By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - As of July 1, 2015, citizens of Chicago who enjoy their Netflix, Spotify, Pandora, Amazon Prime, Xbox Live, and/or PlayStation Network subscriptions are now subject to the city’s 9 percent “tax

outlawauron said:
binary solo said:
outlawauron said:

You were replying to me and mentioned prices in Europe, so I thought you were assuming I live in Europe.

I thought consumption taxes were very common in US states and cities as the principle means for states and cities to get tax revenue. Shouldn't all video game prices be subject to those taxes in the states where consumption taxes are used? Doesn't seem like news to me that a consumption tax is being applied to a service when I imagine consumption taxes are being applied to other services in Chigago / Illinois. As people have observed, they already pay tax for their internet service, so it's not such a new phenomenon as people make out.

The taxes you pay for internet service are not a full 9% and typically not on the entire cost of the service. The ISPs only charge you tax because they have local offices and teams in said city or state that would owe tax to the state they do business in.

Digital services have no people or no offices that would subject to taxes. No one pays taxes on Amazon, Netflix, Hulu, PSN, XBL, etc. unless they have an office or distribution center in your state. 

That sounds like a tax avoidance loophole to me. A consumption tax is a tax levied on the consumer for every dollar they spend on goods and services, it's not a tax levied on businesses. However it is a tax that businesses collect and pass on to the relevant tax authority, because that's the most cost efficient way of collecting the tax. So a consumption tax for online sales and services should be paid based on where the consumer resides, not on where the business resides. It causes an economic perversion if consumption taxes can be avoided based on the location of the business side of the transaction. This is an easy enough loophole to plug when the service provider and the consumer operate within the same national boundary, because they are subject to common national tax policy legislation. It's a bit harder when the service provider and consumer are in different countries. However some countries are managing to levy consumption taxes on overseas internet services and purchases. It is simpler when what is being purtchased is hard goods. We have a $200 threshold for goods purchased offshore over the internet (like from Amazon), the tax is collected when the goods arrive. The threshold is $200 because below that the cost of collecting the tax is more than the revenue. It's less easy when what is being purchased over the internet is an online service, but I believe countries are starting to deal with that. I would think it would require a federal law along the lines of: if a state or city derives revenue from the sale of goods and services, then the state or city may elect, by state or city legislation, to collect taxes from goods and services purchased from businesses based outside of the state or city's tax jursidiction. The federal policy would have to be a "may" not a "must" because it should still up to the state or city to decide whether to collect such taxes. 

Whatever you say about the evils of taxation, it's important for tax to be a level playing field as much as possible so as not to create economic distortions and unfair competitive advantages. If I have to pay 10% tax for a service because it comes from a local provider and I don't have to pay the tax if it comes from an out of state/country provider, then it's highly likely the service will be up to 10% cheaper from the out of state/country provider. Guess which provider most people will choose? That creates a market distortion and unfair competition due to a tax policy loophole. That's a real problem with taxes, and should be addressed so as to remove the distorting effect. You could address the distortion by removing taxes based on internet transations and applying them as a levy on having the internet. So you add either a % or a flat dollar amount to every internet connection to balance out the loss of revenue from having no transactional taxes. Trouble with that is you're then distorting the market by incentivising buying over the internet at the expense of brick anf mortar retailers. If your paying an internet transaction levy up front, then you'll want to make maximum use of that so as to avoid paying direct tax on goods you buy from local shops. So the best level playing field solution is makiing sure the consumption tax is collected on every internet purchasing transaction, whether it's goods or services.

Conceptually internet transactions are no different to real world transactions, so from a tax policy point of view they should not be treated any differently.



“The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.” - Bertrand Russell

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, the world will know peace."

Jimi Hendrix

 

Around the Network

The argument is, if the business doesn't reside in that state, the state has no right to any of the sale tax. It would belong to the state in which the business resides.



"We'll toss the dice however they fall,
And snuggle the girls be they short or tall,
Then follow young Mat whenever he calls,
To dance with Jak o' the Shadows."

Check out MyAnimeList and my Game Collection. Owner of the 5 millionth post.

Burek said:
I don't see a problem. Well, I do see a problem in that most Americans don't want to pay taxes on anything, and then complain about costs of medical treatments or have enormous student loan debts.

I pay a 25% tax on everything. Sure, it's a lot, and it would be nice to pay less, but I know that I can get free medical assistance for anything, free prescription medicine, free schools and universities and books for them, free dentist visits etc.

Yea I would love to pay 25% tax on everything.

I mean let the government take 25% of my income, then anything I buy is another 25%.  Add in home mortgage, health insuranc, car insurance, car payments, student loans, and essential groceries to live. Thank God I don't have any credit card debt.

Man what should I spend the rest of my money on. Oh wait I have no more money left.

Thank you Democrats for looking out for the little guy. Go get them greedy 1%'ers