Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1998/03/19
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Al: I agree with you. Florida also is w/o state income tax and depends on a 6% sales tax (as well as some more creative schemes). Evading this tax not only reduces the tax base but also cripples the competitiveness of local retailers. And it's NOT legal. But you've got it backwards. It's not retailers who are responsible for collecting the tax in their state, but rather the customer who is obligated to pay their state tax. If this were enforcible, it would be a great windfall for states, as well as for the more competitive independent retailers. Unfortunatly, it is virtually impossible to collect sales tax on interstate sales. But not always. Most "mail" order is actually shipped UPS, Fed Ex, etc. Occasionally, someone who is used to being "tax exempt" on such sales purchases something large enough to require freight shipment, and that means a manifest. Sometime later, these smart customers are surprised by state tax collectors! Nick Hunter >Here in the state of Washington, where Don runs his mailorder operation, there >is NO state income tax. Our budget is financed by sales tax only, (8.75%). >Don escapes contributions to the upkeep of the state by not doing business >with any Washingtonians. Am I bitter? yes, he has many good deals. Is this >right? no, he should be obliged to collect taxes to support our state. By the >amount of items that seem to go through his web page the state could reap a >heafty amount. Things would be different if we had an income tax, he would at >least be paying his share to the state. >Al