Go ahead, pass the Internet tax. Your (foreign) competitors thank you.
blog2.easydns.org
blog2.easydns.org
Over the pond it's the same for everybody. Doesn't seem so in the US.
But what can't happen is a situation where Herning, Ishøj, and Copenhagen charge different rates for different products. That simplifies the system considerably.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but an import duty was not part of the sales tax bill.
What you're describing isn't supposed to happen and I want to figure out how it did.
I had a very positive opinion of EasyDNS before it happened.. I was lucky enough to have already moved to another service a few days before so there wasn't any site disruption... but your rep didn't know that.
Have 18 domains @ DME now....
Businesses have never, in general, been required to collect sales taxes for other states. It doesn't matter if the sale is on the Internet, mail order, or face-to-face. In some states (Washington is one for sure, but I believe there are others) you can even get out of paying their own sales tax for face-to-face purchases. For example, if a resident of Alaska (no state sales tax) has proper ID, he can travel to Washington state and pay no Washington tax on his purchases (you do have to certify that you're planning to take your purchase out of Washington state -- if it's going to be consumed or used in Washington, you have to pay Washington tax).
See:
http://dor.wa.gov/Content/FindTaxesAndRates/RetailSalesTax/N...
No, it doesn't. US buyers were already responsible for local use taxes for remote purchases. This just shifts who is responsible for the taxes to the retailer (if the taxing states opt-in, which requires them to adhere to certain tax streamlining provisions and other requirements that make the process simpler for retailers.)
This is a tax simplification and collection efficiency measure that doesn't change the amount of tax due on any sale.
1. The tax is not "specific to the internet" but is designed to make it so that internet-only businesses are required to collect the same taxes that bricks'n'mortar businesses are required to.
2. EasyDNS's right to sell to US customers is regulated under a giant freaking, bureaucratic law known as NAFTA. If they every got large enough to compete with large US corporations, they could become subject to all sorts of mechanisms to ensure that US corporations can compete with them (countervailing duties for starters). They should shut the hell up.
3. Everything they say also applies to US companies selling to Canadian customers.
Online retailers will have to collect, at most, 53 different taxes, under 53 different tax codes, remitted to 53 different entities all with audit rights. That's not really the same.
More than that, actually; I have no idea where you get 53 from; the relevant entities ("states" as defined in the MFA) include the 50 states, the District of Columbia, 5 named territories, and "any other territory or possession of the United States."
But its not just "online retailers", its any remote seller. Including anyone who does online and/or mail and/or phone sales, which includes lots of entities that are also brick and mortar outlets. But only if they choose to sell into each of those jurisdictions: you choose where you will accept orders from, and as a consequence of that choice you choose which tax laws you will deal with. Just like with a brick and mortar business, where you choose where you open outlets, and as a consequence of that choice you choose which tax laws you will deal with.
And each of those jurisdictions is required to provide free-of-charge software to calculate tax rates and hold retailers harmless for any errors due to the software.
#3 yes, you are absolutely correct. Taxes here impede our competitiveness.
Worse still, it's going to hit small businesses worse because they will simply have no choice but to pay it. The mega corps have their accounting down to an art, they'll figure out a way past it given how many gray areas are inevitable in a completely new form of tax like this.
Its not a new form of tax. Its permission for states to opt-in to a more efficient collection method for existing sales and use taxes if they also agree to certain streamlining requirements for those taxes and certain support mechanisms for the retailers that would be required to collect and remit the taxes.
Perhaps bitcoins while be regulated, but will it not get green-stamped by the general public just like piracy?
Trying to make the citizens of one state liable for enforcing the laws of another seems ridiculous by itself. Making them enforce the thousands of arbitrary, convoluted, constantly changing laws of 49 other states and all of their localities is way beyond reasonable.
At least there appears to be a clause that states will have to simplify their tax rules and provide free software to manage it. Although the idea of integrating an e-commerce system with 50 separate bureaucratically-designed systems doesn't really seem that appealing either... If the states also had to pay for every integration and the maintenance of all e-commerce software, then it would be a little more reasonable.
"It’s a regressive tax. It’s an inefficient tax," he said. "And this bill would force our Oregon retailers to collect this regressive, inefficient tax for other states and municipalities. That is just wrong. I hope the House does the right thing and stops this legislation from trampling on Oregon small businesses.” [1]
The other Oregon Senator (Ron Wyden) was one of the co-authors of the 1998 Internet Tax Freedom Act[2] and is similarly opposed to this bill.
"Today the senate is voting to take a few more inches off the little guy," said Senator Ron Wyden (D-OR), who has fought the bill hard. "You saw ads taken out by some of the biggest businesses in the country. It's easy to see why, Mr. President. With this vote, what you have is big businesses being given the ability to force new regulations onto the start-ups, onto the small businesses."[3]
1. http://www.ktvz.com/news/wyden-merkley-vote-no-on-internet-s...
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Tax_Freedom_Act
3. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/05/senate-passes-int...
EDIT: don't forget to send a message to your house representative at https://house.gov/ if you haven't already.
Well, you have to either keep track of those laws for the states you choose to sell into, or use the free software provided by each state that has opted into the arrangement (the MFA provides an opt-in regime for states, with conditions including the provision of free software, with retailers not liable for any failure to collect and/or remit tax that is due to errors in the software.) But, yeah, you have to pay each taxing "state" (which will probably be less than 50 initially, but more than 50 in the limit case, since "states" under the MFA include the the 50 states, DC, plus other US territories and possessions.)
Or, instead of using the State-provided software and doing it yourself, you can pay a "certified software provider" to do it, and be immunized against liability for any errors that are the fault of that provider.
The current situation in the EU is that if you order a book from the UK to Belgium, you pay Belgian VAT for the transaction. There is also an exception that sellers below a certain volume are exempt from dealing with the cross-border VAT. That is precisely what the new situation in the US will be, if this passes: cross-state purchases will be taxed based on the destination state's sales tax, with sellers below a certain volume exempt.
Despite the dishonest label "internet sales tax" frequently used by the media and opponents, the US measure being discussed "isn't some specific internet tax", either. Its a feederal law that gives permission, with conditions, for states to require remote retailers to collect and remit sales and use tax that are already due on purchases (and which, for remote sales, would otherwise generally have been the responsibility of the purchaser to report and remit). It is neither a new tax, nor is it "internet specific" in any way.
Those conditions exist today with the ability to buy things from China, and all of the accompanying downsides will apply to buying something from Europe. It takes weeks instead of days to ship overseas at acceptable rates. Who do you call to complain/return/get service? Do they even speak English? Does this product meet safety standards? Do I even have legal standing to sue the company if I am defrauded/injured?
All of these go away buying domestically, and are not a fair trade off for a marginally lower price.
And what you fail to understand is that if everything is sacrificed in the name of "competitiveness", then every country will be in a race for the bottom.
It already happens, with outsourcing, cheap foreign labour, tax heavens etc. A successful US company used to benefit American society at large (beyond merely paying some wages) -- and this is what made the US rich with a large middle class etc.
Now (with outsourcing, factories in China, money kept in foreign accounts that never make it back to the US, tax havens enabling the company to pay almost nothing in taxes etc) a company can be American in name, but of no more benefit to the US as a country than Toyota or Samsung.
And no, places that are strongholds of industry and innovation don't help much either. A 100 billion new innovative product out of Silicon Valley can be as lost a boon to the country as any innovation coming from Tokyo or Europe.
Hence, shrinking middle class, hence budget and trade deficits, hence trouble.
Of course, for those owing or running companies and benefiting from the whole thing, business hasn't been better. But those benefiting are increasingly fewer (and the few tend to benefit all the more, hence huge imbalances in inequality).
I'm not saying that amazingly successful companies cannot come out of this situation. I'm saying that this success trickles down to the overall country/society, far less than what it did in the past. Coming to a point where it will be possible to be the host of the worlds greatest companies AND having a population living like in a third world country.
The only reason everything has not collapsed already is because there are other advantages beyond "cheap" that keep companies throwing a bone to the US. The infrastructure, the engineering savvy, and of course the inherited middle class and large market, from better times. But those things are rooted in the past and are transient.
>To our American friends, easyDNS is a foreign company, so don't let us stop you.
And how about you aren't let to serve customers in the US unless you pay taxes too?
How would you feel about losing the rich US market then?
And how about people in Europe and other affluent societies conspired so that you cannot sell your crap without paying proper taxes to someone?
(I'm not even arguing in favor of the internet tax. Just against the arguments easyDNS used here against it. Heck, I'm not even American. I just know that those same issues affect my country too).
Is that what you did? The main point was that corporations outside US jurisdiction will have a competitive advantage simply by not being in the US. You rebut claiming competitiveness is a non-factor in considering regulation, citing outsourcing and cheap foreign labor as evidence?
> a company can be American in name, but in no more benefit to the US as a country than Toyota or Samsung.
What does this mean? Toyota and Sumsung are a huge benefit to the American economy. A Toyota Tundra has more US manufactured parts than most "American" trucks. It seems you fail to realize the benefits of a globalized economy, and therefore promote American isolationism to bring us back to our glory days.
No, I never claimed "competitiveness is a non-factor in considering regulation".
I merely said, in a lot more words, that competitiveness should not be the BE ALL END ALL factor in considering regulation. And I argued that competitiveness can also be a BAD factor in considering regulation.
Moreover, I said that this kind of "competitiveness" while great for the company that benefits from it, it's not that great for the country that hosts the company and its general population, and it can be a race to the bottom.
Let me give an exaggerated example. If some regime had a huge competitive advantage against the US by forcing people, including children to work on their factories for almost nothing, should the US, and other affluent markets, consider introducing slavery and child labor again, in order to remain competitive?
No, they should embargo, tariff, and tax the hell out of that regime's products, to ensure that competitiveness is due to improvements in engineering, efficiency, innovation, etc, not backwards practices and "a race to the bottom".
>>a company can be American in name, but in no more benefit to the US as a country than Toyota or Samsung. >What does this mean? Toyota and Sumsung are a huge benefit to the American economy. A Toyota Tundra has more US manufactured parts than most "American" trucks. It seems you fail to realize the benefits of a globalized economy, and therefore promote American isolationism to bring us back to our glory days.
It means that the "benefits of a globalised economy" are mainly for company owners, moguls, managers, golden boys and the like, and more often praised than seen in reality.
I'm not talking about numbers in balance sheets, but about how those numbers trickle down to the country's economy. Samsung (or Apple) can make billions in the US market, but that doesn't mean you get to add those to the GDP and be happy about it.
(The fact that Toyota also makes parts in the US is just a diversion from my main point. It's the "throwing a bone" to the US market action that I referred to in my comment. Toyota can open some part factories in the US (to silence the worries of the locals) and still pay piss all in taxes through labyrinthine out-of-country logistics and accounting -- and that's on top of tax cut deals made with the US government for them to agree to open their factories in the first place)).
Who was making that point?
> Moreover, I said that this kind of "competitiveness" while great for the company that benefits from it, it's not that great for the country that hosts the company and its general population, and it can be a race to the bottom.
How do you know? Would countries that employ child labor be slingshotted into the first-world because they adopted effective regulations? I speculate they'd be unemployed and go hungry.
> It means that the "benefits of a globalised economy" are mainly for company owners, moguls, managers, golden boys and the like, and more often praised than seen in reality.
Again, how do you know? Did Michael Moore tell you?
> Samsung (or Apple) can make billions in the US market, but that doesn't mean you get to add those to the GDP and be happy about it.
What? How does Apple not affect the GDP? What aren't you happy about?
Lots of people. Including the EasyDNS post, implicitly.
>How do you know? Would countries that employ child labor be slingshotted into the first-world because they adopted effective regulations? I speculate they'd be unemployed and go hungry.
Only I made the reverse argument: that countries without child labour should not introduce it to compete with those countries.
And in general, that countries with higher working standards should not lower them to compete with third world countries, dictatorships etc, in a race to the bottom.
But, to also answer your question, I'd rather they go hungry than they use child labor, if that were the two options. Would you be OK with forced labor, ie slavery, if that was their only way to be competitive and not "go hungry"?
All this is a false dichotomy you set up anyway. It's not "child labor" vs "hungry". Child labor is not employed because it's their only hope to compete, it's merely employed because they lack the regulations to enforce otherwise. If the employers in that country (and the huge multinationals that contract them) could not take advantage of 12 year old children in sweatshops, they'd pay a little more and employ their parents.
It's not a case of "we can compete any other way". It's a case, "Hey, the laws here allow me to fuck over these people for an increased profit, so why not do it?".
>Again, how do you know? Did Michael Moore tell you?
Well, for one I'm not an American, and I have far wider horizons than Michael Moore. Should I also assume a caricature of you as some Fox News watching foaming at the mouth republican? It would be of similar quality and subtlety to your Michael Moore thing. Quite provincial, are we?
Anyway, no Michael didn't tell me. Not being provincial, following world economy news, a quite extensive reading on the matter, and travelling (but not as some naive first world tourist), "told me".
> It means that the "benefits of a globalised economy" are mainly for company owners, moguls, managers, golden boys and the like, and more often praised than seen in reality. Again, how do you know? Did Michael Moore tell you? > Samsung (or Apple) can make billions in the US market, but that doesn't mean you get to add those to the GDP and be happy about it. What? How does Apple not affect the GDP? What aren't you happy about?
You're equating forced labor to slavery. I agree! I also agree taxation is a way of extracting labor via the use of force. So the question is, why do you support slavery so much?
Ideologically speaking, I prefer to argue out of principle -- a main one being non-agression. So no, I don't support forced labor in any shape or form. Furthermor, I don't support any relationship that comes from force or the threat of violence.
> Should I also assume a caricature of you as some Fox News watching foaming at the mouth republican?
Haha, I'd be pretty used to it. The ironic part is republicans think I'm liberal..
You don't have to agree. That's the definition of slavery.
>I also agree taxation is a way of extracting labor via the use of force. So the question is, why do you support slavery so much?
Well, I never agreed that "taxation is a way of extracting labor via the use of force", so I don't know who you "also agree with" there.
Taxation, in my books, is the voluntary (as decided via the democratic process), transfer of private wealth to the government for use in public works, maintenance of the military defence and such.
>So no, I don't support forced labor in any shape or form. Furthermore, I don't support any relationship that comes from force or the threat of violence.
Agreed. But isn't the dire need to eat and put a roof above you a kind of violence too? For people threatened with that violence (which can be even more dire and hard than a few slaps or kicks), it's common to be forced to accept unfavourable and backwards working conditions, just because their job is a "buyer's market". Child labor is a blatant case of this, but most sweatshop jobs in the third world also are.
As western countries we have set up our standards higher (than, say, Dicken's London, or J.D Rockfeller's miners, paid in company scrip) , we should demand that they are held higher in the third world too, instead of lowering ours to compete with them.
You don't have to agree, it's empirically evident. Try not paying your taxes and guys with guns will come get it. Now, maybe these guys with guns are justified -- but that's strictly your opinion.
> Taxation, in my books, is the voluntary (as decided via the democratic process)
By definition, your definition is wrong. Non-democratic governments impose taxes as well.
Why do you define "voluntary" relative to the political landscape? You're telling me slavery never really happened in the US, because it was voluntary labor -- as decided by the "democratic process"? Why do you defend slavery with such fervor?
Strictly my opinion? Hardly. Some neo-liberals aside (and them constrained in the US) it's the opinion of most of the world. Some people want lower taxes, others disagree with specific tax laws, but statistically speaking, nobody is against taxes in toto. The issue does not even come into play into protests (except from bizarro minorities). People all over the world demand that their government is brought down, that they get better pay, they corrupted officials are punished, and tons of other things -- but "no taxes" is just not on the table.
>By definition, your definition is wrong. Non-democratic governments impose taxes as well.
Which is beside the point. Taxation WITHIN a democracy is voluntary and decided via the democratic process. That a dictatorship can also have taxation doesn't change this. A dictatorship can also maintain an educational system. That doesn't make it non democratic when a democracy maintains one.
>Why do you define "voluntary" relative to the political landscape?
For reasons obvious to any who accepts democracy and is not Ayn Rand? Because a dictatorship forces the people to do stuff, whereas in a democracy they get to vote for what they want to be done. That some people don't agree with the result it doesn't matter, as long as the majority of people agrees with the process -- ie. the polling for the aggregate popular opinion as expressed in presidential candidates and party platforms and representatives.
>You're telling me slavery never really happened in the US, because it was voluntary labor -- as decided by the "democratic process"? Why do you defend slavery with such fervor?
Why do you insist in using BS non-sequiturs to make some bizarro point?
Slavery was not voluntary labor because the subjects of slavery weren't part of the democratic process that allowed it to happen. For one, they didn't vote. Even worse, they were victims of abduction and deprived of any citizen rights. They were mere objects to private masters.
A tax paying citizen is not that.
In the sense that it's not fact. It's a personal preference which you and many others hold.
> Hardly. Some neo-liberals aside (and them constrained in the US) it's the opinion of most of the world.
And here lies the crux of your argument. That by being a majority you're justified to act in a way you normally wouldn't. Taking x % of someone's income is normally unjust, but if you outnumber the guy -- all is fair. Because a mob approves of theft, you redefine it as taxation. I can go with that, but don't paint me as the bizarro one.
Just the ones created by a monopolistic force on violence.
What I fail to understand is what this internet specific tax is. The Marketplace Fairness act currently under consideration doesn't create new taxes - it just pushes the responsibility for collecting existing taxes on vendors instead of relying on consumers to pay those taxes voluntarily, like they are supposed to do right now. (at least in my state. YMMV)
– Henry A. Kissinger, 1961
I guess if you repeat it long enough, you'll eventually be right.
Not just decrease but get overtaken by.
- Our public K-12 education is a pile of shit and our colleges are riding on a public dollars bubble that makes the housing crash look like spilled water. Any attempt to deal with the problem ignites fury over teachers' rights, causing policy makers to run shitting their pants to the nearest podium to apologize.
- At every possible juncture, policy decision is leaning on pervading status quo: patents, bullshit municipal license bureaucracies, congressional players pandering to businesses, not constituents
- Health is a disaster, and even with Obamacare, it's looking like it got neutered just enough to do precisely shit for the long term. People go bankrupt to get care, if they can even get it.
- Culturally, a sweeping wave of anti-intellectualism has taken hold and bolsters everything above. We can't get anyone to care about any of these issues if they're fucking retarded.
- All the while, the smartest, very smartest people in our country are jacking each other off in silicon valley inventing the next cat-picture collection app, while the economic, technological and social divides keep growing. They're more interested in becoming their idoled psychopathic CEOs than actually fucking solving real problems. They're living in an absolute bubble, unaware of what 60% of the country cares about or actually needs.
How are we supposed to be the leader of anything if we're in a constant state of regression?
I am surprised when I hear people talk of our current issues as if they will be what does us in. Think of the big picture here, do you really think America is going to get "overtaken" in the 21st century when in many ways we are leading it? And I do agree we are behind in some ways as well, but we don't have to be number 1 at everything to be successful, or at the least survive and progress as a nation.
During our greatest advancements, we maintained a well oiled machine of an educated constituency, a public-private partnership and a middle class bursting at the seams with potential and opportunity.
Those things have all either been stripped, scammed or atrophied out of the public, and what we're left with is a paralyzed public sector and a private sector that's racing to the bottom of the moral barrel. I just don't see any hope in anything short of some sort of awakening. Call me pessimistic and dismiss me, or at least recognize that something has to change.
Else, why is slavery not allowed and having a guy working for 80 hours a week, with no paid overtime, and lax working safety is?
Because he supposedly "has a choice not to work"? Well, millions of people accepting those jobs rarely have a choice.
Or e-commers will do what they always have done when legislation change. They "move" their cloudy servers to somewhere where said laws do not exist.
We saw this exact thing each time EU passed some new data privacy law. People stayed in their country, but the servers suddenly poped up in NA, or Ireland, or some small Caribbean island that no one has heard of. Trying to enforce taxes or privacy laws on e-businesses is like trying to shut down the Pirate Bay. It simply moves on to a new IP under the same domain name.
Easy DNS charges $19.95 CAD/yr for its basic package of DNS services for a domain. Amazon's Route 53 charges $0.50 per month, or $6.00 USD/yr. Given the OP claim to be "traditionally anti-big government, pro-free market, pro-capitalist whack jobs," they are offering a service 3x more expensive than a comparable service US company. Maybe EasyDNS has some extra goodies that Route 53 doesn't to justify the higher price. Either way, that is what drives Mr. Smith's invisible hand, and acting like US states enforcing their 6% or 8% or even 8.75% sales tax is some sort of game changer is absurd.
The OP seems to woefully misunderstand that this is not a new tax. This requires any internet business with over $1 million in sales -- which I'm guessing doesn't apply to a lot of startups whose founders/employees read HN, btw, mine included -- to collect any applicable state/local sales tax at the point of sale, just like pretty much every local business. And if these businesses are getting squeezed by internet retailers, I'm guessing it has nothing to do with sales tax. Recently I needed a DisplayPort/DVI adapter, and impatiently went to Best Buy, where the only one I could buy was $30. Then I saw this one on Amazon for $4.95 on Amazon -- http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B003BHHIA4 -- promptly ordered it, and returned the Best Buy one, even though Amazon sales tax meant I actually paid $5.45. Best Buy is getting destroyed because retailers can sell similar products at a 84% discount, and that would still be true if it was only a 78% discount.
So, to the OP and all the other people I've seen on HN lamenting that this bill is akin to exhuming Adam Smith's corpse and urinating on it: can we please stop acting like this is the end of the world? Making sweeping states predicting economic outcomes without practical considerations (e.g. many internet retailers have a pricing advantage that dwarfs sales tax) and human responses (an effective 6-10% increase on purchases -- 'effective' because this is a tax they should have been paying anyway -- is not really accomplishing much. There are times to get infuriated about the government fucking up the free markets and disincentivizing capitalist innovation and production, but I don't think this is one of them.
A summary: http://www.dangrossman.info/2013/04/24/what-startups-need-to...
I run the online store for my father's retail shop, with several hundred SKUs. We sell fancy health water bottles for example -- some states this is not taxed, some it is, some it is depending on bottle size and whether it meets their definition of water or some other kind of beverage. Someone will have to reconcile every SKU against every state's sales tax classification changes every 90 days. That's not something any accountant does for small businesses operating in a single state right now.
Your point upthread was "no small business person can handle filings to 50 states". I'll stipulate that! My response is just, people with real businesses usually don't (and shouldn't) DIY their taxes anyways.
And by who's determination is my business "not real" if I do my own taxes??? At least I do my taxes more accurately than Geithner does or did AND HE got to sign our dollar bills! Was his business "not real"?
Once again, thanks to GovCo, life is getting worse, harder not easier, asinine not smart. There is absolutely NO THOUGHT WHATSOEVER put into anything coming from DC lately. None.
The internet certainly makes it easier to say take orders from people in many different jurisdictions at once, but why should you get to avoid the other business realities of operating in multiple jurisdictions just because you're an internet business? You might see everyone as just an IP address, but in the real world, groups of those IP addresses are parts of sovereign entities called state and national governments, and each of those groups are governed by different laws. Just being an internet business shouldn't insulate you from the reality that exists once you break through the IP address abstraction.
I've seen small business try to do taxes and accounting themselves. Even if the people were, literally, math geniuses, they couldn't do it right.
A small business should have someone come in one a month or once a quarter to go over your books and do your tax payments.
It's yet another example of "if you think a professional is expensive, wait until you hire an amateur."
If, even with the streamlining and support required for states to opt-in to the provisions of the MFA, you can't do that, you can just choose not to sell into those states. Why should remote sellers be favored over local sellers by not being required to make that choice about where they are willing to do business?
Laws should also consider practical aspects like whether they're going to dampen the economy, restrain commerce and favor corporations over small businesses. It may be equivalent in your academic mind, but it's not equivalent to the people who will have to do 50 times more work just to continue running their single-location family-owned business as they have for the past 10-20 years.
Yes, its much more expensive to open a retail store, and involves some contribution to the local economy to operate it, so the two are not equivalent.
On the other hand, they are similar in that each is a conscious decision to conduct business with people in the State, and there is no rational reason to favor remote business.
Its not either. Its have over $1 million in remote sales in the prior year.
> At a 3-5% net profit, that's $30-50k/year before taxes, or so small you can't even hire a first employee yet.
Well, since net profit is after operating expenses (including labor costs), that's only "so small you can't even hire a first employee yet" if you expect the net value produced by that employee to be negative 30-50k per annum, in which case you it would be economically irrational to hire the employee even if you could afford it while remaining profitable. (While the numbers change, the general observation is true for any non-negative net profit amount: if you expect a positive return from an employee, you can "afford" to hire them -- and expect to be profitable afterwards -- anytime you have either a non-negative net profit, or a negative net profit that is smaller than the expected net value provided by the employee.)
Quarterly deposits will be acceptable.
Different. You have to get those goods by customs.
The IRS is not involved in the collection of state sales taxes, and it is extremely unlikely that this will change.
Boy would I prefer a single federal sales tax with the fed doing the distribution to the individual states.
Single federal sales tax with distribution would result in either grotesquely complicated calculation system or some states sponsoring other states for political reasons. And, of course, all local governments blaming federal governments for the lack of funds and their inability to do anything.