6 ms·

Think of it from the perspective of the business selling goods. Then the quote makes more sense.

jethro_tell 8y ago
The business isn't paying the tax though? If the people paying the tax don't want it, they should replace their reps or move to a state that doesn't have that tax. So we could think of it from the point of the business but that wouldn't be based in fact.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- Cerium 8y ago
  If the business isn't paying the tax, then I'm sure the people paying the tax can pay the tax themselves. No need to add a middleman.
  - jedberg 8y ago
    They tried that for 10 years and it didn't work. Very few people pay use tax like they should. But it wasn't cost effective to enforce every individual offender. So now they're trying something different.
    - sp332 8y ago
      Both you and Cerium are correct. Depending on buyers to collect sales tax from themselves hasn't been working. And forcing someone in a different jurisdiction to do it might not be defensible.
    - PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
      Thus forcing the businesses to pay or be punished. The business likely has the option of not passing the cost along to the consumer, but in the end they are the one being forced to pay the state.
      - jedberg 8y ago
        No, they are forced into being tax collection agents. But they aren’t being forced. They could just not sell to people in that state if they don’t like it. For example, at my company, I won’t hire anyone from Kentucky because their employment costs are too high. It’s a choice I get to make. I limit my employee pool but I also avoid costs I don’t like. Being based in California I can’t choose to follow California tax law or not, but I also get to vote here.
      - delinka 8y ago
        They are not forcing the business to pay, they are forcing them to collect.
jedberg 8y ago
No it doesn't. The business isn't paying the tax. They are only collecting it on behalf of the taxing agency.
- mrfredward 8y ago
  Maybe a more precise wording is "you can be forced to collect tax from others and must pay registration fees to collect said tax by politicians you do not elect and who act knowing you are powerless to object." The sentiment is still the same.
  - jedberg 8y ago
    While that may be true, it's meaningless. As a tourist, you are also subject to tax that was enacted by representatives you didn't elect. You can choose not to go there, just like a business can choose not to sell to someone who lives there. In California, every city has it's own sales tax, so every city I go to is taxing me without representation. There are many many cases in the US where you are taxed without a choice of the representatives. You have a choice not to be taxed though, by not going there or doing business there.
- forapurpose 8y ago
  > The business isn't paying the tax I despise Norquist, but I believe the words above are not true in a consequential sense. The law may say 'the state taxes the consumer', but who is meaningfully affected? The business handles the mechanics of collecting and paying the tax. And whose pocket the tax really comes out of depends on the elasticity of demand, IIRC my economics. That is, it depends on how much the business can raise the price without hurting profits: If the product is highly price sensitive, something like a can of peas, then the business can't raise the price very much without hurting demand and the tax will effectively come out of the business' profits. If the product is highly price insensitive, such as life-saving drugs, then the cost of the tax will be passed on to the consumer.
  - jedberg 8y ago
    The sales tax is collected after the transaction, so price elasticity has nothing to do with it. What you wrote applies to other things like an increase in rent or property tax, which has to be built into the cost of the product. But it doesn’t apply to sales tax.

The business isn't paying the tax though? If the people paying the tax don't want it, they should replace their reps or move to a state that doesn't have that tax. So we could think of it from the point of the business but that wouldn't be based in fact.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
Cerium 8y ago
If the business isn't paying the tax, then I'm sure the people paying the tax can pay the tax themselves. No need to add a middleman.
- jedberg 8y ago
  They tried that for 10 years and it didn't work. Very few people pay use tax like they should. But it wasn't cost effective to enforce every individual offender. So now they're trying something different.
  - sp332 8y ago
    Both you and Cerium are correct. Depending on buyers to collect sales tax from themselves hasn't been working. And forcing someone in a different jurisdiction to do it might not be defensible.
  - PurpleBoxDragon 8y ago
    Thus forcing the businesses to pay or be punished. The business likely has the option of not passing the cost along to the consumer, but in the end they are the one being forced to pay the state.
    - jedberg 8y ago
      No, they are forced into being tax collection agents. But they aren’t being forced. They could just not sell to people in that state if they don’t like it. For example, at my company, I won’t hire anyone from Kentucky because their employment costs are too high. It’s a choice I get to make. I limit my employee pool but I also avoid costs I don’t like. Being based in California I can’t choose to follow California tax law or not, but I also get to vote here.
    - delinka 8y ago
      They are not forcing the business to pay, they are forcing them to collect.

jedberg 8y ago

No it doesn't. The business isn't paying the tax. They are only collecting it on behalf of the taxing agency.

mrfredward 8y ago
Maybe a more precise wording is "you can be forced to collect tax from others and must pay registration fees to collect said tax by politicians you do not elect and who act knowing you are powerless to object." The sentiment is still the same.
- jedberg 8y ago
  While that may be true, it's meaningless. As a tourist, you are also subject to tax that was enacted by representatives you didn't elect. You can choose not to go there, just like a business can choose not to sell to someone who lives there. In California, every city has it's own sales tax, so every city I go to is taxing me without representation. There are many many cases in the US where you are taxed without a choice of the representatives. You have a choice not to be taxed though, by not going there or doing business there.
forapurpose 8y ago
> The business isn't paying the tax I despise Norquist, but I believe the words above are not true in a consequential sense. The law may say 'the state taxes the consumer', but who is meaningfully affected? The business handles the mechanics of collecting and paying the tax. And whose pocket the tax really comes out of depends on the elasticity of demand, IIRC my economics. That is, it depends on how much the business can raise the price without hurting profits: If the product is highly price sensitive, something like a can of peas, then the business can't raise the price very much without hurting demand and the tax will effectively come out of the business' profits. If the product is highly price insensitive, such as life-saving drugs, then the cost of the tax will be passed on to the consumer.
- jedberg 8y ago
  The sales tax is collected after the transaction, so price elasticity has nothing to do with it. What you wrote applies to other things like an increase in rent or property tax, which has to be built into the cost of the product. But it doesn’t apply to sales tax.