Slashdot Mirror
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.
Who always get screwed by our over-taxing, yet somehow insolvent, state government.
*insert pithy sig here*
Legalize pot and tax that instead please.
Yeah another hurdle for business where the cost will be given to the consumer as it always is. That's what I find to be most funny. 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. Which means the majority is taxed the most. Would it not be better to let the people decide where their money should go. So that maybe people could have money to make a hobby a business or even to have a hobby.
Taxation is the power to destroy which means they constantly want to destroy us the people, on capital hill.
Stop killing us with theft and extortion.
http://luminosity.livejournal.com http://www.zazzle.com/unixarcade*
Good. Buying online results in externalities which most people are simply too selfish to care about. I'm all in favor of closing this loophole.
I don't respond to AC's.
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
Instead of allowing them to constantly add new programs and new spending, how about electing some folks on the platform to reduce spending until you have a balanced budget (which means you won't need any new taxes), and then reduce spending, which means you'll need less taxes.
Make some noise. At the state level, you might even get something done.
One of the biggest problems our government has is an inability to revisit past decisions; bad law, bad spending, obsolete law, obsolete spending. All they ever do is add; that's a key reason why taxes go up, freedoms narrow, and law-books only get heavier.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
As nice as it is with cheap stuff, I cannot come up with a good argument why internet sales should be except from tax while in-store sales still pay. Internet stores can compete just fine on actual efficiency improvements over physical stores.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
To collect that revenue, some states require you to report sales tax due on out-of-state purchases when you file your income tax every year. Most people try to play ignorant when it's pointed out to them however.
boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
If the states wanted to argue that they needed to tax goods coming in from other states that would be one thing, but that isn't within their constitutional powers. Interstate commerce is governed by the federal level of government.
Then the federal government has the power to tax interstate business-to-consumer mail order and use that to fund currently unfunded mandates. I probably won't read the bill until it hits the House floor, but a federal interstate sales tax sounds like one way to implement what the article discusses.
Bookstore owners have to pay sales tax. Amazon doesn't have to. End result: said store owner goes bankrupt because Amazon has a competitive advantage because of tax differences. More unemployment and less tax-income for the state because of less sales-tax income AND because less people have a job. So actually this means a smaller amount of people have to cough up the taxes the state needs, while if you have regional businesses, all that is smeared out over more people. This is just plugging a loophole.
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*.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
You have to pay for cops, for firefighters, for medics, in some cases for healthcare and schools.
The problems start when one state has to pay for another state. Why would people in one state want to help people who aren't even their neighbors, who don't contribute to their state at all, who don't benefit their state in any direct way?
Libertarian socialism is the answer. Tax locally. Govern locally. Fight wars federally. Build infrastructure federally. Maximize individual liberty.
And stop using the feds for social programs? We have state governments for social programs. The state reps who actually are our neighbors have a better idea of what is best for our state because they actually live in our state rather than in Washington DC like the majority of Senators and establishment types.
Healthcare is not something the feds are qualified to handle. The feds cannot even handle public education. That being said if the feds would like to fund it without any expectation of control that is something I can support as a libertarian, but then you have the problem of how much money to give to each state which causes problems in itself.
Ideally the local governments should handle the social programs if we are to have any form of socialism at all. The federal and global government should focus on winning wars and building infrastructure.
We? Speak for yourself. I do want federally controlled healthcare. I want private sector medical insurance to be illegal, and medical care to be universal just as education is universal, only more so. I am delighted to see we've taken a few baby steps in that direction. A society that doesn't put the health and education of its citizens first is, in my opinion, wrongheaded - and I'm trying to be polite about it.
Thats because you credulously have faith in the federal authorities. Do you not realize that they don't really care about citizens in your state because they don't spend time living among them? So you get exactly the level of representation that you deserve when you put all your faith into the establishment responsible for fighting wars. The talk about death panels might be conspiracy theory but it's the same government that tested viruses on it's own military. It's the same government that gets paranoid and sees everybody and everything as a potential enemy.
Do you really want the Pentagon, DOD, and individuals like this to be in control of healthcare? Do you really believe this could be better than having your neighbor who you grew up with in control? Do you know any of these people in the Pentagon to have faith in them like this?
You can put the health and education of your citizens first by focusing on reforming your local government to put this first. You probably have no influence on the federal government which may or may not be influenced by foreigners. So you could end up with federal agendas which promote ignorance and sickness because. Not everything coming from the federal government is free from corruption because the federal government operates on the international level and other nations can easily influence politicians in DC, perhaps even more easily than you can.
One thing the article doesn't mention and most people here don't seem to understand is many states that have a sales tax also levy a "use tax" on out of state purchases. In my state you're supposed to report your out of state purchases with your income tax form but almost nobody does it.
Tar. Feathers. Congressperson. Some assembly required.
I don't know where you live, but here there are still plenty of local stores. Nearly everything other than groceries I can easily buy online and not pay tax, yet there are local stores selling the same things. This includes big ticket items like TVs, where the tax is a lot. Best Buy has a whole fucking wall of HDTVs for sale, and they've got multiple locations in town. People are free to order them from Amazon or Crutchfield and pay no tax, yet Best Buy not only makes sales, they apparently make enough to warrant a massive amount of their space being taken up with them.
What it really comes down to is if states find that they are not getting enough revenue because sales tax is dropping, they should simply tax different areas. Property tax is a good choice, you can't move property, payroll tax also works, so does income tax. All depends on how you want to distribute it and what you need the money for (it generally makes sense to collect taxes for what they are used on, like taxing vehicles for money for roads).
Please remember that sales tax isn't mandatory. There are states that don't have it. Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon all have no state sales tax. You will notice none of them have crumbled and went away. They simply derive their tax revenue from other sources.
Taxing inter-state purchases is just a nightmare. Especially if you really wish it to be "fair" as in "everyone gets the same cut if it was local". Ok, well you then need to have tables with state, county, and city taxes. It can be levied at all those levels. A state can have a 5% tax, the county 1.5% more and the city 1% on that giving a 7.5% effective tax. Talk about a nightmare to maintain data on all that. Also, how do you make sure it goes to the right place then? Does the company have to cut a check to each city, county, and state in the whole US each month?
If you say "Just do the state tax," well what makes states special? Your argument is local businesses, so why shouldn't the city also be getting its cut?
What it comes down to is we shouldn't tax interstate purchases. States just need to adjust their tax structure accordingly. Nobody says they have to get their money from sales tax. Here I pay sales tax to the state, county, and city (it is collected all as one, but there are three separate ones). I pay property tax mostly to the city but the state as well, I pay income tax to the state, I pay a vehicle tax to the state, and so on. It isn't as though sales tax is the be-all, end-all. They get funds from me in numerous ways. If they are losing out on sales tax, then adjust the others accordingly.
You'll note there's never been a real push to enforce it and that is probalby because the state AGs are smart enough to know if it went to the federal courts, they'd likely get slapped down.
I'm sorry but your facts are wrong. The Use Tax has seen a Supreme Court ruling, and it was in its favor: Henneford v. Silas Mason Co. (300 US 577, 1937), approves provided the tax "is not so measured or conditioned as to hamper the transactions of interstate commerce or discriminate against them" (read as: as long as Use Tax isn't larger than the Sales Tax).
If you don't like high taxes then move to Texas.
Thanks,but if that's the choice I will live with my high taxes.
I think you mean, "Hmm live with high taxes or live where people push their bias, instead of mine, into the school books..."