Internet Sales Tax: "Local Business Owners Lobby for It"

[Matt Collins]

http://www.theledger.com/article/20130406/NEWS/130409394/1178?Title=Local-Business-Owners-Lobby-for-Internet-Sales-Tax-Collection

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Dirtbags.

State propaganda.

I smell a boycott of Play it Again Sports brewing.

[MRK]

Play it Again Sports has always been terrible, overpriced with a poor selection.

The reason they can't compete is because of national market forces via the internet flooding the supply of second-hand sports equipment. The consumer wins, they lose. Now they want to screw over their consumer. I can't believe I've bought something from these hacks before. It was a pair of rollerblades back in the nineties. Shows you how long it's been since they've been relevant.

[itshappening]

Amazon want it because they're going to offer a product to "help" businesses administer it and make billions.

How nice of them.

[VoluntaryAmerican]

Amazon want it because they're going to offer a product to "help" businesses administer it and make billions.

How nice of them.

Forreal? Source?

[itshappening]

Forreal? Source?

I'm assuming that's why there for it. Is there any other reason than for them to potentially make money off it and gain contracts?

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Amazon want it because they're going to offer a product to "help" businesses administer it and make billions.

How nice of them.


Well, that's pretty dirty too. I'm sure they plan to take their own % cut since it's going to be a "product" they offer.

Amazon is likely too big for me to affect, but Play it Again Sports, in that area, is not.

[itshappening]

Well, that's pretty dirty too. I'm sure they plan to take their own % cut since it's going to be a "product" they offer.

Amazon is likely too big for me to affect, but Play it Again Sports, in that area, is not.

Yes, 3% of every transaction to remit money to the 9,000 tax jurisdictions.

That's billions a year.

Crony capitalism at its finest.

[TheGrinch]

While I'm normally in the camp of "we need to be removing taxes rather than making more", but if you're going to have these taxes, then I also believe in a tax system that is equitable and doesn't play favorites.

Online businesses already have a legitimate advantage over brick and mortar stores by not having to deal with the overhead of a physical location. No issue there, but why you'd want to give them an even bigger advantage to not have to charge sales tax that physical retailers do to these same customers in that location, how can you possibly advocate that as a fair system?

Just because they're selling from elsewhere, does not negate the fact that they're selling to customers within areas that have a sales tax. Thus, just because they have the internet to facilitate these sales does not place them at a higher standard than those who sell to these same customers within that physical space.

To allow them to skirt taxes that other retailers are forced to pay, that is extremely anti-competitive. As I said above, internet retailers already enjoy legitimate advantages without stacking the deck in their favor.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

While I'm normally in the camp of "we need to be removing taxes rather than making more", but if you're going to have these taxes, then I also believe in a tax system that is equitable and doesn't play favorites.

Online businesses already have a legitimate advantage over brick and mortar stores by not having to deal with the overhead of a physical location. No issue there, but why you'd want to give them an even bigger advantage to not have to charge sales tax that physical retailers do to these same customers in that location, how can you possibly advocate that as a fair system?


Where do they keep their stuff?

I'm for less taxation for anyone, anywhere... just like I'm for less murder for everyone, everywhere. I'm not too concerned about making sure everyone is murdered equally.

Online companies have disadvantages as well, because there are shipping costs and time costs. (waiting on your purchase to arrive) Maybe they should start lobbying for a "no shipping" tax for businesses who just hand the product to people.

If a company like Play it Again Sports can't compete, and their solution is to suggest everyone everywhere pay more taxes, or make moves that will likely result in a national sales tax, then I think it's fair to hasten their demise. People who *are* their customers will have less money to spend now. People who *are* their customers should know who's business they are supporting.

There's no deck stacking going on. If people aren't remitting their own sales tax, that tells me they do not consent to such taxes.

[Keith and stuff]

I'm assuming that's why there for it. Is there any other reason than for them to potentially make money off it and gain contracts?
Yes. Amazon fought this in state after state. Then it started to make deals to bring Amazon warehouses to states but only if the state lets Amazon not have to collect the taxes for a few years. Amazon was originally against this but it realized it couldn't beat the government and defend freedom. Amazon decided to help the government and screw everyone else. You might also be correct. Though, that would just be part of the multi-year narrative.

[Keith and stuff]

Online businesses already have a legitimate advantage over brick and mortar stores by not having to deal with the overhead of a physical location. No issue there, but why you'd want to give them an even bigger advantage to not have to charge sales tax that physical retailers do to these same customers in that location, how can you possibly advocate that as a fair system?

The Republican and Democratic US Senators from NH are against it because we don't have a general sales tax in NH. Companies don't collect sales taxes. They don't have the software to do so. They don't even know where to begin. So, for companies in NH, this would be a huge inconvenience. Democrats in NH don't feel that NH companies should suffer just because people in other states like high taxes. Why should these companies be punished because NH is so free? It isn't fair.

[itshappening]

Amazon could absolutely beat this and defend freedom.

They're just greedy and want to build the systems to collect it. The software is probably written and their cloud servers are ready to go.

[TheGrinch]

If a company like Play it Again Sports can't compete, and their solution is to suggest everyone everywhere pay more taxes, or make moves that will likely result in a national sales tax, then I think it's fair to hasten their demise. People who *are* their customers will have less money to spend now. People who *are* their customers should know who's business they are supporting.

There's no deck stacking going on. If people aren't remitting their own sales tax, that tells me they do not consent to such taxes.

Their solution is not to make everyone pay more taxes, their solution is for anyone selling to people in their community to be subject to the same taxes. You sell to people in GA, you pay GA's sales tax, you sell in CA, same thing.... I'm not advocating for a national sales tax, so jsut because some will use it as an excuse for bad legislation, does not change my argument here that if one company has to pay sales tax for doing business in a community, then they all do. That's not adding a new tax, it's enforcing the current one.



I'm for less taxation for anyone, anywhere... just like I'm for less murder for everyone, everywhere. I'm not too concerned about making sure everyone is murdered equally.


Poor analogy. If you're for less taxation for everyone, anywhere, then you'd be ensuring that no customer or company is subject to taxes that others aren't. So by all means continue to fight for less taxes, I will as well, but if you have taxes, then it is not fair to only subject some transcations to them and not others. No matter you view a tax as right or wrong, this is clearly inequitable and based nothing but a superficial difference in the way it's sold. The 2 transactions are not fundamentally different, both are selling their products or services to those within that community that's subject to sales tax to do so.

[TheGrinch]

The Republican and Democratic US Senators from NH are against it because we don't have a general sales tax in NH. Companies don't collect sales taxes. They don't have the software to do so. They don't even know where to begin. So, for companies in NH, this would be a huge inconvenience. Democrats in NH don't feel that NH companies should suffer just because people in other states like high taxes. Why should these companies be punished because NH is so free? It isn't fair.
I don't think it's fair that gays can't marry in NC, but that's the law they chose... Similarly, if you want to do business beyond the geographical location where you reside, then you have to abide by the laws of the place in which you wish to do business. I realize this only makes things complicated with taxes, but it doesn't make it right for online businesses to enjoy a tax break that brick and mortar stores do not.

Now if this was a matter of imposing sales tax to sales to NH residents, then yes, I'd be on your side, but that's not what's going on here. It's a matter of using the internet to sell in places that do have a sales tax (Key words "sell where there's a sales tax")

[Keith and stuff]

I don't think it's fair that gays can't marry in NC, but that's the law they chose... Similarly, if you want to do business beyond the geographical location where you reside, then you have to abide by the laws of the place in which you wish to do business. I realize this only makes things complicated with taxes, but it doesn't make it right for online businesses to enjoy a tax break that brick and mortar stores do not.

Now if this was a matter of imposing sales tax to sales to NH residents, then yes, I'd be on your side, but that's not what's going on here. It's a matter of using the internet to sell in places that do have a sales tax (Key words "sell where there's a sales tax")
It's alright. I frequently find that statist Democrats in NH are more pro-liberty on issues than many Ron Paul supports in the rest of the US. Every time a read a comment like that, I'm glad I live in NH where even the Democrats tend to be against a sales or income tax.

[alucard13mmfmj]

sales tax + paypal fee = bad

paypal fee is calculated from the total.

[kahless]

As far as I am concerned, Amazon.com does not exist anymore.

Amazon Testifies in Support of Federal Marketplace Fairness Legislation Before the Senate Commerce Committee
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix....0649&highlight


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.


Amazon Stands To Win Big From Marketplace Fairness Act
Nov 17, 2011 12:51 PM
http://multichannelmerchant.com/ecom...#ixzz2OPjilXII


It’s no surprise that Amazon – which had ducked proposed online sales tax measures in the past on a state-by-state basis – has embraced this bill. The online behemoth stands to win BIG if this bill becomes law!

Amazon will offer to handle sales-tax chores for merchants who sell products through its site for a fee equivalent to 2.9% of the taxes collected. The optional service, which is set to roll out Feb. 1, 2012, will be offered to Amazon's third-party vendors in all 50 states.

Industry experts say this strategy could produce a veritable windfall for Amazon


Amazon’s Love Note to Senate Backs Sales-Tax Proposal
http://allthingsd.com/20130214/amazo...-tax-proposal/
February 14, 2013 at 12:12 pm PT


Amazon sent a love letter to the U.S. Senate on Valentine’s Day, thanking senators for a proposal that could put to rest the company’s long-standing sales-tax issues.
....
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.”

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

Their solution is not to make everyone pay more taxes, their solution is for anyone selling to people in their community to be subject to the same taxes. You sell to people in GA, you pay GA's sales tax, you sell in CA, same thing.... I'm not advocating for a national sales tax, so jsut because some will use it as an excuse for bad legislation, does not change my argument here that if one company has to pay sales tax for doing business in a community, then they all do. That's not adding a new tax, it's enforcing the current one.


Actually, it is the buyer in GA who pays the taxes, not the seller. Well, if you want to get technical with economic graphs and such, they share it.

If GA would like to enforce such a tax, then GA should enforce it with their buyers. GA has no jurisdiction to force sellers in NH to collect their taxes. That is exactly why it will lead to a national sales tax, and I predict the feds will start skimming it as well.

Your point is not lost on me and it's a reasonable position, but I'm not going to take a reasonable position if it will twist it into a horrible solution.

Stores with no online presence only need to collect sales tax for one entity. (Their state...) If you ask an online retailer to collect taxes for 50 different entities, wouldn't that put them at a disadvantage? Now they need to charge 50 different prices for each item, and send 40 something different checks to different people during each time period. IMO, that would cause online retailers have a bookkeeping and logistical disadvantage. How would you fix that?

[TheGrinch]

It's alright. I frequently find that statist Democrats in NH are more pro-liberty on issues than many Ron Paul supports in the rest of the US. Every time a read a comment like that, I'm glad I live in NH where even the Democrats tend to be against a sales or income tax.

WTF are you talking about? This has absolutely nothing to do with my views on how taxation should be. I applaud states who are against taxation, but that doesn't change that most of us are forced to do business in areas that do have a sales tax.

Thus, if I have to pay a tax to do business here, then so do you, or else you are stacking the deck against me. You're looking at this as "taxation is wrong", but as long as there is taxation, then you can't play favorites that inhibits competition because, without any advantage of their own, they automatically can cut out 5-8% that it is literally impossible for me to cut out as a brick and mortar business, absent changing legislation. I don't see how anyone could possibly advocate this as a fair system (that doesn't mean that taxing everyone is the best system either of course, but the law cannot play favorites to provide advantage for some, and disadvantage for others. As we all know, this type of anti-competitive favortism is a huge part of this mess we're in).

[kahless]

Actually, it is the buyer in GA who pays the taxes, not the seller. Well, if you want to get technical with economic graphs and such, they share it.

If GA would like to enforce such a tax, then GA should enforce it with their buyers. GA has no jurisdiction to force sellers in NH to collect their taxes. That is exactly why it will lead to a national sales tax, and I predict the feds will start skimming it as well.

Your point is not lost on me and it's a reasonable position, but I'm not going to take a reasonable position if it will twist it into a horrible solution.

Stores with no online presence only need to collect sales tax for one entity. (Their state...) If you ask an online retailer to collect taxes for 50 different entities, wouldn't that put them at a disadvantage? Now they need to charge 50 different prices for each item, and send 40 something different checks to different people during each time period. IMO, that would cause online retailers have a bookkeeping and logistical disadvantage. How would you fix that?

They would have to manage regulations for 9600 separate sales tax jurisdictions in the US. A small business could not possibly remain profitable managing regulations on such a scale.

Amazon.com on the other hand has the sales and resources to be able to implement it and offer it as a service for a fee. This gives them another advantage over their small business competition which is why they have been lobbying for it.

[Henry Rogue]

Internet Sales Tax: "Local Business Owners Lobby for It"
Of course they are. Wish they lobbied for no sales tax instead. It would be better for everyone IMO.

[TheGrinch]

Actually, it is the buyer in GA who pays the taxes, not the seller. Well, if you want to get technical with economic graphs and such, they share it.

If GA would like to enforce such a tax, then GA should enforce it with their buyers. GA has no jurisdiction to force sellers in NH to collect their taxes. That is exactly why it will lead to a national sales tax, and I predict the feds will start skimming it as well.

Your point is not lost on me and it's a reasonable position, but I'm not going to take a reasonable position if it will twist it into a horrible solution.

Stores with no online presence only need to collect sales tax for one entity. (Their state...) If you ask an online retailer to collect taxes for 50 different entities, wouldn't that put them at a disadvantage? Now they need to charge 50 different prices for each item, and send 40 something different checks to different people during each time period. IMO, that would cause online retailers have a bookkeeping and logistical disadvantage. How would you fix that?

I'm not claiming to have all the answers here. I'd much prefer it if it was the buyers not the sellers from the locale who have to pay it, just like how most stores in areas with sales tax will simply add it on to the price at checkout.

How you do this all logistically however, I do not claim to know, but taxes are to be applied evenly for the same behavior, or not at all (again, before I get jumped on, I obvioulsy prefer the latter, but if you're going to have laws, they have to be evenly applied, and not exclusionary).

[TheGrinch]

They would have to manage regulations for 9600 separate sales tax jurisdictions in the US. A small business could not possibly remain profitable managing regulations on such a scale.

Amazon.com on the other hand has the sales and resources to be able to implement it and offer it as a service for a fee. This gives them another advantage over their small business competition which is why they have been lobbying for it.

Genuinely asking, could there be a way that the person who buys online is subject to the local taxes, and not the company. I don't know how exactly that would work logistically, but I get yours and MWMMI's point that it is problematic to enforce, and could create the opposite problem of the one I'm concerned about.... I jsut hope you can see that the opposite of allowing some companies, but not others to not pay taxes is no more fair.

[Keith and stuff]

WTF are you talking about? This has absolutely nothing to do with my views on how taxation should be. I applaud states who are against taxation, but that doesn't change that most of us are forced to do business in areas that do have a sales tax.

Thus, if I have to pay a tax to do business here, then so do you, or else you are stacking the deck against me. You're looking at this as "taxation is wrong", but as long as there is taxation, then you can't play favorites that inhibits competition because, without any advantage of their own, they automatically can cut out 5-8% that it is literally impossible for me to cut out as a brick and mortar business, absent changing legislation. I don't see how anyone could possibly advocate this as a fair system (that doesn't mean that taxing everyone is the best system either of course, but the law cannot play favorites to provide advantage for some, and disadvantage for others. As we all know, this type of anti-competitive favortism is a huge part of this mess we're in).

NH companies without a store or storage facility in GA aren't doing business in GA. They are doing business in NH. However, some liberty people support sending folks from GA to NH to put guns to the heads of every company in NH. Then you want to close all of the companies and put the owners in jail if they refuse to do as the armed men from GA demand, right? I am not sure if you are aware but this might be the #1 issue that C4L is against right now. The Democrats of NH agree with C4L, Rand Paul, Ron Paul and so on. We are all opposed to people from GA coming and killing or jailing people from NH just because we have more freedom than people in GA. If you support that, that's fine but just understand that you are being more statist than the statists I know.

[Czolgosz]

*didn't read the article, yet


Only a **dumbass would open a brick and mortar store, purchase a bunch of inventory, sell to customers, and NOT have a presence on the web to sell there also.


** service only establishments are excepted from this rule

[Keith and stuff]

Genuinely asking, could there be a way that the person who buys online is subject to the local taxes, and not the company. I don't know how exactly that would work logistically, but I get yours and MWMMI's point that it is problematic to enforce, and could create the opposite problem of the one I'm concerned about.... I jsut hope you can see that the opposite of allowing some companies, but not others to not pay taxes is no more fair.

That is how most statist consider the law to currently be written. Most states with a sale tax also have a use tax of the same amount. For example, when you fill out a income tax in Maine, there is a line for your unpaid use tax. So you put $500, $3,000 or whatever the use tax for items you bought in NH or online. Of course, you could lie and put zero but then you are might upset someone.

100% of it is on the buyer and 0% is on the company. Some statists (especially from TN) are trying to rewrite the law so that the companies have to collect the money. The believe of the TN Senators is that some people are tax cheats and that is bad. If companies had to pay, it would be harder for people to cheat on their taxes and governments would have more money so it would be easier for them to grow. Thankfully, C4L, Rand Paul, Ron Paul and some Republicans and Democrats are working hard to fight them. When Matt Collins and Sen. Ayotte are spending a lot of energy working for the same cause, it is likely a good cause :)

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I'm not claiming to have all the answers here. I'd much prefer it if it was the buyers not the sellers from the locale who have to pay it, just like how most stores in areas with sales tax will simply add it on to the price at checkout.

How you do this all logistically however, I do not claim to know, but taxes are to be applied evenly for the same behavior, or not at all (again, before I get jumped on, I obvioulsy prefer the latter, but if you're going to have laws, they have to be evenly applied, and not exclusionary).


Yes, but you're making a fairness argument, where your proposed solution creates a much different fairness problem. I think it's something you should work out, because now you've just flipped the problem instead of solving it. States should be enforcing their own laws, not other people.

One way to make it look more fair is to send taxes to one entity... the feds, and have them distribute it. Of course, that costs everyone additional money. Someone has to distribute those taxes, and those someones will be getting paid in the process.

Let's hypothetically fly one more step. Now NH sees that their citizens are being taxed by other states based on online purchases. Unfortunately for those poor bureaucrats in NH, they get nothing back. Maybe they should enact a tax. After all, people within their lines are paying taxes and they aren't getting any.

There's really nothing broken as it is. If states can't enforce their own laws, maybe they should repeal them. There's a solution that works for everyone. This is not coming about because offline retailers are having problems... this is coming about because states are trying to squeeze more money out of people when they simply don't have it.

[TheGrinch]

NH companies without a store or storage facility in GA aren't doing business in GA. They are doing business in NH. However, some liberty people support sending folks from GA to NH to put guns to the heads of every company in NH. Then you want to close all of the companies and put the owners in jail if they refuse to do as the armed men from GA demand, right? I am not sure if you are aware but this might be the #1 issue that C4L is against right now. The Democrats of NH agree with C4L, Rand Paul, Ron Paul and so on. We are all opposed to people from GA coming and killing or jailing people from NH just because we have more freedom than people in GA. If you support that, that's fine but just understand that you are being more statist than the statists I know.

Storage facility does not equal business. Business occurs when a transaction does.

What if you were traveling with your products to GA and selling them in person? That is not markedly different than selling them online and then shipping them there, aside from traveling. You are still conducting business with a person in that state, and thus are subject (or should be) to their laws for conducting business.

An analogy, Weed is legal in Colorado, it is not legal in surrounding states. Thus, you shipping it to these states is no different than you traveling there and physically selling it.

So stop with the statist crap. You don't want to be subject to GA's laws, then don't do business in GA, and sell locally where there's no sales tax. No one is putting a gun to your head to force you to selll in places that have a sales tax, so don't act like you're freedom is being inhibited anywhere near what mine is to be forced to do business under a sales tax that online retailers who sell here are not subject to. What about my rights? Just because we can't all live in NH doesn't mean that NH can come in and undercut my business because of a loophole to sell to my same customers I have to collect taxes from.

Again, you're looking at this like "taxation is wrong" (I agree to a lage extent), when it's just as wrong to say "taxation only applies to certain retailers selling in this locale, and not others". This is not a matter of taxation, it's a matter of an anti-competitive double standard. You don't get to enjoy privileges in my state that I don't get to enjoy.

[TheGrinch]

Yes, but you're making a fairness argument, where your proposed solution creates a much different fairness problem. I think it's something you should work out, because now you've just flipped the problem instead of solving it. States should be enforcing their own laws, not other people.

One way to make it look more fair is to send taxes to one entity... the feds, and have them distribute it. Of course, that costs everyone additional money. Someone has to distribute those taxes, and those someones will be getting paid in the process.

Let's hypothetically fly one more step. Now NH sees that their citizens are being taxed by other states based on online purchases. Unfortunately for those poor bureaucrats in NH, they get nothing back. Maybe they should enact a tax. After all, people within their lines are paying taxes and they aren't getting any.

There's really nothing broken as it is. If states can't enforce their own laws, maybe they should repeal them. There's a solution that works for everyone. This is not coming about because offline retailers are having problems... this is coming about because states are trying to squeeze more money out of people when they simply don't have it.

One does not have to have all the answers to see that there is a problem.

And to answer your question, NH doesn't have a sales tax, so I would not be in favor of them being forced to pay one. If their retailers don't have to charge sales tax to sell to NH residents, then neither should online retailers. However, if physical retailers in other states are forced to charge sales tax, then well, you can't have it both ways or else it's completely unfair to give you 5-8% headstart that I cannot possibly cut out.

[TheGrinch]

That is how most statist consider the law to currently be written. Most states with a sale tax also have a use tax of the same amount. For example, when you fill out a income tax in Maine, there is a line for your unpaid use tax. So you put $500, $3,000 or whatever the use tax for items you bought in NH or online. Of course, you could lie and put zero but then you are might upset someone.

100% of it is on the buyer and 0% is on the company. Some statists (especially from TN) are trying to rewrite the law so that the companies have to collect the money. The believe of the TN Senators is that some people are tax cheats and that is bad. If companies had to pay, it would be harder for people to cheat on their taxes and governments would have more money so it would be easier for them to grow. Thankfully, C4L, Rand Paul, Ron Paul and some Republicans and Democrats are working hard to fight them. When Matt Collins and Sen. Ayotte are spending a lot of energy working for the same cause, it is likely a good cause :)

Umm okay, we agree on how it should be (absent what we truly want, which is not to be forced to pay taxes), so how about you stop implying I'm a statist jsut because they want to push it in an unfair direction.

I'm in favor of a fair solution that applies equally and not exclusive (Ron has said himself he'd like everyone to pay a low flat rate if we're going to be taxed, so he too is in favor of fairer tax laws if we cannot abolish them), so don't paint this as if I want what the statists want. I'm just trying to get by in their system, and will not stand for anyone getting special privileges others don't.

[Keith and stuff]

Storage facility does not equal business. Business occurs when a transaction does.
I'm just talking about that the current law is.


So stop with the statist crap. You don't want to be subject to GA's laws, then don't do business in GA, and sell locally where there's no sales tax.
Current law is that NH companies aren't subject to GA's sales tax laws unless they have a presence in GA. This bill is about changing current law. You seem to support changing current law to dramatically grow government. I don't support that. Currently, the people themselves, the people of GA, are supposed to pay the tax. That's the status que that Ron Paul, Rand Paul and statists where I live are pushing hard to maintain.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

One does not have to have all the answers to see that there is a problem.

And to answer your question, NH doesn't have a sales tax, so I would not be in favor of them being forced to pay one. If their retailers don't have to charge sales tax to sell to NH residents, then neither should online retailers. However, if physical retailers in other states are forced to charge sales tax, then well, you can't have it both ways or else it's completely unfair to give you 5-8% headstart that I cannot possibly cut out.


Bolded = people should follow their state laws. Asking people in NH to collect taxes for GA is putting a regulatory burden on business in NH who have no representation in GA.

I understand you don't have all the answers, but the solutions I see being presented all lead to bigger problems.

[TheGrinch]

I'm just talking about that the current law is.


Current law is that NH companies aren't subject to GA's sales tax laws unless they have a presence in GA. This bill is about changing current law. You seem to support changing current law to dramatically grow government. I don't support that. Currently, the people themselves, the people of GA, are supposed to pay the tax. That's the status que that Ron Paul, Rand Paul and statists where I live are pushing hard to maintain.

Sorry, but I do not understand how "presence" does not include selling to that state. To me that is a loophole, when if I were to physically travel to offer my products in another state, I would be subject to their tax laws.

I guess I can see the grey area of whether it's the seller or the buyer being in that state that matters, but IMO, the sales tax should depend on if either party resides in that state. From there they can determine who the buck gets passed on to (of ocurse none of this is ideal, but as I said throughout this thread, it's not anymore fair to me to force me to pay taxes to do business here that you don't have to).

[TheGrinch]

Bolded = people should follow their state laws. Asking people in NH to collect taxes for GA is putting a regulatory burden on business in NH who have no representation in GA.

I understand you don't have all the answers, but the solutions I see being presented all lead to bigger problems.

It is not representation tax, it's called sales tax, as in a tax to sell within the locale that is either paid for by the producer in that locale, or in many cases passed on to the consumer. It has nothing to do with representation and everything to do with the tax on selling there.

[Keith and stuff]

GOP Turncoats Support Internet Sales Taxes
By Tim Shoemaker on March 25, 2013 in National Blog
http://www.campaignforliberty.org/national-blog/gop-turncoats-support-internet-sales-taxes/

Ron Paul: Let's Call This What It Is—An Internet Tax Mandate
By Ron Paul
, Ron Paul is a Former U.S. Congressman from Texas and Chairman of Campaign for Liberty
http://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

Internet Sales Tax Emerges As Next Republican Fissure
A new wedge between old-school Republicans and Paul-style hybrids. “Those people who think their fingerprints will not be found on the murder weapon will find out that they’re wrong,” Norquist warns. posted on February 26, 2013 at 7:08am EST
http://www.buzzfeed.com/rosiegray/internet-sales-tax-emerges-as-next-republican-fissure

[Matt Collins]

Amazon want it because they're going to offer a product to "help" businesses administer it and make billions.

How nice of them.

Their model is moving to same day or next day delivery, which means they'll have a physical presence in almost every state meaning they'll be subject to taxes in most states now. They don't want to be forced to collect taxes while their competition isn't.

[itshappening]

Their model is moving to same day or next day delivery, which means they'll have a physical presence in almost every state meaning they'll be subject to taxes in most states now. They don't want to be forced to collect taxes while their competition isn't.

And who's going to adminster the program to collect and pay the 9,000 cities, counties and state governments the sales tax?

That's who is pushing this. And the states like Virginia who want the cash.

It's a scam.

[TheGrinch]

I understand you don't have all the answers, but the solutions I see being presented all lead to bigger problems.

To be fair, you've not really provided a solution for my woes of starting a brick and mortar business only to be undercut (on a cost that I legally cannot erase) by companies who can do business here without being forced to the same taxation.

Yes, I'm sure that the politician's solutions are probably only going to make things worse and equally exclusive, they always do, but it doesn't change the fact that allowing exclusions for superficial reasons is inequitable, and in this case equally anti-competitive.

I think some want to view the internet as being a physical selling place, when it is not. It is merely a virtual medium for sellers and buyers from different locales to do business. It is not a business place in itself, that would be the physical selling and buying locations.

[Matt Collins]

While I'm normally in the camp of "we need to be removing taxes rather than making more", but if you're going to have these taxes, then I also believe in a tax system that is equitable and doesn't play favorites.

Online businesses already have a legitimate advantage over brick and mortar stores by not having to deal with the overhead of a physical location. No issue there, but why you'd want to give them an even bigger advantage to not have to charge sales tax that physical retailers do to these same customers in that location, how can you possibly advocate that as a fair system?

Just because they're selling from elsewhere, does not negate the fact that they're selling to customers within areas that have a sales tax. Thus, just because they have the internet to facilitate these sales does not place them at a higher standard than those who sell to these same customers within that physical space.

To allow them to skirt taxes that other retailers are forced to pay, that is extremely anti-competitive. As I said above, internet retailers already enjoy legitimate advantages without stacking the deck in their favor.You're looking at this bassackwards.

From a liberty position, the question is: "why should local businesses have the burden and disadvantage of being forced to collect sales tax"?

[CCTelander]

Sorry, but I do not understand how "presence" does not include selling to that state. To me that is a loophole, when if I were to physically travel to offer my products in another state, I would be subject to their tax laws.

I guess I can see the grey area of whether it's the seller or the buyer being in that state that matters, but IMO, the sales tax should depend on if either party resides in that state. From there they can determine who the buck gets passed on to (of ocurse none of this is ideal, but as I said throughout this thread, it's not anymore fair to me to force me to pay taxes to do business here that you don't have to).


"Loophole" is just a statist buzz word typically used to denegrate real freedom. This stupid law will put MANY small businesses right out of business due to the expense and complicated nature of tracking and paying "sales taxes" ( read that "extortion money") in 9600 different jurisdictions. Any argument that it's "unfair" that online businesses aren't being stolen from as much as brick and mortar establishments is, quite frankly, a sick joke. If the situation is "unfair," then by all means lobby for less extortion being demanded from brick and mortars, NOT that others get screwed more.

It still sometimes shocks me to see these kinds of bullshit statist arguments proferred by purported advocates of greater liberty. It also pisses me off.

[Keith and stuff]

It still sometimes shocks me to see these kinds of bullshit statist arguments proferred by purported advocates of greater liberty. It also posses me off.
I see it by liberty folks all of the time online. It is so strange because I see elected Democrats pushing for the liberty solution where in NH and online liberty folks pushing for the statist solution. It hurts my head.

[Matt Collins]

And who's going to adminster the program to collect and pay the 9,000 cities, counties and state governments the sales tax?

That's who is pushing this. And the states like Virginia who want the cash.

It's a scam.

It's actually about 12,000 taxing jurisdictions, of which there is no known map for all of them.

Amazon is big enough to handle their own accounting, most other firms are NOT. This will put smaller online businesses at a severe disadvantage. Besides the loss of revenue due to people having less to spend, not getting the advantage of tax free shopping, they will have extra expense of this accounting. This will KILL online commerce for small firms! Their only choice will be to subscribe to a service which keeps track of all of the taxing jurisdictions. But it won't be cheap, they will have to raise prices on customers in order to pay for it.


So then what we'll have is people clamoring for a singular and simple federal sales tax. :mad:

[TheGrinch]

You're looking at this bassackwards.

From a liberty position, the question is: "why should local businesses have the burden and disadvantage of being forced to collect sales tax"?

You're shifting the argument from pragmatism (I do not have a choice on paying taxes as a physical GA seller/buyer) to idealism (of course I'd prefer it to be that way).

So I can sit here and scream from the rooftops "I don't want to enforce sales tax", but I have to, while someone else selling to my locale's customers do not. It places me at a disadvantage that I cannot make up.

I mean Jesus, some of you are so gungho on opposing any taxation, that you're advocating a system that taxes some and not others over at very least having an equitable system of taxation, if we're forced to have one. Otherwise you're playing favorites, while imposing a 5-8% burden on me that others aren't subject to for the same behavior.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

To be fair, you've not really provided a solution for my woes of starting a brick and mortar business only to be undercut (on a cost that I legally cannot erase) by companies who can do business here without being forced to the same taxation.


My solution is for states to enforce their own laws, within their own boundaries, for their "constituents." If they are not doing so, then businesses within their boundaries should, through representative government, make them do it.

The problem there is that we will find states would be unable to force their tax cattle to comply. Enforcement would cost more money and ill will than they can bear.

Businesses and people/employees in your jurisdiction should be fighting to lower sales taxes to be competitive nationally, through their representative government.

[TheGrinch]

"Loophole" is just a statist buzz word typically used to denegrate real freedom. This stupid law will put MANY small businesses right out of business due to the expense and complicated nature of tracking and paying "sales taxes" ( read that "extortion money") in 9600 different jurisdictions. Any argument that it's "unfair" that online businesses aren't being stolen from as much as brick and mortar establishments is, quite frankly, a sick joke. If the situation is "unfair," then by all means lobby for less extortion being demanded from brick and mortars, NOT that others get screwed more.

It still sometimes shocks me to see these kinds of bullshit statist arguments proferred by purported advocates of greater liberty. It also pisses me off.

Fuck off, I'm done here if you're all going to play the "you're a statist for not liking others to enjoy priveleges you don't". Why can I not lobby against taxation, while realizing that if they're going to force me to be taxed, they can't just decide it's only traditional businesses like mine that have to pay it.

I believe forced taxation is theft, but that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to respect states rights and stand against anti-competitive exclusionary taxation that only applies to some selling within those locales. Sorry, but I have other principles beyond the unlikelihood of getting the type of limited government I want here.... Basically you're saying, all or nothing, either no one has sales tax, or else you have to live with the system that places you at a nearly 10% disadvantage over others doing the same thing.

I realize that the proposed law would only help companies like Am,azon with the infrastructure to handle it, but that doesn't mean that a more fair system couldn't be implemented to not place unnecessary burden on either online or local retailers. Just because their solution is wrong, doesn't make the current system any more fair.

[TheGrinch]

It's actually about 12,000 taxing jurisdictions, of which there is no known map for all of them.

Amazon is big enough to handle their own accounting, most other firms are NOT. This will put smaller online businesses at a severe disadvantage. Besides the loss of revenue due to people having less to spend, not getting the advantage of tax free shopping, they will have extra expense of this accounting. This will KILL online commerce for small firms! Their only choice will be to subscribe to a service which keeps track of all of the taxing jurisdictions. But it won't be cheap, they will have to raise prices on customers in order to pay for it.


So then what we'll have is people clamoring for a singular and simple federal sales tax. :mad:

Surely there could be a more simple way to simply determine, charge and send taxes you owe to different states without all of the paperwork. As I suggested earlier, maybe simply have the customers include internet transactions in their taxes.

I have little doubt they could come up with a fairer effective solution than the current system, but yes, I have my doubts that the politicians will go that route.

[Keith and stuff]

Surely there could be a more simple way to simply determine, charge and send taxes you owe to different states without all of the paperwork. As I suggested earlier, maybe simply have the customers include internet transactions in their taxes.

I have little doubt they could come up with a fairer effective solution than the current system, but yes, I have my doubts that the politicians will go that route.
Currently, there is a solution. It is what happens now. The person that buys the item has to pay the use tax on the item. Otherwise, the person is a tax cheat. It isn't perfect. People should push for their state to abolish it's sales tax. But that's up to people in those states to push for, if they want. This problem is mostly already solved.

The issue at hand is that some Republicans and Democrats are upset that government isn't large enough. So they are working together for an inexpensive way to collect these taxes. They found find that it is too much work to prosecute the 10s of millions of tax cheats individually. This has nothing to due with fairness. It is all about growing government as large as possible as fast as possible.

[seraphson]

Play it Again Sports has always been terrible, overpriced with a poor selection.

The reason they can't compete is because of national market forces via the internet flooding the supply of second-hand sports equipment. The consumer wins, they lose. Now they want to screw over their consumer. I can't believe I've bought something from these hacks before. It was a pair of rollerblades back in the nineties. Shows you how long it's been since they've been relevant.

I went to them around Christmas to buy some darts and dart related stuff (flights, tips, etc.) and they had zero, nada, ziltch of anything related to darts.

Focusing on the bigger picture...I like how year after year, bill after bill, president after president, we always, I repeat always have to pay more and get virtually nothing of value in return. The tax books, the law books, the regulation books, the government, and THE PROBLEMS get bigger and bigger almost in this unconscionable and mysterious way as if there was a massive black hole sucking in real productivity. The very "solutions" are the real problems.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

My solution is for states to enforce their own laws, within their own boundaries, for their "constituents." If they are not doing so, then businesses within their boundaries should, through representative government, make them do it.

The problem there is that we will find states would be unable to force their tax cattle to comply. Enforcement would cost more money and ill will than they can bear.

Businesses and people/employees in your jurisdiction should be fighting to lower sales taxes to be competitive nationally, through their representative government.


And I will further say that I bet you'll never find a state willing to enact a law that will force online businesses in their jurisdiction to collect sales tax for other states. That will tell you it's not about "fairness" for them. They, unlike you, do not have an interest in "fairness."

States also already compete with each other regarding a mix of income and sales taxes. That is how they compete for their tax base. They compete with differing laws. (this is most notably and recently seen with mj legislation...)

They also compete for physical company locations, usually with tax incentives. (horrible practice, I believe.)

Competition among states is important at the end of the day. However, it is the residents of those states who theoretically determine those things.

[kahless]

I am surprised to see a Ron Paul forum a member essentially giving the finger to "No taxation without representation". What part of that phrase do you not get TheGrinchWhoStoleDC? Fighting against this nonsense is basically the foundation of the movement.

It is anti-competitive and is what the founders had in mind in not wanting the states plundering each others residents and businesses with taxes.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on this in 1994, so if it passes I hope it will face a Constitutional challenge on the grounds of 10th amendment states rights.

preservation of local industry by protecting it from the rigors of interstate competition is the hallmark of the economic protectionism that the Commerce Clause prohibits.” West Lynn Creamery, Inc. v. Healy, 512 U.S. 186, 205 (1994

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

I am surprised to see a Ron Paul forum a member essentially giving the finger to "No taxation without representation". What part of that phrase do you not get TheGrinchWhoStoleDC? Fighting against this nonsense is basically the foundation of the liberty movement.

It is anti-competitive and is what the founders had in mind in not wanting the states plundering each others residents and businesses with taxes.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on this in 1994, so if it passes I hope it will face a Constitutional challenge on the grounds of 10th amendment states rights.


On the upside, we'd all be awful bored to sit around in agreement with each other every day, about every subject.

A state like FL, cited in the article, has no income tax, but high sales taxes. That's their attempt to shift the tax burden from residents to tourists. (who physically come to the state...)

It's an attempt to attract the labor to the state needed to provide for those tourists. In FL, you might make minimum wage, but you get sun and beaches and no state income tax. States are different from each other. (clearly)

The FL businessperson in the article would probably prefer that everyone is taxed the same sales tax as FL. Businesses outside of FL would prefer that FL residents had to pay XX% in income tax. Otherwise, there is a competitive advantage for their tax cattle.

That is why this comes down to an issue that requires feds, or uniformity among states. This should be framed as a state competition issue, I think. Make states do their own tax collecting.

[Keith and stuff]

On the upside, we'd all be awful bored to sit around in agreement with each other every day, about every subject.

A state like FL, cited in the article, has no income tax, but high sales taxes. That's their attempt to shift the tax burden from residents to tourists. (who physically come to the state...)

It's an attempt to attract the labor to the state needed to provide for those tourists. In FL, you might make minimum wage, but you get sun and beaches and no state income tax. States are different from each other. (clearly)

The FL businessperson in the article would probably prefer that everyone is taxed the same sales tax as FL. Businesses outside of FL would prefer that FL residents had to pay XX% in income tax. Otherwise, there is a competitive advantage for their tax cattle.

That is why this comes down to an issue that requires feds, or uniformity among states. This should be framed as a state competition issue, I think. Make states do their own tax collecting.

It doesn't shift the tax burden to tourists. A tourist that is in FL for a week isn't likely to go online and buy stuff and ship it to their hotel room. It just makes companies around the US collect money that the tax cheats in FL refuse to pay to FL. That is, if FL, like most states, has a use tax.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

It doesn't shift the tax burden to tourists.


Yes, it does. I will make this simple for you. People go to FL to spend money that they earned in other states. When they buy anything on vacation, they are taxed at 7%. It is a rather high sales tax rate compared to other states. Visiting people pay sales tax.

Florida residents pay 0% income tax. Yes, they still pay the high sales taxes. If you don't understand how high sales taxes in a tourist location will shift the tax burden toward tourists, I'm not sure I can help make it more simple.

[TheGrinch]

I am surprised to see a Ron Paul forum a member essentially giving the finger to "No taxation without representation". What part of that phrase do you not get TheGrinchWhoStoleDC? Fighting against this nonsense is basically the foundation of the movement.

It is anti-competitive and is what the founders had in mind in not wanting the states plundering each others residents and businesses with taxes.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on this in 1994, so if it passes I hope it will face a Constitutional challenge on the grounds of 10th amendment states rights.

You know, you all will change a lot more minds if you talk to people like reasonable adults, rather than calling a fellow forum member a statist who gives the middle finger to the Constitution. I was unaware of that ruling, and it does change the way I view the issue after research.

I still do have a few concerns, but I thought this synopsis/commentary on that Supreme Court case laid out your position very well:

http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2012/04/congress-should-not-authorize-states-to-expand-collection-of-taxes-on-internet-and-mail-order-sales

However, it should be noted:


The Supreme Court adopted in Quill a bright-line rule that the “negative” or “dormant” aspect of the Commerce Clause, which protects against imposition by a state of unreasonable burdens on interstate commerce even in the absence of congressional exercise of power under the Commerce Clause, does not allow North Dakota to require collection and remittance of the state use tax revenue by a corporation whose only connection with customers in the state is by common carrier or U.S. mail.[10] The Court noted, however, that Congress remains free, by an affirmative exercise of its power under the Commerce Clause, to change that rule.

Thus, neither taxation without representation or Constitutional challenge would not really apply here if it were enacted, though I do see better now why it is better to leave it up to States to enforce their own taxes.

[Keith and stuff]

Yes, it does. I will make this simple for you. People go to FL to spend money that they earned in other states. When they buy anything on vacation, they are taxed at 7%. It is a rather high sales tax rate compared to other states. Visiting people pay sales tax.

Florida residents pay 0% income tax. Yes, they still pay the high sales taxes. If you don't understand how high sales taxes in a tourist location will shift the tax burden toward tourists, I'm not sure I can help make it more simple.
While all that is true, it is zero to do with this issue. Why did you even bring the random stuff to this thread?

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

While all that is true, it is zero to do with this issue. Why did you even bring the random stuff to this thread?


Read my post where I brought that up. States compete with each other based on taxes and laws. States are not the same. The whiny business owner resides in FL.

Is it still random stuff, or are you not reading what I'm posting?

Would you like a more detailed explanation? If so, read my original posts where I brought it up.

[Keith and stuff]

Read my post where I brought that up. States compete with each other based on taxes and laws. States are not the same. The whiny business owner resides in FL.

Is it still random stuff, or are you not reading what I'm posting?

Would you like a more detailed explanation? If so, read my original posts where I brought it up.
This is about making local resident tax cheats pay the taxes they own. That is the point of this bill. The state wants money to grow and it sees this has a low hanging fruit. I understand tax policy but sales taxes for tourist has 0% relation to this thread.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

This is about making local resident tax cheats pay the taxes they own. That is the point of this bill. The state wants money to grow and it sees this has a low hanging fruit. I understand tax policy but sales taxes for tourist has 0% relation to this thread.


It has everything to do with "competitive advantage" and "unfairness."

First, I'm wrong. Then, I'm right, but varying state tax rates have nothing to do with this thread. "Sales taxes" have everything to do with this thread. I take it you didn't go back and read.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

While I'm normally in the camp of "we need to be removing taxes rather than making more", but if you're going to have these taxes, then I also believe in a tax system that is equitable and doesn't play favorites.

Online businesses already have a legitimate advantage over brick and mortar stores by not having to deal with the overhead of a physical location. No issue there, but why you'd want to give them an even bigger advantage to not have to charge sales tax that physical retailers do to these same customers in that location, how can you possibly advocate that as a fair system?

Just because they're selling from elsewhere, does not negate the fact that they're selling to customers within areas that have a sales tax. Thus, just because they have the internet to facilitate these sales does not place them at a higher standard than those who sell to these same customers within that physical space.

To allow them to skirt taxes that other retailers are forced to pay, that is extremely anti-competitive. As I said above, internet retailers already enjoy legitimate advantages without stacking the deck in their favor.
Shipping costs are generally more expensive than any tax you would pay. You don't have to pay shipping when you walk into a store. Buy something that's 20 bucks, pay what, $1.20 in tax?
Buy something for $20 online, you're paying $4.99 shipping.

[MoneyWhereMyMouthIs2]

It has everything to do with "competitive advantage" and "unfairness."

First, I'm wrong. Then, I'm right, but varying state tax rates have nothing to do with this thread. "Sales taxes" have everything to do with this thread. I take it you didn't go back and read.


I should be content to leave this thread, but I'm not. Let's say you have a business on the FL/GA line. Your employees in FL pay 0% income tax. That also means a FL located business spends 0% of your time or money (accountants and bureaucrats) dealing with it. 5 miles away, you have a business in GA producing the same good or service. GA income tax rate is 6%. That means a FL resident and business has a 6% advantage on all labor costs.

That's probably a bigger issue (revenue-wise) than online purchases. Why, and how, should we make those two different businesses "fair??" Does that mean GA should mount a campaign for FL to increase income taxes? That certainly gives the FL business an "unfair advantage."

See why these things are relevant, Keith? Should FL mount a campaign to raise sales taxes in NH? By what mechanism, and how should they enforce it?

[TheTexan]

While I'm normally in the camp of "we need to be removing taxes rather than making more", but if you're going to have these taxes, then I also believe in a tax system that is equitable and doesn't play favorites.

Online businesses already have a legitimate advantage over brick and mortar stores by not having to deal with the overhead of a physical location. No issue there, but why you'd want to give them an even bigger advantage to not have to charge sales tax that physical retailers do to these same customers in that location, how can you possibly advocate that as a fair system?

Just because they're selling from elsewhere, does not negate the fact that they're selling to customers within areas that have a sales tax. Thus, just because they have the internet to facilitate these sales does not place them at a higher standard than those who sell to these same customers within that physical space.

To allow them to skirt taxes that other retailers are forced to pay, that is extremely anti-competitive. As I said above, internet retailers already enjoy legitimate advantages without stacking the deck in their favor.

More taxes is never the answer

[Matt Collins]

You're shifting the argument from pragmatism (I do not have a choice on paying taxes as a physical GA seller/buyer) to idealism (of course I'd prefer it to be that way).Pragmatism is justification for stealing people's money and infringing their rights? :confused:




So I can sit here and scream from the rooftops "I don't want to enforce sales tax", but I have to, while someone else selling to my locale's customers do not. It places me at a disadvantage that I cannot make up.Then move to a lower jurisdiction, or fight to get your taxes lowered.


I mean Jesus, some of you are so gungho on opposing any taxationTaxation = theft.

How much theft do you think should be allowed? :rolleyes:

[Matt Collins]

Surely there could be a more simple way to simply determine, charge and send taxes you owe to different states without all of the paperwork. You have 12,000+ individual taxing jurisdictions in the United States. Counties, states, cities, etc. Do you think you can get every single one of them to agree on anything? :confused:

[TheGrinch]

Pragmatism is justification for stealing people's money and infringing their rights? :confused:



Then move to a lower jurisdiction, or fight to get your taxes lowered.

Taxation = theft.

How much theft do you think should be allowed? :rolleyes:

Look, until you convince more people that taxation is theft, then we have to live within a society where tax is the rule of law. So jsut because we can't get what we want does not mean that one cannot be concerned about inequitable favoritism on top of "theft". Further, it's really ironic that you single me out, as many of those arguing against this measure are using the exact same logic that it will be used to benefit some over others. Why is their opinion valid and mine is not?

That said, as I said above, my views are evolving as I research more on the subject, but don't give me that cop-out of "all taxation is theft, so why even bother examining whether that tax code benefits some more than others unfairly". You're speaking of two separate issues. I don't like favoritist policies anymore than I like taxes, so don't act like you cannot be pragmatic about the situation you find yourself in without abandoning ideology. You can stand against both. Ron has said that he'd like everyone to pay the same low rate (assuming it can't be his preferred 0%), that doesn't make him a hypocrite, it makes him a realist in this current political climate where 0% taxes is currently unfeasible.

[TheGrinch]

More taxes is never the answer

This is not a question of more taxes. It's a question of the interpretation of sales tax. It really wants to make me bang my head against the wall that I cannot be concerned about favortists exclusions to the tax system. It's as if, since we can't get 0%, some of you jsut want to turn a blind eye about whether the current system is playing favorites or not. It's all theft, so who cares, right. Don't worry if you get hit with taxes while other's aren't, and whether that's fair that your business can't compete with a 5-10% headstart online retailers get, it's all jsut theft anyway. Our sincere condolences that only you have to charge sales tax to the people of your state, while others don't. You can feel better knowing you went under because of theft, and just forget about whether you were given equal footing to compete or not.

Again, now that I see the consequences of what's being proposed, I'm not for it, but it's maddening the wya some of you act like I can't be concerned about favortism in the tax code without endorsing it.

[TheTexan]

Look, until you convince more people that taxation is theft, then we have to live within a society where tax is the rule of law. So jsut because we can't get what we want does not mean that one cannot be concerned about inequitable favoritism on top of "theft". Further, it's really ironic that you single me out, as many of those arguing against this measure are using the exact same logic that it will be used to benefit some over others. Why is their opinion valid and mine is not?

That said, as I said above, my views are evolving as I research more on the subject, but don't give me that cop-out of "all taxation is theft, so why even bother examining whether that tax code benefits some more than others unfairly". You're speaking of two separate issues. I don't like favoritist policies anymore than I like taxes, so don't act like you cannot be pragmatic about the situation you find yourself in without abandoning ideology. You can stand against both. Ron has said that he'd like everyone to pay the same low rate (assuming it can't be his preferred 0%), that doesn't make him a hypocrite, it makes him a realist in this current political climate where 0% taxes is currently unfeasible.

The problem though is that introducing a new tax doesn't work that way. States don't create a new tax, and then lower the taxes on everything else, so that everyone pays the "same low rate." What will happen is that they will add a new tax, increase revenue, and leave rates as they are on the other taxes.

Life isn't fair, and it can't be made fair through coercion. Your attempts to "make things fair" would only have unintended consequences. Increased revenue for the state, larger government, lesser purchasing power for individuals, and so on.

[Matt Collins]

This is not a question of more taxes. Of course it is. :rolleyes:

If I have money in my pocket, and the government takes it without a choice, then it's a tax. And if they weren't taking it before, but are taking it now, then it is a new tax.

[mad cow]

You have 12,000+ individual taxing jurisdictions in the United States. Counties, states, cities, etc.

And the person selling used books on Ebay would have to learn all that and remit the collected tax daily,weekly,monthly,quarterly to each jurisdiction as their laws dictate,along with all of the proper forms and paperwork filled out correctly under threat of punishment.
Same as Amazon.It's only fair.

[awake]

Paying a thief to take from your competitor is immoral.

[Matt Collins]

Paying a thief to take from your competitor is immoral.

Bastiat called it "Legal Plunder"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_plunder

[itshappening]

And the person selling used books on Ebay would have to learn all that and remit the collected tax daily,weekly,monthly,quarterly to each jurisdiction as their laws dictate,along with all of the proper forms and paperwork filled out correctly under threat of punishment.
Same as Amazon.It's only fair.

They won't need to figure it out... Paypal will charge them a "fee" for happily doing it for them.

[cindy25]

its not local businesses lobbying for it, its walmart lobbying for it

[cindy25]

While I'm normally in the camp of "we need to be removing taxes rather than making more", but if you're going to have these taxes, then I also believe in a tax system that is equitable and doesn't play favorites.

Online businesses already have a legitimate advantage over brick and mortar stores by not having to deal with the overhead of a physical location. No issue there, but why you'd want to give them an even bigger advantage to not have to charge sales tax that physical retailers do to these same customers in that location, how can you possibly advocate that as a fair system?

Just because they're selling from elsewhere, does not negate the fact that they're selling to customers within areas that have a sales tax. Thus, just because they have the internet to facilitate these sales does not place them at a higher standard than those who sell to these same customers within that physical space.

To allow them to skirt taxes that other retailers are forced to pay, that is extremely anti-competitive. As I said above, internet retailers already enjoy legitimate advantages without stacking the deck in their favor.

there is a way to have a level playing field without having to tax internet sales

just abolish the local and state sales tax (NH does it)

[oyarde]

I will never pay a net tax , I buy everything I can at tax exempt now , which counts out most local bussiness as well.