New DSLR lenses from Nikon
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Problem solved:
Next: ARGUS - DARPA's All-Seeing Eye
From: tony cooper on 11 Feb 2010 12:55 On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:56:07 -0500, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >news:1298n5l0sgjvjrbr8rm580e0g2lqcd47gq(a)4ax.com... > >> >> What you are referring to is not the rate of tax involved, but the >> evasion of tax. If you have a boat in Florida (that is kept/used here >> permanently), and don't register that boat in Florida, you are evading >> tax. > > >I was referring to the difficulty of enforcement. >Similarly, if you purchase a camera on the net and don't pay the sales/use >tax on the transaction you may very well be comitting criminal tax evasion. And I have. I'd say that 99% of the people who purchase items on the internet are guilty of evading sales tax if they live in a state that imposes sales tax. Criminal, though? I don't know. If caught, you might be required to pay the tax, interest, and a fine...but I doubt if criminal charges would be brought. >> You are more likely to be busted by the Marine Patrol than you are the >> tax authorities. Also, you are likely to reported by the marina >> management. > >Don't know about marinas in your neck of hte woods, but here, the private >ones did little or no reporting, as it waas not in their interest to do such >reporting. If you owned a marina, would you want your customers harassed by state officials looking for violators? If you were a state official, though, a word to the marina owner to either report violations or be subject to repeated visits could make it to your interest to self-report. >As to the marine patrol, it depends on the use and registration >of the vessel. Why would not e Coast Guard registration be sufficient as a >vessel used n interstate commerce. >For purposes of this discussion I am referring only to ordinary pleasure >craft. There is a wholly different set of rules for commercial boats. The "marine patrol" in Florida is the Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission. They inspect private watercraft for safety regulation compliance, licenses, violations of fishing laws, boating operation, and boating in restricted zones Any private boater in Florida can expect to be stopped by the marine patrol at some time if even for a safety inspection. >> >> If you are using your boat in Florida while visiting Florida, you can >> do so for 90 days without registering it. Longer than that, you must >> register it. >> >Suppose I take weekly trips to Bimini and stay there for a few days. Do I >have an obligation to pay the use tax? What's Bimini have to do with it? Florida hasn't annexed Bimini. What pertains is where you dock your boat between trips and where you have your primary residence. Where you go when you are on the water is irrelevant in this case. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Ray Fischer on 11 Feb 2010 12:59 Geoffrey S. Mendelson <gsm(a)mendelson.com> wrote: >It's considered a regressive tax because poor people pay VAT at the same >rate as rich people, but that's not really true. They pay the same rate, >but rich people pay much more of it because they are able to afford more >items that are not excempt. Smirk. Orwellian logic at its best. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Ray Fischer on 11 Feb 2010 13:01 Pete Stavrakoglou <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote: >"Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message >> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message >>> Nutcase or not, if she does nothing but stop those presses from printing >>> money, I'll vote for her....... >> >> You are even more scary than I thought. > >I'll take her over the current mistake in the White House in a heartbeat. So, when Bush puts the country into the worst recession since the depression, runs up trillions of dollars of debt, and kills hundreds of thousands of people in multiple wars that's god, but trying to get the country out of the mess while not creating a depression is bad. No wonder you people are called rightards. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: J�rgen Exner on 11 Feb 2010 13:14 C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >On 2010-02-09 14:12:21 -0800, J�rgen Exner <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> said: > >> C J Campbell <christophercampbellremovethis(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> Either that or their own tax-hungry governments think they are. America >>> has no VAT. >> >> 1: Canada does have VAT, it is called "Goods and Services Tax". Don't >> know about other countries in America. >> 2: I am quite certain I prefer a flat simple straightforward VAT over >> the impenetrable jungle of local, state, county and other sales taxes >> that are slapped on in the US and sometimes vary just across the street. [...] >If you like this oppressive, extremely regressive tax, fine with me. ??? You see me mystified and scratching my head. How is a system that charges exactly the same percentage from everyone[*] regressive, or even worse "extremely regressive", in absolute terms? And how is it more regressive in relative terms (if that's what you meant) than sales tax where rich cities, which are rich because rich people are living there, don't leverage sales tax while poor cities have no other choice? *: In reality there are typically 3 or 4 different levels of VAT, none or reduced for basic needs like e.g. food, standard, and high for luxury items, thus actually making it a rather progressive tax because low-income people are unlikely to buy large amounts of the high-taxed luxury items. jue
From: Peter on 11 Feb 2010 13:16
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:2cf8n5hn0hkvdao57q3orlb69hhgm1t2l1(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 12:07:11 -0500, "Peter" > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > >>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >>news:jqa8n5150cgkug13kev134nhhp66u75ckh(a)4ax.com... >>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:03:46 -0500, "Peter" >>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>> >>>>"Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote in message >>>>news:hl17f0$k6o$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >>>> >>>>> A New York State resident is required to pay the difference in sales >>>>> tax >>>>> to New York for any item purchased out-of-state. If I buy a camera >>>>> from >>>>> a >>>>> reseller in another state online, they do not charge me the sales tax. >>>>> I >>>>> am required by law to pay New York the difference. >>>> >>>>You are required to make such a declaraton on your New York Income tax >>>>return. BTW some retailers such as Amazon, do collect the NY sales tax. >>> >>> The general rule is if the seller has a presence (store, outlet, >>> office) in the state, they must charge sales tax, where applicable, to >>> sales made to residents of that state. >>> >>> Ritz Camera gets around that by having their stores in Florida owned >>> by one corporation and their online sales entity owned by a different >>> corporation. >>> >> >> >>AFAIK Amazon has no presence in NY. > > I know. I said "generally" because the usual situation where sales > tax is collected by the seller is when the seller does have presence. > The tax authorities in the states would like to see the exclusion of > the requirement of presence, and are therefore pressing for *any* > sales being delivered to their state subject to sales tax. They want > the Ritz-type of evasion of tax collection eliminated as well as > non-evasive tactics where the seller clearly has no presence. This type of avoidance of responsibility by Ritz, is not evasion, although it may be assisting its customers to commit tax evasion. That being said, in certain areas that issue has somewhat been solved in the income tax area through use of the Federal related party transaction rules. In the foreign tax area we have subpart F in the Internal Revenue code. California has the unified entity concept. That concept has not been applied in the area of sales tax. I doubt that without a change in the Interstate Commerce Clause, that the concept could be applied. > > Businesses will fight this because it would require them to file in > every state where something they sell has been purchased. That's a > massive increase in paperwork for them. As the former owner (now > retired) of a business that sold to customers in other states, I can > personally attest that this would be a major PITA for the business. > Each state with a sales tax has a different reporting system, a > different set of sales-tax-exempt products, and a different rule for > sales-tax-exempt customers. > I think that any requirement by one state attempting a business with no connection with that state, other than shipments into that state, would be a violation of the Instate Commerce Clause, absent some reciprocal agreement between the different states. Any interstate compact must provide for a uniform reporting system. The record keeping requirements and exemption issues would be a definite PITA. -- Peter |