Thanks, that makes sense. I keep going back to the "use" part of "sales and use". It's there and it seems inherently constitutional. That it's difficult to collect is too damned bad.
Get Ready to Pay Sales Tax
- Thread starter subseashooter
- Start date
The #1 community for Gun Owners in Texas
Member Benefits:
Fewer Ads! Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership Discuss anti-gun legislation Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses Discover free outdoor shooting areas View up to date on firearm-related events Share photos & video with other members ...and so much more!
Member Benefits:
Thanks, that makes sense. I keep going back to the "use" part of "sales and use". It's there and it seems inherently constitutional. That it's difficult to collect is too damned bad.
It was bound to happen either by SCOTUS or Congress. States were losing to much revenue.
Little impact on me, as most on-line retailer I use already are in Texas and collecting anyway (Amazon, WalMart, Sears, Cabelas, etc.)
^^^^ This ^^^^
Dash, this really is in answer to your last couple of posts. The states are HIGHLY motivated to find *some* way (ANY way) to recoup their lost sales tax revenue. Of those states that have sales tax (which is all but five states), this “internet stuff” has been a major hit to their state’s operating income.
The particular lawsuit brought by South Dakota against Wayfair, Inc. claims that internet sales have cost the state $50M in tax revenue. (That’s a lot of money to a state like SD).
So to say, ‘hard to collect... tough luck’ isn’t likely to end most states’ pursuit of such moo-la ($). And those states got helped out (a lot) by the “conservative” members of SCOTUS.
Last edited:
I believe California was the first state to get a sales tax on bases, wouldn't doubt they were the ones pushing this through. California is desperate for income.
And this is only likely to get worse, overtime. Their liberals are trying to create the proverbial “workers paradise” on earth by creating the ultimate “welfare state”. They’ve only forgotten one small minor thing: Who pays for it?
And now we begin to see articles about their so-called ‘middle class’ fleeing the state because they discover they aren’t (and most likely never will be, middle class). I think it was Winston Churchill who said something like, Socialism makes everyone equal.... equally poor.
I get that they want these taxes but I don't get why that's the Supreme Court's problem. I tend to be a constitutional purist and I see no other answer than that this is Congress's problem to fix, or not. This seems like a textbook example of why the IC clause is there in the first place.
I admire Thomas, Gorsuch and Alito a lot but I'm going to have to disagree with them on this.
Those guys (& gals) of the SCOTUS get to pick and choose what suits they want to hear. And in theory, at least, one of their primary considerations is judging the constitutionality of lower court (U.S. District courts) decisions. They always have the choice of letting a lower federal district’s court ruling, “stand” simply by not agreeing to hear that case.
I’m inclined to agree that taxing decisions (see what I did there?
) should have been left to the lower courts to hash out. [Just like they’ve done in SO MANY gun rights cases]
I’m inclined to agree that taxing decisions (see what I did there?
) should have been left to the lower courts to hash out. [Just like they’ve done in SO MANY gun rights cases]Doesn't Article 1, Section 8 specifically enumerate the powers of Congress? Congress has apparently chosen not to regulate this, so take it up with them if something needs to be addressed. I don't see how SCOTUS has a say here.
SCOTUS makes decisions based upon the law, and most assuredly can make them "in a vacuum". What they're not supposed to do is legislate from the bench. Nor should they base their decision upon what they want or feel should happen. They're supposed to decide based ONLY upon the law. I can't say definitively that they did not do so in this instance--no matter how much I might not like the results that will likely flow from the decision.
I would disagree with that comment. SCOTUS has a small standing army of law clerks that serve each and every individual justice. The presenting attorneys are some of the most “highly prepared” lawyers available that are arguing each side of the issue. The justices are thoroughly briefed as to all aspects of every case. They ask presenting attorneys questions on points of clarification. They simply don’t make decisions “in a vacuum”. They may intentionally elect to ignore the ramifications of their decisions, which I would be inclined to describe as having made such a decision “in a vacuum”. But the fact remains, they are well versed in all aspects of the cases they hear and the likely repercussions of those decisions.
When I say "in a vacuum", I mean that they look at the facts of the case before them and then the law that is applicable and balance that against the precedents from prior cases. That's the "vacuum" that I'm referring to. They aren't supposed to look at what swirls around outside of those matters and what might befall from how they come down on their decision.
Ole Cowboy
TGT Addict
They most certainly can regulate commerce amongst the states and if SCOTUS has said the FEDS can impose a tax on sales that cross the state line I would see the point, its interstate commerce. In fact I collect taxes on every in state sale that I ship to a Texas resident on the internet.
What SCOTUS had effectually done is to give states the power to levy taxes on Interstate Commerce, a power which clearly should only belong to the Feds.
Certainly the states are going to jump on this like white on rice which is taxing my business from another state.
Several of the news reports I’ve seen, said a lot of states are trying to get it implemented before THIS Christmas. And I think many, if not, most of the major players (Amazon, Overstock, Wayfair, etc.) have anticipated this was coming so they’ve pretty much got their software infrastructure in place now - just a question of flipping the switch for many of them.
Secondhand buying (from individuals) will likely become even more risky than it already is. No refunds, no way of handling complaints, dealing with individuals who aren’t charging sales tax and don’t offer warranties or “satisfaction guaranteed”. It’ll definitely be a “buyer beware” situation.
Staff online
-
robertc1024Moderator
Members online
- Gorp2007
- WilyRobin
- PoolBoy22
- JC1
- ULEWZ
- kbaxter60
- Army 1911
- robertc1024
- King76
- Txhighlander
- Texasgordo
- Cooper
- echo1
- MountainGirl
- gatorgrad84
- brashears9567
- paknheat
- swolf
- randomthought
- A.Texas.Yankee
- Speed42
- mountainbull
- dsgrey
- cpaken
- richie
- KC Huntin
- Lead Belly
- Amated
- Nore715
- Coon
- Big Dipper
- Target Sports USA
- Me
- Tex62
- Blaize
- angel71rs
- Armybrat
- Nick!
- jetcycles
- 1911'S 4 Me
- McCrapper
- jwhistler
- TxStetson
- Dinoble1
- rman
- Wmb556
- johnbeaver
- Wiliamr
- Oldbullhorn
- ETH77
