Hacker News Reader

Comment by jecxjo | Hacker News Reader

My biggest issue with paying taxes in other states is what services are they providing? You pay federal taxes which covers interstates, you pay taxes on your shipping fees which should cover state roadways.

So if I pay South Dakota sales tax then I should be able to contact state representatives, should be included in votes for any state referendums that affect my business and should basically be considered a citizen of that state. Otherwise I see it as taxation without representation.

View on HN

There’s a lot here to take apart.

First of all, you’re a citizen of the United States. You can be a /resident/ of a state, but citizenship is conferred by the federal government, not the states.

Second, you’re not paying the tax, the customer is.

Third, it is absolutely not taxation without representation, which was a charge the British colonists made against the government in England because they had no representation in parliament. You, however, have several representatives at various levels of government, as do your customers paying taxes. You might argue that your representation isn’t good, and depending on the state I’d argue that too, but you absolutely are not taxed without representation now in 2018.

Taxation does not entitle you to vote in elections. If I drive through Ohio and buy some gas, do I get to swing by again in November for the election? I don’t know the relevant legal philosophy, but states can absolutely levy taxes in other states and it’s ridiculous to suggest that paying them entitles you to voting rights.

The issue here isn’t so much the tax, as the compliance costs. Before this ruling I could set up a small online store and ship to anywhere in the US, filing only a tax return in my home state (if at all). Now, I have to register as a foreign entity in 48 states, each of which can cost hundreds of dollars plus hundreds of dollars yearly.

This increases the cost of opening an online retail business by orders of magnitude.

As soon as the vendor is required to collect this tax, and is responsible for it to be paid, I'd consider it the vendor's tax. SD stopped making it the consumer's tax when they lifted the burden on them to pay it. If the vendor doesn't collect it the vendor still owes it because SD says making their citizens pay use tax doesn't work.

When you drive through Ohio you are using services paid by Ohio citizens. The gas you buy had to drive on state roads, cleared of snow by state plows, and sold to you by people who use other state services. Since you don't live there and are just using their services I think it's perfectly reasonable to be taxed.

But what if you never stepped foot in Ohio? What if sent a box in the mail, using the FedEx who charges you money for their services, pays taxes in the states they physically exist, pay for vehicle licenses and property taxes and income tax. All of which comes out of the fee I'm paying them. Has SD gotten enough money from me yet? Still haven't actually used any services that aren't consumed by the one thing I'm doing and paying for, shipping a box

The employees that work in Ohio get to vote, get to have protections by Ohio government, get access to services. The businesses get protections too. And yet I, the vendor, who lives in a completely different state, and never uses a single service of theirs beyond those required to ship a box (odd that there is no extra taxes on sending a letter USPS) is then required to do ohio's job of collecting taxes, and pay any that I miss collecting or am charged a fine. Sounds to me like Ohio is requiring me to fill a job position I did not previously need or else pay a fine. That is all money that now goes to someone else because Ohio says so. Could have sworn that is taxation.

And as for voting rights, I think everyone is disregarding the fact that employees vote. If a referendum came up that would make their job harder or even make it impossible, the employees get to vote on it. Not saying they wouldn't all vote the way the company wants, but their are votes cast for defending their livelihood. Since my company has no physical presence I don't have that same representation. Yet I'm again still required to do everything an in-state business is required. I had none of these issues when my business only existed in the state I live in. And where I and all my employees vote.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but the logic here is that the company isn't paying the sales tax, the individual making the purchase is.The company is "simply" transferring that tax to the appropriate state government. Except it's not simple and you can be fined or go to jail if your business does it wrong.

Currently the vendor is asked to take sales tax on behalf of the purchaser. If they don't, then the purchaser must pay a use tax. Only that isn't happening. So SD has now put the sole burden on the vendor which means that they are liable if the tax isn't paid. This also means that if your business currently doesn't file sales tax you will have to add that work load to your current business which you didn't have to before. That is an added cost that didn't "have to" exist prior to this ruling. Let's call a spade a spade here, this is a tax on the vendor.

This all sounds like my one man SaaS site now needs to have employees and keep extra book work for states I will never physically be in and who doesn't feel they need to hirden their citizens with actually paying their taxes. That should count for something.

You aren't paying taxes to other states, you're paying taxes to your own state. It's now just now a requirement that out-of-state businesses collect and remit that sales tax on your behalf like in-state business already do.

(You're also confusing citizenship with residency.)

Except that in-state businesses use services of the state they exist in. Out of state businesses do not, yet they will be required to perform an additional service of collecting taxes for other states because those states have deemed it "too difficult" to do themselves by enforcing a use tax.

So if I got this right SD says the task of collecting taxes from those who reside in their state is not possible for them to do, and unless they honestly think it would cost the vendor $0 to perform this task, they are imposing additional cost of doing business when they provide no services to the out-of-state vendor.

By that logic, China which pays tariffs on some goods it sells in the US should be able to vote in US elections?

I'm not saying there aren't issues, but it is not anywhere close to a black and white one.

China does not pay tariffs on goods it sells in the US. The importers of those goods into the US do.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com