Governor Ron DeSantis signs largest tax hike in Florida history:

[Matt Collins]

From Politico:

While you are sleeping (maybe), Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed FL SB50 (21R) into law, which will require online retailers to collect sales taxes and then use the more than $1 billion in new tax revenue generated by this change to cut unemployment taxes paid by businesses as well as the commercial rent tax. DeSantis' decision to sign the bill came just hours before the measure would automatically became law. The governor's office waited until 11 p.m. to officially file his bill-signing letter with the Department of State. This led to speculation from some Democrats that the governor did not want to publicize his bill signing because it could be seen as a massive tax increase — a viewpoint that even some Republicans have suggested. Regardless of whether it's a "tax increase" or a "tax collection" change, consumers shopping online will pay more. And the money will be used to help large corporations.

[PAF]

Wonderful trend, Trump, DeSantis & Co.

Give them all (R) passes.

[Sammy]

Oh Boy.

Republicans are really worthless.

[Matt Collins]

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/poli...qqu-story.html

[69360]

It's not a tax hike. It just collects tax on out of state purchases and uses it to help in state businesses. There is nothing wrong with it. The net result of it will help the state's businesses be stronger and add jobs in Florida.

[Brian4Liberty]

which will require online retailers to collect sales taxes and then use the more than $1 billion in new tax revenue generated by this change to cut unemployment taxes paid by businesses as well as the commercial rent tax

Do they offset? Does Florida have a sales tax that currently does not apply to Amazon or other online sellers? Is this taxing Amazon purchases to reduce state business taxes?

[Matt Collins]

It's not a tax hike.

Of course it is a tax hike. More money will be leaving my pockets and going into government coffers.

[Sonny Tufts]

Do they offset? Does Florida have a sales tax that currently does not apply to Amazon or other online sellers? Is this taxing Amazon purchases to reduce state business taxes?

The new law appears to be in response to a 2018 US Supreme Court decision that overturned an earlier decision that held that a state couldn't require an out-of-state seller to collect sales tax if the seller had no physical presence in the state. Under the prior law the buyer paid no sales tax but instead owed use tax to his state of residence. But it was usually impossible for the state to enforce the use tax, except with respect to very large purchases (e.g., an aircraft) or business assets. If you lived, say, in New York and ordered a computer and monitor from Dell for your use at home, you owed NY use tax (because no sales tax was collected on the purchase), but no one ever paid it.

So it's not really a tax increase. It's just requiring the seller to collect what the buyer owes anyway.

[Invisible Man]

The new law appears to be in response to a 2018 US Supreme Court decision that overturned an earlier decision that held that a state couldn't require an out-of-state seller to collect sales tax if the seller had no physical presence in the state. Under the prior law the buyer paid no sales tax but instead owed use tax to his state of residence. But it was usually impossible for the state to enforce the use tax, except with respect to very large purchases (e.g., an aircraft) or business assets. If you lived, say, in New York and ordered a computer and monitor from Dell for your use at home, you owed NY use tax (because no sales tax was collected on the purchase), but no one ever paid it.

So it's not really a tax increase. It's just requiring the seller to collect what the buyer owes anyway.

Practically speaking, replacing a tax that buyers can easily evade without consequence with one that they cannot, is the same to them as a tax hike.

[Matt4Liberty]

I didn't realize this wasn't nationwide yet.
Since the supreme court decision I thought states got on this quickly.

[nobody's_hero]

I'd like someone to make the case over how it helps large corporations.

Seems like it could just as easily hurt companies like Amazon.

Most of your mom & pop businesses have physical stores. I know people who will actually do their window shopping in stores and then check online to see if they can get it cheaper, and when you subtract a ~7% sales tax, it's always cheaper. Leave the store, place your order, and in a few days it's at your doorstep. The small business is the one getting screwed in this scenario.

The alternative is that they could slash sales tax paid through physical storefronts to nothing, to balance it out. That's not likely to happen, and hell will freeze over before it happens in a state that doesn't have income tax.

2nd alternative: Get rid of sales tax completely and implement income tax. (yeah, literally no one is a fan of that one)

No one likes taxes, but Politico making the claim that this will hurt small business seems awfully like they're playing right into the hands of companies like Amazon.

[Matt Collins]

Here is the SCOTUS case in question which allows governments to enforce tax laws across state lines:


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_...._Wayfair,_Inc.

[69360]

Of course it is a tax hike. More money will be leaving my pockets and going into government coffers.

Money that you legally should have been paying already. .

DeSantis didn't raise any taxes or impose any new taxes.

[Occam's Banana]

It's not a tax hike. [because hand-waving]

So it's not really a tax increase. [because hand-waving]

Some people will pay more taxes now than they were paying before. Don't piss down their backs and tell them it's raining.

If you're going to make excuses for it, fine - make excuses for it. But at least have the guts to call it what it is.

It's a tax hike, period - all hand-waving to the contrary notwithstanding.

[acptulsa]

Yeah, me too. "It's not a tax hike, it's a new tax." That's supposed to make me feel better?

[PAF]

Some people will pay more taxes now than they were paying before. Don't piss down their backs and tell them it's raining.

If you're going to make excuses for it, fine - make excuses for it. But at least have the guts to call it what it is.

It's a tax hike, period - all hand-waving to the contrary notwithstanding.

+Rep

Yeah, me too. "It's not a tax hike, it's a new tax." That's supposed to make me feel better?

+ Rep

[Invisible Man]

Some people will pay more taxes now than they were paying before. Don't piss down their backs and tell them it's raining.

If you're going to make excuses for it, fine - make excuses for it. But at least have the guts to call it what it is.

It's a tax hike, period - all hand-waving to the contrary notwithstanding.

"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Occam's Banana again."

[Invisible Man]

https://www.orlandosentinel.com/poli...qqu-story.html

From this article:

The bill is estimated to tax consumers $1 billion a year, with the money first earmarked for the unemployment trust fund, which became depleted because of massive job losses during the COVID-19 pandemic. Businesses pay taxes that go into the trust fund and, without another source of money, would have faced higher taxes to replenish the fund.

To those saying this isn't a tax hike, if it isn't a tax hike then how is it supposed to result in the state having more revenue to replenish its unemployment fund?

[TheTexan]

It's not a tax hike, it's a mandatory request for voluntary donations

[Invisible Man]

Actually, maybe there's a way to capitalize on the rhetoric of this not being a tax hike.

So the argument goes that there now exists a tax that has no way of being enforced that the state says people are supposed to pay, but that's entirely up to them to choose to pay voluntarily, and hardly anybody does, and there's no consequence for those who don't. And this tax is being kept nominally the same as far as its rate, but its method of enforcement is being changed to make it much more difficult to evade so that it's expected that the actual amount the state will collect will be much closer to the amount that's theoretically mandated by the letter of the law.

If this is not a tax hike, then the opposite must also obtain. If we replace all the obligatory taxing and spending of government with something voluntary, then this would not be a cut in any taxation or spending. The letter-of-the-law rates and dollar amounts would all stay the same, but it would be left up to taxpayers to decide whether or not to contribute, and face no consequences if they choose not to. For example, the entire public education budget of a state could be replaced with funding that is 100% collected by voluntary contributions (which may or may not be given), and nobody who refuses to call this Florida bill a tax hike would have any grounds for calling that cut in public education spending.

[69360]

From this article:


To those saying this isn't a tax hike, if it isn't a tax hike then how is it supposed to result in the state having more revenue to replenish its unemployment fund?

The state of FL will now be collecting sales tax that was already imposed but not collected in most cases.

[Invisible Man]

The state of FL will now be collecting sales tax that was already imposed but not collected in most cases.

So they'll be collecting more taxes than they did prior to the signing of this bill.

The tax burden being born by the people of Florida, that is, the amount of money people will be paying in taxes, all else being equal (i.e. the same people spending the same amount of money in the same ways), will be higher.

In other words, this is a tax hike.

[fcreature]

Eh, don't care. DeSantis is still the best governor in the country and it's not even close. I'd still move to Florida in a heartbeat and will continue to make moves to do so. I'm more than happy to pay a couple more dollars in an online purchase in exchange for saving the 6.85% New York takes out each of my paychecks.

[James_Madison_Lives]

It is a consumption tax which is fine if it excludes food which it does, this encourages savings and Buffy should have to pay tax on her $200 hat from Amazon. When online prices for China junk is higher people start going to thrift stores to by a flashlight which is what they should have been doing all along. DeSantis 2024!

[Invisible Man]

Buffy should have to pay tax on her $200 hat from Amazon

Why?

[acptulsa]

Buffy should have to pay tax on her $200 hat from Amazon.

Why?

Because Buffy voted for the politicians who are dumping money on Bezos. Better you should ask, why should the rest of us pay tax money that goes to Bezos?

[James_Madison_Lives]

Because Buffy voted for the politicians who are dumping money on Bezos. Better you should ask, why should the rest of us pay tax money that goes to Bezos?

If I have to pay tax online then Bozo loses when I can get the same flashlight for the same price now at the hardware store down the street. An online sales tax is pro-brick and mortar store. I don't want Bezos to have the entire supply chain in his warehouses. He and his party answer to the Chinese Communist Party.

[acptulsa]

I was being tongue-in-cheek with IM, because I knew he was addressing a different topic.

I don't want Bezos to have the entire supply chain in his warehouses.

Agreed. However I may feel about sales taxes, I absolutely agree with that.

[69360]

So they'll be collecting more taxes than they did prior to the signing of this bill.

The tax burden being born by the people of Florida, that is, the amount of money people will be paying in taxes, all else being equal (i.e. the same people spending the same amount of money in the same ways), will be higher.

In other words, this is a tax hike.

Nice spin. They already were responsible for those taxes, they just weren't paying them.

[Sonny Tufts]

It's a tax hike, period - all hand-waving to the contrary notwithstanding.

So cameras at stop lights constitute fine increases because they catch people who break traffic laws (and increase the risk of a collision) and who would skate but for the cameras?

And radar guns should be called fine increases as well. For that matter, hiring more IRS employees or increasing the IRS's budget is a tax hike. In fact, anything that helps the enforcement of tax collection or the detection of unlawful activity that carries a monetary penalty is a tax/fine hike, right?

"Tax hike" in this context is a misleading rhetorical phrase designed to appeal to people who are either ignorant about the existence of use taxes or don't care about complying with them.

Will the revenue collected by state governments in general or Florida in particular increase? Yes. Did the tax payable by purchasers increase? No.