I’m surprised the various state legislatures haven’t passed a law saying “Any business providing mail order or internet/online sales to residents in this state must collect sales tax on the item”, or lobbied the US Federal Government to pass legislation to the same effect.
Some have. When I was looking into this back in April I think about 8 states had laws like that on the books (I’m going from memory, so forgive the ballpark figure and lack of specifics. None of them were California so for the most part it didn’t matter to me or my office). For example iTunes charges sales tax to several state’s residents, but not California, because it doesn’t have to. IIRC Amazon just started charging sales tax to NY residents because of new laws put in place this past year.
The wheels are turning in reaction to the progress. It’s just happening slowly.
Let me couch the above with an “I think”. When I was looking into use tax earlier this year my goal was only to find out which online retailers (if any) charged sales tax in California. I came across information about other states as a by product of that research, but as it wasn’t really all that important to me at the time I sort of glossed over it. It is possible that I am misremembering the information.
It’s just my understanding of US politics is that the states all hate each other AND the Federal Government, and none of them can ever agree whose problem/responsibility a particular thing is.
I mean, I strongly suspect that if Australia had a different sales tax in each State, the Commonwealth Government would have passed legislation years (if not decades) ago to the effect that retailers operating via mail or internet order and shipping to another state had to collect that state’s sales tax.
As it is, we’ve got a national GST, which really does simplify things. I’d suggest the US look into it, but we all know that’s never going to happen.
I’m not sure if that last line was intended as snark or not. The U.S. formed as a much more loosely aligned federation of states than it’s become (I think the big turning point was the Civil War); but just because we have much more unity now than we did 230 years ago doesn’t mean that there aren’t still a bunch of differences in the way different states operate, nor does it mean that we should completely wipe out that individuality and replace it all with federal control.
While there would certainly be benefits to complete federal control, I kind of like the way things are set up now. It’s like having fifty different test tubes in which to conduct civics experiments.
Ah yes, because we’ve had *such *luck getting things enacted that have been proven to work just fine in European countries, like socialized medicine, more vacation days, decriminaled drugs, and same-sex marriages.
ETA: There’s also such a thing as a good negative example, whereby we can clarify constitutional protections in response to particularly retarded changes in state laws.
Of course not. Because that’s not that what I think. Now if you really could read minds, you’d know that. But you can’t, so you just make up what in your little mind just must be true. :rolleyes:
Fact is, I know I’m not a racist, but you like trying to use the word so you can conveniently discount a counter position. Sorry, son, that’s weak. You don’t like my position, therefore you jump to it’s “disgusting”. What are you nine years old?
You really should read my posts. You know, the words that actually appear on the screen.
They do have the right idea. But as one should expect from you, you completely mischaracterize the law. Try reading it, douchebag. Who the hell do you think you are, Barack Obama? Eric Holder?
Guess that means we can ignore your analysis. Thanks for playing, though. Now, why don’t you stop with this hijack and go into the other thread and man up. Here’s where you left off:
You go ahead and keep telling yourself you’re not a racist. I’ll be staying as far away as possible, being disgusted by you, along with just about everybody else in that thread.