Posted on 12/14/2010 12:53:09 AM PST by Thebaddog
Edited on 12/14/2010 4:50:49 AM PST by Admin Moderator. [history]
I posted twice a her assistant can also be let go.
Some states have passed laws that required sellers who were out of state to collect their sales tax on purchases made by residents of the state and pay these funds to a specific state's department of revenue. That also didn't work.
Currently the only on-line sellers collecting sales taxes are those that have a physical presence (an actual business) in a given state.
Exactly how does the IL Department of Revenue propose to collect these taxes? Make them up out of whole cloth? Where's their evidence? Oh, yeah, in the case of the IL DR, they don't need evidence because you are PRESUMED guilty and have to prove your innocence.
Not long ago, and just a very short time after Bloomberg raised taxes on cigarettes by a hefty sum, there were quite a few New Yorkers being sent nasty letters and heavy fines by their state for purchasing cigarettes online. Bloomberg used the Jenkins Act to obtain purchaser information from the vendor and went after those purchasers. Of course, noone paid much attention when smokers took a hit - after all, they were nasty terrible woeful smokers and deserved to be taxed to death, right? How dare they try to cheat New Yorkers of all that potential blood tax money by purchasing their cigarettes online! Well, the precedent was set and, just like bailouts and elections, precedents have consequences, too. The Jenkins Act applies to cigarette sales but I'm sure there's some other obscure law on the books (or one that will be created) that would allow a state access to its citizens’ out-of-state-purchase information - if the citizens of that state sit on their hands and allow it to happen, that is.
Good thing I never buy anything online!
Heck, I don’t even know how to use a computer!
;-)
The states are allowed to ask for on-line sales information from vendors—but if the vendors rat out their customers they are out of business.
I'd like to see that happen, but it won't.
The state will "hand pick" a few individuals who they can trace online. They will then throw the book at them to make them an example for all others who don't pay. They will make the point that all offenders will face the same penalties.
Then they will sit back, maybe toss in a few additional "amnesty periods" and wait for the cash to flow.
Until people are truly threatened, in great numbers, with the loss of their prosperity, you won't see the kind of revolution you're thinking of.
Would not surprise me at all if access to citizen credit card info was included in Fin Reg bill. Prolly under the guise of "consumer protection."
I don’t think of them as “online” purchases but “undocumented” purchases.
Why does the Government need to get a cut of everything we buy... and a cut of everything we spend... AND a cut of everything we earn.. and THEN charge us tax on the gasoline we buy to go wherever we go to buy things (to give them a cut of), and THEN charge us for the permission to drive the car that eats the gas that takes us wherever we go to buy things (to give them a cut of).
And all we can do is complain here on the internet (which they tax), or die (after which they tax us).
I don’t think of them as “online” purchases but “undocumented” purchases.
************************************
heh heh :)
I am an Ilinois resident. And I’m tempted to comply in part ...
Let me think. I bought some used Nero Wolfe books from a lady in Alaska on ebay for $7.00. I should cut the state of IL a check for $0.5775.
Those soap nuts my wife bought for the laundry? $13 retail should come to a nice big fat check and accompanying paperwork for $1.0725.
Unfortunately, they already got to my $.99 iTunes apps.
“Pitch forks, torches, tar and a decent supply of feathers would seem to be in order.”
Great answer.
Totally agree, but don’t forget the guillotine...that’s for Pelosi et al - one musn’t stop just with Illinois felons.
And...I’ll pull the lever for free......
Hows about the state stop throwing away so much money on welfare and over compensated state
workers? Then maybe go after the kickback cash thrown around like candy.
Finally, hang a rope, urinate up it and #SiO2.
I’m trying to find the statute referred to in the article and who is behind it. There is a lot missing here. Why is it the purchaser who is liable? Why back to 04? What about purchases moving forward?
This whole thing is very troubling. As usual, in Illinois, we are ATM’s to these loons who think that we are working for them.
Good point. You’d think that the big banks would be exerting some political pressure, as they certainly don’t want thousands or millions of people cancelling their credit cards (in favor of prepaid).
Eventually the retailers in New Jersey got wind of this and consulted their lawyers. Once they learned that New York City's law enforcement officials had no jurisdiction to do this kind of "investigative work" in New Jersey, they threatened to have the NYC tax agents arrested and charged with trespassing and stalking. That put an end to that whole charade.
I believe that the relevant sections to the argument are 9 and 10:
Section 9 - Limits on Congress
...
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
No Preference shall be given by any Regulation of Commerce or Revenue to the Ports of one State over those of another: nor shall Vessels bound to, or from, one State, be obliged to enter, clear, or pay Duties in another.
...
Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
...
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.
No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay.
...
I don't know how these provisions have been treated in fact or in theory, so I am not sure if the argument that "use" taxes contravene some of these provisions is a strong one or not.
I also know that at least some government officials are aware of this argument and are treating it seriously enough that they are trying the voluntary approach. There is already some sort of compact among some of the states on this matter of voluntary collection of cross-border "use" taxes, but I don't have time presently to run those details down.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.