California Balks At Internet Sales Tax

bob_calder writes "California has walked away from $2 billion a year in revenue by declining to get on board with a group working to standardize tax rates so a national tax on Internet sales could eventually be implemented by Congress. Supporters of the tax think they still have a chance in New York, Texas, and Florida. At the moment the largest states pursuing the Streamlined Sales Tax Initiative are New Jersey, Michigan, Indiana, and Ohio. California didn't want to give up its autonomy in setting taxes to a coalition of smaller states."

Comments

Who is the "orginization" behind this tax?

[Mc_Anthony]

I searched around and wasn't able to come up with the name of the group pushing for this Internet tax. Does anyone have more information on them? What are their politics? Who is funding them?

Re:Who is the "orginization" behind this tax?

[i2amsam]

Something I actually know about!

My Dad is working on Streamlined Sales Tax Committee
It's an initiative that's being run by the states, but
the big push is from big online realators like Amazon and
E-bay because they don't want to face 50 sets of rules of
tax for all of the 50 states.

The current system is stupid on the face of it, since now
most states only tax commerce for corperations which have
a actual physical presence in that state, it encourages
companies to not setup any investment in states where they
do a high volume of sales.

It's been going on for *years* and I don't know that they're
making much progress, too many cooks.

Re:Who is the "orginization" behind this tax?

[maxume]

Look up 'use' tax. Most states charge it, it is a tax on goods purchased in other states; in my state, it isn't owed on goods that have already had sales tax charged on them. It's on the honor system, so people don't worry 'bout it much, I imagine the state pays more attention to rich folks. For a lot of people, because the law is written with people not keeping track in mind(there is an option to itemize small purchases or pay a standard amount), it amounts to cheating for about $20-30.

Re:Who is the "orginization" behind this tax?

[Maxo-Texas]

The problem is that sales taxes are spent in the state, not at the point of sale. Sales tax cover costs for roads and other services to brick and mortar establishments. All they are on the internet is mostly a money grab. In a lot of cases, the products being sold are not even delivered from the state where the sale was registered.

The second problem is that if states 1 to 47 have sales tax and 1-3 do not, then a lot of business is going to gravitate to those last three states.

Of course, if they tax them to be the same as brick and mortar, then folks will just shift back away from the internet.

Re:Who is the "orginization" behind this tax?

[alshithead]

I think almost if not all states require all companies who have a presence in that state are required to collect sales taxes for purchases from within that state. If a company has a retail outlet, warehouse, office, etc. they must collect and distribute that state's sales tax even if the sale is conducted over the phone or internet.

Re:Who is the "orginization" behind this tax?

[fkicker]

The big push is from brick-and-mortar retailers who want to "level" the sales-tax playing field. The Direct Marketing Association (DMA) which represents e-commerce and catalog retailers opposes the initiative. Amazon is carefully neutral.

The current proposal is a huge burden on small businesses. The biggest problems with the current proposal are:

Each participating state wants me to remit the collected sales tax to them separately. Why can't I send in one payment to my state and then they can make sure the money gets distributed fairly?

The use of certified (meaning expensive) tax software is required. If the program is "streamlined" why do I need $50,000 dollars worth of software to figure out how much tax to collect?

Each participating state wants the right to audit me. What happened to that whole "No taxation without representation thing?"

Product and service definitions are insane. For example, a Twix bar is a cookie but a Snickers bar is candy. In some states buying a Twix bar is tax free while a buying a Snickers bar is not.

It's a lot simpler to re-locate a rack of servers to a more tax friendly state than a brick and mortar retailer. But, hey, maybe re-locating to a small Caribbean island wouldn't be so bad?

It's called Use Tax

[Anonymous Coward]

California already taxes internet purchases via a Use Tax law which is imposed on all goods purchased and then brought into the state by residents. You have to calculate the tax yourself when you file your state income tax return.

Re:It's called Use Tax

[AuMatar]

And amazingly, 99.99999% of Californians don't buy anything off the internet, as shown by their use taxes. Its an amazingly offline state.

Re:It's called Use Tax

[walt-sjc]

Most states have this, but compliance is pretty low, and nearly impossible to audit. While they could force you to give them copies of your credit card receipts, they would have to prove that you purchased items for yourself and not as a gift to Aunt Millie in Alaska, or something that you used on a trip in the state your purchased the item in...

I think the biggest challenge to a standardized nation wide sales tax is states with ZERO sales tax. So what are you going to do in these anti-tax states? Force them to implement a tax? Is it going to be a compromise mid-level, or is it going to be on the high-end like California?

I looked at my own internet purchases last year, and a number were from companies that already collect local sales tax since they have a business presence in my state, and the tax on everything else is a few hundred dollars at best. My state requires that I itemize everything for the use tax collection, which is just nuts. I put down zero as I have done every year for the past 25 years.

Re:It's called Use Tax

[Doppler00]

I think it's called a use tax because I believe it's technically illegal for a state to impose an interstate tariff (tax) on goods purchased from another state. Anyone confirm this? Something I was remembering from the federalist papers. I mean, it makes sense. Why wouldn't they just call it a interstate import tax? "Use tax" is a ridiculous name and is obviously weasel wording around something.

Re:It's called Use Tax

[Professor_UNIX]

What I don't understand is why vendors aren't required to charge sales tax on out-of-state sales, collect the money, and then give it to the state in question.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

...

To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;

The States don't have the power to tax interstate commerce, that is a power specifically allocated to Congress by the Constitution... that's why they try to skirt the issue by demanding "Use Taxes" and the only time you need to pay sales tax is when a company has a brick and mortar presence in that state.

Re:It's called Use Tax

[etnu]

As a California resident for nearly 2 years, I'm proud to say that I never use the internet, ever.

Re:It's called Use Tax

[bcrowell]

I've done internet mail order, and it was enough work filling out and sending in one state sales tax return every year, based on the sales tax rate where my business is located. Filling out forty of them every year would be a crazy burden on a small business. Also, the rate is normally calculated based on the district where the business is located, for the very reason that they don't want the business to have to have the kind of database you're talking about. There are plenty of people doing mail order who don't even have computers.

My favorite internet tax quote:

[andres32a]

"The debate over the taxation of the Internet isn't about feeding the already well-lined coffers of government. It's about the fundamentally American idea that there should be no taxation without representation.

"While there is no evidence that Main Street firms have lost business due to tax differentials, that is beside the point. The answer to these concerns should not be to raise taxes on the Internet, but to lower taxes on Main Street businesses."

Colorado Governor Bill Owens
In a letter to Congress urging the extension of the Internet tax moratorium, and opposing his fellow governors' plea for Congressional approval to force collection of sales and use taxes from remote businesses.
August 20, 2001

Re:My favorite internet tax quote:

[tkrotchko]

"Nobody talks about buying it locally."

Mostly because it's impossible to find the latest gadgets locally, even if you live in a major city in the U.S.

And even then, it's not the sales tax that drives people away, it's the fact that the stores that have cutting edge gadgets are often boutique sellers that charge a significant premium over "regular" retailers.

For example, it's pretty difficult for most people to buy an Apple computer locally (defined as 45 minutes away or less), or BluRay recorder for your PC, or anything from Bose, or a Palm LifeDrive, Canon DSLR or pretty much anything else that is new and expensive.

If price and selection were the same, people would probably pay the additional 5% sales tax to buy it locally. But the price difference between internet and local is often 25-50%.

Re:My favorite internet tax quote:

[David Greene]

No, it isn't. It's classic Grover Norquist anti-tax, anti-government rhetoric packaged up in populist clothing. We levy taxes for a very important reason: they fund the services necessary for us to maintain our society and prosper.

It's not insightful to blather on about government inefficiency. You've got to show where it can be improved. More often than not, government programs are running on barebones budgets. There's no fat to cut.

I'm sick of right-wingers fanning the flames of fear and isolation by claiming that there's not enough to go around and that we each have to fight to get our own. I'm sick of those who say we're too poor to meet the needs of everyone in this country. We're the richest country in the history of the world, for God's sake!

Taxes on internet and mail-order purchases are long overdue. I always try to buy locally so that my city, county and state can get just a little more of the funding they need to operate. But I know that not everyone is thinking about that. I've worked up at the Minnesota state legislature (on my own dime and my own time), I've talked with legislators and I've had discussions with staff. I know about the needs of the people in our state and how they are not being met because there are certain elements that want to perpetuate the myth of scarcity for their own benefit.

It's incredibly selfish to whine about a small tax increase when there are homeless children going without food, when low-income people can't get to a job because there's no bus and when funding for neighborhood libraries is being slashed. Doubly so when you complain about having to pay that extra $20 for your shiny new flat-panel display.

The sad thing is, most people buy into the rhetoric without ever understanding or trying to understand what the real situation is. People are aware that something is not right with the way our country is headed. When I point out that the nonsense anti-government and, ultimately, anti-community fear-laced rhetoric is at the root of the problem, they begin to understand and support raising new taxes for services they want.

We make choices. So far, we've chosen to leave people behind in a big way. It's an immoral choice. But it's the choice we've made. We can eradicate poverty and provide opportunity for all. We just have to choose to do it. That means choosing to raise revenue.

Governor Pawlenty, I make a good salary. Tax me a little more so that those less fortunate can have a chance at the same life that I enjoy. Please.

I thought us Aussies were taxed weird

[inphorm]

That is a strange tax law, this is from TFA

"The state also requires its residents to report purchases made over the Internet and pay taxes on them"

How can they enforce that? Our tax laws are pretty uniform across the country, but I buy something from overseas, I don't have to pay our local GST (Goods & Services Tax) of 10% on the item. I may or may not have to pay the import tax to get it through customs, depending on what it is and how it is sent over.

I see buying something over the internet as the same as actually traveling to the state / country where the item is and buying it. As long as the seller obeys local tax laws, who cares what the buyer does?

I may have an overy simplistic view of things though.

- paul

http://www.paulpichugin.com.au/

Re:I thought us Aussies were taxed weird

[ScrewMaster]

I may have an overy simplistic view of things though.

Perhaps, but I think it more likely that our elected leaders have an overly complex view of things.

More than just the autonomy.

[WindBourne]

Many of the servers reside in CA. In addition, so many sales. As such, CA gets to collect the sales tax on those sales. Once an internet tax comes through, then you can bet that many of the servers will change location basically to asia. Now California loses not just the tax base, but all those lucrative jobs.

Fair Tax

[John.P.Jones]

I direct you to FairTax.org where the dream lives on, although I believe its more like 23% to be revenue neutral.

Re:Message from Oregon

[DogDude]

Sales tax is just another way to transfer wealth from the poor to the rich.

How so? That doesn't make any sense to me at all. Sales tax is the great equalizer. The more you spend, the more you pay in tax. Sales tax also encourages people to save and invest. I think you have your logic backwards.

Re:Message from Oregon

[hedgemage]

As an Oregonian, I echo the OP's resistance to sales taxes. I'm also a proponent of keeping the taxing body as close to those taxed as possible. If you have more local control over taxes collected, there is less chance for corruption, inefficiency, and more control over how the money collected is spent. I'm very dubious of adding another layer of government between state and federal that would have power to regulate taxes even if states enter into that layer voluntarily. Taxation needs to have more controll by the general population and less by government, as the population has a vested interest in how their money is spent.

Re:Message from Oregon

[Marxist Hacker 42]

How so? That doesn't make any sense to me at all. Sales tax is the great equalizer. The more you spend, the more you pay in tax. Sales tax also encourages people to save and invest. I think you have your logic backwards.

Savings and investment are things only the rich can afford to do- a tax shelter in a state that lives on sales tax would be getting Howard Hughes Syndrome- living very poor off of your investments. Likewise, in a state like mine that is already cash poor, you don't WANT people to save. You want them to buy stuff and provide money that supports jobs for other people in your state.

California wants to be a State now?

[Speare]

In the last story, California wanted to be a bland featureless part of the Federation letting someone else manage the citizen identification issues. Now in this story, California wants to retain full sovereignty over taxation. I know there's more than one person, and therefore more than one opinion on the whole statehood thing here, but come on, fellas.

Re:Message from Oregon

[Marxist Hacker 42]

If the rich consume more resources, presumably they're paying for such consumption, and so they pay a consumption tax proportionally.

Doesn't work that way because they hide behind fake persons called Corporations, and Corporations don't have to pay local taxes. Likewise, the corporations can afford to save, unlike regular people.

There are at least a few good reasons to have a progressive income tax instead of a consumption tax, but you have not offered a single one.

Ok, here's one: taxes as a percentage of income- the guy living on the street can't afford to avoid sales tax, but the billionaire living in the mansion only spends 1/100th of what he earns. With corporations being exempt from sales taxes- that leaves more money for savings and spending on out-of-state lobbyists to twist other laws towards corporate control. At this point, it's not even worth voting anymore- the candidates are always chosen by corporate lobbyists ahead of time, and they don't really care who wins, because they've paid off all viable sides already.

So you want to tax the baby boomers twice?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

And while we're at it, let's also overhaul the tax system [linking to the "fair tax" {a national sales tax proposal} wikipedia page].

Federal sales taxes have a number of problems.

The biggest, IMHO, is that switching to them ends up taxing people's savings - especially retirement savings - twice. It was taxed once, at various rates, while it was was being squirreled away. Then it gets taxed again, at confiscatory rates, when it is spent.

Right now is especially nasty, since you've got the entire baby boom just reaching retirement age. They've already been massively soaked by the Social Security pyramid scheme to give bread and circuses to previous generations - amid constant predictions that it would collapse when THEY retired. So they had to build their own retirement nest-eggs on top of it, while paying the ever-climbing interest on the national debt (which first became intractable when their parents ran the Vietnam War on credit, back when the bulk of the boomers were opposing it). Now, as they're about to retire and have to live on what little they were able to save: And people talk about "replacing" the income tax (which they already paid on much of that money) with a similar percentage of sales tax.

That's one big voting block that will oppose such a measure until they die - by which time additional generations will be in a similar situation.

Next: Like all taxes, once imposed it will never go away and will always go up. Sales taxes, being largely hidden, make it much easier for the government to jack the rates. (See the "value added tax" debacle on the other side of the Atlantic pond for details.)

And: Sales taxes zap the lower income earners harder than the upper (since the lower-income people are working hand-to-mouth and need to spend pretty much all of it, while the upper can avoid spending much of it - investing it to make more, moving it to places and situations where the tax can be avoided before spending it, etc.). This scheme attempts to avoid the effect by "rebating" a certain amount of tax to each individual - approximating a flat-tax plus dole scheme. What a massive opportunity for cheating (by creating multiple fake identities to get multiple "rebates".) What a massive excuse for the government to impose a national ID / registration / citizen tracking system.

I could go on...

Re:So you want to tax the baby boomers twice?

[bnenning]

The biggest, IMHO, is that switching to them ends up taxing people's savings - especially retirement savings - twice.

That's true, and it's definitely an issue. But some of the double taxation already exists today; when I buy something with my after-tax income, a significant chunk of the payment goes to corporate taxes and other taxes embedded in the purchase price, which would be eliminated under the FairTax. And if I invest the money instead of immediately spending it I end up paying capital gains taxes, which also goes away with the FairTax.

Next: Like all taxes, once imposed it will never go away and will always go up. Sales taxes, being largely hidden, make it much easier for the government to jack the rates.

IIRC the FairTax calls for the tax to be clearly identified on all receipts. Because everybody pays, it would be harder to sneak in tax increases than with income taxes, where you can pretend that only the "rich" will be affected by an increase.

This scheme attempts to avoid the effect by "rebating" a certain amount of tax to each individual - approximating a flat-tax plus dole scheme. What a massive opportunity for cheating (by creating multiple fake identities to get multiple "rebates".) What a massive excuse for the government to impose a national ID / registration / citizen tracking system.

Well, you can do that today by inventing extra children for more deductions, and that's just one of the countless ways to cheat on income taxes. And I don't see why we'd need a national ID other than the existing SSN.

The FairTax isn't perfect, but compared to the current mess I'd say it's a clear improvement.

Re:So you want to tax the baby boomers twice?

[Ungrounded Lightning]

Well, you can do that today by inventing extra children for more deductions, and that's just one of the countless ways to cheat on income taxes. And I don't see why we'd need a national ID other than the existing SSN.

The point is not whether you'd need any additional ID number.

With the current SSN, while it's not legal to register more than once, there's little incentive to do so, because benefits are largely proportional to pay-in. Somebody who switches identities loses his accumulation in return for anonymity. (Yes there are ways to scam it, but they're complicated and tend to leave other tracks if attempted.) So there isn't a big need to impose SSN as a "Your PAPERS!" national ID system with massive and intrusive enforcement.

With something like the "Fair Tax" proposal having a second ID number automatically means having a second payout of the "rebate" - which is a major chunk of cash. Criminals jump on it right away, putting a major drain on the system. So the government jumps on investigation and enforcement (with the approval and encouragement of much of the taxpaying base, which sees it as a ripoff of themselves).

EVERYBODY gets identified and all the IDs cross-checked. Fingerprints, retina and iris patterns, life history investigation, databases, ... And of course lifelong updates and tracking (to "make sure the dead go off the roles rather than a crook appropriating their dole".)

Big Brother, big time!

REPEAL PROP13!

[MilesNaismith]

If they want to make more tax money magically appear in California budget, they just need to repeal Proposition 13. This is the ridiculous measure from decades ago, wherein property tax is decided at time of purchase. So if you bought your house in 1979 well you never have to pay higher property taxes. This measure has also been called "Screw The Newcomers!" as anyone buying a house now, will not only get to enjoy the outrageous mortgages, but disproportionately high taxes. Unfortunately, much like Social Security, it's one of those FUNDAMENTALLY FLAWED ideas that nobody wants to do anything about.

Re:why standardize tax rates?

[nero4wolfe]

The standardization effort is the response of a group of state government to complaints by mail order businesses (not specifically internet businesses) that if they had to pay local taxes for every customer purchase... there would be hundreds, if not thousands, of local tax rates to keep track of (state, county, city, special district, etc.) you couldn't depend on customers to tell you the rate; they may not know; they may be wrong, etc. each mail order business would have to register with potentially hundreds of different taxing authorities; could potentially be audited any any combination of those, etc. would be spending lots of money to send very small checks (maybe just pennies) with accompanying tax return forms to those tax authorities

Etc. Maybe Amazon, etc. would be able to handle it. But a local small startup either couldn't handle it (and hopefully get away with ignoring it), or just give up on mail order sales.

The proposal from those states was to replace (for purposes of mail order sales) all the individual state/county/city/etc. tax rates with a single tax rate, and a single national tax authority, that would take in money from all mail order businesses, and distribute that money to the states, etc.

True fair tax formula.

[NotQuiteReal]

(Cost of Government) / (Number of Citizens) = the fair tax per citizen.

Anything else is unfair, but necessary simply because not everyone can afford their fair share.

All the shenanigans of modern tax code boils down to the politics of extracting unfair amounts of money from whomever will pay.

Re:True fair tax formula.

[Ibag]

I think this is an overly simplistic view. If my rich friend invites several people out to an expensive restaurant for his birthday, some people share dishes while others get for themselves, with one person getting something obscenely expensive that nobody else could even afford, what is the fair way to pay the bill? It wouldn't be fair to just split things evenly, because not everybody contributed to the cost equally. It could be argued that the fair way is for everybody to pay for what they ate, but what about the people who can't afford even that, and wouldn't have come unless explicitly asked to? Maybe, since it is his birthday, the rich friend shouldn't have to pay anything? Maybe since he invited the people out, he should have to pay everything? Maybe just the tip should be split evenly? There are dozens of different ways to split the bill, each with it's own rationale, and none of them clearly "the" fair bill payment method.

Taxes are the same way. Not everybody uses government services the same. Many government services (like having a military) are not directly used by the majority of people. Everything needs to be funded* somehow, and charging the people who both use less and make less an amount which is more than their annual salary is not fair by any means. What is the most fair tax plan, then? It doesn't exist! But a system that charges more money to the people who can afford it or who use more government services is a lot more fair than charging a homeless man more money than he has spent in the last decade while charging Bill Gates less than he makes in 5 minutes from bank interest.

*let's not debate whether the budget is just or not.

Re:why standardize tax rates?

[walt-sjc]

The problem is bigger than you realize. It's not just 50 different state taxes, it's local taxes too. Cities in California can add their own sales tax. Also, in some places clothing is taxed, and not in others. The exceptions and special cases for sales taxes nationwide is a total freakin nightmare.

Re:Sales Tax vs. Use Tax

[inphorm]

Wow, talk about making things complex for people. That would make most people, technically speaking, tax evaders, something that is illegal in 99.9% of countries in the world.

In Australia you just pay sales tax on something when you buy it, but you don't get taxed for using it. I can go to Melbourne and buy a car or a piece of furniture or whatever and bring it back here to Brisbane and not have to worry about any extra taxes on the product.

I'd hate to have to keep track of everything I bought interstate, I travel frequently for work and buy clothes and electronics while I'm away.

- paul

http://www.paulpichugin.com.au/

The real reason this won't work

[deblau]

Most government services are funded through excise (purchase) taxes. Road maintenance is funded through user fees (the gas tax). National parks are funded through user fees (including fishing and camping permits). The patent office is funded through user fees. The national phone & electric services are funded through use taxes on your bill. Etc. The only real reason to tax the Internet is to pay for administering Internet services. But the Internet is largely run by private companies, not the government. What, exactly, would the Internet sales tax pay for? Lining politicians' pockets. There is no need to tax the Internet.

Getting same effect with less downsides

[Ungrounded Lightning]

You can get most of the same effect as the (un)"fair tax" with less downsides (including avoiding the double-tax effect of switching):

  - Stick with an income tax but make it DEAD flat. Collect the full amount as withholding at paycheck time. Everybody pays the same percentage, so there's no need to track I.D.

  - Do the flat "rebate/dole" as a separate (though related) item: One to a customer, regardless of income. Registration is voluntary, as is picking up the payment. Anybody who wishes to trade in the money for anonymity can simply refuse to sign up or to collect his check that year.

This would also eliminate much of the financial incentive for illegal immigration / "undocumented workers" and their cost advantage over citizens and legals under the current "look the other way" system (which amounts to a subsidy to business paid for by the documented/citizen workers.)

  - They'd be paying their taxes regardless of whether the rest of the money was spent locally or sent back to the old country.
  - They couldn't get the "rebate" unless they went through the normal immigration channels.
  - Decriminalizing their working would eliminate an employer's ability to impose unconscionable (but cheaper) working conditions and fire or arrange the deportation of any who complain.
  - With the "rebate" replacing welfare most "services" and "programs" (and their costly bureaucracies) could be eliminated. "Undocumented" dependents would, of course, be ineligible, eliminating the major income "redistribution" from legal workers to the families of illegals.

Re:should there be a sale tax on online purchases?

[i2amsam]

What I'm saying is that the states are activly discouraging investment from companies, because that might force those companies' customer's to pay state sales tax. (E.g. there was talk back when Amazon never charged any sales tax except CA that if they built a new data center in state X, that residents of X would have to start paying tax on their Amazon purchases, which discouraged Amazon from brining that investment in)
1) All tax is a money grab by the states
2) Everyone wants lower taxes, but the current setup clearly creats a loophole where I'm encouraged to buy out of state because I can get it "tax free".
Right now if I buy a $100 widget in NY I'll pay $7 to the state for that right, or if I buy a $100 widget in TX, I'll probably pay (I don't know) $6 for that right. But if I buy it from woot.com with $5 shipping, I can get it from TX to NY for $105, saving me $2. Does that mean I'm "getting" NY? No, they'll make up their $7 loss with a raise in the Income, Gas, Sales, Luxury, etc. etc. tax, or a decrease in subsidies for farmers, or lowering of state employee raises or whatever. Who wins? I either pay the same amount in total tax burden, or get less services from my state, so it's a wash (remember, I only made $2, NY lost $7) or worse for me. Woot.com got the sale over NYBasedStore Inc, and FedEx / UPS got the $5 shipping. Remember, TNSTAAFL

Do not piss us off

[n0w0rries]

You guys are missing the big picture... We're California. If we were by ourselves we'd have the 6th, 7th, or 10th largest economy in the world (depending on who you ask--says wikipedia). We'd have the TERMINATOR for president. Our army would be undefeatable in any 70-80 degree dry climate.

As in Beer

[wytcld]

Vermont has just signed on to this project. The biggest effect on most of us: Beer now has sales tax; that's part of this interstate standard. What does this accomplish? You cannot legally ship anything with alcohol into Vermont to a retail customer (unlike some states where you can buy wine that way), and none of Vermont's small brewers are trying to mail order beer out of Vermont. Would you want your beer delivered by UPS?

Those of us on the eastern side of Vermont already drive to New Hampshire to buy other stuff that's taxed at home. Now, since this new law to protect the taxability of future internet beer sales, we're getting our beer there too. Smart move, legislature.