Quote:
Originally Posted by dieseldog
keep in mind--it's a SALES TAX, and not a BUYERS TAX.  Sellers are not being "dragooned" into collecting taxes. It would make no sense at all to bifurcate the purchase funds from the sales tax funds. The funds are best held in one place--in the hands of the seller--who then submits them to the state authorities (this presumes a case of intrastate purchase). If, on the other hand, a buyer was required to keep track of and send off sales tax funds in the proper amounts to the state authorities on a plethora of purchases throughout the year, there would be chaos. |
well its not a "seller's tax" either. It is a tax on a sale. There are two parties to a sale. there is no reason i know of why you can't put the primary obligation to pay the tax on the buyer.
it makes excellent sense to then require the seller to collect and remit the tax just as employers here must withhold and remit income tax of their employees. this way the government gets a whole army of unpaid tax collectors who are liable for the taxes if they don't collect them.