TR Forums

Just a heads up, of course as some of us found out in the "Marketplace" on Newegg, you can easily find yourself in a bait and switch scam. This didn't come as much of a surprise to me. I wasn't even worried about waiting on the return which is going to take 1-2 weeks to even start.

However, I also found out that when you change an address (in my case a freight forwarder) that it likes to default your items to that address with no fore warning. Granted, I should have checked closer on these orders and somehow on 2 subsequent orders screwed up and missed this. So they changed me about $20 on each of my 2 orders to WA tax, which isn't something we pay here in AK... I'll also be getting a bill from the freight forwarder.

Just a heads up to anyone who may change their address in Newegg. It isn't nearly as friendly about this as Amazon. Really sweet of them to not be able to refund me the taxes too, even though I can provide them information that the taxes don't apply. The whole getting taxed online thing is getting stupid, because these e-tailers don't even know the laws by which they are required or whom they are suppose to tax. I guess lots of people attempt to skirt these taxes /shrug.

It blows my mind that someone who buys a $194 item is taxed almost $20 on that. Glad I don't like in WA, that stuff is for the birds...

It is only a matter of time before state governments in the USA start cracking down to people who don't report taxes from online commerce. They only start caring because the revenue from sales taxes in B&Ms started to dry up. I suspect that Newegg got a nice audit scare which why they are much more proactive on applying taxes on their stuff when compared to other etailers.

Hopefully we will try to keep this topic away from R&P territory.

Avoid R&P on internet sales taxes?? How??

Current SCOTUS precedent (Quill Corp. v. North Dakota) requires a physical nexus in a state for said state to mandate collection of its sales taxes on online purchases in that state. On April 17, SCOTUS will hear South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., with the sole question for decision being the continued existence of Quill's physical nexus doctrine.

Krogoth wrote:

It is only a matter of time before state governments in the USA start cracking down to people who don't report taxes from online commerce.

I agree. And it does level the playing field somewhat to make things more "fair" for B&M's.

Captain Ned wrote:

Avoid R&P on internet sales taxes?? How??

Current SCOTUS precedent (Quill Corp. v. North Dakota) requires a physical nexus in a state for said state to mandate collection of its sales taxes on online purchases in that state. On April 17, SCOTUS will hear South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc., with the sole question for decision being the continued existence of Quill's physical nexus doctrine.

Residents still owe taxes on online purchases, and the only question is whether the online retailer is required to collect the sales/use tax at the point of sale. Perhaps some states with a sales tax do not apply it to online purchases, but it's been applicable in 4/4 states I've lived in.

If you read the Quill Corp decision carefully, they are not denying states the right to levy a sales or use tax on residents. They are specifically denying states the power to require collection of that tax by merchants without a physical presence.

If you reside in a state with sales tax, you are technically on the hook to pay it regardless of where the merchant is located. The problem (from the state's perspective) is that such purchases must be self-reported because the merchant is not legally required to report those purchases or collect taxes on them.

Welch wrote:

Really sweet of them to not be able to refund me the taxes too, even though I can provide them information that the taxes don't apply. The whole getting taxed online thing is getting stupid, because these e-tailers don't even know the laws by which they are required or whom they are suppose to tax.

It blows my mind that someone who buys a $194 item is taxed almost $20 on that. Glad I don't like in WA, that stuff is for the birds...

Just moved to WA last year, had been living in OR my entire life until now, so sales tax is rather new to me. However, I'm not sure I am following your issue here. AK collects local sales and property tax, correct? Come tax time next year, deduct your 20$ paid in tax to the state of WA against collected AK, and it should all work out? Or am I missing something?

Welch wrote:

It blows my mind that someone who buys a $194 item is taxed almost $20 on that. Glad I don't like in WA, that stuff is for the birds...

Washington has no state income tax, so they collect it elsewhere, including sales and property taxes.

Meanwhile Oregon has no retail sales taxes, so one of the more popular strategies is to live in Vancouver or its suburbs on the north side of the river, but do most of your shopping in Portland metro. If you zoom in on the interchange where the 205 bridge reaches mainland on the south side of the river, you'll notice a few miles of river-hugging retail development east of the Portland airport, starting with Cascade Station and continuing to include Portland's Ikea Store along with a Home Depot and a few others. That's not an accident. Something very similar happens on Hayden Island (Oregon side of the line) at the I-5 crossing.

Let’s say that you live in a locale with 10% sales tax. If you walk into your local Wal-mart and buy a $1000 TV, they ring it up and collect $1100 from you. They then send the $100 tax to the state and local governments. If you buy the same $1000 TV from Newegg, they are not legally required to collect the tax for the state and local governments. The state has to collect those taxes directly from you, which depends on you voluntarily reporting that you purchased something online without sales tax having been collected. If you purchase the same $1000 TV online from Walmart.com, they will collect $1100 from you and send the $100 tax to the state government, because Wal-mart has a physical presence in the state.

Here in VT there's a safe harbor use tax on our income tax forms. Pay 0.1% of your AGI as use tax and you're in the clear. Since Amazon now collects sales taxes for just about every state, calculating the effective purchase amount for my safe harbor payment comes out just about right.

My major gripe was Neweggs dumb system of default to a one off address. I've become to spoiled with Amazon's much better setup in that regard.

But as far as taxes... Alaska has no sales tax for the state, my city has no sales tax, the little town my house is in does have 4% but it is capped at $8. We have no income tax in the state either. We of course have property tax which is a bit higher than some places but are no where near as bad as some states with high sales/income/property tax. Overall our taxes are near none existant, which in my opinion is how it should mostly be. Granted I see the need for some taxes to run public services, but lots of states love to piss it away.

Our current govenor could have a heart attack tomorrow and I think few people in Alaska would she'd a tear as he has increased spending, cut the Alaska PFD in 1/2 and proposed an income tax all at the same time.

Welch wrote:

Overall our taxes are near none existant, which in my opinion is how it should mostly be.

Now if only more states could just discover massive oil reserves relative to their population density and then route the profits through a well-managed public benefit fund

ludi wrote:

Now if only more states could just discover massive oil reserves relative to their population density and then route the profits through a well-managed public benefit fund

I was gonna say.....

adampk17 wrote:

ludi wrote:

Now if only more states could just discover massive oil reserves relative to their population density and then route the profits through a well-managed public benefit fund

I was gonna say.....

Or massive tourist income that pays almost all state government overhead.

Oh, and being as that I'm from Washington state, thanks for the $20.


edit: reread your post, I guess it was $40.

Yeah we have oil... But every state has something that is worth lots of money... They just didn't manage it like Alaska did. Alaska also had many many years of witnessing how other states sold their resources cheap to corporations because times were different, Texas comes to mind.

Ok well not EVERY state has something, but a lot of them do.

Illinois has corn and soybeans. But we have to grow those, we can't just pump them out of the ground. We've got coal too, but as we all know, the coal industry has seen better days.

Welch wrote:

Yeah we have oil..

...which Alaska taxes. Heavily.

It's not that Alaska really has "less" taxes, it is that it has a industry-specific tax you just happen to not pay personally.

Also: Mineral extraction isn't transportable. Essentially all other industry is.

Other states don't have the luxury of taxing any given industry to the tune of ~25% (it's complicated obviously, but that's roughly the historical percentage of how much revenue has Alaskan has gained from the industry over the years versus the gross market value of what has been exported--the official rate is like 35% or something).

Why?

They'd just go next door and set up shop.

Welch wrote:

Yeah we have oil... But every state has something that is worth lots of money... They just didn't manage it like Alaska did.

Uhm, in the entire world, I can think of only two locations that had the right combination of mineral resource wealth, politics, and population density to do what Alaska has done, and the other one is Norway. That's called being an "outlier," not a "model."

I have a strange love/hate view on Alaskans, in part due to having several family/friend relationships with them.

On one hand, Alaska is a beautiful state and Alaskans are generally some of the most easy-going, helpful, and friendly people you'll ever meet, provided the ones you meet are those who escaped the trap of self-medicating for the climate and latitude.

On the other hand, any who live there long enough to receive permanent resident funds ("What are those?", ask the other 49 states), whether native born or transplanted, seem to pick up some bizarre idea that they live in a pristine libertarian paradise. They have no idea just how much Alaska is exceptional in every possible category (population density, resource wealth, climate, etc.).

ludi wrote:

I have a strange love/hate view on Alaskans, in part due to having several family/friend relationships with them.

I've always envisioned Alaska as this strange, near-mythical, land that attracts malcontents and itinerants and is home to solitary off-the-grid folks that occasionally lose their mind and start murdering their (thankfully sparse) neighbors.

(only half-serious)

ludi wrote:

they live in a pristine libertarian paradise.

I'd like to know where all of these libertarians or liberals are since I happen across more conservatives in public.

biffzinker wrote:

ludi wrote:

they live in a pristine libertarian paradise.

I'd like to know where all of these libertarians or liberals are since I happen across more conservatives in public.

Socially, sure. In terms of political-economy, I generally exceed my RDA of Sovereign Citizen and chemtrail-type mythos when interacting with hardcore Alaskans (and theories of government to match).

adampk17 wrote:

Oh, and being as that I'm from Washington state, thanks for the $20.
edit: reread your post, I guess it was $40.

What are you talking about? You don't get any of that. Shama Sawant is going to spend it all on safe injection sites and taking away car lanes to make more bike lanes before you see any of it.

Glorious wrote:

ludi wrote:

I have a strange love/hate view on Alaskans, in part due to having several family/friend relationships with them.

I've always envisioned Alaska as this strange, near-mythical, land that attracts malcontents and itinerants and is home to solitary off-the-grid folks that occasionally lose their mind and start murdering their (thankfully sparse) neighbors.

(only half-serious)

It isn't? When did it change?

haha

ludi wrote:

Uhm, in the entire world, I can think of only two locations that had the right combination of mineral resource wealth, politics, and population density to do what Alaska has done, and the other one is Norway. That's called being an "outlier," not a "model."

We have a similar place in Canada, called Alberta. Oddly enough, it also has the same political slant -- that the province having boatloads of money is due to them being somehow superior, not due to, y'know, living on top of the decayed corpses of gazillions of prehistoric sea critters.

Glorious wrote:

Welch wrote:

Yeah we have oil..

...which Alaska taxes. Heavily.

It's not that Alaska really has "less" taxes, it is that it has a industry-specific tax you just happen to not pay personally.

Also: Mineral extraction isn't transportable. Essentially all other industry is.

Other states don't have the luxury of taxing any given industry to the tune of ~25% (it's complicated obviously, but that's roughly the historical percentage of how much revenue has Alaskan has gained from the industry over the years versus the gross market value of what has been exported--the official rate is like 35% or something).

Why?

They'd just go next door and set up shop.

While again, I agree with you mostly about this... You've got to dig a bit deeper to get the full picture. Per person, or per acre or land, whatever metric you can imagine... I'd bet California has higher taxes even on it's businesses than Alaska does on petroleum companies, personal taxes aside. The fees for starting, running and maintaining a business in Cali is atrocious. Their their property tax, sales tax, income tax... tax tax. It really is crazy overall. They have industry beyond belief too, it just doesn't have to be pumped out of the ground. They have tourism, movies that pay special movie fees, ect... Like I said before, also all places have something to offer, some more than others. A town rarely exists for the sake of a place to stay, it usually springs up out of a purpose for something, even if in support of a larger town or city.

The one thing you will notice different between all of these places whether it be Alaska, California, Illinois, Timbuktu... Is their standards for how "pretty" things are. Alaska spends the lions share like most states on social medical programs such as Medicaid and Medicare, some of which is backed by federal funds. Education is up there next, then transportation and then back to the state sponsored University system. The big transportation budget goes mostly to maintenance for our extremely long road systems sprawling between cities. I have to drive 360+ miles to get to our largest city, with a few small little towns between it, not counting Wasilla which is like a suburb of it.

The point is, we spend most of that cash on necessities even though I don't think Medicare and Medicaid should be even 1/2 of what it is. Hell I'm not even for the PFD that we get. Only the libertarian in me is for the people getting it because I don't trust the state governments to not piss it away on stupid things and then tell us they need more money after taking it and suggest a state sales tax AND income tax.

It looks to me like California and some of the nicer states manage to keep things looking nice at the forced expense of the people who want to live there in the form of taxes, or those visiting. We just don't care about building multi-million dollar eye candy things up here. I guess we have that going for us too, the natural beauty to distract for the cash we don't throw into superficially trying to make this place look like a groomed gold course /shrug.

@JBI - Yep, corn has to be grown, but there is a lot more to getting oil out of the grown than just hooking up a hose and turning on a pump . I'm sure you know this as I'm also aware that farming corn or anything else isn't a walk in the park either.

The only reason I can be OK with the oil industry being taxed on doing their operations here is that they make a killing and it's 100% voluntary. They go into this deal knowing what all of the costs are and decide it's still very lucrative for them. They also cause a lot of damage to certain areas at times, which is an un-intended consequence of drilling. The number of times the state DEC has had to step in and clean up and use millions of dollars is insane. Part of those funds from the taxes are put aside because not all of the oil companies in the state can be trusted to handle it the right way. I even have a customer that found themselves in a bad situation with a few 1000 gallons of crude petroleum that got into a creek/river when a truck rolled. They had ran out of insurance money for the year because one of their drivers earlier that year did something similar. Here came the DEC to clean it up and put them on a multi year payment plan, otherwise the funds wouldn't have been there to clean it up.

Things up here are just so much more utilitarian, the towns exist to support the oil companies. The relationship between oil and Alaska is symbiotic you could say. One wouldn't exist without the other.

ludi wrote:

Welch wrote:

Yeah we have oil... But every state has something that is worth lots of money... They just didn't manage it like Alaska did.

Uhm, in the entire world, I can think of only two locations that had the right combination of mineral resource wealth, politics, and population density to do what Alaska has done, and the other one is Norway. That's called being an "outlier," not a "model."

I have a strange love/hate view on Alaskans, in part due to having several family/friend relationships with them.

On one hand, Alaska is a beautiful state and Alaskans are generally some of the most easy-going, helpful, and friendly people you'll ever meet, provided the ones you meet are those who escaped the trap of self-medicating for the climate and latitude.

On the other hand, any who live there long enough to receive permanent resident funds ("What are those?", ask the other 49 states), whether native born or transplanted, seem to pick up some bizarre idea that they live in a pristine libertarian paradise. They have no idea just how much Alaska is exceptional in every possible category (population density, resource wealth, climate, etc.).

Yeah, you're mostly right lol. We do think we are in a Libertarian utopia, or as close as is possible. We just have to keep fighting to keep it that way and prevent more and more liberals from moving here. I guess we need to stop having such mild winters and return to the -60 degree temps I recall when I first moved here. But I'll mention it again... We have resources but they are ultra expensive to get at, our climate sucks if you look at the BS numbers from the EPA, but try heating your home at -60, not to mention the cost of electricity. I'm not even in a rural area and it's $0.228 per kWh. Really rural areas can peak over $0.50 per kWh. We only have a single "non-profit" company to provide power here. Cost of living in general is insanely high here. Take $200k for a house and see what you get Florida, Georgia or Texas area. $200k gets you a fairly old home where lots of things should be done to it. We really do pay for it one way or another.

Living here in Alaska is a serious choice, tax people for living here and they will move and industry for oil will die. Hell some people left the state when the PFD went away. Last year we actually stopped growing and lost some population. The is fine with me, I don't want this to become the next Washington. I'd prefer that it have those natural barriers. Most people can't handle the winters, the lack of sunlight or the never ending sunlight during the summer. Yeah, perhaps people from the lower 48 look at us like pretentious jerks for wearing our ability to weather these things with pride. Becoming an "Alaskan" is sort of like making it through a dare or challenge, you have an underlying respect for each other measured in the number of years you've lived here, I've hit 19 years which is a good start.

Funny about the chemtrail and other whacko types. I don't ever really encounter anyone near that sort of description here. Most of the real hippies types we get here in AK are the REI loving, au naturale types that comes up here by hitch hiking or comes here just for work in the summer and stay for a few seasons. These are the mainstays Alaskans. Most of them honestly come from WA and a few from Cali. In fact my wife has a few friends and at least of them are from WA and come sort of close to your description, real SJW types too.

Welch wrote:

Becoming an "Alaskan" is sort of like making it through a dare or challenge, you have an underlying respect for each other measured in the number of years you've lived here, I've hit 19 years which is a good start.

26 years been here since 1992

biffzinker wrote:

Welch wrote:

Becoming an "Alaskan" is sort of like making it through a dare or challenge, you have an underlying respect for each other measured in the number of years you've lived here, I've hit 19 years which is a good start.

26 years been here since 1992

Hehe respect.

I've thought about moving to Alaska later in my life, when I'm closer to retirement age. I'm not exactly a people person so the farther away I am from the big mob of screaming apes and their self-immolating PoliSci overlords the happier I'll be. And given the nature of what I do for a living, it's highly likely that your logistical problems will be substantially reduced by the time I consider myself successful enough to quit acting like a peasant and stake a territorial claim somewhere.