I sell and ship all over the world and collect sales tax for Florida sales.
I use my county's tax rate which is State of Florida's tax rate plus my County tax rate.
There are 67 counties each with different tax rates. I assume other states are similar. With the exception of the 20 referenced here:
"An effort by some states and retailers to streamline sales tax laws eventually could be used to force e-commerce companies to collect tax in 20 states. Congress has considered bills that would allow states that meet certain uniformity and simplification standards in their tax systems to demand that out-of-state sellers collect sales taxes."
However even if all 50 states were to 'Streamline' one would be expected register with 49 State Tax Authorities and to fill out 50 sales tax filings each month.
After all even if I don't have a single sale I am required to file a report each month.
So then will the paperwork burden be transferred to me personally, or will my State do the work by providing me with a new huge monthly filing form in which I will be required to itemize sales to each state and tax collected for each? How much will this expanded paperwork and bureaucracy cost?
I believe that this all falls under barriers to interstate trade and is an incredibly shortsighted view for the Sates to take.
If I am selling goods to another state I am bringing money into my state which I am then spending here. Which helps my state's 'balance of trade'.
The real question which I think is not being asked is this.
Is the economic benefit of barrier free interstate trade to an individual state greater than the sales tax revenue 'lost' to mail order sales.
Internet sales are mail order sales and I think the laws pertaining to them are clear and firmly established.
Yes, the states are trying to suck every tax dollar they can in this recessed economy. ...working exactly against the federal strategy of keeping money in the economy.
I don't know if there's any new info in this article ... because every browser I've tried cuts off the text in middle of third paragraph (even in "printer friendly" version). As usual at wsj.com the readers comments are worth a gander, however.
States try to get extra sales tax. Amazon rescinds affiliate program in e.g., Rhode Island. Rhode Island ex-affiliates of Amazon suffer and lose revenue in addition to that they previously gained from Amazon, decreasing the overall tax the state previously received.
I use my county's tax rate which is State of Florida's tax rate plus my County tax rate.
There are 67 counties each with different tax rates. I assume other states are similar. With the exception of the 20 referenced here:
"An effort by some states and retailers to streamline sales tax laws eventually could be used to force e-commerce companies to collect tax in 20 states. Congress has considered bills that would allow states that meet certain uniformity and simplification standards in their tax systems to demand that out-of-state sellers collect sales taxes."
However even if all 50 states were to 'Streamline' one would be expected register with 49 State Tax Authorities and to fill out 50 sales tax filings each month.
After all even if I don't have a single sale I am required to file a report each month.
So then will the paperwork burden be transferred to me personally, or will my State do the work by providing me with a new huge monthly filing form in which I will be required to itemize sales to each state and tax collected for each? How much will this expanded paperwork and bureaucracy cost?
I believe that this all falls under barriers to interstate trade and is an incredibly shortsighted view for the Sates to take.
If I am selling goods to another state I am bringing money into my state which I am then spending here. Which helps my state's 'balance of trade'.
The real question which I think is not being asked is this. Is the economic benefit of barrier free interstate trade to an individual state greater than the sales tax revenue 'lost' to mail order sales.
Internet sales are mail order sales and I think the laws pertaining to them are clear and firmly established.