Jamie for State Rep In 2008, the number of business locations that remitted greater than or equal to $17,500 in combined state Sales and Use tax was 29,939. Their total state Sales and Use Tax (Total Tax) was $4,362,074,123.
In 2008, the number of business locations that remitted less than $17,500 in combined state Sales and Use tax was 129,958. Their total state Sales and Use Tax (Total Tax) was $311,974,251.
$311,974,251 - small biz < $250k taxable
$2,000,000 - sales and use paper-filed (unregistered individuals)
523,932,500 - cost of big biz $17,500 exemption ($17500 * 29,939)
$837,906,751 total cost with all brick & mortar sectors included and big biz $17,500 exemption included.
$313,974,251 total cost with all brick & mortar sectors included and big biz $17,500 exemption excluded.
Now, of the $837 million above in potential government lost revenue after enacting Tax Freedom for all (up to $250k), representing 160,000 Minnesota companies, what percent is internet related? If the average Minnesota company gets a small portion of their revenue from online commerce, then the expected loss of revenue for Internet Tax Freedom will be as low as $60 million (7.16% of $837 million). Many Minnesota companies are not yet online (Menards is just one example). Enacting Internet Tax Freedom will cost little, and encourage all companies to be "computer literate" by helping them engage in online commerce based in Minnesota.
Enacting Internet Tax Freedom will increase the vitality of the Minnesota economy and improve Minnesota's livability by enabling grown children to better support their elderly relatives.
Sunday, October 31, 2010
Tuesday, October 26, 2010
Stand for Freedom - Support The Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act
The Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act will attract online shoppers in the same way our clothes exemption attracts clothes buyers. The Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act relieves shoppers of submitting tax for online purchases from Minnesota companies. This is just one way it is a win-win situation for shoppers and businesses both - people from all over the entire country will be encouraged by Minnesota's tax freedom to buy homes in Minnesota and buy online from Minnesota companies once they're here.
Moreover Minnesota will not and has never had the inclination, under Republican Attorney General candidate Chris Barden or successive Democrat Attorney Generals (including Lori Swanson), to do what Texas is doing to Amazon in the link below. By removing the sales tax collection requirement and establishing the Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act, we attract businesses by relieving them of collecting tax from online Minnesota shoppers.
http://www.internetretailer.com/2010/10/25/amazoncom-gets-texas-sized-tax-bill
And finally the Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act is a gentle, welcome push for business and shoppers towards computer literacy.
Moreover Minnesota will not and has never had the inclination, under Republican Attorney General candidate Chris Barden or successive Democrat Attorney Generals (including Lori Swanson), to do what Texas is doing to Amazon in the link below. By removing the sales tax collection requirement and establishing the Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act, we attract businesses by relieving them of collecting tax from online Minnesota shoppers.
http://www.internetretailer.com/2010/10/25/amazoncom-gets-texas-sized-tax-bill
And finally the Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act is a gentle, welcome push for business and shoppers towards computer literacy.
Sunday, October 24, 2010
The Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act
The Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act
No online gambling operations are recognized under The Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act.
Pass legislation to define online sales and online commerce as transactions using patented shopping cart technology that, where taxable, is subject to Use tax only, not Sales tax. Define online shopper and online seller as entities involved in online sales.
Enact a single resolution or rule in the Revenue Department that says no seller shall collect online sales tax from an online shopper and that all online sales are subject to Use tax to be paid by online shopper only as a Use tax. This is the opposite of California law, where California businesses collect sales tax from everyone buying online from California businesses. This aspect of California burdens small-business.
Enact a single resolution or rule that raises the Use tax exemption from $770 to $250,000.
Identify in MN code 297A the individual online shopper as an entity-exemption up to $250,000.
Businesses registered to pay Sales tax will continue to submit sales tax in the conventional manner. There will be no credit issued by the Revenue department of any kind. Sales or Use tax collected online will no longer be collected.
Our elderly can stay here and the grown children can be here with them, because the children can earn a livelihood in the greatest state in the nation – Minnesota.
Need
I oppose the Streamlined Sales Tax (SST),Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA), any Sales or Use Tax code upgrading, and all such streamline efforts and attention to government revenue streams that is supported by Democratic revenue stream hunters(Independent gubernatorial candidate Tom Horner, local pundit Andy Driscoll), government tax professionals, democrat social engineers ( the SSUTA governing board), and the National Retail Federation because much of the streamlining efforts violate the spirit if not the letter of the 1998 federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, which currently protects online commerce by forbidding all government from imposing multiple discriminatory taxes on online commerce.
A Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act would clarify what online commerce is and isn't.
Under a Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act, all e-commerce such as eBay selling and buying, is online commerce, qualifying for a sales and Use tax exemption for the Minnesota online buyer and seller.
A Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act will secure an optimistic outlook and competitive edge for all Minnesotans to enjoy.
Our elderly can stay here and the grown children can be here with them, because the children can earn a livelihood in the greatest state in the nation – Minnesota.
The federal Internet Tax Freedom Act expires in 2014 and until then online commerce can't be taxed.
California's very poor online sales tax freedom act:
http://www.techlawjournal.com/internet/80824citfa.htm
There is a big difference between the genuine federal Tax Freedom Act, which prohibits multiple and discriminatory tax on online commerce and internet access, and the limited narrow California bill.
Ann Lenczewski's redefinition of telecommunication service to potentially include online commerce
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=154&doctype=Chapter&type=0&year=2008
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=297A.669&year=2010&keyword_type=all&keyword=Telecommunications+services
Helpful starter article:
http://www.jongingerich.com/?p=23
National Retail Federation
http://www.nrf.com/modules.php?name=Pages&sp_id=1389
On July 1, 2010, Representative Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., introduced H.R. 5660, the “Main Street Fairness Act,” 24 states ... conformance with the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement
Is your state affected?
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/index.php?page=state-info
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/index.php?page=minnesota
The state of Minnesota became a full member of Streamlined Sales Tax on October 1st, 2005
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/State%20Compliance/Minnesota/2010/Minnesota%20Taxability%20Matrix%202010.pdf
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/State%20Compliance/Minnesota/2010/Minnesosta%20Letter.pdf
Daniel Salomone, MN commissioner of Revenue petition to join
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/State%20Compliance/Minnesota/MN%20Petition.pdf
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/index.php?page=state-info
I have no financial interest in Tax Free e-Commerce that all Minnesotans cannot easily share in today.
I have no financial interest in any retailer, online or brick & Mortar, Soverain, Amazon, or any entity involved in the ongoing software patent litigation. I have no financial interest in tax-free e-Commerce except as an eBay hobbyist seller. Minnesota e-Commerce is a entrepreneurial activity that the Internet Tax Freedom Act encourages and holds up as an inspiration for others to further our culture.
It's clear Soverain is consistently collecting $2.5 million from anyone it chooses to "hit up" for infringement compensation. Because of this fact, government should not further burden e-retailers who must pay so much for the use of the shopping cart model in daily business.
Further, government should exclude related technologies that are even more broad, such as the hyperlink technology for which a patent has been issued.
Liberals, like Soverain, see e-retailers like Newegg as plump prey to be shaken down. Please elect me to thwart the liberals' worst instincts and preserve internet commerce as tax free with the Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act.
Amazon 1 Click wins
http://yro.slashdot.org/submission/724171/Amazon-Gives-Thanks-for-Joke-of-a-Patent-System
nice summary of who owns the shopping cart tech:
http://www.internetretailer.com/commentary/2010/07/30/mother-all-patent-battles
Cost
The Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act, applied to businesses as well as online shoppers, would cost $133.675 million, or 2.8% of all 2008 sales and use tax remittance ($4.674 billion business sales and use plus $2 million individual Use remittance).
The Act would require a cut to the regular cost-of-living biennium adjustment of just .4%. That's less than 1/2 of 1%.
http://taxes.state.mn.us/legal_policy/pages/research_reports_sales_use_2008_statistics.aspx
How many of the 160,000 registered businesses remit more than $17,500 in sales and use tax?
It's probably between 1,500 and 5,000. let's say it's 3,500. These 3,500 businesses account for perhaps 85% of all sales and use tax remittance.
The rest of the businesses average a very small remittance - let's just say $450.
So the cost of the small businesses' sales tax exemption is $70.425 million (450 x (160000-3500)). Plus the cost of the estimated 3500 big businesses' exemptions (utilities, phone companies, energy companies and so forth): 3500 x $17500 = $61.25 million. $61.25 million plus $70.425 million = $131.675 million.
Add in the almost negligible $2 million from voluntary paper-filed Use tax remittances from unregistered individuals and you get a total cost of $133.675 million. That's $133.675 million to transform Minnesota overnight into a national small business retail tax haven with the Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act.
$133.675 million in tax breaks to the hardest working people in Minnesota, many of whom are caring for an elderly relative or two (while easing the housing and personnel burden of the Human Services commissioner) and would not otherwise be able to if they did not have the means to earn a competitive livelihood online.
No online gambling operations are recognized under The Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act.
Pass legislation to define online sales and online commerce as transactions using patented shopping cart technology that, where taxable, is subject to Use tax only, not Sales tax. Define online shopper and online seller as entities involved in online sales.
Enact a single resolution or rule in the Revenue Department that says no seller shall collect online sales tax from an online shopper and that all online sales are subject to Use tax to be paid by online shopper only as a Use tax. This is the opposite of California law, where California businesses collect sales tax from everyone buying online from California businesses. This aspect of California burdens small-business.
Enact a single resolution or rule that raises the Use tax exemption from $770 to $250,000.
Identify in MN code 297A the individual online shopper as an entity-exemption up to $250,000.
Businesses registered to pay Sales tax will continue to submit sales tax in the conventional manner. There will be no credit issued by the Revenue department of any kind. Sales or Use tax collected online will no longer be collected.
Our elderly can stay here and the grown children can be here with them, because the children can earn a livelihood in the greatest state in the nation – Minnesota.
Need
I oppose the Streamlined Sales Tax (SST),Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA), any Sales or Use Tax code upgrading, and all such streamline efforts and attention to government revenue streams that is supported by Democratic revenue stream hunters(Independent gubernatorial candidate Tom Horner, local pundit Andy Driscoll), government tax professionals, democrat social engineers ( the SSUTA governing board), and the National Retail Federation because much of the streamlining efforts violate the spirit if not the letter of the 1998 federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, which currently protects online commerce by forbidding all government from imposing multiple discriminatory taxes on online commerce.
A Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act would clarify what online commerce is and isn't.
Under a Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act, all e-commerce such as eBay selling and buying, is online commerce, qualifying for a sales and Use tax exemption for the Minnesota online buyer and seller.
A Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act will secure an optimistic outlook and competitive edge for all Minnesotans to enjoy.
Our elderly can stay here and the grown children can be here with them, because the children can earn a livelihood in the greatest state in the nation – Minnesota.
The federal Internet Tax Freedom Act expires in 2014 and until then online commerce can't be taxed.
California's very poor online sales tax freedom act:
http://www.techlawjournal.com/internet/80824citfa.htm
There is a big difference between the genuine federal Tax Freedom Act, which prohibits multiple and discriminatory tax on online commerce and internet access, and the limited narrow California bill.
Ann Lenczewski's redefinition of telecommunication service to potentially include online commerce
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=154&doctype=Chapter&type=0&year=2008
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=297A.669&year=2010&keyword_type=all&keyword=Telecommunications+services
Helpful starter article:
http://www.jongingerich.com/?p=23
National Retail Federation
http://www.nrf.com/modules.php?name=Pages&sp_id=1389
On July 1, 2010, Representative Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., introduced H.R. 5660, the “Main Street Fairness Act,” 24 states ... conformance with the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement
Is your state affected?
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/index.php?page=state-info
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/index.php?page=minnesota
The state of Minnesota became a full member of Streamlined Sales Tax on October 1st, 2005
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/State%20Compliance/Minnesota/2010/Minnesota%20Taxability%20Matrix%202010.pdf
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/State%20Compliance/Minnesota/2010/Minnesosta%20Letter.pdf
Daniel Salomone, MN commissioner of Revenue petition to join
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/State%20Compliance/Minnesota/MN%20Petition.pdf
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/index.php?page=state-info
I have no financial interest in Tax Free e-Commerce that all Minnesotans cannot easily share in today.
I have no financial interest in any retailer, online or brick & Mortar, Soverain, Amazon, or any entity involved in the ongoing software patent litigation. I have no financial interest in tax-free e-Commerce except as an eBay hobbyist seller. Minnesota e-Commerce is a entrepreneurial activity that the Internet Tax Freedom Act encourages and holds up as an inspiration for others to further our culture.
It's clear Soverain is consistently collecting $2.5 million from anyone it chooses to "hit up" for infringement compensation. Because of this fact, government should not further burden e-retailers who must pay so much for the use of the shopping cart model in daily business.
Further, government should exclude related technologies that are even more broad, such as the hyperlink technology for which a patent has been issued.
Liberals, like Soverain, see e-retailers like Newegg as plump prey to be shaken down. Please elect me to thwart the liberals' worst instincts and preserve internet commerce as tax free with the Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act.
Amazon 1 Click wins
http://yro.slashdot.org/submission/724171/Amazon-Gives-Thanks-for-Joke-of-a-Patent-System
nice summary of who owns the shopping cart tech:
http://www.internetretailer.com/commentary/2010/07/30/mother-all-patent-battles
Cost
The Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act, applied to businesses as well as online shoppers, would cost $133.675 million, or 2.8% of all 2008 sales and use tax remittance ($4.674 billion business sales and use plus $2 million individual Use remittance).
The Act would require a cut to the regular cost-of-living biennium adjustment of just .4%. That's less than 1/2 of 1%.
http://taxes.state.mn.us/legal_policy/pages/research_reports_sales_use_2008_statistics.aspx
How many of the 160,000 registered businesses remit more than $17,500 in sales and use tax?
It's probably between 1,500 and 5,000. let's say it's 3,500. These 3,500 businesses account for perhaps 85% of all sales and use tax remittance.
The rest of the businesses average a very small remittance - let's just say $450.
So the cost of the small businesses' sales tax exemption is $70.425 million (450 x (160000-3500)). Plus the cost of the estimated 3500 big businesses' exemptions (utilities, phone companies, energy companies and so forth): 3500 x $17500 = $61.25 million. $61.25 million plus $70.425 million = $131.675 million.
Add in the almost negligible $2 million from voluntary paper-filed Use tax remittances from unregistered individuals and you get a total cost of $133.675 million. That's $133.675 million to transform Minnesota overnight into a national small business retail tax haven with the Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act.
$133.675 million in tax breaks to the hardest working people in Minnesota, many of whom are caring for an elderly relative or two (while easing the housing and personnel burden of the Human Services commissioner) and would not otherwise be able to if they did not have the means to earn a competitive livelihood online.
Sunday, October 17, 2010
I have no financial interest in Tax Free e-Commerce that all Minnesotans cannot easily share in today
I have no financial interest in any retailer, online or brick & Mortar, Soverain, Amazon, or any entity involved in the ongoing software patent litigation. I have no financial interest in tax-free e-Commerce except as an eBay hobbyist seller. Minnesota e-Commerce is a entrepreneurial activity that the Internet Tax Freedom Act encourages and holds up as an inspiration for others to further our culture.
It's clear Soverain is consistently collecting $2.5 million from anyone it chooses to "hit up" for infringement compensation. Because of this fact, government should not further burden e-retailers who must pay so much for the use of the shopping cart model in daily business.
Further, government should exclude related technologies that are even more broad, such as the hyperlink technology for which a patent has been issued.
Liberals, like Soverain, see e-retailers like Newegg as plump prey to be shaken down. Please elect me to thwart the liberals' worst instincts and preserve internet commerce as tax free with the Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act.
Amazon 1 Click wins
http://yro.slashdot.org/submission/724171/Amazon-Gives-Thanks-for-Joke-of-a-Patent-System
nice summary of who owns the shopping cart tech:
http://www.internetretailer.com/commentary/2010/07/30/mother-all-patent-battles
Below is a recent comment received in regard to the Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act.
blog said...
In your opening paragraph, you point out your opposition to an awful lot of organizations because their "streamlining efforts violate the spirit if not the letter of the 1998 federal Internet Tax Freedom Act."
This is a common misconception of the Internet Tax Freedom Act.
Please take a moment to review the 1998 ITFA, in particular § 1104 (2). It describes that no new and discriminatory tax shall be placed on electronic commerce that would not otherwise be due on similar transactions to purchase any property, goods, services, or information through other means.
Sales and use taxes were adopted by the state of Minnesota in 1967 – and since then sale tax has been due on all transactions in the state, unless the purchaser has a valid entity exemption, or the item itself is subject to an exemption.
Exemptions are not available based upon the forum of a particular transaction – as such a definition would be discriminatory and would amount to government favoritism over a particular marketplace.
The ITFA in no way creates any forum-specific exemption for e-commerce. Is this what you are suggesting will be the goal of your “Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act?” I would expect a few retail malls might also appreciate such favoritism. Of course, as long as you are handing out forum-specific tax exemptions, I would expect that a few independent retailers may also appreciate such treatment.
The State of Minnesota is projecting a $4 billion shortfall this year (FY 2011). Last year, Minnesota failed to collect at least $143 million. No matter how aggressively MN continues to cut spending, it will be very difficult to reduce the budget by 25%. The Main Street Fairness Act (HR 5660) will grant Minnesota the right to compel out of state merchants collect and remit local sales taxes.
With the budget crisis being endured by governments across the country, the best ideas will control spending and income in a measured and prudent manner. It is a matter if basic responsibility that Minnesota should collect the tax that is already due, before forcing citizens to endure escalating taxes or reduced services. The Main Street Fairness Act, and the efforts of the 44 states (including Minnesota) in the Streamlined effort over the last 10 years should not be so quickly dismissed as they do not represent a new tax, nor a discriminatory tax on the internet – simply a mechanism to allow states to collect sales taxes which are already due.
R. David L. Campbell
Chief Executive Officer
The Federal Tax Authority (FedTax.net)
I reponded:
In the SSTGB effort to standardize categories - http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/State%20Compliance/Minnesota2010/Minnesota%20Certificate%20of%20Compliance%202010.pdf - great effort is made to exclude specific technologies but no effort is made to exclude or include the shopping cart and online auction technologies most commonly used for e-commerce. We need to address these technologies. Show me where in the SSTGB documents you address these technologies. Eventually organizations like fedtax.net would like to see shopping-cart technology, not currently taxed, dumped into a taxable category such as "telecommunications services". This is dead wrong. It is important we preserve the current tax-free state of this body of technology or the marketplace forum, whatever is current law (and with all due respect I'm not sure you are correct in saying no marketplace-forum-based exclusions exist in tax codes) for future generations. Once taxed, the technology or forum will never again be exempted because the argument that expected revenue is lost will be used.
It's clear Soverain is consistently collecting $2.5 million from anyone it chooses to "hit up" for infringement compensation. Because of this fact, government should not further burden e-retailers who must pay so much for the use of the shopping cart model in daily business.
Further, government should exclude related technologies that are even more broad, such as the hyperlink technology for which a patent has been issued.
Liberals, like Soverain, see e-retailers like Newegg as plump prey to be shaken down. Please elect me to thwart the liberals' worst instincts and preserve internet commerce as tax free with the Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act.
Amazon 1 Click wins
http://yro.slashdot.org/submission/724171/Amazon-Gives-Thanks-for-Joke-of-a-Patent-System
nice summary of who owns the shopping cart tech:
http://www.internetretailer.com/commentary/2010/07/30/mother-all-patent-battles
Below is a recent comment received in regard to the Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act.
blog said...
In your opening paragraph, you point out your opposition to an awful lot of organizations because their "streamlining efforts violate the spirit if not the letter of the 1998 federal Internet Tax Freedom Act."
This is a common misconception of the Internet Tax Freedom Act.
Please take a moment to review the 1998 ITFA, in particular § 1104 (2). It describes that no new and discriminatory tax shall be placed on electronic commerce that would not otherwise be due on similar transactions to purchase any property, goods, services, or information through other means.
Sales and use taxes were adopted by the state of Minnesota in 1967 – and since then sale tax has been due on all transactions in the state, unless the purchaser has a valid entity exemption, or the item itself is subject to an exemption.
Exemptions are not available based upon the forum of a particular transaction – as such a definition would be discriminatory and would amount to government favoritism over a particular marketplace.
The ITFA in no way creates any forum-specific exemption for e-commerce. Is this what you are suggesting will be the goal of your “Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act?” I would expect a few retail malls might also appreciate such favoritism. Of course, as long as you are handing out forum-specific tax exemptions, I would expect that a few independent retailers may also appreciate such treatment.
The State of Minnesota is projecting a $4 billion shortfall this year (FY 2011). Last year, Minnesota failed to collect at least $143 million. No matter how aggressively MN continues to cut spending, it will be very difficult to reduce the budget by 25%. The Main Street Fairness Act (HR 5660) will grant Minnesota the right to compel out of state merchants collect and remit local sales taxes.
With the budget crisis being endured by governments across the country, the best ideas will control spending and income in a measured and prudent manner. It is a matter if basic responsibility that Minnesota should collect the tax that is already due, before forcing citizens to endure escalating taxes or reduced services. The Main Street Fairness Act, and the efforts of the 44 states (including Minnesota) in the Streamlined effort over the last 10 years should not be so quickly dismissed as they do not represent a new tax, nor a discriminatory tax on the internet – simply a mechanism to allow states to collect sales taxes which are already due.
R. David L. Campbell
Chief Executive Officer
The Federal Tax Authority (FedTax.net)
I reponded:
In the SSTGB effort to standardize categories - http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/State%20Compliance/Minnesota2010/Minnesota%20Certificate%20of%20Compliance%202010.pdf - great effort is made to exclude specific technologies but no effort is made to exclude or include the shopping cart and online auction technologies most commonly used for e-commerce. We need to address these technologies. Show me where in the SSTGB documents you address these technologies. Eventually organizations like fedtax.net would like to see shopping-cart technology, not currently taxed, dumped into a taxable category such as "telecommunications services". This is dead wrong. It is important we preserve the current tax-free state of this body of technology or the marketplace forum, whatever is current law (and with all due respect I'm not sure you are correct in saying no marketplace-forum-based exclusions exist in tax codes) for future generations. Once taxed, the technology or forum will never again be exempted because the argument that expected revenue is lost will be used.
Saturday, October 16, 2010
Hey Tom Horner: HANDS OFF our Minnesota Sales Tax!
Hey Tom Horner: HANDS OFF our Minnesota Sales Tax!
or
Minnesota Miracle Redux - Tax-free Online Commerce - A Win-Win for young and old together.
I oppose the Streamlined Sales Tax (SST),Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA), any Sales or Use Tax code upgrading, and all such streamline efforts and attention to government revenue streams that is supported by Democratic revenue stream hunters(Independent gubernatorial candidate Tom Horner, local pundit Andy Driscoll), government tax professionals, democratic social engineers ( the SSUTA governing board), and the National Retail Federation because much of the streamlining efforts violate the spirit if not the letter of the 1998 federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, which currently protects online commerce by forbidding all government from imposing multiple discriminatory taxes on online commerce.
A Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act would clarify what online commerce is and isn't.
Under a Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act, all e-commerce such as eBay selling and buying, is online commerce, qualifying for a sales and Use tax exemption for the Minnesota online buyer and seller.
A Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act will secure an optimistic outlook and competitive edge for all Minnesotans to enjoy.
Our elderly can stay here and the grown children can be here with them, because the children can earn a livelihood in the greatest state in the nation – Minnesota.
It a Win Win situation which costs nothing.
Wait a minute Jamie - aren't we creating 2 Americas - those who buy and sell online tax-free and those who can't afford to and pay Minnesota tax?
Yes - and that's the dynamic that has existed since 1998. What I propose is we recognize the prosperity and hope this generates for the lower and middle class through financial and computer literacy and harness the dynamic for the benefit of Minnesota in the Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act - a national first.
There is no ambiguity as to whether Internet Sweepstakes operations will qualify. Under a Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act no online gambling operations will be permitted.
The federal Internet Tax Freedom Act expires in 2014 and until then online commerce can't be taxed. There is enough ambiguity as to whether we are taxing items including items involved in online commerce, in the streamlining efforts of Lenczewski after 1998 (when the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act first took effect) to call for a halt to her work.
California's very poor online sales tax freedom act:
http://www.techlawjournal.com/internet/80824citfa.htm
There is a big difference between the genuine federal Tax Freedom Act, which prohibits multiple and discriminatory tax on online commerce and internet access,
and the limited narrow California bill:
This bill would enact the "California Internet Tax Freedom Act" to prohibit, with specified exceptions, the imposition, assessment, or attempt to collect any of the following: a tax on Internet access, Online Computer Services, or the use of Internet access or any Online Computer Services; a bit or bandwidth tax; or any discriminatory tax on Online Computer Services or Internet access. The bill would make specified legislative findings and declarations in connection with that prohibition.
Ann Lenczewski's redefinition of telecommunication service to potentially include online commerce
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=154&doctype=Chapter&type=0&year=2008
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=297A.669&year=2010&keyword_type=all&keyword=Telecommunications+services
Helpful starter article:
http://www.jongingerich.com/?p=23
national retail federation
http://www.nrf.com/modules.php?name=Pages&sp_id=1389
On July 1, 2010, Representative Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., introduced H.R. 5660, the “Main Street Fairness Act,” 24 states ... conformance with the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement
Is your state affected?
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/index.php?page=state-info
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/index.php?page=minnesota
The state of Minnesota became a full member of Streamlined Sales Tax on October 1st, 2005
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/State%20Compliance/Minnesota/2010/Minnesota%20Taxability%20Matrix%202010.pdf
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/State%20Compliance/Minnesota/2010/Minnesosta%20Letter.pdf
Daniel Salomone, MN commissioner of Revenue petition to join
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/State%20Compliance/Minnesota/MN%20Petition.pdf
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/index.php?page=state-info
update
The Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act applies to both residents and businesses!
update #2
We
Enact a single resolution or rule in the Revenue Department that says no seller shall collect online sales tax from a buyer and that all online sales are subject to Use tax to be paid by buyer only as a Use tax.
Enact a single resolution or rule that raises the Use tax exemption from $770 to $250,000.
Identify in MN code 297A the individual online shopper as an entity-exemption up to $250,000.
Exempt (up to $250,000) all Minnesota consumer-to-consumer and consumer-to-business transactions involving the patented shopping cart technology.
All transactions involving shopping cart technology are subject to Use tax only, not Sales tax.
or
Minnesota Miracle Redux - Tax-free Online Commerce - A Win-Win for young and old together.
I oppose the Streamlined Sales Tax (SST),Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement (SSUTA), any Sales or Use Tax code upgrading, and all such streamline efforts and attention to government revenue streams that is supported by Democratic revenue stream hunters(Independent gubernatorial candidate Tom Horner, local pundit Andy Driscoll), government tax professionals, democratic social engineers ( the SSUTA governing board), and the National Retail Federation because much of the streamlining efforts violate the spirit if not the letter of the 1998 federal Internet Tax Freedom Act, which currently protects online commerce by forbidding all government from imposing multiple discriminatory taxes on online commerce.
A Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act would clarify what online commerce is and isn't.
Under a Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act, all e-commerce such as eBay selling and buying, is online commerce, qualifying for a sales and Use tax exemption for the Minnesota online buyer and seller.
A Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act will secure an optimistic outlook and competitive edge for all Minnesotans to enjoy.
Our elderly can stay here and the grown children can be here with them, because the children can earn a livelihood in the greatest state in the nation – Minnesota.
It a Win Win situation which costs nothing.
Wait a minute Jamie - aren't we creating 2 Americas - those who buy and sell online tax-free and those who can't afford to and pay Minnesota tax?
Yes - and that's the dynamic that has existed since 1998. What I propose is we recognize the prosperity and hope this generates for the lower and middle class through financial and computer literacy and harness the dynamic for the benefit of Minnesota in the Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act - a national first.
There is no ambiguity as to whether Internet Sweepstakes operations will qualify. Under a Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act no online gambling operations will be permitted.
The federal Internet Tax Freedom Act expires in 2014 and until then online commerce can't be taxed. There is enough ambiguity as to whether we are taxing items including items involved in online commerce, in the streamlining efforts of Lenczewski after 1998 (when the federal Internet Tax Freedom Act first took effect) to call for a halt to her work.
California's very poor online sales tax freedom act:
http://www.techlawjournal.com/internet/80824citfa.htm
There is a big difference between the genuine federal Tax Freedom Act, which prohibits multiple and discriminatory tax on online commerce and internet access,
and the limited narrow California bill:
This bill would enact the "California Internet Tax Freedom Act" to prohibit, with specified exceptions, the imposition, assessment, or attempt to collect any of the following: a tax on Internet access, Online Computer Services, or the use of Internet access or any Online Computer Services; a bit or bandwidth tax; or any discriminatory tax on Online Computer Services or Internet access. The bill would make specified legislative findings and declarations in connection with that prohibition.
Ann Lenczewski's redefinition of telecommunication service to potentially include online commerce
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/laws/?id=154&doctype=Chapter&type=0&year=2008
https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=297A.669&year=2010&keyword_type=all&keyword=Telecommunications+services
Helpful starter article:
http://www.jongingerich.com/?p=23
national retail federation
http://www.nrf.com/modules.php?name=Pages&sp_id=1389
On July 1, 2010, Representative Bill Delahunt, D-Mass., introduced H.R. 5660, the “Main Street Fairness Act,” 24 states ... conformance with the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement
Is your state affected?
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/index.php?page=state-info
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/index.php?page=minnesota
The state of Minnesota became a full member of Streamlined Sales Tax on October 1st, 2005
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/State%20Compliance/Minnesota/2010/Minnesota%20Taxability%20Matrix%202010.pdf
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/State%20Compliance/Minnesota/2010/Minnesosta%20Letter.pdf
Daniel Salomone, MN commissioner of Revenue petition to join
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/uploads/downloads/State%20Compliance/Minnesota/MN%20Petition.pdf
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/index.php?page=state-info
update
The Minnesota Internet Tax Freedom Act applies to both residents and businesses!
update #2
We
Enact a single resolution or rule in the Revenue Department that says no seller shall collect online sales tax from a buyer and that all online sales are subject to Use tax to be paid by buyer only as a Use tax.
Enact a single resolution or rule that raises the Use tax exemption from $770 to $250,000.
Identify in MN code 297A the individual online shopper as an entity-exemption up to $250,000.
Exempt (up to $250,000) all Minnesota consumer-to-consumer and consumer-to-business transactions involving the patented shopping cart technology.
All transactions involving shopping cart technology are subject to Use tax only, not Sales tax.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
Incumbents fail to show up for Capitol City Business Debate
Incumbent Reps Mariani and Pappas did not show up for the Capitol City Business
Council Debate last night Oct 12 at the Lao Family Center, 320 University Ave.
I recommend this space for any event - Suggested donation $100. One drawback -
no large kitchen. But plenty of space and a nice stage. Formerly a Union Hall.
We had a great debate with Rick Karschnia SD65 R, Paul Holmgren 65A R, Rena
Moran 65A D, Jamie Delton 65B R, and Amy Smith SD65 I.
Jamie Delton
Candidate, House Rep, West Side/downtown/Fort Road,
and a portion of Summit University
www.JamieforStateRep.com
Council Debate last night Oct 12 at the Lao Family Center, 320 University Ave.
I recommend this space for any event - Suggested donation $100. One drawback -
no large kitchen. But plenty of space and a nice stage. Formerly a Union Hall.
We had a great debate with Rick Karschnia SD65 R, Paul Holmgren 65A R, Rena
Moran 65A D, Jamie Delton 65B R, and Amy Smith SD65 I.
Jamie Delton
Candidate, House Rep, West Side/downtown/Fort Road,
and a portion of Summit University
www.JamieforStateRep.com
Central Corridor
Please vote for me November 2 for your West Side/downtown/Fort Road House Rep.
I will represent your views on Central Corridor and help end this potential
nightmare which will congest, pollute, and eventually bring more crime as yet
more retail flees, just as the progressive agenda and big downtown employers
expect.
Here is some background info which most of you already know.
http://www.stpaul.gov/index.aspx?NID=3881
http://www.stpaul.gov/index.aspx?NID=3430
[corrected links from http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/post/5Z3AgTuU7QvAPBi8xyHd4U]
History of Met Council.
Started as regional Waste Water planning and management entity in late 60's or
early 70's.
The 2008 Transportation Finance Bill created the Counties Transit Improvement
Board (as a Joint Powers Agreement entity, defined in Minnesota statute with
questionable tax authority) and the Grant Evaluation and Ranking System (GEARS)
committee under the Met Council.
Voluntary members of the Met Council's CTIB: Anoka, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey
and Washington Counties.
Carver County and Scott County, chose not to join CTIB.
Generally a county board resolution is needed to join.
[corrected from http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/post/5Z3AgTuU7QvAPBi8xyHd4U]
Among the Counties Transit Improvement Board members:
Ramsey County
Commissioner Jan Parker
Commissioner Jim McDonough
Commissioner
Victoria Reinhardt
For membership, the people you represent get to share the cost of transit.
The Met Council's Counties Transit Improvement Board involves city
"representatives" like St. Paul City Council member Russ Stark as members of
GEARS - whose city interests are opposite of those interests of the 5 county
regional board.
Grant Evaluation and Ranking System (GEARS) committee in Anoka, Dakota,
Hennepin, Ramsey and Washington Counties. The 2008 Transportation Finance.
Voluntary members of the Met Council's GEARS:
Council member Russ Stark
City of Saint Paul
Ramsey County Commissioner
Toni Carter
Commissioner
Victoria Reinhardt
The council members should be protecting St. Paul residents from the Met
Council and it's Counties Transit Improvement Board, instead city council
member Stark is applying for membership in the Met Council's
GEARS, and submitting to screening at the League of MN Cities on University
Avenue.
http://www.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2010/mandated/100155.pdf
Jamie Delton
Candidate, House Rep, West Side/downtown/Fort Road,
and a portion of Summit University
http://www.jamieforstaterep.com/
I will represent your views on Central Corridor and help end this potential
nightmare which will congest, pollute, and eventually bring more crime as yet
more retail flees, just as the progressive agenda and big downtown employers
expect.
Here is some background info which most of you already know.
http://www.stpaul.gov/index.aspx?NID=3881
http://www.stpaul.gov/index.aspx?NID=3430
[corrected links from http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/post/5Z3AgTuU7QvAPBi8xyHd4U]
History of Met Council.
Started as regional Waste Water planning and management entity in late 60's or
early 70's.
The 2008 Transportation Finance Bill created the Counties Transit Improvement
Board (as a Joint Powers Agreement entity, defined in Minnesota statute with
questionable tax authority) and the Grant Evaluation and Ranking System (GEARS)
committee under the Met Council.
Voluntary members of the Met Council's CTIB: Anoka, Dakota, Hennepin, Ramsey
and Washington Counties.
Carver County and Scott County, chose not to join CTIB.
Generally a county board resolution is needed to join.
[corrected from http://forums.e-democracy.org/r/post/5Z3AgTuU7QvAPBi8xyHd4U]
Among the Counties Transit Improvement Board members:
Ramsey County
Commissioner Jan Parker
Commissioner Jim McDonough
Commissioner
Victoria Reinhardt
For membership, the people you represent get to share the cost of transit.
The Met Council's Counties Transit Improvement Board involves city
"representatives" like St. Paul City Council member Russ Stark as members of
GEARS - whose city interests are opposite of those interests of the 5 county
regional board.
Grant Evaluation and Ranking System (GEARS) committee in Anoka, Dakota,
Hennepin, Ramsey and Washington Counties. The 2008 Transportation Finance.
Voluntary members of the Met Council's GEARS:
Council member Russ Stark
City of Saint Paul
Ramsey County Commissioner
Toni Carter
Commissioner
Victoria Reinhardt
The council members should be protecting St. Paul residents from the Met
Council and it's Counties Transit Improvement Board, instead city council
member Stark is applying for membership in the Met Council's
GEARS, and submitting to screening at the League of MN Cities on University
Avenue.
http://www.leg.state.mn.us/docs/2010/mandated/100155.pdf
Jamie Delton
Candidate, House Rep, West Side/downtown/Fort Road,
and a portion of Summit University
http://www.jamieforstaterep.com/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
