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 17:26 On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 10:14:38 -0800, J�rgen Exner <jurgenex(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >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? I would think that you would know this. A "regressive tax" is a tax that takes a larger percentage from the low-income group than it takes from the higher income group. The argument of a sales/use tax being "regressive" is that people with lower incomes spend more of their disposable income on taxable items than do people with higher income. When the tax is the same rate for all, the percentage of income spent on taxes decreases as the income of the person increases. (I am not supporting the poster's comment that the VAT is a oppressive or extremely regressive tax. It's a regressive tax, but only as opposed to being a progressive tax. It's not any more oppressive than any other means of taxation.) >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. The argument against that argument is determining what is a "luxury" item. A television set is not a basic necessity, but it's not really in the luxury group. Sales/use tax on a television set takes more of the low-income person's disposable income than it does from the high-income person's disposable income. There are many items in this not-a-basic-necessity and not-a-luxury group...clothes, vehicles, etc. Taxes on purchases - sales, use, or VAT - are regressive, but there doesn't seem to be a fairer option on the table. I don't really understand your reference to "rich cities" and "poor cities", but that could be because sales tax revenues don't go to the cities where I'm from. Basic sales tax revenues are collected by the state and become part of the state's budget. There are surcharges in some Florida counties that go to the county, but not to any particular city. The city's revenues come from other forms of taxation. Other states may do it differently. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Savageduck on 11 Feb 2010 17:37 On 2010-02-11 14:09:04 -0800, Bruce <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> said: > 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 ... > > Well in the US it will be a bureaucratic nightmare. Each of the State which impose a sales tax have a different distribution of those revenues. the break down for California sales Tax is as follows; 8.25% 5.00% - State General Fund 0.25% - State Fiscal Recovery Fund 0.50% - State Local Revenue Fund 0.50% - State Local Public Safety Fund 1.00% - Uniform Local Tax 0.25% - Local County - Transportation Funds 0.75% - Local City/County - Operational Funds Then some individual California Counties and cities have imposed additional bumps to that sales tax. Also each State has different excise taxes on fuel, alcohol and tobacco, and California sales tax is imposed on top of those. If you include the Federal excise taxes on those items alone that amounts to a de facto triple taxation. That is only California, each of the states has their own formula and tax code. As I said earlier, each State would have to change their tax code and the Federal government would have to devise a fair method of distributing those revenues based on local sales. If that is not going to be a bureaucratic, and costly nightmare I need further explanation. -- Regards, Savageduck
From: tony cooper on 11 Feb 2010 17:39 On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:16:14 -0500, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"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, Peter, I really wish you'd read with more attention to what is actually said. What Ritz does is "evasion of tax collection". They don't collect the tax. They evade that process. By doing so, they don't incur the costs of keeping extra records and filing with each state where they make sales. Only the end-user can evade the payment of sales/use taxes due. Ritz has clean hands in this because it is not their responsibility, under current law, to act as a collection and disbursement point. Ritz is not avoiding responsibility. They have no responsibility to collect sales tax and pass it along to the state. They have structured themselves in such a way that they do not have this responsibility, and the current laws allow this. I try to present things clearly and avoid the ambiguous. If I meant "tax evasion", I would write that. If I mean "evasion of tax collection", I write that. And I did. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: tony cooper on 11 Feb 2010 17:43 On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:21:28 -0500, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message >news:k4g8n59q2lfg7hccpfgn3gl0plf8u6n9i2(a)4ax.com... > >> 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. >> > >Don't know the statistics. However, that is why the question is being asked >on our income tax returns. Making a knowingly false statement on an income >tax return is a crime. As to enforcement, that sometimes depends on what >else is on the return. This is where "all states are different" comes into play. Florida does not have a state income tax. If I purchase a camera online, and do not pay sales/use tax to Florida, I don't have to declare that I owe no tax. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: tony cooper on 11 Feb 2010 17:54
On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 13:32:47 -0500, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>>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. >> > >I dock my boat in Bimini for 30 days, FL for 10 days, well under the 60 day >requirement, then in Bmini for 200 days and FL for 59 days. I then come back >into FL for supplies and go back to, wherever. It's not my field, but I wouldn't think that you would be considered to be a Florida resident and required to register your boat in Florida under the above conditions. You're a transient. > >BTW the real incentive for the marina to report the boats is the expectation >of getting a pass on their own sales tax violations. Yes, that does happen >and more often than most think. >Unlike criminal law, if there is any rational basis for the tax department's >determination the taxpayer now has the burden of proving the department >wrong. This is a very difficult burden. When I owned a company, I was audited by the Florida Department of Revenue (our sales tax people) a few times. No one in business in Florida who has ever been audited is under the impression that the auditor will leave giving you a clean bill. They *will* find something. I have also been audited by the IRS, but they did not find anything wrong or assess any additional taxes, penalties, or interest. Given the choice, I'll go through six IRS audits rather than one FL DofR audits. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |