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.
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*
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
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
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.
Gov. Deval Patrick yesterday refused to rule out a tax hike [emphasis mine] next year - handing his opposition a hot campaign issue - as he signed a pared-back $27.6 billion budget and looked ahead to an estimated $2 billion deficit [emphasis mine] with a nearly dry rainy day fund.
Those are the facts, no matter how you slice them. They have drained our state's savings, continue to overspend, and continue to raise taxes. Mind you, this is the same guy who got into office and immediately started spending money on himself (office, car, etc) way beyond what was appropriate. He (and his liberal tax-and-spend buddies in the MA houses of congress) has spent us to ruin.
Massachusetts has been abused by its corrupt politicians for decades. It is STILL Taxachusetts. Pick on Glenn Beck after you get your facts straight.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
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.