Slashdot Mirror

It is not a loophole. It is a provision of the US Constitution that Amazon does not have to pay these taxes. Amazon has careful set up their ownership structure to avoid these taxes. Commerce_Clause This clause has been around 224 years so Texas should be aware of it.

It is the states that are trying to grab taxes that aren't theirs to grab. Texans are free to buy from Texas based merchants and pay the sales tax. Texas has a use tax so Texans are supposed to send in a sales tax equivalent when they buy from out of state. So blame the problem on Texans for choosing out of state vendors and then not sending in their use tax. I also suspect if the money grubbing states would ever put their use taxes up for a vote, they would all be immediately repealed since they are highly unpopular and hardly anyone obeys them.

The U.S. Constitution provides an essential protection against burdensome State regulation. The Commerce Clause uniquely empowers Congress “[t]o regulate
Commerce among the several States” and, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, bars States from burdening interstate commerce without specific Congressional approval. On the matter of State sales taxation, the Supreme Court has held, in the National Bellas Hess and Quill decisions, that the Commerce Clause bars States from requiring out-ofstate (a.k.a. “remote”) sellers to collect taxes on sales to residents within that State unless a remote seller has “substantial nexus” with the State. Otherwise, held the Court, the current sales tax regime is so complicated that such a requirement would impose an unconstitutional burden.

Amazon Tax

Maybe we should also pay attention to the Congressional Internet Caucus, of which Mr. Boucher is a member (along with ~180 others)... http://www.netcaucus.org/

>Wonder who else is belongs to this caucus and "Gets It"...

follow your own link:

http://www.netcaucus.org/members/

Rick Boucher - Virginia-9th, Democrat

Committess
* Committee on Energy and Commerce
* Committee on the Judiciary

Sub-committees
* Courts, the Internet, and Intellectual Property (Judiciary)
* Energy and Air Quality (Energy and Commerce)
* Telecommunications and the Internet (Energy and Commerce)

I never even heard of the NetCaucus but he seems to be majorly involved with Internet and Government. Wonder who else is belongs to this caucus and "Gets It"...

This bill essentially attempts to fill gaps in the Telecommunication's Act of 1996 with regard to the Internet. The bill is also a rehash of the ongoing battle between the local baby Bells (e.g., Bell Atlantic) and the major long distance phone companies (e.g., AT&T). Companies like AT&T "control" the major cross-country telecommunication infrastructure, while the baby Bells control the local infrastructure. In terms of the Internet, companies like AT&T need access to the homes; that is why AT&T is pursuing cable access. Conversely, the baby Bells are consolidating (e.g., Bell Atlantic & NYNEX); what they need is unfettered nationwide telecom capabilities (hence Bell Atlantic attempted merger with GTE).

Baby Bells will provide broad-band access using DSL. AT&T and other long-distance carriers will provide broad-band access via cable TV companies (cable modems).

I believe that this bill benefits the interests of the baby Bells.

But the big problem is not with the FCC, but with the bozos who put together the Telecommunication's Act of 1996. For instance, the word Internet appears in only two sections of the Act with all but one occurence being in the section concerning the screening and transmission of offensive material. Hello, Congress? Maybe the 1996 Act could have contain more stuff about the internet? It was around back then, IIRC.

Additionally, the FCC has had to deal with the courts. The most critical issue concerned calls to one's ISP; was this a local or long distance call? A high court ruling said long distance call, hence the FCC was then "granted" jurisdiction. It is not clear how this bill that minimizes the role of the FCC in internet issues, squares with the court ruling that says that this is a long-distance call issue (which the FCC controls).

This is not to say the FCC has not screwed up. However, Congress tends to pass laws that look good on paper but are difficult to implement. For instance, the Universal Service clause within the 1996 Act forced the long-distance companies to upgrade their capabilities to rural areas and to schools. Okay, who pays for this? (Answer: those that live in urban areas).

Note: I'm not blaming Goodlatte; at least he seems to have a clue. But check out the list of ppl of the Congressional Internet Caucus link. Strom Thurmond?