Sign in to follow this  
gotbeer

Supreme Court decision of the day

320 posts in this topic

39 minutes ago, gotbeer said:

In Major Privacy Win, Supreme Court Rules Police Need Warrant To Track Your Cellphone

Interestingly 4 different dissenting points of view.   If someone finds an article that summarizes each dissent, it would be appreciated.

Yep, I’m siding with the lefties on this one. Especially in the day and age when it seems ok to infringe on our liberties 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Jason said:

Yep, I’m siding with the lefties on this one

This is one that should have been close to unanimous.  But that all four dissenters had different points of view to dissenting is what I find interesting.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2018 at 9:21 AM, gotbeer said:

Not the online retailers location AT my door.  

Being you are sitting in your house buying online, that store has put a display case and cash register in your living room. It may be virtual but you never left your residence or workplace or Starbucks to venture off to buy. Essentially you made the purchase where you stand. That is where your taxation is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Being you are sitting in your house buying online, that store has put a display case and cash register in your living room. It may be virtual but you never left your residence or workplace or Starbucks to venture off to buy. Essentially you made the purchase where you stand. That is where your taxation is. 

So you just listed 3 different tax rates that the seller must pay taxes to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, Blarg said:

Being you are sitting in your house buying online, that store has put a display case and cash register in your living room. It may be virtual but you never left your residence or workplace or Starbucks to venture off to buy. Essentially you made the purchase where you stand. That is where your taxation is. 

It's a reasonable perspective but it needs to be codified into legislation. It's hard to argue that Amazon's website works much differently than a Montgomery Wards catalog in 1950.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You knew the tax thing was coming, too much lost revenue for states because of how much online shopping is happening.  It sucks though.

The new ruling on cell phone searches is way overdue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2018 at 9:21 AM, gotbeer said:

So what about the loss of tax revenues where the businesses are at?  Online retailers are at somewhere.  That they are at a state where it's business friendly should not penalize those states.  

Again my argument is buyers go to locations to buy.  You go to a brick and mortar to buy.   I go to websites to buy.  Websites do not come to me like a door to door salesman to buy.  So it should be that just like brick and mortars, I pay the sales tax as if I am at their location.  My interpretation is just like a brick and mortar.  I am virtually AT the online retailers location.  Not the online retailers location AT my door.  

What really this decision opened up was a total shitshow that will be occuring for online sales now.   I can actually now see retailers blocking sales to certain states depending on how states respond.  The accounting of collecting sales tax for every single city, in California or any states case, is reason enough to hesitate on sales for most small businesses and probably medium businesses.  Would it be worth it to sell 10,000 units of an item, making $2 a unit online, to 200 different cities with varying different tax rates in California.  And having to fill out forms and pay taxes to each, if you are a small or medium online retailer?  Or does it make sense to pay taxes on all sales, regardless of online or brick and mortar to the location of the retailer?  

And if you say no, it will be a flat California tax rate.  Then you really contradicted your response of loss of tax revenue in the areas where the buyers live.  Because cities get a lot of revenue from local taxes added to sales tax.  

I'm concerned with this myself as my current project is an app monetized through 'in app purchases.' Depending on how this shakes out I may end up having to file quite a few different tax returns...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/21/2018 at 8:11 AM, gotbeer said:

Personally I think they have it backwards.   I don't think it should be the buyers location that determines sales tax but the sellers location.  Rational being, if I buy a car, and go the San Bernardino.  I pay those rates.  Los Angeles has no right to say I have to pay their higher rates just because I live there.  Same could be said if I go to Vegas to buy stuff at the outlet.  So the argument IMO is not that the retailers are coming to the customer virtually, but that just like brick and mortars, the customer is going to the retailers virtually

I learned this the hard way. If you buy a car in another state, and then establish residency in California less than 1 year after purchasing the vehicle, you have to pay the difference on taxes between the two states.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/19/2018 at 9:00 AM, Adam said:

I had no idea SCOTUS worked so much. 

To be honest, I was also worried that Sotomayor would push for a siesta, Supreme Court Sunday’s in the Park drinking and all the Justices hanging around outside Home Depot in the mornings, but that hasn’t happened.  Sometimes silly worries really are unfounded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • AngelsWin.com Ad-free Membership Options