Internet Sales Tax Gets a New Champion

Archness1 writes with an excerpt from Declan McCullagh's piece at CNET about the recently renewed push for a sales tax on Internet purchases, led by Massachusetts Representative Bill Delahunt. "At the moment, Americans who shop over the Internet from out-of-state vendors usually aren't required to pay sales taxes. Californians buying books from Amazon.com or cameras from Manhattan's B&H Photo, for example, won't be required to cough up the sales taxes that they would if shopping at a local mall." That could all change, though.

Comments

I have never understood this.

[bmo]

What is the difference between mail/fax/phone order and purchases made through "teh intertubes"?

Mail order has never had to collect sales tax except for in-state customers. Why are web based businesses any different? Why were states not clamoring for sales tax collection in the heyday of mail order? Politicians act as if web based businesses are getting special treatment.

They aren't. They never did get special treatment.

So what's going to happen now? Internet sales are going to be taxed but mail order won't be? Because I certainly don't hear about mail order sales being slapped with a tax in any of these discussions. It's all about skimming off of internet sales.

Fine.

I'll just slap a stamp on it or fire up the fax machine and send orders that way, like I did 15 years ago.

It was nice knowin' ya, Internet commerce.

--
BMO

Tax religion...

[fyngyrz]

...equally, of course. No more free rides for the superstitious. Tax the land they put their churches on just like they tax the land I put my home on. Etc. That'll tweak the bottom line a little.

Taxation is the power to bankrupt

[fyngyrz]

Give the business's any sort of tax and the tax goes upon the heads of the people. So in the end the consumer is taxed the most.

This doesn't mean that the tax doesn't burden the business; eventually, the total spent for the product begins to edge into the "unreasonable" zone for the consumer, and they stop buying. You can't pass along a cost or a tax if the consumer won't pay it. And lets face it -- for most people, "must have" means food, medical needs, utilities, fuel/transport, basic clothing, and (for this group) Internet.

Amazon and other Internet retailers have an edge (the tax and storefront things) but they also have a serious downside - your local folks can hand you the item. Amazon and crew have to ship it to you, generally speaking, and that's a counter-force working against pervasive "I want it now" mentality and the in-your-face shipping costs.

Take away the tax benefits, and you'll see some Internet businesses fold, as their gains from advantages drop beneath their losses from disadvantages on the overall ledger. The smaller, niche businesses will go first, as they aren't doing enough volume to obtain deep discounts. I can think of quite a few I patronize that I would *really* hate to see go.

The real problem here is the political concept of "we can always spend more for a 'good' idea." No. They can't. There is a limit, and when you're doing spending into the future based on credit, along with very high tax rates, as most states and the federal government are, you're well past that limit.

Get people on board with a "spend LESS" platform, and elect them. Throw out the incumbents, they think *wrong*.