New DSLR lenses from Nikon
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Problem solved:
Next: ARGUS - DARPA's All-Seeing Eye
From: Pete Stavrakoglou on 11 Feb 2010 16:49 "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message news:4b7477f1$0$23148$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... > "Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote in message > news:hl1pcm$tln$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message >> news:4b743950$0$22908$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com... >>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >>> news:jqa8n5150cgkug13kev134nhhp66u75ckh(a)4ax.com... >>>> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 11:03:46 -0500, "Peter" >>>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>>"Pete Stavrakoglou" <ntotrr(a)optonline.net> wrote in message >>>>>news:hl17f0$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. Our tax authorities are proactively >>> attempting to encourage online retailers to collect and turn over the >>> sales tax. For several years there have been ongoing negotiations >>> between the various States for an inter-state compact, regarding >>> collection of sales taxes. There are lots of constitutional and business >>> difficulties with such a compact. (most states have lots of problems >>> being paid sales taxes collected by their resident businesses.) Though >>> some inter-state compacts have been working well, at least in the income >>> tax area. >> >> New York's logic was that if a New York State resident while in New York >> could "click-through" to a website, then that is akin to having a >> physical prescence (or some logic of the sort). This would apply to any >> out-of-state reseller but thus far, NY is going after the big ones like >> Amazon and Buy.com. > > > That logic is contrary to established precedent. NY is using fear, no > logic. > > -- > Peter Yes, however the courts rules in favor of NY when Amazon and Buy.com brought suit. Unbelievable, but they did.
From: Savageduck on 11 Feb 2010 16:51 On 2010-02-11 13:10:40 -0800, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said: > On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:40:46 -0800, Savageduck > <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >> ...and since VAT is a "value added tax" an imported item arriving a >> port of entry would have the taxed "added value" of the freight costs >> to move it from port of entry to point of distribution or sale. That >> would also apply to the cost of transport on domestic products. That >> could be considerable for some landlocked states. That is unless >> transport is given a VAT exemption > > > Wrong, because the consumer pays VAT only once, at the point of sale. > All the VAT that was charged on any intermediate expense, including > transport, is reclaimed by the retailer of the product or service. > > Otherwise, the consumer would be paying tax on tax, and that doesn't > happen. Regardless it is a bureauratic nightmare, and in the US with the involvement of 50 States, it would be worse. I prefer to deal with my 8.25% California Sales Tax and leave VAT out of the equation. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Bruce on 11 Feb 2010 17:09 On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:51:12 -0800, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >On 2010-02-11 13:10:40 -0800, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said: > >> On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:40:46 -0800, Savageduck >> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: >>> ...and since VAT is a "value added tax" an imported item arriving a >>> port of entry would have the taxed "added value" of the freight costs >>> to move it from port of entry to point of distribution or sale. That >>> would also apply to the cost of transport on domestic products. That >>> could be considerable for some landlocked states. That is unless >>> transport is given a VAT exemption >> >> >> Wrong, because the consumer pays VAT only once, at the point of sale. >> All the VAT that was charged on any intermediate expense, including >> transport, is reclaimed by the retailer of the product or service. >> >> Otherwise, the consumer would be paying tax on tax, and that doesn't >> happen. > >Regardless it is a bureauratic nightmare, and in the US with the >involvement of 50 States, it would be worse. But it isn't a bureaucratic nightmare. I have operated several different types of business and dealing with VAT has never been a problem in any of them. Back in the 70s I worked in a hi-fi store and the owner - who was an importer and wholesaler too - was always griping about purchase tax. He quickly got used to the new VAT system and greatly preferred it. >I prefer to deal with my 8.25% California Sales Tax and leave VAT out >of the equation. To the customer, there is no difference. Whether it is VAT or sales tax, the customer just pays it at the point of sale. The rest of it is simple accounting. It is nothing like as bad as you think, it's just a slightly different system to the one that you are familiar with. If the USA introduced VAT there would be no need to set the rates as high as they are in Europe. They would be broadly in line with what you now pay in sales tax. One good thing about VAT is that the price you pay already includes the tax. No more going to pay for an item and finding that nasty addition to the price ...
From: Peter on 11 Feb 2010 17:12 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:2fv8n5p2d3f6ea4pej09kvbgm97484db0h(a)4ax.com... > But it isn't a bureaucratic nightmare. I have operated several > different types of business and dealing with VAT has never been a > problem in any of them. Back in the 70s I worked in a hi-fi store and > the owner - who was an importer and wholesaler too - was always > griping about purchase tax. He quickly got used to the new VAT system > and greatly preferred it. No wonder we don't see your pictures. You have been busy operating businesses. -- Peter
From: Bruce on 11 Feb 2010 17:16
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 17:12:07 -0500, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:2fv8n5p2d3f6ea4pej09kvbgm97484db0h(a)4ax.com... > >> But it isn't a bureaucratic nightmare. I have operated several >> different types of business and dealing with VAT has never been a >> problem in any of them. Back in the 70s I worked in a hi-fi store and >> the owner - who was an importer and wholesaler too - was always >> griping about purchase tax. He quickly got used to the new VAT system >> and greatly preferred it. > >No wonder we don't see your pictures. You have been busy operating >businesses. Photography *is* my business. I do it to make money, and it seems to work reasonably well ... VAT or no VAT. ;-) |