Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

    Originally posted by bronconick View Post
    I must not get the details on that lawsuit involved because it seems that it'd be obvious. Maybe because Michigan started it a year or two ago.
    If a company has no physical location in a state, there's no way for the state to force a company to collect sales tax. So, with me being in MN, and purchasing something from a company in, say, CA, the CA company never had to comply with MN state taxation laws because it wasn't here. CA's sales tax laws state that any purchase made within its borders must have sales tax collected, but with online sales, the question becomes much more vague. Did the purchase happen in MN, or perhaps WA, if the company is using an Amazon server service?

    Aside from now collecting sales taxes for 50 different states, they might now be required to zero in on municipalities, or ZIP codes, where special local sales taxes exist. This could turn very ugly and expensive for online retailers, both large and small. And all the while, the brick and mortars will go on with the mistaken notion that the sales tax is what gave these online retailers their *only* sales advantage.
    "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984

    "One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir

    "Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth

    Comment


    • Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

      Yeah. This appears to be the 'biggie' of taxing the internet folks have been fearing/wondering about for some time. Previously the largest online retailers - AMZN - were collecting tax as they largely had a presence in each state already. But most online retailers, even other major ones, don't. It will raise online prices.

      Not familiar with the details...but I'm supportive. It wasn't just tough for brick and mortar retail to compete against online because of the imbalance...it must have been painful for state governance as taxable sales revenue became unattainable.
      Go Gophers!

      Comment


      • Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

        I’m generally in favor of it as well.
        Code:
        As of 9/21/10:         As of 9/13/10:
        College Hockey 6       College Football 0
        BTHC 4                 WCHA FC:  1
        Originally posted by SanTropez
        May your paint thinner run dry and the fleas of a thousand camels infest your dead deer.
        Originally posted by bigblue_dl
        I don't even know how to classify magic vagina smoke babies..
        Originally posted by Kepler
        When the giraffes start building radio telescopes they can join too.
        He's probably going to be a superstar but that man has more baggage than North West

        Comment


        • Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

          Interesting lineup. I would've guessed the four liberals (tax collection good) plus Thomas (states' rights) were the majority. Instead it was 4 conservatives plus Ginsburg in the majority, with Roberts joining the other liberals in dissent.

          It's funny. I agree with the outcome personally, but I can't help but also agree with the dissent on the technicalities. The dormant commerce clause really is where Congress should act if it doesn't like what the Court does, and if Congress has chosen not to act in the last 50 years, why should SCOTUS change its mind?

          Comment


          • Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

            Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
            Yeah. This appears to be the 'biggie' of taxing the internet folks have been fearing/wondering about for some time. Previously the largest online retailers - AMZN - were collecting tax as they largely had a presence in each state already. But most online retailers, even other major ones, don't. It will raise online prices.

            Not familiar with the details...but I'm supportive. It wasn't just tough for brick and mortar retail to compete against online because of the imbalance...it must have been painful for state governance as taxable sales revenue became unattainable.
            I'm of the opinion that the states should eliminate the sales tax and just move to increase income taxes. Given the regressive nature of a sales tax, this means reduced purchasing power for those who need it most.
            "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." George Orwell, 1984

            "One does not simply walk into Mordor. Its Black Gates are guarded by more than just Orcs. There is evil there that does not sleep, and the Great Eye is ever watchful. It is a barren wasteland, riddled with fire and ash and dust, the very air you breathe is a poisonous fume." Boromir

            "Good news! We have a delivery." Professor Farnsworth

            Comment


            • Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

              Originally posted by St. Clown View Post
              I'm of the opinion that the states should eliminate the sales tax and just move to increase income taxes. Given the regressive nature of a sales tax, this means reduced purchasing power for those who need it most.
              this works as many states (at least the ones mookie has experience in) have low(ish) rates and a small number of brackets
              a legend and an out of work bum look a lot alike, daddy.

              Comment


              • Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

                Originally posted by unofan View Post
                Interesting lineup. I would've guessed the four liberals (tax collection good) plus Thomas (states' rights) were the majority. Instead it was 4 conservatives plus Ginsburg in the majority, with Roberts joining the other liberals in dissent.
                I'd have expected the liberals to oppose since sales tax is regressive.
                Cornell University
                National Champion 1967, 1970
                ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                Comment


                • Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

                  Originally posted by unofan View Post
                  The dormant commerce clause really is where Congress should act if it doesn't like what the Court does, and if Congress has chosen not to act in the last 50 years, why should SCOTUS change its mind?
                  I was kinda thinking this was a congress issue also.

                  But I'm on board with the SC 'changing its mind' after long periods on subjects where progress changes the game. Not holding breath on the second though.
                  Go Gophers!

                  Comment


                  • Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

                    Originally posted by 5mn_Major View Post
                    I was kinda thinking this was a congress issue also.

                    But I'm on board with the SC 'changing its mind' after long periods on subjects where progress changes the game. Not holding breath on the second though.
                    They actually did change their mind on 2A in Heller. Prior to that it wasn't an individual right of possession for sh-t and giggles. Proof that if a special interest pushes money at a party long enough, their nominees will toe the partisan line and Constitution be d-mned. It's an invented right, and one "Strict Constructionists" are OK with because ha ha hypocrites.
                    Cornell University
                    National Champion 1967, 1970
                    ECAC Champion 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1973, 1980, 1986, 1996, 1997, 2003, 2005, 2010
                    Ivy League Champion 1966, 1967, 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971, 1972, 1973, 1977, 1978, 1983, 1984, 1985, 1996, 1997, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2012, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2020

                    Comment


                    • Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

                      Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                      They actually did change their mind on 2A in Heller. Prior to that it wasn't an individual right of possession for sh-t and giggles. Proof that if a special interest pushes money at a party long enough, their nominees will toe the partisan line and Constitution be d-mned. It's an invented right, and one "Strict Constructionists" are OK with because ha ha hypocrites.
                      OK...good with changing their minds due to societal progress and not special interest.
                      Go Gophers!

                      Comment


                      • Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

                        Originally posted by Kepler View Post
                        They actually did change their mind on 2A in Heller. Prior to that it wasn't an individual right of possession for sh-t and giggles. Proof that if a special interest pushes money at a party long enough, their nominees will toe the partisan line and Constitution be d-mned. It's an invented right, and one "Strict Constructionists" are OK with because ha ha hypocrites.
                        And 58 years from Plessy to Brown.

                        Comment


                        • Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

                          Might help revitalize brick and mortars over time.

                          Why not simply apply a sales tax for which the seller was located? If for instance it's Amazon use the rate of the location of it's US headquarters. Now some companies may try to game the system by relocating to a state with a lower tax rate, but some do that already. I know it's not quite this simplistic but I don't it has to be that complicate either.

                          Comment


                          • Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

                            Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post
                            Might help revitalize brick and mortars over time.

                            Why not simply apply a sales tax for which the seller was located? If for instance it's Amazon use the rate of the location of it's US headquarters. Now some companies may try to game the system by relocating to a state with a lower tax rate, but some do that already. I know it's not quite this simplistic but I don't it has to be that complicate either.
                            Maybe...more probably a speed bump. The move online is one strong trend.

                            I'm guessing the reason the tax works that way is that purchases are technically made where the consumer is...which is the nature of sales tax. That just coincidentally also avoids the scenario where all pureplays move to a zero sales tax state - Delaware, Montana, Oregon, or New Hampshire - and other states are forced to abolish it to keep the players they have.
                            Go Gophers!

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Slap Shot View Post
                              Might help revitalize brick and mortars over time.

                              Why not simply apply a sales tax for which the seller was located? If for instance it's Amazon use the rate of the location of it's US headquarters. Now some companies may try to game the system by relocating to a state with a lower tax rate, but some do that already. I know it's not quite this simplistic but I don't it has to be that complicate either.
                              Considering all major retailers are probably collecting sales taxes in virtually all jurisdictions already, it's not.

                              It will hit the smaller to medium size retailers hardest, but it's also something that off the shelf tax software should be able to handle pretty freaking easily. Plug in a zip code of a buyer, spit out the applicable tax rate.

                              Comment


                              • Re: SCOTUS 10: Pack the Court!

                                “The Supreme Court ruled that law enforcement must obtain a warrant to search and seize cell phone records, with Chief Justice John Roberts joining the court’s four liberals in a 5-4 decision.”

                                http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/393629-supreme-court-rules-law-enforcement-needs-warrant-to-search

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X