Supremes enable 'net sales tax - what it means

[midnight rambler]

Norquist Statement on South Dakota v. Wayfair Submitted by amarone on Thursday, June 21st, 2018, 10,39 AM https://www.atr.org/sites/default/files/styles/medium/public/onlinesalextax_0.jpg?itok=VdS2_Ple


Today, Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist issued the following statement on the South Dakota v. Wayfair decision:
"Today the Supreme Court said 'yes—you can be taxed by politicians you do not elect and who act knowing you are powerless to object.' This power can now be used to export sales taxes, personal and corporate income taxes, and opens the door for the European Union to export its tax burden onto American businesses—as they have been demanding.
If physical nexus is no longer required, as the Quill vs. ND case demanded, for sales taxes then it is no longer required for personal or corporate income taxes.
Now, California (or any state or city that loses population through exit) can tax people and businesses who do their best to avoid that state or city.
We fought the American Revolution in large part to oppose the very idea of taxation without representation. Today, the Supreme Court announced, 'oops' governments can now tax those outside their borders—those who have no political power, no vote, no voice."









https://www.atr.org/norquist-statement-south-dakota-v-wayfair?amp

[midnight rambler]

Assholes in ivory towers.

[midnight rambler]

Now virtually any jurisdiction can fleece at ANY rate they want and the sheared cannot do a damn thing about it. This opens the door to all sorts of abuse. Sweet.

[madfranks]

Now virtually any jurisdiction can fleece at ANY rate they want and the sheared cannot do a damn thing about it. This opens the door to all sorts of abuse. Sweet.

What are the chances of states enacting new legislation that provides different (higher) tax rates for online sales when such transactions involve shipping out of state? Why not?

[midnight rambler]

What are the chances of states enacting new legislation that provides different (higher) tax rates for online sales when such transactions involve shipping out of state? Why not?

At this stage only the buyer's local tax rate applies, but now the door is open to anything so expect to see new and creative ways of fleecing the sheep who are in no position to do or say anything about it.

[Cebu_4_2]

What about China?

Supreme Court rules states can collect sales tax for online purchases nationwide
Online shoppers could find costs going up after the Supreme Court did away Thursday with a decades-old precedent limiting the ability of states to collect sales tax on certain out-of-state Internet purchases.

The 5-4 ruling called the current rules “unsound and incorrect.”

Currently, businesses shipping a product to another state where it does not have a "physical presence" -- a store, office or warehouse -- are not forced to collect that state's sales tax.

In giving a victory to the states, the high court said that rule is outdated.

“When the day-to-day functions of marketing and distribution in the modern economy are considered, it is all the more evident that the physical presence rule is artificial in its entirety,” Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote.

The current regulation “allows remote sellers to escape an obligation to remit a lawful state tax is unfair and unjust,” added Kennedy. “It is unfair and unjust to those competitors, both local and out of state, who must remit the tax; to the consumers who pay the tax; and to the states that seek fair enforcement of the sales tax.”

A coalition of small business owners, many offering their online goods from home offices, say their profits would evaporate if forced to comply with complex tax rules in all 50 states.

Yet a majority of the states say they are losing billions in revenue, and they are supported by many large, so-called brick-and-mortar retailers like Wal-Mart that do pay sales tax, regardless of whether their sales are done in stores or online.

E-commerce now makes up about 10 percent of U.S. retail sales, according to the Commerce Department.

South Dakota is leading the legal charge, passing a law requiring the collection of sales tax on Internet vendors with at least 200 yearly transactions or $100,000 in sales to its residents.

Forty-one states back the effort, saying the problem is growing worse as e-commerce continues to grow nationwide. They argue tax-collection software makes it easier for retailers big and small to comply with their tax obligations, which vary widely from state to state, and product to product.

But many online sellers, such as Etsy or EBay, that serve as a third party portal for thousands of small homegrown businesses that do not pay sales taxes, point to confusing tax rules that could expose them to costly audits for any revenue shortfall.

As an example, lawyers for the online retailers told the high court that in Illinois, a Snickers bar costs more in taxes than a Twix bar, since food items containing flour are not treated as candy for tax purposes. Customers in most cases are supposed to pay the tax themselves, but both sides of the debate admit few actually do.

And several justices, in an intense hour of oral arguments on Tuesday, expressed concern about overturning the precedent, despite the fact it was decided before the digital age.

Some on the bench said Congress' refusal over the years to act on its own was a sign the status quo should be preserved.

Amazon, by far the nation's largest online seller, is not a party to the case, since it now has a physical presence in many states, with warehouses, and pays the taxes.

The high court has said for more than 50 years in various rulings that states cannot collect taxes from sellers without a "physical presence" in those states. That precedent was preserved in a key 1992 ruling.

Congress two decades ago exempted most online sellers. But as the e-commerce platform has evolved, more of the larger online retailers have begun paying sales taxes -- about 90 percent of the revenue owed

[Horn]

Tellin ya, alls that's really happening in U.S. and globally is adoption of eveyone's worst taxing policy (in multiple forms)

Thing is its also being done in a cutthroat manipulated economy, does not bode well for anyone private or public.