PDA

View Full Version : Illinois violates US Constitution to steal more money from its citizenry



Twisted Titan
14th December 2010, 12:50 PM
http://www.rrstar.com/news/x17142796...line-purchases


Illinois to remind people to pay online sales taxes
Many Illinois taxpayers are dodging state and local sales taxes by buying Christmas gifts online, but the state hopes to get them to eventually pay those taxes in 2011.

The state will offer a sales tax amnesty from Jan. 1 through Oct. 15. Under legislation passed last year and signed by Gov. Pat Quinn, people who bought goods online, through the mail or over the phone and didn't pay sales tax on them between June 20, 2004 and the end of 2010 can pay what they owe without penalty during that period.

The state also plans to offer a more detailed line and worksheet on state income tax return forms designed to get taxpayers to pay the sales tax they owe on catalog, telephone or online items in which the retailer did not assess sales taxes, said Department of Revenue spokeswoman Sue Hofer.

State can't make online retailers collect
Under a 1992 U.S. Supreme Court decision, a state cannot require retailers without a physical presence in the state to assess sales taxes on purchases. Congress has also declined to pass laws requiring that the taxes be collected.

The absence of such laws raises two concerns among retailers and state and local governments:

* Governments believe they are losing out on tax revenue.

Retailers with brick-and-mortar stores believe they are at a competitive disadvantage with catalog, online and telephone retailers.

"It's a disadvantage, certainly," said Doug Foster, president and co-owner of Sundown One Home and Automotive Electronics in Springfield, adding that customers still choose his business because they need help setting up equipment. "I'm sure we're hurt by it."

"It's the single biggest competitive issue in the marketplace," said David Vite, president of the Illinois Retail Merchants Association. "Given the number of search engines out there that will search for the lowest price, the number and types of items being purchased is growing every single day. Businesses shouldn't be able to compete based on tax policy.

$150 million lost
In Illinois, a Department of Revenue study released last year concluded that the state could be losing out on as much as $150 million a year in sales tax revenue. Other estimates have ranged as high as $800 million. Nationwide, studies put the cost of uncollected sales tax revenue to states as high as $23 billion by 2012. Whatever the number is, the additional revenue would come in handy when the state budget faces a $13 billion deficit.

Illinoisans are supposed to pay the sales tax on online, catalog and telephone purchases when they file their income taxes, but few do. The state collects about $1 billion in sales tax revenue, but only $10.7 million came from people voluntarily paying sales taxes on their income tax forms or in response to mailings sent by the state, Hofer said.

Will compliance increase?

Hofer said the 2010 tax form will ask taxpayers to declare the value of online purchases in which they did not pay sales tax. It will also allow them to use their adjusted gross income to make an estimate of how much they spent if they don't know.

"It will cause people to think about it. We know that most people, if they know they're required to pay taxes, will, in fact, pay what they owe if they see it on their tax return," Hofer said. "Are we going to collect all of it? No."

Vite said the Department of Revenue's new policies are "innovative," but wasn't convinced they will increase compliance drastically.

"It'll raise some revenue," Vite said. "Not much, but it'll raise some."

Vite believes Illinois ought to try to make its sales tax comply with a protocol developed by 44 states, local governments and businesses to make it easier to collect sales taxes across the country.

What counts as a candy bar?

The Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board hopes that if enough states smooth out their collection procedures, Congress or the U.S. Supreme Court will allow them to require online, catalog and telephone retailers to collect sales taxes. Twenty-three states have adopted the guidelines so far, including Iowa, Indiana, Michigan and Kentucky.

The guidelines call for states to adopt uniform definitions for items to be taxed, simpler exemptions, state-level administration of all sales tax, state funding of the administrative cost of tax collection and uniform definitions of where the sale is taxable.

For example, in 2009, the Legislature adopted guidelines for candy. Because so many states define candy differently, it was decided that if it has flour in it, it's food, not candy, and is taxed at the same rate as food. If it does not have flour, it's candy and is taxed at the full sales tax rate.

The issues are complicated.

"One change that is controversial is the ... requirement that the sales tax on shipped items be credited to the delivery point," according to a report by Comptroller Dan Hynes' office. "Under existing law, the sales tax on shipped items is credited to the location where the sales take place.

"Adoption of the requirement will have an impact on both Illinois retailers and local taxing districts. Retailers who make deliveries will no longer charge a single tax rate at each sales site; instead they will have to vary the tax rate depending upon the delivery point of the item sold."

Uniform standards needed

But Vite said it's essential to adopt more uniform standards. He believes Congress will act when the problem gets bad enough.

"Sooner or later, sales taxes are not going to be a reliable source of revenue for state and local governments. Clearly there's going to be a hue and cry from elected officials," Vite said. "Unfortunately, the Illinois tax structure has so many problems with it, it's going to be difficult for Illinois to get into the streamlined sales tax project unless or until the federal government enacts legislation requiring collection if you (the states) do certain things."

Scott Peterson, executive director of the Nashville, Tenn.-based Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board, believes the state will collect more even with the tax form changes.

"Education is key," Peterson said. "There are people who didn't pay because it's never occurred to them."

Goosing government revenue isn't necessarily the purpose of the project, Peterson said.

"When we started this thing ,we did so because we wanted to make our sales tax better," he said. "The state of Illinois has the most generous vendor compensation in the country (for collecting the tax). They pay that money today to retailers, acknowledging there is an expense retailers incur in collecting sales tax. They may have less of an expense if they could find a way to make their sales tax less complicated.

"This is a budget issue for the state on both ends."

Hofer noted that adopting the guidelines does not mean Illinois could suddenly make Amazon.com and other online retailers collect sales taxes.

"Illinois is in a relatively good position compared to a number of states, because so many of the largest companies, the companies do most online business, also have businesses in Illinois," she said. "Retailers who pay property taxes and hire Illinois people to work in their store have a right to be concerned, and that's why the General Assembly enacted legislation to change the way we collect this to put this on the tax form itself."

DMac
14th December 2010, 12:55 PM
Why is buying online different than buying in a store? Shop owners are the party that must pay the taxes, not the buyer.

osoab
14th December 2010, 01:06 PM
Why is buying online different than buying in a store? Shop owners are the party that must pay the taxes, not the buyer.


Business are required to collect the taxes. Business don't pay taxes. The customer pays taxes.

Hatha Sunahara
14th December 2010, 02:29 PM
Is this another ploy to take over the internet? Or to have national legislation to tax internet commerce?


Hatha

Joe King
14th December 2010, 04:27 PM
I don't see the problem.

The law{s} in question have been on the books for a long time.
You've been required to pay sales tax on mail order goods about as long as there's been mail-order goods to order.

The problem has been that it's an easy law for people to ignore.
...and they have.

However, with the advent of the internet, there's an electronic trail for them to follow that isn't really there with traditional mail-order.


Don't confuse the so-called "no tax on the internet" with sales tax laws that have always been there, but that have lacked a means of enforcement.

The "no tax on the internet" is just that.
i.e. a prohibition against loading up your internet bill with taxes and fees like how they currently do to your phone bill.

osoab
14th December 2010, 04:52 PM
From the T.T.'s OP, Illinois thinks it loses up to $150 million in sales taxes.

Our fair governor just dropped his get Illinois back to work program.
They spent $337 million in fed and state money on this program.
How many got jobs you ask?


Illinois Department of Human Services documents obtained by the Chicago Tribune say 26,000 people got $10-an-hour jobs under the program, but most of those were temporary. Fewer than 10 percent of them obtained - or were promised - full-time positions. That is a placement rate of lower than 10 percent. 26,000 jobs for $337 million. Wow!

So, what they are looking to get from this is fricking small peanuts.
Heck, they are using their own statistics to estimate loss of tax money.

Full article.

Quinn terminating Put Illinois to Work program (http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/illinois/article_9c730724-072c-11e0-b1a1-0017a4a78c22.html)

Gov. Pat Quinn says he is pulling the plug on the Put Illinois to Work temporary jobs program, even though it was a centerpiece of his election campaign earlier this fall.

Quinn said Monday he will allow Put Illinois to Work to die in mid-January.

The program's initial $215 million in federal funding ran out in September, but Quinn has since pumped in a total of $122 million in state funds. He made the initial state payment of $75 million while he was locked in a close election race against Republican challenger State Sen. Bill Brady, and spent an additional $47 million in early December to keep people on Put Illinois to Work employed through the holidays.

Critics have questioned the wisdom of that spending, given the precarious state of Illinois' finances. One of the most outspoken has been Illinois Senate Republican leader Christine Radogno of Lemont.

"I don't doubt the program's intentions, but when the state is facing a $15 billion deficit and owes billions more in bonding and pension debt, we have an obligation to ask, 'Is this program the most effective way to create the good-paying, permanent jobs that Illinois needs?'" Radogno said recently.

Critics also objected that the program provided no guarantees for full-time employment.

Illinois Department of Human Services documents obtained by the Chicago Tribune say 26,000 people got $10-an-hour jobs under the program, but most of those were temporary. Fewer than 10 percent of them obtained - or were promised - full-time positions. That is a placement rate of lower than 10 percent.

"Not only is it a waste of taxpayer dollars to expand the program piece-by-piece without any plan or requirement that participants will ultimately see permanent employment, it's cruel to the men and women who believe they're working towards a long-term position," Radogno said.

Quinn, though, defended his decision to prop up the program after federal cash ran out, saying it is the government's job to help people during tough times.

"When we have economic emergencies, we don't just watch people on the unemployment rolls. We roll up our sleeves and use our imagination, our creativity, to put people to work," Quinn told the Tribune. "If we can get people on permanent jobs, that's all to the better. But the purpose of the program was emergency employment for people who were out of work."

And LaDonna Pavetti, an analyst at the nonpartisan Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, said the program should be judged not on how many people were hired full time, but how many were able to get work when unemployment was skyrocketing.

Pavetti said some smaller states could create programs to give businesses incentives to hire workers on a permanent basis, but states such as Illinois and California, which had higher unemployment rates, had to focus on getting as many people working as quickly as possible.

"There were not enough jobs, so this was designed to create a net increase in the jobs available to people, and to provide them to people who are the least likely to get hired in this labor market," Pavetti said.

Quinn says he will now focus on passing legislation to increase incentives for businesses to hire new workers.

Program spokeswoman Marielle Sainvilus said about 16,000 workers are still enrolled in Put Illinois to Work, and she says it is possible more employers will fill full-time jobs when the program is set to expire in mid-January.

ShortJohnSilver
14th December 2010, 05:45 PM
I don't see the problem.

The law{s} in question have been on the books for a long time.
You've been required to pay sales tax on mail order goods about as long as there's been mail-order goods to order.



The tip-off is in the title of this thread: "violates US Constitution" .

That would appear to indicate to most readers, to actually investigate what the Constitution says.

In this case, a few minutes' worth of searching turns up, in Article I, Section 9:

"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

So if a good is exported from California, to Ohio, then Ohio is not allowed to lay a Tax or a Duty on it.

osoab
14th December 2010, 05:55 PM
I don't see the problem.

The law{s} in question have been on the books for a long time.
You've been required to pay sales tax on mail order goods about as long as there's been mail-order goods to order.



The tip-off is in the title of this thread: "violates US Constitution" .

That would appear to indicate to most readers, to actually investigate what the Constitution says.

In this case, a few minutes' worth of searching turns up, in Article I, Section 9:

"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

So if a good is exported from California, to Ohio, then Ohio is not allowed to lay a Tax or a Duty on it.



This adds to the brick and mortar concept of internet tax. If there is no store in your state, no tax.

Joe King
14th December 2010, 06:06 PM
I don't see the problem.

The law{s} in question have been on the books for a long time.
You've been required to pay sales tax on mail order goods about as long as there's been mail-order goods to order.



The tip-off is in the title of this thread: "violates US Constitution" .

That would appear to indicate to most readers, to actually investigate what the Constitution says.

In this case, a few minutes' worth of searching turns up, in Article I, Section 9:

"No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."

So if a good is exported from California, to Ohio, then Ohio is not allowed to lay a Tax or a Duty on it.



The tax in question isn't laid upon the article, but rather the transaction itself while using the amount of that transaction as the variable.

madfranks
14th December 2010, 06:55 PM
LOL @ "pay what they owe". And it's not that Illinois is losing $150 million a year, it's that the people get to keep their $150 million a year from being stolen!

ShortJohnSilver
14th December 2010, 06:57 PM
The tax in question isn't laid upon the article, but rather the transaction itself while using the amount of that transaction as the variable.


Could you quote some law to illustrate what you are talking about in terms of taxing the transaction?

On the surface, your point doesn't seem logical; but maybe I am missing something.

Twisted Titan
14th December 2010, 09:07 PM
Quinn, though, defended his decision to prop up the program after federal cash ran out, saying it is the government's job to help people during tough times.



...............

Joe King
15th December 2010, 12:54 AM
The tax in question isn't laid upon the article, but rather the transaction itself while using the amount of that transaction as the variable.


Could you quote some law to illustrate what you are talking about in terms of taxing the transaction?

On the surface, your point doesn't seem logical; but maybe I am missing something.

It's called a sales tax
i.e. it's a tax on the sale price (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_tax), not the goods themselves.

It might help to look at sales tax as to what it really is.
i.e. a tax on consumption

For taxes on the goods themselves, think gasoline and alcohol as examples.


BTW, the tax in question in the OP is actually a use tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_tax), not a sales tax

ShortJohnSilver
15th December 2010, 04:51 AM
The tax in question isn't laid upon the article, but rather the transaction itself while using the amount of that transaction as the variable.


Could you quote some law to illustrate what you are talking about in terms of taxing the transaction?

On the surface, your point doesn't seem logical; but maybe I am missing something.

It's called a sales tax
i.e. it's a tax on the sale price (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_tax), not the goods themselves.

It might help to look at sales tax as to what it really is.
i.e. a tax on consumption

For taxes on the goods themselves, think gasoline and alcohol as examples.


BTW, the tax in question in the OP is actually a use tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_tax), not a sales tax



I use Wikipedia every day; but I was looking for a legal cite that shows you, and the law that was passed, are talking about the taxes in the same way.

Spectrism
15th December 2010, 06:14 AM
The tax in question isn't laid upon the article, but rather the transaction itself while using the amount of that transaction as the variable.


Could you quote some law to illustrate what you are talking about in terms of taxing the transaction?

On the surface, your point doesn't seem logical; but maybe I am missing something.

It's called a sales tax
i.e. it's a tax on the sale price (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_tax), not the goods themselves.

It might help to look at sales tax as to what it really is.
i.e. a tax on consumption

For taxes on the goods themselves, think gasoline and alcohol as examples.


BTW, the tax in question in the OP is actually a use tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_tax), not a sales tax



Now that is just plain ridiculous! A tax on a price??? Are you sure it is not a tax on the word "sale"? Maybe it is a tax on the purple unicorn that defecated the product.

FYI- the sale occurs OUT of the state trying to impose the tax. FOB is at the factory but the order is called in, faxed, emailed, or entered on line remotely. The only time that the state can tax a remote sale is when the selling company has an office in the greedy recipient's state.

Joe King
15th December 2010, 11:30 AM
Now that is just plain ridiculous! A tax on a price??? Are you sure it is not a tax on the word "sale"? Maybe it is a tax on the purple unicorn that defecated the product.

FYI- the sale occurs OUT of the state trying to impose the tax. FOB is at the factory but the order is called in, faxed, emailed, or entered on line remotely. The only time that the state can tax a remote sale is when the selling company has an office in the greedy recipient's state.


Not on the price, but the transaction.
The price is merely used to determine the amount of the tax.

If you read the descriptions of the types of taxes in question here, it's pretty self explanatory.

Joe King
15th December 2010, 11:41 AM
The tax in question isn't laid upon the article, but rather the transaction itself while using the amount of that transaction as the variable.


Could you quote some law to illustrate what you are talking about in terms of taxing the transaction?

On the surface, your point doesn't seem logical; but maybe I am missing something.

It's called a sales tax
i.e. it's a tax on the sale price (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_tax), not the goods themselves.

It might help to look at sales tax as to what it really is.
i.e. a tax on consumption

For taxes on the goods themselves, think gasoline and alcohol as examples.


BTW, the tax in question in the OP is actually a use tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_tax), not a sales tax



I use Wikipedia every day; but I was looking for a legal cite that shows you, and the law that was passed, are talking about the taxes in the same way.

You could call your states taxing authoritys and ask them.

But in a quick, generic search about sales tax authority, I found this about New York Citys sales tax (http://City sales tax is imposed on the purchase of clothing and footwear costing $110 or more per item).


New York City imposes sales tax on the sale or use of the following items in the City:
Notice that it says the tax is imposed on the sale or use of the items listed. Not the items themselves.


City sales tax is imposed on the purchase of clothing and footwear costing $110 or more per item
Again, the sales tax is imposed upon the sale itself.


If you DYODD, you will find that it's the same everywhere.

Spectrism
15th December 2010, 11:45 AM
Now that is just plain ridiculous! A tax on a price??? Are you sure it is not a tax on the word "sale"? Maybe it is a tax on the purple unicorn that defecated the product.

FYI- the sale occurs OUT of the state trying to impose the tax. FOB is at the factory but the order is called in, faxed, emailed, or entered on line remotely. The only time that the state can tax a remote sale is when the selling company has an office in the greedy recipient's state.


Not on the price, but the transaction.
The price is merely used to determine the amount of the tax.

If you read the descriptions of the types of taxes in question here, it's pretty self explanatory.




If the state declares that there is a new daily tax on your money, will you comply? Just like the "transaction tax", the daily tax will assume you are resting your money in a holding account for the night and reinstating it the next morning in an active account. This applies to all money in your wallet, purse, coffee can, cookie jar, piggy bank, etc.

CT has a sales tax for things purchased out of state. They made an unlawful law requiring residents to declare purchases out of state where less than CT's tax was paid. When they want to provide a tax accountant and lawyer to me at no expense who will record any such things, then I will consider that they are serious. Until then, they are asking me to prove myself guilty of possibly owing a tax.




Quote
New York City imposes sales tax on the sale or use of the following items in the City:
Notice that it says the tax is imposed on the sale or use of the items listed. Not the items themselves.


Quote
City sales tax is imposed on the purchase of clothing and footwear costing $110 or more per item
Again, the sales tax is imposed upon the sale itself.


If you DYODD, you will find that it's the same everywhere.

Maybe I am missing something in the semantics. The only reason I can see for them calling it a tax on the "sale" is that there is a defined value applied engaging the money system. For a "use" tax, companies are required to "value" in dollars- accounting for depreciation- the assets on hand. They are claiming authority over anything tied to the money system.

Be ready to get out of the money system. Have no links or valuations using their filthy currency.

Joe King
15th December 2010, 12:02 PM
Spec, I hear ya, really I do.

Please don't confuse my understanding of "sales" and "use" taxes with endorsement of them.

The way I see it, unless you actually understand exactly what it is you are dealing with, all you'll end up doing is spinning your wheels in frustration when trying to deal with whatever it is.

It's kind of like in that one link I posted that says in the first line, "Sales taxes in the United States' are taxes, often thought of as added onto the price of goods or services,"

Notice that it says, often THOUGHT of as...

The majority choosing to look at things other than as they really are, is one of the biggest problem we face.
i.e. semantics is everything.