HawkShack.com

Scotus upheld the North Dakato suit to collect taxes on online purchases. This won't effect Washington State as much since amazon has been collecting taxes on Washington residents already. Expect all other states to follow the precedent now set.

Kinda sucks, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Does this mean we can finally close the stupid "Oregon residents pay no sales tax in WA" loophole they abuse?

burrrton wrote:Kinda sucks, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Does this mean we can finally close the stupid "Oregon residents pay no sales tax in WA" loophole they abuse?

Unfortunately, no. It is based on your billing/mailing address as to what sales tax you pay. Amazon and other online marketers will be responsible for collecting and remitting the tax to each state. What you might find are people opening accounts and mailboxes in Oregon and Deleware to avoid sales tax though.

So since this will be a big boon to each states revenues do you think they will reduce property or other taxes or will they just expand their give away programs to meet their new revenue levels? (rhetorically asked of course)

burrrton wrote:Kinda sucks, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

Does this mean we can finally close the stupid "Oregon residents pay no sales tax in WA" loophole they abuse?

That's been a thorn in my side for years. I used to work for a Washington employer that had one warehouse in OR, and of course, I lived in WA. I had to pay Oregon state income tax on every hour I worked at that one warehouse, yet Oregon residents could (and still do) come into WA and not have to pay our sales tax.

As a rule, I'm an anti tax conservative, but I'm actually for this law. It is an unfair advantage to the businesses within this state and causes the state to look for other sources of revenue (like replacing the sales tax with an income tax).

As a rule, I'm an anti tax conservative, but I'm actually for this law.

Not sure if I'm really for it, but that's mostly because I like not having to pay sales tax.

Like I said, though, doesn't upset me. Most of my online purchases are on Amazon anyway (where I always have to pay it anyway).

burrrton wrote:Not sure if I'm really for it, but that's mostly because I like not having to pay sales tax.

Like I said, though, doesn't upset me. Most of my online purchases are on Amazon anyway (where I always have to pay it anyway).

I don't 'like' paying a sales tax...and I don't like warm beer, wet toilet paper, and smart asses. But occasionally I have to deal with all of them.

I'd much rather pay a sales tax than the alternative, ie an income tax. At least a sales tax you can avoid to some degree, by simply not buying if the added tax makes it too expensive. Heck, if I had my way, I'd do away with the national income tax and replace it with a sales tax.

My understanding is that Amazon already collects state sales taxes even in states where they are not required to. They're way out in front on this issue as it won't hurt them a bit while it will take a bite out of their online competitor's businesses.

Heck, if I had my way, I'd do away with the national income tax and replace it with a sales tax.

I'd take that in a heartbeat, too- we both know, however, that there is literally no left-leaning politician that would give up the income tax, so any VAT/'national sales tax' is only going to be an add-on (also the reason I doubt anyone in WA would replace sales tax with income tax- it's a metaphysical certainty they'll only add an income tax to whatever we already pay).

burrrton wrote:I'd take that in a heartbeat, too- we both know, however, that there is literally no left-leaning politician that would give up the income tax, so any VAT/'national sales tax' is only going to be an add-on (also the reason I doubt anyone in WA would replace sales tax with income tax- it's a metaphysical certainty they'll only add an income tax to whatever we already pay).

It's not just left leaning politicians that object to a national sales tax, it's way too radical of an idea for most moderates as well. The only way it happens if a successful candidate for POTUS makes it the cornerstone of their election campaign and brings a whole bunch into Congress on his/her coattails that are willing to fight for it. It would then require a Constitutional amendment to repeal the 16th Amendment, which would take years for it to get the thumbs up from at least 34 state legislatures. I don't see it happening in my lifetime.

It's not just left leaning politicians that object to a national sales tax, it's way too radical of an idea for most moderates as well.

Mmmmmm... I don't think many in the middle resisting it realize it would (should?) *replace* the income tax. It's seldom presented as such. Maybe you've seen differently.

I don't see it happening in my lifetime.

Agreed. The income tax is *never* going away- there are too many politicians 100% invested in control and nothing else. Hell, Obama himself demonstrated it when he said he'd raise the capital gains tax even if it reduced tax revenue. They don't care if it helps the country- it's about settling scores and pressing the thumb down on people.

burrrton wrote:Mmmmmm... I don't think many in the middle resisting it realize it would (should?) *replace* the income tax. It's seldom presented as such. Maybe you've seen differently.

I really haven't "seen" anything, it's just a gut feel. Repealing the 16th and replacing it with a sales tax would be the most radical reform of government in nearly a century. Most people, and politicians, are scared to death of a change that significant.

Agreed. The income tax is *never* going away- there are too many politicians 100% invested in control and nothing else. Hell, Obama himself demonstrated it when he said he'd raise the capital gains tax even if it reduced tax revenue. They don't care if it helps the country- it's about settling scores and pressing the thumb down on people.

Which is one of the reasons why repealing the income tax is so attractive. Taxation policy has become so politicalized that it's more about income redistribution than it is about funding the government. It would also eliminate a very intrusive, politicized part of the federal government in the form of the IRS. They use IRS audits, or the threat of audits, as a weapon.

The one tax I'd like to see eliminated and outlawed is property tax. You shouldn't have to pay rent to the government for home ownership. The government should not have any claim on your property. It's always been astounding how many ways the government takes our money, while being able unable to manage it very well at the same time.

This sales tax law is at least equitable. In that regard I don't mind it. But the government such a glutton for taxes and not so great at managing the revenues that we need an overhaul of the system at some point and major cuts to spending.

Aseahawkfan wrote:The one tax I'd like to see eliminated and outlawed is property tax. You shouldn't have to pay rent to the government for home ownership. The government should not have any claim on your property. It's always been astounding how many ways the government takes our money, while being able unable to manage it very well at the same time.

This sales tax law is at least equitable. In that regard I don't mind it. But the government such a glutton for taxes and not so great at managing the revenues that we need an overhaul of the system at some point and major cuts to spending.

Actually I don't mind the assessment of property taxes as much as I do how they are utilized. They're used to support public schools, which means the neighborhoods with the highest value will receive the most money for their schools. Public schools should be funded through the general fund and operating money allocated strictly by population. The only 'good' thing about the current arrangement is that it allows for some measure of local control.

But I agree completely with your 2nd paragraph. The sales tax, like the gas tax, is equitable as it applies to everyone, which is why I think it should be adapted by the federal government. Heck, even criminals, illegal aliens, tourists, anyone that sets foot in the taxing district has to pay the tax. It's unavoidable unless you opt not to make any purchases.

RiverDog wrote:Actually I don't mind the assessment of property taxes as much as I do how they are utilized. They're used to support public schools, which means the neighborhoods with the highest value will receive the most money for their schools. Public schools should be funded through the general fund and operating money allocated strictly by population. The only 'good' thing about the current arrangement is that it allows for some measure of local control.

But I agree completely with your 2nd paragraph. The sales tax, like the gas tax, is equitable as it applies to everyone, which is why I think it should be adapted by the federal government. Heck, even criminals, illegal aliens, tourists, anyone that sets foot in the taxing district has to pay the tax. It's unavoidable unless you opt not to make any purchases.

So you're ok with a tax that basically allows the government to take your home if you for some reason can't pay it? Basically, an unlimited claim upon your property for your entire life. Sorry, that is horsecrap. They need to find another way to pay for things in neighborhoods that don't involve having an unlimited time claim upon personal property ownership. This continuous claim upon property is an immoral act by our government.

I can see a property tax on businesses or those renting for profit, but for personal use home ownership there should not be a property tax. It's a bad way to fund that allows government a permanent claim on property ownership.

Aseahawkfan wrote:So you're ok with a tax that basically allows the government to take your home if you for some reason can't pay it?

How often does that happen? I have never heard of the government seizing property simply because the land holder couldn't afford to pay the tax. Most poor people don't own property because they don't have enough money, a steady job, etc, to qualify for a loan so they are forced to rent.

In this state, there is a program that allows for deferrals and exemptions from the tax if the owner meets certain qualifications. Here's one such criteria:

Own home in Washington for five years; occupy as a primary residence; have combined disposable income of $57,000 or less; and have enough equity to secure the interest of the State of Washington in the property.


https://dor.wa.gov/find-taxes-rates/pro ... -deferrals

There are other criteria as well that include veterans and widows of veterans, the disabled, non profit organizations, and senior citizens.

I am not "OK" with the tax. I am simply recognizing one of the two certainties in life: Death and taxes. It is preferrable to other options that would replace it, which in this state would mean an income tax as there is no other potential revenue stream big enough to make up for the loss of the property tax that they haven't already tapped.

Aaaaaaand... in the least surprising decision in recent memory, SCOTUS upholds Trump's travel ban.

(this seemed like an appropriate thread to mention it)

What *is* surprising is that there are 4 Supreme Court justices who *don't* think the POTUS has that authority.

Scary.

burrrton wrote:Aaaaaaand... in the least surprising decision in recent memory, SCOTUS upholds Trump's travel ban.

(this seemed like an appropriate thread to mention it)

What *is* surprising is that there are 4 Supreme Court justices who *don't* think the POTUS has that authority.

Scary.

What has been scary for years is that the political affiliation of the current administration is important when appointing vacant Supreme Court Justice. Shows that justice is not apolitical as it should be and even the Supreme Court decides the nature of law by their political affiliation somehow being able to justify it through whatever case law happens to loosely fit their interpretation.