailers need to deal with. The playing field should be level with no advantage based upon legislation. :)

Why not REALLY help the brick-and-mortar shops by requiring online sellers to buy a business license for every county where they have a customer? I support the T.E.A. Party: Taxed Enough Already.

fj1200
12-29-2014, 01:38 PM
Why not REALLY help the brick-and-mortar shops by requiring online sellers to buy a business license for every county where they have a customer? I support the T.E.A. Party: Taxed Enough Already.

Well that's just crazy. But one also needs to trust the states at some point and Republicans control a goodly number of them.

indago
12-29-2014, 02:47 PM
That was non-responsive to me taking apart your post.

Another wild hallucination...

fj1200
12-30-2014, 09:31 AM
Another wild hallucination...

Uh huh. Do other posters take apart your logic on all the other forums you try this on too?

indago
12-30-2014, 09:56 AM
Uh huh. Do other posters take apart your logic on all the other forums you try this on too?

Only in your wildest hallucinations...

fj1200
12-30-2014, 10:07 AM
Only in your wildest hallucinations...

I've directly countered what you've posted on the subject and that is your only response? Alrighty then.

indago
12-30-2014, 10:09 AM
I've directly countered what you've posted on the subject and that is your only response? Alrighty then.

You haven't "countered" anything but only in your delusional world...

fj1200
12-30-2014, 10:22 AM
You haven't "countered" anything but only in your delusional world...

See post #34, 36, and 42. And that's only on one page. :slap:

indago
12-30-2014, 10:51 AM
See post #34, 36, and 42. And that's only on one page. :slap:

You posted some irrelevant blather and call it a "counter". Not likely! But I can see that in your delusional world, it probably means something to you.

fj1200
12-30-2014, 12:07 PM
You posted some irrelevant blather and call it a "counter". Not likely! But I can see that in your delusional world, it probably means something to you.

You're kidding right? I haven't even seen any indication that you really understand what the issues are. Case in point you completely ignoring the SCOTUS decision that prevents states from collecting sales taxes. You suck at this.

indago
12-30-2014, 03:40 PM
You're kidding right? I haven't even seen any indication that you really understand what the issues are. Case in point you completely ignoring the SCOTUS decision that prevents states from collecting sales taxes. You suck at this.

Washington State Sales Tax site:
The seller is liable to the Department of Revenue for sales tax, whether or not it is collected.


Michigan sales tax law:
there is levied upon and there shall be collected from all persons engaged in the business of making sales at retail, by which ownership of tangible personal property is transferred for consideration, an annual tax for the privilege of engaging in that business equal to 6% of the gross proceeds of the business.

You are such a loser...

indago
12-31-2014, 06:59 AM
except under warrant of the law.

The King's messengers had "warrant of the law"...

"The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the crown. It may be frail -- its roof may shake -- the wind may blow through it -- the storm may enter, the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter -- all his force dares not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement."

These words appear in the reports of the famous Semayne's Case, decided in England in 1603. It recognized the beginnings of due process, and the right of privacy in the individual, the right to be left alone, declaring that the King's agents had to have a reason for breaking into a man's home and searching through his papers and effects.

Judge Thomas M. Cooley, LL.D., a Justice of the Supreme Court of the State of Michigan, and a lay Professor of the University of Michigan, in his book Treatise on the Constitutional Limitations, published in 1878, wrote of these times in England, and some of the court cases which brought privacy and due process into being. He noted:

"If in English history we inquire into the original occasion for these constitutional provisions, we shall probably find it in the abuse of executive authority, and in the unwarrantable intrusions of executive agents into the houses and among the private papers of individuals, in order to obtain evidence of political offences either committed or designed."

He quoted liberally from May's Constitutional History of England, describing the "arrest of persons under general warrants, without previous evidence of their guilt or identification of their persons." A paper was described which was published, offending the King. The King's ministers labeled it a libel, and sought after those responsible. Lord Halifax, one of the secretaries of state, "issued a warrant, directing four messengers, taking with them a constable, to search for the authors, printers, and publishers; and to apprehend and seize them, together with their papers, and bring them in safe custody before him.":

"No one having been charged or even suspected, -- no evidence of crime having been offered, -- no one was named in this dread instrument. The offence only was pointed at, not the offender. The magistrate who should have sought proofs of crime deputed this office to his messengers. Armed with their roving commission, they set forth in quest of unknown offenders; and, unable to take evidence, listened to rumors, idle tales, and curious guesses. They held in their hands the liberty of every man whom they were pleased to suspect. Nor were they triflers in their work. In three days they arrested no less than forty-nine persons on suspicion, -- many as innocent as Lord Halifax himself. Among the number was Dryden Leach, a printer, whom they took from his bed at night. They seized his papers, and even apprehended his journeymen and servants. He had printed one number of the 'North Briton,' and was then reprinting some other numbers; but as he happened not to have printed No. 45, he was released without being brought before Lord Halifax. They succeeded, however, in arresting Kearsley the publisher, and Balfe the printer, of the obnoxious number, with all their workmen. From them it was discovered that Wilkes was the culprit of whom they were in search; but the evidence was not on oath; and the messengers received verbal directions to apprehend Wilkes under the general warrant. Wilkes, far keener than the crown lawyers, not seeing his own name there, declared it 'a ridiculous warrant against the whole English nation,' and refused to obey it. But after being in custody of the messengers for some hours, in his own house, he was taken away in a chair, to appear before the secretaries of state. No sooner had he been removed than the messengers, returning to his house, proceeded to ransack his drawers; and carried off all his private papers, including even his will and his pocket-book. When brought into the presence of Lord Halifax and Lord Egremont, questions were put to Wilkes which he refused to answer; whereupon he was committed close prisoner to the Tower, denied the use of pen and paper, and interdicted from receiving the visits of his friends or even of his professional advisers. From this imprisonment, however, he was shortly released on a writ of habeas corpus, by reason of his privilege as a member of the House of Commons. Wilkes and the printers, supported by Lord Temple's liberality, soon questioned the legality of the general warrant. First, several journeymen printers brought action against the messengers."

indago
12-31-2014, 07:00 AM
It was described how the Lord Chief Justice, Justice Pratt, "held that the general warrant was illegal; that it was illegally executed; and that the messengers were not indemnified by statute. The journeymen recovered three hundred pounds damages" It was noted that the other plaintiffs obtained similar verdicts:

"Mr. Wilkes himself brought an action against Mr. Wood, under-secretary of state, who had personally superintended the execution of the warrant. At this trial it was proved that Mr. Wood and the messengers, after Wilkes's removal in custody, had taken entire possession of his house, refusing admission to his friends; had sent for a blacksmith, who opened the drawers of his bureau; and having taken out the papers, had carried them away in a sack, without taking any list or inventory. All his private manuscripts were seized, and his pocket-book filled up the mouth of the sack. Lord Halifax was examined, and admitted that the warrant had been made out three days before he had received evidence that Wilkes was the author of the 'North Briton.' Lord Chief Justice Pratt thus spoke of the warrant: 'The defendant claimed a right, under precedents, to force persons' houses, break open escritoires, and seize their papers upon a general warrant, where no inventory is made of the things thus taken away, and where no offenders' names are specified in the warrant, and therefore, a discretionary power given to messengers to search wherever their suspicions may chance to fall. If such a power is truly invested in a secretary of state, and he can delegate this power, it certainly may affect the person and property of every man in this kingdom, and is totally subversive of the liberty of the subject.' The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff with one thousand pounds damages. Four days after Wilkes had obtained his verdict against Mr. Wood, Dryden Leach, the printer, gained another verdict, with four hundred pounds damages, against the messengers."

It was noted by the judges that "no degree of antiquity can give sanction to an usage bad in itself." Such warrants were declared to be illegal.

tailfins
12-31-2014, 09:42 AM
It was described how the Lord Chief Justice, Justice Pratt, "held that the general warrant was illegal; that it was illegally executed; and that the messengers were not indemnified by statute. The journeymen recovered three hundred pounds damages" It was noted that the other plaintiffs obtained similar verdicts:

"Mr. Wilkes himself brought an action against Mr. Wood, under-secretary of state, who had personally superintended the execution of the warrant. At this trial it was proved that Mr. Wood and the messengers, after Wilkes's removal in custody, had taken entire possession of his house, refusing admission to his friends; had sent for a blacksmith, who opened the drawers of his bureau; and having taken out the papers, had carried them away in a sack, without taking any list or inventory. All his private manuscripts were seized, and his pocket-book filled up the mouth of the sack. Lord Halifax was examined, and admitted that the warrant had been made out three days before he had received evidence that Wilkes was the author of the 'North Briton.' Lord Chief Justice Pratt thus spoke of the warrant: 'The defendant claimed a right, under precedents, to force persons' houses, break open escritoires, and seize their papers upon a general warrant, where no inventory is made of the things thus taken away, and where no offenders' names are specified in the warrant, and therefore, a discretionary power given to messengers to search wherever their suspicions may chance to fall. If such a power is truly invested in a secretary of state, and he can delegate this power, it certainly may affect the person and property of every man in this kingdom, and is totally subversive of the liberty of the subject.' The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff with one thousand pounds damages. Four days after Wilkes had obtained his verdict against Mr. Wood, Dryden Leach, the printer, gained another verdict, with four hundred pounds damages, against the messengers."

It was noted by the judges that "no degree of antiquity can give sanction to an usage bad in itself." Such warrants were declared to be illegal.

You're going to way too much trouble here. Consumers are getting a break and FJ is against it.

fj1200
12-31-2014, 01:47 PM
Washington State Sales Tax site:

Michigan sales tax law:

You are such a loser...

Uh huh. A loser that took apart your poorly constructed argument. It was weak and you refuse to address the real facts.


The King's messengers had "warrant of the law"...

As does the Constitution. :confused: But go ahead and cherry pick some more "arguments."


You're going to way too much trouble here. Consumers are getting a break and FJ is against it.

Not exactly. I'm against legislation that automatically makes a large part of the populace law breakers.

tailfins
12-31-2014, 02:20 PM
Uh huh. A loser that took apart your poorly constructed argument. It was weak and you refuse to address the real facts.



As does the Constitution. :confused: But go ahead and cherry pick some more "arguments."



Not exactly. I'm against legislation that automatically makes a large part of the populace law breakers.


That ship has already sailed.

http://www.threefeloniesaday.com/Youtoo/tabid/86/Default.aspx


How can the average American commit three arguable felonies in the course of a given day? Consider these hypothetical examples—along with their real-life parallels—in which vague and broad federal laws have made honest citizens into federal felons.n the average American commit three arguable felonies in the course of a given day? Consider these hypothetical examples—along with their real-life parallels—in which vague and broad federal laws have made honest citizens into federal felons.

fj1200
12-31-2014, 05:06 PM
That ship has already sailed.

No argument here.

indago
12-31-2014, 05:48 PM
Uh huh. A loser that took apart your poorly constructed argument. It was weak and you refuse to address the real facts.

Not acknowledging "your poorly constructed" strawman can hardly be deemed "refuse to address". You might as well give it up. I am unmoved by your groveling.



.

fj1200
01-02-2015, 12:11 PM
Not acknowledging "your poorly constructed" strawman can hardly be deemed "refuse to address". You might as well give it up. I am unmoved by your groveling.

:laugh: Why are you reveling in your ignorance?

aboutime
01-02-2015, 01:42 PM
:laugh: Why are you reveling in your ignorance?



You still don't get it, do you fj? Whenever anyone attempts to imitate, or emulate you. You always expose your own miserable ignorance by accusing others of being JUST LIKE YOU.