2018 SCOTUS cases

Political discussions
Ivytalk
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 26827
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
I am a fan of: Salisbury University
Location: Republic of Western Sussex

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Post by Ivytalk »

And SCOTUS throws out overbroad MN statute governing what apparel or campaign buttons you can or can’t wear in a polling place, on First Amendment grounds, by 7-2 vote. The statute gave too much discretion to election judges in determining what constituted impermissible advocacy, and had too few standards. Sotomayor and Breyer were the only dissenters.
“I’m tired and done.” — 89Hen 3/27/22.
User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 25460
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Post by CID1990 »

Ivytalk wrote:And SCOTUS throws out overbroad MN statute governing what apparel or campaign buttons you can or can’t wear in a polling place, on First Amendment grounds, by 7-2 vote. The statute gave too much discretion to election judges in determining what constituted impermissible advocacy, and had too few standards. Sotomayor and Breyer were the only dissenters.
That’s a very interesting dissent...

Kagan and Ginsburg coming down correctly on the side of liberty .... cats and dogs living together... what is the world coming to?
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
User avatar
Pwns
Level4
Level4
Posts: 7273
Joined: Sun Jan 25, 2009 10:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Friggin' Southern
A.K.A.: FCS_pwns_FBS (AGS)

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Post by Pwns »

Kagan hasn't been all that bad. Got the Trinity Lutheran and Sports Gambling cases right.
Celebrate Diversity.*
*of appearance only. Restrictions apply.
Baldy
Level4
Level4
Posts: 9609
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Southern

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Post by Baldy »

Skjellyfetti wrote:And legal permanent residents (green card holders)?
Have "Limited Term" printed on their drivers license. :dunce:

Image
Beginning July 1, 2012, the Department of Driver Services (DDS) will begin printing “LIMITED-TERM’ on Georgia driver’s licenses (DL) and identification cards (ID) issued to customers who are not United States citizens but who have presented documentation proving that they are lawfully present in the United States. These customers will include lawful permanent residents, students studying from abroad who establish residency in Georgia, individuals working temporarily in Georgia and the dependents of such individuals. The DL’s and ID cards issued to these customers will be valid for the period of each customer’s approved length of stay in the country up to a maximum of five (5) years.
https://dds.georgia.gov/limited-term-dlids
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 27897
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Post by BDKJMU »

Supreme Court lets states force online retailers to collect sales tax
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1JH23B
:ohno:
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
..But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions.
Ivytalk
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 26827
Joined: Thu Mar 19, 2009 6:22 pm
I am a fan of: Salisbury University
Location: Republic of Western Sussex

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Post by Ivytalk »

BDKJMU wrote:Supreme Court lets states force online retailers to collect sales tax
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1JH23B
:ohno:
Interesting 5-4 split. Ginsburg joined Kennedy (who wrote the opinion), Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch in the majority. Roberts joined liberals Kagan, Breyer, and Sotomayor in the dissent.
“I’m tired and done.” — 89Hen 3/27/22.
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 27897
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Post by BDKJMU »

In 1992 SCOTUS said states could only impose sales taxes if a retailer had a physical presence in the state I know the principle of stare decisis isn't forever, but I thought it was suppose to be longer than 26 years?

So if I buy a product located in one of the states with no state or local sales tax (Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon) I could have to pay 6% PA sales tax. What kind of bullshit is that.. :ohno:
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
..But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions.
CAA Flagship
4th&29
4th&29
Posts: 38526
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:01 pm
I am a fan of: Old Dominion
A.K.A.: He/His/Him/Himself
Location: Pizza Hell

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Post by CAA Flagship »

BDKJMU wrote:In 1992 SCOTUS said states could only impose sales taxes if a retailer had a physical presence in the state I know the principle of stare decisis isn't forever, but I thought it was suppose to be longer than 26 years?

So if I buy a product located in one of the states with no state or local sales tax (Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon) I could have to pay 6% PA sales tax. What kind of bullshit is that.. :ohno:
Not sure what's wrong with that. It's not like you drove to Delaware to purchase a tax free item. You purchased it in PA.

After adding shipping charges to the sales tax, maybe you will support the local brick and mortar store instead.
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Post by Ibanez »

BDKJMU wrote:Supreme Court lets states force online retailers to collect sales tax
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1JH23B
:ohno:
What’s your beef?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Post by Ibanez »

BDKJMU wrote:In 1992 SCOTUS said states could only impose sales taxes if a retailer had a physical presence in the state I know the principle of stare decisis isn't forever, but I thought it was suppose to be longer than 26 years?

So if I buy a product located in one of the states with no state or local sales tax (Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon) I could have to pay 6% PA sales tax. What kind of bullshit is that.. :ohno:
That was also pre-online shopping (at least the way it is today). Our laws should changed with the times - as necessary.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 27897
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Post by BDKJMU »

CAA Flagship wrote:
BDKJMU wrote:In 1992 SCOTUS said states could only impose sales taxes if a retailer had a physical presence in the state I know the principle of stare decisis isn't forever, but I thought it was suppose to be longer than 26 years?

So if I buy a product located in one of the states with no state or local sales tax (Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon) I could have to pay 6% PA sales tax. What kind of bullshit is that.. :ohno:
Not sure what's wrong with that. It's not like you drove to Delaware to purchase a tax free item. You purchased it in PA.

After adding shipping charges to the sales tax, maybe you will support the local brick and mortar store instead.
The item sold in the state its located in. If I buy an item online that is located in DE, I purchased it in DE.
-The seller handles/processes the sale in DE.
-The seller has to physically take the item, package and mail it from DE.

If the state you purchase an item from online has a sales tax, if you have to pay a sales tax, it makes more sense having to pay the sales tax from the state where the item is purchased from..
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
..But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions.
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 27897
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Post by BDKJMU »

Ibanez wrote:
BDKJMU wrote:Supreme Court lets states force online retailers to collect sales tax
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... SKBN1JH23B
:ohno:
What’s your beef?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I just laid it out in the next post after the one you replied to. :?
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
..But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions.
CAA Flagship
4th&29
4th&29
Posts: 38526
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:01 pm
I am a fan of: Old Dominion
A.K.A.: He/His/Him/Himself
Location: Pizza Hell

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Post by CAA Flagship »

BDKJMU wrote:
CAA Flagship wrote: Not sure what's wrong with that. It's not like you drove to Delaware to purchase a tax free item. You purchased it in PA.

After adding shipping charges to the sales tax, maybe you will support the local brick and mortar store instead.
The item sold in the state its located in. If I buy an item online that is located in DE, I purchased it in DE.
-The seller handles/processes the sale in DE.
-The seller has to physically take the item, package and mail it from DE.

If the state you purchase an item from online has a sales tax, if you have to pay a sales tax, it makes more sense having to pay the sales tax from the state where the item is purchased from..
You are assuming that sales tax has always been based on where the store is.
Maybe it is where the consumer executed the purchase.
See the difference?

If a food truck from VA goes into DC and sells 93henfan some shit for lunch, he will likely pay the DC tax because that is where the consumer was during the initiation of the transaction, rather than the VA tax where the truck is based out of.
User avatar
Chizzang
Level5
Level5
Posts: 19273
Joined: Mon Apr 20, 2009 7:36 am
I am a fan of: Deflate Gate
A.K.A.: The Quasar Kid
Location: Soon to be Eden Prairie...

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Post by Chizzang »

CAA Flagship wrote:
BDKJMU wrote: The item sold in the state its located in. If I buy an item online that is located in DE, I purchased it in DE.
-The seller handles/processes the sale in DE.
-The seller has to physically take the item, package and mail it from DE.

If the state you purchase an item from online has a sales tax, if you have to pay a sales tax, it makes more sense having to pay the sales tax from the state where the item is purchased from..
You are assuming that sales tax has always been based on where the store is.
Maybe it is where the consumer executed the purchase.
See the difference?

If a food truck from VA goes into DC and sells 93henfan some shit for lunch, he will likely pay the DC tax because that is where the consumer was during the initiation of the transaction, rather than the VA tax where the truck is based out of.

and foreign manufacturers can sell directly to US consumers and collect zero tax

:nod:

as long as they have no US employees
frequently they higher contracted workers like myself to assist in the proper execution of this loophole
Q: Name something that offends Republicans?
A: The actual teachings of Jesus
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 27897
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Post by BDKJMU »

CAA Flagship wrote:
BDKJMU wrote: The item sold in the state its located in. If I buy an item online that is located in DE, I purchased it in DE.
-The seller handles/processes the sale in DE.
-The seller has to physically take the item, package and mail it from DE.

If the state you purchase an item from online has a sales tax, if you have to pay a sales tax, it makes more sense having to pay the sales tax from the state where the item is purchased from..
You are assuming that sales tax has always been based on where the store is.
Maybe it is where the consumer executed the purchase.
See the difference?

If a food truck from VA goes into DC and sells 93henfan some **** for lunch, he will likely pay the DC tax because that is where the consumer was during the initiation of the transaction, rather than the VA tax where the truck is based out of.
In that scenario the product is physically in DC at the point of sale. So DC paying DC sales tax makes sense.

Say you have a small business/mom and pop. If they are required to charge sales tax on all online orders for the state they are located in that is pretty simple- they charge their respective state's sales tax, and local sales tax if any.

If they have to charge sales tax for there the buyer is sitting behind a computer, then they have to deal with 45 different state sales taxes, and thousands of local sales taxes (some states have local sales taxes). Not a big deal for a behemoth like Amazon, but that can be a big burden for a small business.
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
..But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions.
User avatar
BDKJMU
Level5
Level5
Posts: 27897
Joined: Wed Jul 01, 2009 6:59 am
I am a fan of: JMU
A.K.A.: BDKJMU
Location: Philly Burbs

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Post by BDKJMU »

Also if a person lives in state A, is say traveling and makes an online order while located in state B, from a business in state C, to be delivered as a gift to a family member in state D, it only makes sense to charge sales tax from the state where the sale was processed (where the item was pulled off the shelf).
..peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard..
..But you have to go home now. We have to have peace…
..I know how you feel, but go home, and go home in peace.
JMU Football: 2022 & 2023 Sun Belt East Champions.
Baldy
Level4
Level4
Posts: 9609
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 8:38 pm
I am a fan of: Georgia Southern

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Post by Baldy »

Technically it's a Use Tax.

It's not a tax on the sale of an item, it's a tax for bringing the item into your home state an using the product.
CAA Flagship
4th&29
4th&29
Posts: 38526
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:01 pm
I am a fan of: Old Dominion
A.K.A.: He/His/Him/Himself
Location: Pizza Hell

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Post by CAA Flagship »

BDKJMU wrote:
CAA Flagship wrote: You are assuming that sales tax has always been based on where the store is.
Maybe it is where the consumer executed the purchase.
See the difference?

If a food truck from VA goes into DC and sells 93henfan some **** for lunch, he will likely pay the DC tax because that is where the consumer was during the initiation of the transaction, rather than the VA tax where the truck is based out of.
In that scenario the product is physically in DC at the point of sale. So DC paying DC sales tax makes sense.

Say you have a small business/mom and pop. If they are required to charge sales tax on all online orders for the state they are located in that is pretty simple- they charge their respective state's sales tax, and local sales tax if any.

If they have to charge sales tax for there the buyer is sitting behind a computer, then they have to deal with 45 different state sales taxes, and thousands of local sales taxes (some states have local sales taxes). Not a big deal for a behemoth like Amazon, but that can be a big burden for a small business.
Pretty sure someone will come up with an app or program or website that may or may not be integrated into the billing system that has all that info loaded based on the zip code. It really isn't that difficult.

Now, getting to your point of sale comment, what if you go online and order something from a Delaware company but the product is sitting in a NY warehouse, and that is what is shipped to your PA address? It's easier to settle the issue on where the consumer is, not where the product is at the point of sale.
User avatar
CID1990
Level5
Level5
Posts: 25460
Joined: Mon Jul 16, 2007 7:40 am
I am a fan of: Pie
A.K.A.: CID 1990
Location: กรุงเทพมหานคร

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Post by CID1990 »

The nature of the web and its “location” is going to make this a mess

Next up- state and federal legislatures to make a steaming pile of sh1t out of it
"You however, are an insufferable ankle biting mental chihuahua..." - Clizzoris
CAA Flagship
4th&29
4th&29
Posts: 38526
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:01 pm
I am a fan of: Old Dominion
A.K.A.: He/His/Him/Himself
Location: Pizza Hell

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Post by CAA Flagship »

CID1990 wrote:The nature of the web and its “location” is going to make this a mess

Next up- state and federal legislatures to make a steaming pile of sh1t out of it
Yup. The only thing I don't know is if the tax will be based on billing address or shipping address. Probably should be shipping address otherwise, with paperless billing, credit cards could be set up in no-tax states pretty easily.
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Post by Ibanez »

BDKJMU wrote:
Ibanez wrote: What’s your beef?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I just laid it out in the next post after the one you replied to. :?
Yeah I didn't see it before I replied.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Post by Ibanez »

Baldy wrote:Technically it's a Use Tax.

It's not a tax on the sale of an item, it's a tax for bringing the item into your home state an using the product.
F'n Revenue man. :ohno:
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
CAA Flagship
4th&29
4th&29
Posts: 38526
Joined: Mon Aug 24, 2009 5:01 pm
I am a fan of: Old Dominion
A.K.A.: He/His/Him/Himself
Location: Pizza Hell

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Post by CAA Flagship »

Ibanez wrote:
Baldy wrote:Technically it's a Use Tax.

It's not a tax on the sale of an item, it's a tax for bringing the item into your home state an using the product.
F'n Revenue man. :ohno:
Brick and mortar stores are disadvantaged. Can't have that.
The procrastinators of the world need them for last minute shopping. :mrgreen:
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Post by Ibanez »

CAA Flagship wrote:
BDKJMU wrote: In that scenario the product is physically in DC at the point of sale. So DC paying DC sales tax makes sense.

Say you have a small business/mom and pop. If they are required to charge sales tax on all online orders for the state they are located in that is pretty simple- they charge their respective state's sales tax, and local sales tax if any.

If they have to charge sales tax for there the buyer is sitting behind a computer, then they have to deal with 45 different state sales taxes, and thousands of local sales taxes (some states have local sales taxes). Not a big deal for a behemoth like Amazon, but that can be a big burden for a small business.
Pretty sure someone will come up with an app or program or website that may or may not be integrated into the billing system that has all that info loaded based on the zip code. It really isn't that difficult.

Now, getting to your point of sale comment, what if you go online and order something from a Delaware company but the product is sitting in a NY warehouse, and that is what is shipped to your PA address? It's easier to settle the issue on where the consumer is, not where the product is at the point of sale.

What is the easiest solution - charge sales tax based on the destination or vendor location? I think there are good arguments either way. For small companies, even with modern accounting software, collecting and remitting 45 different state sales taxes is burdensome. Then again - thee is modern accounting software that can easily handle this. Companies like Amazon are already collecting sales taxes in multiple states so the burden will really rest on those small-medium companies, especially the ones that are earning closer to the $100k.



BDK, I thought you'd love this? It ends a corporate handout and Trump loves it. You love Trump. Does he know you aren't being loyal?
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Ibanez
Supporter
Supporter
Posts: 60482
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 5:16 pm
I am a fan of: Coastal Carolina

Re: 2018 SCOTUS cases

Post by Ibanez »

Btw, show of hands - who here declares the tax from online shopping on their taxes? Hardly anyone maintains all receipts from their online purchases and declares it at the end of the year. This law will shift the burden (rightfully so, IMO) away from the consumer.
Turns out I might be a little gay. 89Hen 11/7/17
Post Reply