VOTE UP Ron Paul Op-Ed - Let's Call This What It Is—An Internet Tax Mandate

[tsai3904]

Mod: There seems to be a concerted effort to down vote this, it is being down voted like crazy. Please go to the link and upvote it.
Let's Call This What It Is—An Internet Tax Mandate
By Ron Paul

Last week, during a series of Senate votes on the budget resolution, a majority of senators voted for an amendment endorsing the so-called "Marketplace Fairness Act." The underlying Act has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with enriching large companies and bloated state governments, while harming small businesses, taxpayers, and consumers.

The National Internet Tax Mandate, as Campaign for Liberty refers to the bill, would impose costly regulations on our nation's job creators at a time when the economy is still struggling and millions of Americans are out of work. Businesses would be forced to become tax collectors in compliance with thousands of tax jurisdictions, and any increased operational costs would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.

It is unfortunately no surprise that some of the nation's most powerful businesses are lobbying hard for this legislation. While these companies can afford to absorb the additional burden imposed by this bill, their smaller competitors cannot.

The Internet Tax Mandate also violates the original purpose of the Commerce Clause, which was to guarantee free trade among the states. Instead, the bill would allow states to levy taxes on goods crossing into their state, which is not what the Founding Fathers intended. Why should California be able to force a business in Texas to collect and pay California sales tax?

When considering any economic proposal, the unseen, potential ramifications must be examined. This mandate could discourage online commerce and stifle the growth of new businesses, exactly the opposite of what we need if we want to expand entrepreneurship and revive our economy. In addition, the long arm of Big Government would reach for companies operating in states currently lacking a sales tax.

Those brick-and-mortar businesses worried about competition from the Internet marketplace and wanting to "level the playing field" should instead focus on ways to decrease the burden of regulations and lessen government's effect on a company's bottom line. Reduced operational costs can lead to more competitive prices.

The National Internet Tax Mandate provides yet another example of the corporatism so prevalent in the "solutions" legislators are quick to propose—big business getting together with Big Government to step on the taxpayers and smaller competitors—and should be soundly rejected by those interested in restoring a vibrant economy.

h xxp://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-the-senate-have-passed-an-online-sales-tax/ron-paul-lets-call-this-what-it-isan-internet-tax-mandate

You can see how your Senators voted on the amendment here:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00062

[sailingaway]

why does the article have 65 down votes and only 20-some up votes?

[Danan]

why does the article have 65 down votes and only 20-some up votes?

Appearently people love to pay more for their stuff, especially when it goes to the government.

[ClydeCoulter]

why does the article have 65 down votes and only 20-some up votes?

I added an up vote. What's the deal with all the down votes...trolls, damn trolls.

Up vote this, people, please :D

[sailingaway]

Now 32 up and 83 down.....?

[sailingaway]

Appearently people love to pay more for their stuff, especially when it goes to the government.

And expands federal power to tax....

[libertyjam]

bump

[sailingaway]

bump

[ican'tvote]

I voted. It's 53 to 122 :eek:

[green73]

I call bullshit!

[sailingaway]

I call bullshit!

yeah, it is very very... unexpected..... unless something is up....

[SneakyFrenchSpy]

Saw duplicate... Please delete or merge.


There's a poll and we're losing by about 100 right now...


About Ron Paul: (http://www.usnews.com/topics/author/ron_paul_)
Ron Paul is a former Republican congressman and presidential candidate, and is now the Chairman of Campaign for Liberty.


Last week, during a series of Senate votes on the budget resolution, a majority of senators voted for an amendment endorsing the so-called "Marketplace Fairness Act." The underlying Act has nothing to do with fairness and everything to do with enriching large companies and bloated state governments, while harming small businesses, taxpayers, and consumers.
The National Internet Tax Mandate, as Campaign for Liberty refers to the bill, would impose costly regulations on our nation's job creators at a time when the economy is still struggling and millions of Americans are out of work. Businesses would be forced to become tax collectors in compliance with thousands of tax jurisdictions, and any increased operational costs would be passed on to consumers in the form of higher prices.
It is unfortunately no surprise that some of the nation's most powerful businesses are lobbying hard for this legislation. While these companies can afford to absorb the additional burden imposed by this bill, their smaller competitors cannot.



xxxx://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-the-senate-have-passed-an-online-sales-tax/ron-paul-lets-call-this-what-it-isan-internet-tax-mandate

[cheapseats]

Taxing COMMUNICATION/SPEECH, hmmm.

If they "must" tax the internet, let them tax the CORPORATE BEHEMOTHS that now dominate "alternative media" and online retail.

Purists will say THEY SOULDN'T TAX ANYONE . . . and they have "a right to feel that way", as a REPUBLICAN PARTY TAKEOVER game-player lately said of my "frustration". But the greedy and powerful State NEEDS CASH, and they're gonna get it from someone.

True, that a million bucks is Dr. Evil laughable IN MANY WAYS. But I will also suggest than any individual having a tough time making ends meet on ONE MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR, even considering taxes, should try moving their ends closer together.

Rather than Purists cutting off Liberty noses to spite Establishment faces, Commoners should play the MILLION DOLLARS & UP card on every friggin' tax coming down the pike.

[sailingaway]

Taxing COMMUNICATION/SPEECH, hmmm.

If they "must" tax the internet, let them tax the CORPORATE BEHEMOTHS that now dominate "alternative media" and online retail.

Purists will say THEY SOULDN'T TAX ANYONE . . . and they have "a right to feel that way", as a REPUBLICAN PARTY TAKEOVER game-player lately said of my "frustration". But the greedy and powerful State NEEDS CASH, and they're gonna get it from someone.

True, that a million bucks is Dr. Evil laughable IN MANY WAYS. But I will also suggest than any individual having a tough time making ends meet on ONE MILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR, even considering taxes, should try moving their ends closer together.

Rather than Purists cutting off Liberty noses to spite Establishment faces, Commoners should play the MILLION DOLLARS & UP card on every friggin' tax coming down the pike.

That's a million in income from a BUSINESS. If it employs 20 people and needs money to operate.... it isn't one person with a million.

[ZENemy]

Its not bullshit, the media did their best to demonize Ron Paul during the last cycle, so what you are seeing is people see the name "Ron Paul" and think to themselves "this guy is a nut, an isolationist extremist that hates government" and they down vote it without reading it.

[sailingaway]

Its not bullshit, the media did their best to demonize Ron Paul during the last cycle, so what you are seeing is people see the name "Ron Paul" and think to themselves "this guy is a nut, an isolationist extremist that hates government" and they down vote it without reading it.

Then why do we usually win polls? This is exceptional.

[CaseyJones]

voted

[opal]

did my part

[CaseyJones]

since y'all are feeling the thrilling rush of activism in your veins how about sending an email to your Reps & Senators to get H.R.525 & S.359 some more cosponsors?

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?409271-H-R-525-amp-S-359-Contact-Your-Congress-Critters-And-Get-Them-To-Cosponsor!

[kahless]

The down votes are probably the small army of people the lobbyist's are paying from the companies below to promote it. They expect to crush their small business competition if this bill passes and receive a significant windfall in profit from interest payments on the sales tax collection. Companies like Amazon will profit from charging their clients a 3% fee to collect tax in the 9600 jurisdictions.

This is all about Corporatism folks - crushing the little guy in favor of those that can buy off your Congressmen.

COMPANIES TO BOYCOTT

Abbell Credit Corporation, Chicago, IL
A Cleaner Place, Oklahoma City, OK
Acadia Realty Trust, White Plains, NY
Airgas, Inc.
Amazon.com
AutoZone, Inc.
Balliet's LLC
Bandals Southwest
Barnes and Noble, Inc.
Beall’s, Inc.
Bed, Bath, & Beyond, Inc.
Ben Bridge Jewelers, Seattle, WA
Best Buy Co., Inc.
Blake Hunt Ventures, Inc., Danville, CA
Book Nook, Monroe, MI
John Bucksbaum, Private Real Estate Investor/Developer, Former Chairman and CEO of General Growth
Build-A-Bear Workshop®, Saint Louis, MO
Buy.com
Cardinal Camera, Lansdale, PA
CBL & Associates Properties, Inc., Chattanooga, TN
Cencor Realty Services, Dallas, TX
Chesterfield Blue Valley, LLC, St. Louis, MO
The Container Store, Dallas, Texas
The CortiGilchrist Partnership, llc, Al Corti, Principal, San Diego, CA
Dan's Camera City, Allentown, PA
DDR Corp., Beachwood, OH
Demos.org
Dick's Sporting Goods, Inc.
DLC Management Corp., Tarrytown, NY
Donahue Schriber Realty Group, Costa Mesa, CA
Edens & Avant, Columbia, SC
Evergreen Devco, Inc., Glendale, CA
Fairfield Corporation, Battle Creek, MI
Federal Realty Investment Trust, Rockville, MD
FedTax, Seattle, WA / Topeka, KS / Norwalk, CT
Foot Locker, Inc.
Forest City Enterprises, Inc., Cleveland, OH
Gap Inc., San Francisco, CA
Garrison Pacific Properties, San Rafael, CA
General Growth Properties, Chicago, IL
Glimcher Realty Trust, Columbus, OH
The Greeby Companies, Inc., Chicago, IL
Hart Realty Advisers, Inc., Simsbury, CT
Hephner TV and Electronics, Wichita, KS
The Hocker Group, Louisville, KY
The Home Depot, Inc.
The Howard Group, Albany, NY
Houston Jewelry, Houston, TX
Hy-Vee, Inc.
Jo-Ann Stores, Inc.
Kemper Development Company, Bellevue, WA
Kimco Realty Corporation, New Hyde Park, NY
The King's English Bookshop, Salt Lake City, UT
The Kroger Company
L. Michael Foley and Associates, LLC, La Jolla, CA
Larson Binkley, Inc., Kansas City, MO
Lewis Electronics, Shaker Heights, OH
Limited Brands, Inc.
Lowes Companies, Inc.
Malcolm Riley and Associates Los Angeles, CA
Marketing Developments, Inc. MI
Marshall Music Co., Lansing, MI
Mary Lou Fiala, CEO, Loft Unlimited, Ponte Vedra Beach Florida
Meijer, Inc.
Mentor TV, Mentor, OH
Michaels Electrical Supply, Lynbrook, NY
Monte Cristo Bookshop, New London, CT
The Neiman Marcus Group, Inc
The New York Times Editorial Board
J.C. Penney Corporation, Inc.
JCPenney
Pealers Flowers, Camp Hill, PA
Petco Animal Supplies, Inc.
PetSmart, Inc.
Planning Developments, Inc. MI
Point of View Farm, Bangall, NY
Properties, Inc., Chicago, IL
The Pratt Company, Mill Valley, CA
The Rappaport Companies, McLean, VA
REI (Recreational Equipment, Inc.)
Reininga Corporation, Healdsburg, CA
Robert M. Sides Family Music Center, PA
Rosen's of Maine, Acadia Highway, ME
Safeway, Inc.
Sears Holdings Corporation
The Seayco Group, Bentonville, AK
The Sembler Company, St. Petersburg, FL
Simon Property Group, Indianapolis, IN
Stafford Properties, Atlanta, GA
Steiner + Associates, Columbus, OH
Stirling Properties, Covington, LA
Tanger Factory Outlet Centers, Inc., Greensboro, NC
Target Corporation
Taubman Realty Group, Bloomfield Hills, MI
The Timberland Company
Tractor Supply Company
Trucks Unique, Albuquerque, NM
Tulsa World Newspaper, Tulsa, OK
Vestar Development Co. - Phoenix AZ
Wal-Mart Stores, Bentonville, AR
Watermark Books and Cafe, Wichita, KS
The Weitzman Group, Dallas, Texas
Wendy's Company
Western Development Corporation, Washington, DC
Westfield, LLC., Los Angeles, CA
WDP Partners, LLC, Phoenix, AZ
Williams Ski & Patio, Highland Park, IL
Wolfe Properties, LLC, St. Louis, MO
Zumiez, Inc., Everett, WA

List from The Marketplace Fairness Act website.
http://marketplacefairness.org/support/

[kahless]

Vote is ahead now. Poking around twitter found this.



The supporters of Marketplace Fairness Act are using anonymous proxies in Turkey to post comments at RedState.
http://t.co/3evuwWlZZA Erickson (@EWErickson)

[sailingaway]

Vote is ahead now. Poking around twitter found this.

ah, well that explains it. Lobbies are well funded.

[sailingaway]

related, amazon and overstock lost their challenges to this as a state tax in state court in NY. This should go to the SCt but I think amazon supported the nationalization of it http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/03/amazon-and-overstock-lose-challenge-to.html

[kahless]

related, amazon and overstock lost their challenges to this as a state tax in state court in NY. This should go to the SCt but I think amazon supported the nationalization of it http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2013/03/amazon-and-overstock-lose-challenge-to.html

Yet they are fighting hard for a national legislation with more "simplified rules".

Amazon’s Love Note to Senate Backs Sales-Tax Proposal - "Marketplace Fairness Act"
http://allthingsd.com/20130214/amazons-love-note-to-senate-backs-sales-tax-proposal/
February 14, 2013 at 12:12 pm PT


In a letter, Paul Misener, Amazon’s VP for global public policy, said, “I am writing to thank you for your bill, which will allow states with simplified rules to require sales tax collection by out-of-state sellers who choose to make sales to in-state buyers.”
...
“Amazon.com has long supported a simplified nationwide approach that is evenhandedly applied and applicable to all but the smallest volume sellers.”

Amazon Testifies in Support of Federal Marketplace Fairness Legislation Before the Senate Commerce Committee
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=176060&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1720649&highlight


Far from an e-commerce "loophole,” the constitutional limitation on states’ authority to collect sales tax is at the core of our Nation's founding principles. For this reason, Amazon has steadfastly opposed state attempts to require out-of-state sellers to collect absent congressional authorization. We believe that, instead, Congress should enact S. 1832, the Marketplace Fairness Act, to authorize the states to require out-of-state retailers to collect sales tax at the time of purchase and remit those taxes on behalf of consumers.

The Marketplace Fairness Act: Why Amazon Wants to Be Taxed
http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/the-marketplace-fairness-act-why-amazon-wants-to-be-taxed/

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9237819/In_online_sales_tax_debate_1M_business_is_mom_and_ pop_


Emmett O'Keefe, director of public policy for Amazon, argued that sales tax collections will not create a burden on these businesses because of the software.

"It's all automated," said O'Keefe. "It's easy, it's doable, it's built into every shopping cart that's out there."

[Matt Collins]

Vote is ahead now. Poking around twitter found this.

Who Tweeted that?

[Matt Collins]

This is all about Corporatism folks - crushing the little guy in favor of those that can buy off your Congressmen.

COMPANIES TO BOYCOTT
Where did you get that list of companies pushing this? :confused:

[kahless]

Who Tweeted that?

Erik Erickson over at Redstate. I know that site was not too kind to us in the past, just thought it was relevant. They have a number articles against the act and I also found the proxy thing mentioned in this article http://www.redstate.com/2013/03/20/the-republicans-who-want-to-raise-your-taxes/


Where did you get that list of companies pushing this? :confused:

The Marketplace Fairness Act website.
http://marketplacefairness.org/support/

[sailingaway]

Someone on twitter has a really good point: https://twitter.com/PKern/status/317362125490229248

PKern
‏@PKern
@RonPaul Doesn't this fall under Article I, section 9: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."?

[puppetmaster]

Someone on twitter has a really good point: https://twitter.com/PKern/status/317362125490229248

PKern
‏@PKern
@RonPaul Doesn't this fall under Article I, section 9: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."?



interesting

wall -o- text but good


Export Taxation Clause
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

ARTICLE I, SECTION 9, CLAUSE 5


The Export Taxation Clause was one of the many accommodations that the Framers made to cement unity among the various sections of the union. Many of the Southern delegates at the Constitutional Convention regarded the clause as a prerequisite to gaining their approval of the Constitution. As the primary exporter of goods in the late eighteenth century, the South would have borne a disproportionate burden from export taxes. In addition to their disproportionate burden argument, George Mason voiced the South's fear that a tax on exports would create a mechanism through which the more numerous Northern states could overwhelm the Southern states' economies. They also worried that export taxes could be used indirectly to attack slavery. They were joined by Northerners such as Oliver Ellsworth, who declared that export taxes would stifle industry.

In response, some of the most distinguished delegates at the Convention, including James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, George Washington, Gouverneur Morris, and James Wilson, favored export taxes. They argued variously that export taxes were a necessary source of revenue, that they were a necessary means for the federal government to regulate trade, that they could become a necessary source of income for the central government, and that the South's disproportionate need for naval protection justified its disproportionate share of export taxes. Attempts to limit the absolute prohibition on export taxes failed. James Madison's attempt to require a supermajority for passage of an export tax was barely defeated by a 6–5 vote. The absolute prohibition on export taxation then passed by a 7–4 vote. It provoked little discussion during the ratifying conventions.

Cases interpreting the Export Taxation Clause have made clear that the clause "strictly prohibits any tax or duty, discriminatory or not, that falls on exports during the course of exportation," and that the protection extends to "services and activities closely related to the export process." United States v. IBM Corp. (1996). Unlike its analysis of Commerce Clause cases, the Court has kept distinct what is intended for export and what remains available for local trade. Although a product may ultimately be intended for export, the Export Taxation Clause does not prohibit federal taxation of goods and services before they enter the course of exportation, or even of services and activities only tangentially related to the export process. Thus, the Court has invalidated taxes on bills of lading, ship charters, and marine insurance; but it has upheld federal assessments on preexport goods and services, such as an excise tax on manufactured tobacco, a tax on the manufacturing of cheese intended for export, and a corporate income tax on exporters.

Although the Export Taxation Clause was integral to the evaluation of numerous levies between 1876 and 1923, the clause did not make its way back onto the Court's docket until 1996. After over seven decades of obscurity, the Court utilized the Export Taxation Clause twice between 1996 and 1998 to strike down federal tax statutes. In United States v. IBM Corp., the Court relied on the Export Taxation Clause to strike down a nondiscriminatory federal excise tax on insurance premiums paid for the purpose of insuring goods against loss during exportation. The Court also expressly rejected the government's arguments that the dormant Commerce Clause and Import-Export Clause jurisprudence altered or governed the interpretation of the Export Taxation Clause. In United States v. United States Shoe Corp. (1998), a unanimous Court relied on the Export Taxation Clause to strike down, to the extent it applied to exports, the Harbor Maintenance Tax. The tax was an excise imposed on any "port use." The Court rejected the government's contention that the charge was a valid user fee rather than a tax.

Although the original purpose of the Export Taxation Clause was to prevent sectional favoritism by Congress, the Court has chosen to enforce the flat ban that the Framers placed into the Constitution's text, rather than seeking to measure an export tax's discriminatory effect. Under the Commerce Clause, Congress retains the power to regulate exports, even to the extent of creating embargoes. It may not, however, utilize export taxes as a means of regulation.


This tax is laid upon the end user and not the exporter so it probably does not fall into this section of the law....

[unknown]

I call bullshit!

463 to 721... Who dafuq wants to pay taxes on purchases???

[whippoorwill]

464up and 721down when I casted my up vote...on 2 different browsers :-)

[Matt Collins]

463 to 721... Who dafuq wants to pay taxes on purchases???These guys are trying to hurt their competition:

http://marketplacefairness.org/support/