Bonneville America Forums Forums Off Topic Discussion Forums Lounge OT - I wanna whine about taxes.

Get this. Here in the State of Washington, we don't have a State Income tax. We instead have a State Sales tax (8.9%). Anyway, our State lawmakers have noticed a drop in revenue that results from entities like Ebay, craigslist, and the like. So, by the letter of the law, if you buy something off of, say, craigslist.com from a private party (or any internet site for that matter) you will need to send in the 8.9% yourself (as the consumer). Now, nobody does, - but by the letter of the law you're supposed to.

Anyway, this is called a "use tax," - and our State government is beginning to get pretty aggressive in recovering this lost revenue from online-sales.

Is it just me, or does this seem over-reaching to anybody else? I mean, can you imagine being audited and paying back taxes, interest, & penalties on, say, clothing you bought over the internet 5 years ago?

Sheesh!

Thoughts?

-BT

Putting on my devil's advocate hat on (oh wait, I never took it off, moving on...)

Would you rather have state income tax? Or a higher sales tax? I think it's unrealistic to expect the state to cut back on services and chop the budget to compensate for the drop in revenue.

Just think ~~ our forefathers here in America fought a war over the principle of "Taxation Without Representation". I wonder what they would do if they could see where taxation with representation has gotten us.

For what it is worth ~~ many states have the ebay and online taxes as part of the code. It's just nobody pays it. Technically when you have a garage sale you are supposed charge tax and turn that in ~~ in many states anyway.

Whats to complain about? Here in good ol Taxachusetts we have state,sales,meal,excise(for your cars even though you paid sales when you bought it),bottle bill(5 Cent deposit on cans and bottles that if you don't return the state keeps even though we have recycling),property,water and sewer, and so on and so on. And with all that they still say we are broke at state and city level.

I think most states have that, and legally the money is theirs. For example, about 25 years ago my friend was running a computer consulting business out of his home in NJ. A NJ tax guy showed up to supposedly audit his business (unannounced BTW). He asked him where he had purchased his computer equipment, and how much he had paid for it. It was purchased out of state mail order, and he presented the examiner with the sales receipt for the then multi-thousand dollar computer setup. He was presented with a bill for sales tax from the state which he had to pay.

I live around 8 miles from the state of Delaware. No sales tax in Delaware, 6% in PA - 7% in Philadelphia county (the city is the county). Everything I can, I buy in Delaware. Most importantly - liquor and beer. The state-run system here in PA is a joke. Lousy selection, high prices and you have to go to separate places to buy wine/liquor (the state) and beer (private enterprise). I feel sorry for those who are stuck in the middle of Pennsylvania.

Montana is one of the few states left without a sales tax. Not that they don't keep trying to enact one.

But it's horrible, HORRIBLE here. You don't want to move here.

Well, my family's small business will be undergoing an audit on June 7th. My accountant has informed me that what they're after is this "use tax." So, I built two of three computers back in 2003. I bought most of the components from an outfit in California called mwave.com (motherboards, hard-drives, memory modules, etc., etc.). They did not charge Washington State sales tax, and I didn't even know about this tax-transgression. Now, I run the risk of being stung with these cockamayme back "use taxes", with high interest + penalties.

It just seem like the "brown-shirt" bean-counters are after me.

I'll let you all know how it turns out.

-BT

BTW, I just bought my wife and I new motorcycle helmet from "helmetcity.com" (based in Oakland, CA). By the letter of the I should notify the brown-shirts of this transaction.

(and now for a little comic relief....)

Prosecutor: "Isn't it true, Chiccolini, that you have abscond much of Freedonia'a taxes?!"

Chiccolini: "Taxes?! Taxes?! Hey! I gotta brother who'a lives in'a taxes?!"

Prosecutor: "Huh?! No! No! Not Texas! TAXES! As in DOLLARS!!!"

Chiccolini: "Yeah, that's a RIGHT! That's where'a my brother lives...DOLLARS TAXES!!! Say! Maybe you'a know him, huh?!"

(from the classic Marx Bros movie..."Duck Soup")

Its an absolute overreach of govt. They should learn to spend on a budget, and cut when needed. There are many wasteful programs that are ripe for the axe ( and I will avoid naming any, lest I be accused of making this a political thread ).

The nice thing is if you live in south Washington, just jump the river and shop in Oregon, save the sales tax there ( or has that changed too ).

Ct has been doing the "use tax" thing for a few years now.
And on top of that we have a state income taz and i believe the second or third highest gas tax in the nation, as well as some of the highest tobacco and liquer taxes.

Also among the highest motorvehicle registration and licence fees,

There's a up side to this, a few years ago the Ct State police where voted "the best dressed in the nation"

Our tax dollars at work.

Yeah, but look at all the great things your tax dollars buy you. Can you name three?

well reasable taxes are needed to maintain the infersturctutre roads bridges and such, and the need for police and fire service...its the spending on bull***t and pork that gets me.

You can bet those weren't Massachusetts tax dollars buying that corner.

Temporary housing for Paris Hilton

Count your blessings BT. In OK. we have State Income tax plus Tulsa has a sales tax of almost 9%

I'd spend personal money to support that!

last week. In the Ct legaslature,

Leader of Party A. (the minority party) proposed temporarily suspending CT's gas tax for 2 months to give us a little break this summer, citing that last year the state had a buget surplus of 300 million dollars.

Leader of party B (the majority party).
Called that irresponceable, saying we cant aford to loose the money, And that the surplus should be spent on somthing the state needs.Didnt say what exactly, But i'm sure they could find a place to spend it if they try real hard.

Now can anyone guess who parties A and B are?

Well, at the risk of pushing this farther down the political track and thus being a bad example of a moderator, I couldn't guess which is which these days. I know what they would've been 10 or 20 years ago. These days? Not so much....

Try living in NY. We have a sales tax in some counties that is nearly as high as yours and a state income tax that beats out allmost everyone else. Our state tax form has a section for tax on internet purchases as well.

To add insult to injury, check out this... The tax rate varies from county to county. The state component is fixed but each county and municipality can add their own. There is a section in the state income tax form that asks you to summarize you purchases in "lower taxed counties" and send the difference between their rate and the rate in your home county to the state. Luckily I live in one of the lowest taxed counties (Ontario) where we are blessed (if you can call it that) with only a 7.25% rate on purchases. To add insult to injusry, my property taxes went up by 30% this year. Our forefathers must be rolling in their graves....

The big problem where I live is the school tax. All the out of town people NYC people mostly who bring kids from thier extended families and only rent then all of us home owners here have to foot the bill. The school board builds new schools every year or 2 because of a stupid law that prohibits planning more than 2 years ahead. Then they build thses tajmahaul schools with tond of wasted space and materials. the city people bring the gangs and trash with them further ruining the area. I know it isn't all and I don't mean that but the few ruin it for the many. I could go on and on on this subject. I was trying to restrain myself cause this gets me wound up.

This is not a rant against decent NYers just to be clear.

Remember Ian, with property taxes the property owner pays the tax. So the renters pay, as it's part of the money they pay to the landlord.

Not trying to wind you up here, I understand your concern. It's similar many places.

My peave with the school district here is that they don't pay teachers enough to retain them. Yet they can pay administrators (and they're top heavy) six and nearly seven figure salaries (in the case of the superintendent).
I don't mind paying my share for the services that are provided, but like many am upset by the pork and good ol' boy (bipartisan) politics.

I work in DC on a regular basis where the motto on the license plates is "Taxation Without Representation".
I thought that was a bad thing. Why flaunt it on their plates? Hidden meaning perhaps?

Eeah! I wouldn't worry too much about that, Nick.

Only about HALF the Yo-Yos in this country even bother to vote, anyway.

Therefore, if you think long and hard about that(I know, I know...an endevor americans aren't known to do too much of in general) THEN we really don't DESERVE much "representation", now do we?!

What's that ol' saw again? Oh yeah..."People get the government that they deserve."

(Hmmmm...I should do this for a livin' now that I'm retired...Anybody know of an opening for "Curmudgeon-At-Large" somewhere?...Hey! Maybe when that old fart Andy Rooney finally kicks the bucket, I can have that job o' his over at CBS...that can't be too much longer, now can it?!)

I thought taxes were high here in Arizona.Then I read on here Taxashootusinthehead,etc.I gue$$ our high sales taxes aren't as bad as I thought.I see this week talking to people our gas is lower this week here, anyway than the Midwest and ElPaso.You just never know what the gov.is going to do.Communisim,the peoples way.China does it,it sounds like we do to.This ought to stirr the pot.How about taxing the companies that want to buy into this country for trying to take our industry over.

Oh man I agree totally Bill. My mom and sister are both teachers.

A number of years ago I was legislator here in Iowa. The teachers union and school administrators were ALWAYS screaming for more money. It turns out that, adjusted for inflation, we were spending more than twice as much per pupil as we had thirty years earlier and student achievement had gone down. This is a national phenomenon. Spending has skyrocketed as performance has plummeted. There is no positive correlation between per pupil spending or teachers salaries and performance. The American Legislative Exchange Council, an association of mostly conservative state legislators, has tracked this for years and has data going back, in some cases, 100 years. State by state and international comparisons of almost every conceivable area are available on their website. Most of the data is from the US Dept of Education, state education departments and testing services. Whenever I hear some educrat claim that they could solve all the problems with education, if they only had more money, I just take out my copy of ALEC’s annual report card and shoot them down in flames.

For those of you that want to look it up, try here: http://www.alec.org/task-forces/education

I agree with ya, Larry.

In fact, do you know how much money some school districts in the state of Kansas alone have saved by not teaching that darwinian crap to their kids?

(ya know, I never get tired of tweeking the noses of some of the 'Heartlanders')

ACTUALLY, you ARE right, Larry. You can throw money all the money you want at schools in the disadvantaged areas in this country, but UNTIL the under-educated PARENTS of these kids REALIZE that there's WORTH in getting an education, and they SUPPORT and PROD their prodigy towards that goal, AND those who are better off and more established financially who live in areas with a higher local TAX BASE that naturally have MORE funds to support their local schools SHARE a bit of their funding with those having a lower tax base, THEN maybe a few more of those kids (but of course not every kid) in those lower income areas might have a little better chance to "not be left behind". I know if I was a teacher and had my choice between teaching in wealthier or poorer neighborhoods, I'd sure as heck pick the former, unless there were some finanical incentives offered to sway me to the latter.

But there's that word again...."sharing". Gee! That has connotations of "Communism"(or maybe even "Christianity") doesn't it?!

My point is that we already spend more per pupil than any country in the world and get less for it. My opinion is that the problem is that we are too concerned with students "rights" and their poor little psyches. Then we turn them over to a union dominated bureaucratic system more concerned with higher pay, lower work loads, larger spans of control and politically correct indoctrination than in ensuring students actually learn what they need to know to function properly in a democratic society.

We have a system that allows poor teachers to stay forever and get pay raises determined strictly by seniority. We have a certification system that allows “Education” majors to teach classes they are unprepared to teach, while keeping out subject matter experts. The vast majority of university professors are not considered qualified to teach their subjects in high schools.

We want computers for every student but don’t teach many kids to count change. We promote affirmative action but won’t discuss the happenings at the constitutional convention. We teach scientific theories as fact but don’t allow the scientific method to be used to question those theories.

I think we need to ask the most basic question “What is the purpose of the educational system?” If it is to educate and inform young people we need to act as if that is the purpose. On the other hand, if it is to provide fairly well paying jobs and good job security to middle class adults and to inculcate kids with the latest politically correct attitudes we can keep doing what we’re doing.

We are throwing money at a failed system. Involved parents can only do so much within the system. That is why so many are now home schooling their kids and why private schools and companies like Sylvan are in demand.

If a person really cares about the “disadvantaged” kids out there they would work to give them the tools they need to succeed, not just parrot the party line and feel good about themselves.

I agree with a lot you said, Larry. BUT...it's STILL the PARENTS responsibility to make sure that their "little darlings" are learning what they're supposed to. And as always, if one is born to highly or even somewhat moderately educated and somewhat successful parents, then one's chances are natually going to be higher for success in this regard. The locally financed tax base school system that most states operate today will most assuredly insure that this cycle will continue ad infinitum.

(and BTW, you're right again...I've ALWAYS felt pretty good about myself...but then again, I've always felt I was pretty lucky have to the PARENTS that I did...I "picked 'em" ya know...I was adopted)

Some truth there Dwight but there are still way too many parents who are well off and educated themselves that fail to discipline or make an effort to see that their progeny at least make a minimal effort to follow in the path of relative success when it comes to education.

A lack of discipline in the masses is self evident these days and extends not only to the poor or minority groups but crosses into all socio-economic arenas.

We need more of our kids walking ten miles to school through snow and hail as WE did in our day and our parents before us.

But its so true....a parent who lays down the law is one who generally will ensure his offspring will graduate from high school or even college with some respectability.

Just throwing money at school districts is not the entire answer.