E-commerce Sites to Collect Sales Taxes Nationwide

aengblom writes "An agreement between 38 states and some of the nation's largest retailers is bringing taxes to the net, The Washington Post reports. In return for collecting taxes for all U.S. sales, the retailers would not be held liable for taxes they 'failed' to collect previously. Best quote: 'If we disclose who these companies are, it's like putting a target on their back.' The Post reports that Wal-Mart, Marshall Fields, Target, Toys R Us and Mervyn's have all 'independently' announced plans to collect taxes nation-wide." Internetnews.com has a story about the taxes and an article claiming it won't hurt online sales.

Comments

IMHO

[aliens]

I could either goto Toys R Us and get the product I want today, or go online, have to wait a couple extra days and pay shipping plus tax. Hrmmm, I guess they're right it's not going to hurt online sales at all.

Re:IMHO

[garcia]

they are counting on the inherent laziness of Americans. People think that it is just easier to go online for most items.

*I* for one, would NEVER goto walmart.com when I could drive the two minutes to go there.

I also refuse to buy anything computer related from retailers (aside from display models that have been marked down to like $30 from 100 at Best Buy).

I would MUCH prefer to shop BB online just so I don't have to demand that another little rat doesn't bother me while I am in the store.

Re:IMHO

[Lemmy Caution]

The big savings from Internet distribution aren't from not paying taxes, they are from avoiding the labor and facility and related overhead of running a retail storefront operation.

Target?

[numbski]

Did someone say Target? And Wal-Mark? *scribbles*

Wait...why would I shop ONLINE for something that's down the street again?

Oh, right, no sales tax.

No diff anymore.

Bye bye website.

It will hurt

[kmac06]

It will hurt online sales :(

Only reason anyone buys stuff online is because it is marked down enough to cover shipping...shipping+tax means its more or as expensive as retail stores, so there is no reason to buy there...

This seems like a really bad time for this with the economy in the crapper...

Huh?

[g4dget]

I don't get this--what does the Internet have to do with whether out-of-state orders get charged sales tax? Traditionally, when I order something mail-order over the phone or by mailing in an order, I didn't have to pay sales tax if I ordered from out of state. Has that changed as well?

It seems to me that the Internet is being used by brick-and-mortar merchants as a smokescreen to push an agenda they have been trying to push for decades.

As for "not hurting", what are these people thinking? Not having to pay sales tax just barely makes up for the shipping costs and extra hassles of on-line ordering. If I can't even save the sales tax anymore, then I might as well go to my local electronics store. Which is, of course, why state law makers have been lobbied so hard to push this through.

Re:Legislative stupidity

[bnenning]

I was wondering how long it would be from the time Bush took office (and left the Clinton/Gore approach of "fund the Internet to build it up, but keep it hands off as much as possible") to the time big companies (brick-and-mortar types) started getting their way legally.

Good grief. I know people here love to blame Bush and Republicans for all the evils in the world, but at least try to make some amount of sense when you do. This is an agreement between retailers and *states*, neither the federal government nor Bush has anything to do with it. (And I'm relieved to know Clinton kept his hands off the Internet, otherwise we might have gotten bad laws like the CDA, DMCA, and crypto restrictions. Oh wait.)

No difference in Michigan

[Christopher Bibbs]

We've been charged sales tax from online shops that have a physical presence here for years. Eddie Bauer, Victoria's Secret, REI, Apple Store, CompUSA, and others have all been collecting sales tax. You know what? It still works out for the consumer in some cases. Often these stores have discount shipping for large orders, flexible return policies, a larger stock of items, and easier to shop with (especially during the holidays).

Besides, why should Target care if you buy from them online or down the street as long as you buy from them? All they need to worry about is you going to "just-like-target-but-no-tax.com".

Not a new internet tax

[VoiceOfDog]

This just closes a loophole that some stores were getting away with, and some stores weren't. For example Gateway computer charges sales tax for online sales to California, because they have a retail presence there. For Toys R Us not to, just because they have a different corporate entity running the website, is not fair. This is why they are talking about an amnesty for back taxes- this is not a new sales tax on e-commerce. For Amazon (not their partners) and other catalog-only stores, you'll still be sales tax free. - VoiceOfDog

Re:Legislative stupidity

[Zigg]

So maybe the states could try *gasp* making cuts in their spending?! My God! Maybe even eliminate some of the less useful government programs, such as the ones created just to insure a certain block of voters goes for a particular party every few years? Imagine that!

Come on, people!

[beagle]

To read the comments here, it would seem that every Slashdot reader thinks that goods purchased online are subject to neither Use Tax nor Sales Tax.

This is nothing new. It's not a new tax, and it is not any less legitimate than the sales tax you pay when you go to a brick & mortar establishment. (The legitimacy of that sales tax is debatable.)

If anything, this agreement helps consumers in that we no longer have to track our out-of-state purchases in order to pay Use Tax on those items. You do pay Use Tax on those items, right? If you don't, you're breaking the law if your state has a Sales Tax.

As for curbing sales, this move will only curb online sales for sites that are already not competitive. Them's the breaks in a free market.