You're gonna tax me on what??

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sisco

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
2,775
Location
KS
Filling out my Kansas State income tax form yesterday, they added a new one.
Apparently they are assuming everyone has made out of state purchases either directly on on the Internet so they're going to access a tax on untaxed purchases!!
The tax is based on income, in my case I have to send an extra $25 for things I may or may not have bought and not been taxed on.

OK, I admit I bought a lot of stuff on ebay and I didn't pay state sales tax but what if I hadn't? Tough, I have to pay the tax anyway.

If they're that hard up for funds I have some suggestions:
Don't smoke? Tough, add $20 for the tobacco tax you didn't pay.
Don't drink booze? Tough, add $15 for the alcohol taxes you didn't pay.
Don't own a car? Too bad, add $30 for the fuel taxes you didn't pay.
Rant-Off.gif
 
That's really messed up. In NYS there is a line on the tax return where we're expected to fess up on how much merchandise we've purchased on the net during the year. :rolleyes: Then calculate the tax we owe the state for those purchases. :barf:
 
The PDRK and Idaho ask you if you have purchased merchandise on the Internet and ask you to record how much. It is something difficult to enforce thus far, but I suppose if they ever get pissed off at you at an audit, they can subpoena your credit card records and go down the list taxing you for every charge to businesses outside the state.

It may be in your interest to give them a few "bones" to gnaw on so they leave you alone to go bother someone else.

Pilgrim
 
I'ts not their fault. The blame lies solely on our shoulders. Blaming them is like blaming professional athletes for making millions when it is obviously the owners who have blown the system.

Simply put, they will do whatever we let em get away with.

Now, Im not saying we should start shooting elected officials now. On the contrary, we should have started shooting years ago.

It may be in your interest to give them a few "bones" to gnaw on so they leave you alone to go bother someone else.

Bury your head in the sand? That's how we got in this liberal mess in the first place. The more "bones" you give em the more they will take. Every right we let them take from us just emboldens them to take more and more, and feel justified about it.

Thomas Jefferson would not be proud of what we have become.
 
Hey, wait a minute! I thought Congress had barred taxing the Internet in any form? If they're trying to nail you for Internet purchases, isn't this in contravention of the Federal regulation?

:confused:
 
The State governemnts get alot if not most of their tax dollars from sales taxes.

They have placed those taxes on items sold to people in their state, however Federal law does not allow them to force the seller to collect those taxes for them unless that seller has a business presence in the State.

Since they lack the ablility to make the seller collect the taxes from you, they're trying to collect them directly form you themselves.

If you really think about it, not paying sales taxes of out of state purchases is really an unfair penalty to in state companies. The current way we do things isn't good for the economies of states who import more from other states than they sell to other states.

This really eventually does need to change to a more equtable system. Preferably a system that doesn't need as high of a percentage rate overall.
 
Great, just frelling great..

I saw this over on DSLReports about a week ago..

----
Congress proposes tax on all Net, data connections

Published: January 28, 2005, 3:50 PM PST
By Declan McCullagh
Staff Writer, CNET News.com

An influential congressional committee has dropped a political bombshell by suggesting that a tax originally created to pay for the Spanish American War could be extended to all Internet and data connections this year.

The committee, deeply involved in writing U.S. tax laws, unexpectedly said in a report Thursday that the 3 percent telecommunications tax could be revised to cover "all data communications services to end users," including broadband; dial-up; fiber; cable modems; cellular; and DSL, or digital subscriber line, links.

Currently, the 3 percent excise tax applies only to traditional telephone service. But because of technological convergence and the dropping popularity of landlines, the Joint Committee on taxation concluded in its review of tax law reforms that it might make sense to extend the 100-year old levy to new technologies. The committee did not take a position on whether Congress should approve such an extension and simply listed it as an "option."

"Cellular phones are being manufactured that may operate using voip through Wi-Fi access, as well as through more traditional means," the tax committee's report says. "As voice phone service migrates to using Internet Protocol, there may be no way to distinguish 'packets' of voice and 'packets' of data." voip refers to voice over Internet Protocol, or making telephone calls through a broadband connection.

The congressional report comes not long after the Internal Revenue Service and Treasury Department said they were considering how the Spanish American War tax should be reinterpreted "to reflect changes in technology" used in "telephonic or telephonic quality communications." Tech companies including Microsoft, Intel and Skype slammed that idea in a September letter, asking the IRS to "refrain from any attempt to extend the excise tax to voip services."

The discussion in the tax committee's report, however, ventures far beyond voip. "Extending the tax to all communications requires taxing Internet access, bandwidth capacity, and the transmission of cable and satellite television," it says.

Technology trade associations were instantly critical. "We need to be careful in trying to stretch a taxation system this old to be a catchall for all modern technology," said Jonathan Zuck, president of the Association for Competitive Technology. "We need to avoid starting down a path of overtaxing nascent forms of communication."

Congress enacted the so-called "luxury" excise tax at 1 cent a phone call to pay for the Spanish American War back in 1898, when only a few thousand phone lines existed in the country. It was repealed in 1902, but was reimposed at 1 cent a call in 1914 to pay for World War I and eventually became permanent at a rate of 3 percent in 1990.

Thursday's report, titled "Options to Improve tax Compliance and Reform tax Expenditures," is a broad review of tax law and proposes a number of ways--such as reforming the taxation of overseas corporations--to boost the federal government's bottom line by up to about $400 billion over the next decade.

It lists three different telecommunications tax options, one of which would cover all data communications. A second choice would extend the excise tax to cell phones and perhaps voip. The third would clearly levy the charge on voip, including Internet-only phone calls using services such as Skype that do not touch the public telephone network. "It is not necessary that the voice communications service provide" that capability, the report says.

James Maule, who teaches tax law at Villanova University and edits a related blog, said the more extreme taxation option may be a way for committee members to make the others "look a bit more palatable. There's some psychology going on."

"The odds of something happening in 2005 that amends the tax law is extremely high," Maule said, referring to President Bush's promise to revise the tax code. "I suspect that (one of these options) is going to be tacked on."

A few years ago, the U.S. House of Representatives voted overwhelmingly to repeal the excise tax, but the Senate never acted on the measure.

Members of the Joint Committee on taxation include Sens. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa; Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Max Baucus, D-Mont.; John Rockefeller, D-W.Va.; and representatives Bill Thomas, R-Calif.; and Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.
----------------

And I tracked down the PDF report out of the committee, which is exactly what the above article states. Now states are trying to collect more taxes.

So Claire, is it time yet? :fire:
 
I'ts not their fault. The blame lies solely on our shoulders. Blaming them is like blaming professional athletes for making millions when it is obviously the owners who have blown the system.

Simply put, they will do whatever we let em get away with.

Now, Im not saying we should start shooting elected officials now. On the contrary, we should have started shooting years ago.
I was under the impression that we had elections every November. I was also under the impression that this was the way we dealt with such things, rather than resorting to the cartridge box.

You are correct, they will get away with whatever we let them get away with. So vote. And if you lose the election, don't get on the internet and start screaming that we should shoot all the politicians. We start to sound like DU when we do that.

Mike
 
I was under the impression that we had elections every November. I was also under the impression that this was the way we dealt with such things, rather than resorting to the cartridge box.

So, what was the point of the Second Ammendment then?

After being politically active for years I can honestly say that I know what it feels like to ram my head into a brick wall. Left and right coast liberals forcing their views on the rest of us is exactly what the framers tried to protect against. That's why they left these powers to the states and provided for a weak central government. We let them down by letting happen exactly what they feared. The general thinking was, if they refuse to listen to the will of the people, shoot em. Elections or not, certain rights are not to be violated no matter what the majority wants. THeir thinking was based on right and wrong, a totally foreign concept to todays elected officals.

Im not saying you should go load your gun but that's how I read the document.
 
It's just like when you buy a new (used) gun or car. They still collect taxes. The government is out of control because we have let it become that way.
 
Last resort, Eightysix.

The corrupt seek to turn the pursuit of justice into the appearance of insanity.

I'd have to say that at least for this issue, New Hampshire wins. :D
 
So, what was the point of the Second Ammendment then?
To prevent government tyranny, which can be adequately defined as a time when they completely ignore the rules of the game and fail to stand for re-election. Everyone will, of course, have a different definition of when enough is enough, but I submit to you that if you believe that the 2nd Amendment is for a time when your elected officials levy a tax that you don't support, your fuse is a little too short.

Mike
 
Oh yeah, and before anyone hops in with the observation that one of the things kicking off the American Revolution was a tax dispute, I point you to the old saying:

No taxation without representation. Emphasis added. ;)

Mike
 
To prevent government tyranny, which can be adequately defined as a time when they completely ignore the rules of the game and fail to stand for re-election. Everyone will, of course, have a different definition of when enough is enough, but I submit to you that if you believe that the 2nd Amendment is for a time when your elected officials levy a tax that you don't support, your fuse is a little too short.

It has nothing to do with taxes. It has everything to do with right and wrong. It has to do with people forcing their opinions on everyone. It has to do with the will of the majority infringing on God given personal liberties. Something they have been doing for years.

When there is one set of rules for the GP and another set for elected officials something is very very wrong.
 
Last edited:
t's just like when you buy a new (used) gun or car. They still collect taxes. The government is out of control because we have let it become that way.

Here's one for ya; last year Kansas started a new way to calculate sales tax on autos, if you buy a car from a dealer you are charged whatever the sales receipt says (dealer collects it)
If you buy from a private party the value of the car is determined by blue book value; doesn't matter if the car is "Like new" or a rusty piece of junk that doesn't even run, you pay what the blue book says.
 
It has nothing to do with taxes. It has everything to do with right and wrong. It has to do with people forcing their opinions on everyone. It has to do with the will of the majority infringing on God given personal liberties. Something they have been doing for years.
I'll submit to you that this is not what the second amendment is for. Or rather, it is for a much more gross violation of these principles than the matter we discuss.

Mike
 
I'll submit to you that we are headed in that exact direction at an ever more increasing rate. The things we mention are the roadsigns that confirm it.
 
I read that particular line a little differantly. I filled mine out online. It seemed to indicate it was a taxation on a percentage of what you did purchase untaxed. If I filled it out wrong I'm sure they'll catch me on it. If it's just based on income, wouldn't just be a hike to the income tax?
 
Hey, wait a minute! I thought Congress had barred taxing the Internet in any form? If they're trying to nail you for Internet purchases, isn't this in contravention of the Federal regulation?

Preacherman, it's taxes on internet access that are currently barred, not taxes on purchases of goods/services made over the internet.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top