Internet Sales Tax Bill Dead In Congress

jfruh writes: Last year, a bipartisan coalition helped get the Main Street Fairness Act approved by the U.S. Senate. The bill would have allowed state and local governments to collect sales taxes on Internet sales by companies in different jurisdictions. But House Speaker John Boehner, a longtime opponent of Internet taxes, won't bring the matter to a vote in the House before the end of the year, which should kill it for the immediate future.

Comments

Meh

[CajunArson]

I already have to pay in-state sales taxes on purchased from Newegg & Amazon, so the big ones are covered. Oh, and if you are just purchasing from the online arm of a brick & mortar store, they've been taking sales tax for a long long time anyway.

Re:Meh

[PPalmgren]

Only if you live in one of the states in which they have a physical presence. This refers to someone like me, who pays no sales tax to Newegg because they don't have a presence in my state.

Re:Meh

[TheDawgLives]

Technically, you still have to pay state sales tax on purchases made over the Internet. You just exploit the fact that the states can't force Internet retailers to collect those taxes and send them to the state as a way to skip out on paying your taxes.

Re:Meh

[Sigmon]

Exactly. Although everybody refers to it as a 'sales tax'... It's actually called a 'sales and USE tax'.

Re:Meh

[SJHillman]

Amazon collects tax in 20 states, covering roughly 190 million residents (as of July 2013 pop. estimates), or a little over 60% of US residents. That's a pretty significant amount.

Re:Meh

[russotto]

Technically, you still have to pay state sales tax on purchases made over the Internet. You just exploit the fact that the states can't force Internet retailers to collect those taxes and send them to the state as a way to skip out on paying your taxes.

There's no state sales tax on out of state purchases; that would be an unconstitutional tax on interstate transactions. There is a use tax on out of state purchases that you didn't pay sales tax on. I consider this "use tax" to be a transparently obvious evasion of the restriction on states taxing interstate commerce, and therefore invalid. Then I exploit the fact that the states can't force Internet retailers to collect those taxes to avoid getting into a dispute with the state over whether they are actually invalid.

Re:Meh

[Mr D from 63]

You mean, exploit the fact that the state decided not to enforce collection of those taxes. We have examples to follow regarding not choosing to enforce the laws....

Re:Meh

[Jane Q. Public]

I don't think this gets emphasized enough:

There's no state sales tax on out of state purchases; that would be an unconstitutional tax on interstate transactions.

Actually, it isn't even that... it would be an unconstitutional attempt by one state to tax a transaction that takes place in another state. Not an "interstate" transaction at all. And allowing such taxation would open up a can of worms the size of China.

If one state can tax a transaction in other state -- for ANY reason -- what's next? Wisconsin taxing your grocery purchases in Los Angeles? It's easy to see how absurd that concept is.

BUT... there is also this fact, which is uncomfortable to lawmakers: the ONLY way to effectively have online transactions is to consider the purchase made in the state of the seller. This is very much old hat, as it was hashed out in the courts to a VERY definite conclusion more than 150 years ago, when mail order became common. That's why the company having a "physical presence" in your state makes a difference... only then can the sale be considered to be in your state.

And... internet sales are mail order. The ONLY differences are how the payments are made, and how you view the catalog. You're still getting your product by mail.

When you add all these things up, the inescapable conclusion is that an internet sales tax is unconstitutional, since it is de facto an absurd tax on transactions made in other states. (Except, of course, when the company has a presence in your own state.)

Re:Meh

[__aaclcg7560]

The California tax return has a box for Internet sales taxes. I usually skip this box as I don't keep receipts of Internet purchase I've made during the course of a year. Most of those I pay sales tax on anyway for Amazon and Newegg.

Re:Meh

[Sigmon]

My guess is, yes. Look up the word 'nexus' as it pertains to taxation. Arguments could be made on either side of whether or not a data center constitutes as nexus, but you can bet that the Ohio law-makers who I'm sure would LOVE to get a share of that dough will fall on the side that gets them that share.

Re:Meh

[jittles]

Technically, you still have to pay state sales tax on purchases made over the Internet. You just exploit the fact that the states can't force Internet retailers to collect those taxes and send them to the state as a way to skip out on paying your taxes.

You are completely incorrect. The interstate commerce clause specifically forbids a state from charging sales tax on interstate commerce. States that want to tax interstate commerce charge a "use tax". Whether such a tax is legal, I don't know. The argument in favor of a use tax is that it puts the tax burden on the buyer instead of the seller, and therefore does not impede interstate commerce. But you are definitely not charged sales tax on interstate purchases entirely because the federal government has not authorized one.

Re:Meh

[Sigmon]

What you say is correct ONLY as it pertains to forcing the RETAILER to collect/pay the tax. The sales point must have what is legally referred to as 'nexus'. As I mentioned in another comment above, we always refer to it as a 'sales tax' but you'll note if you look into the legal-ease of the state codes it's actually a 'sales and use tax'. And, oh yes they can enforce a tax on purchases made in another state. Want proof? Try this: If you live in a state with a sales tax... go to a state without one and buy a vehicle. Bring it back to your state and get tags for it. Many of these states SHARE data on real-property sales like that. Eventually, I promise they'll try to collect the sales and use tax on your vehicle.

Re:Meh

[SillyHamster]

When you add all these things up, the inescapable conclusion is that an internet sales tax is unconstitutional, since it is de facto an absurd tax on transactions made in other states. (Except, of course, when the company has a presence in your own state.)

A small nitpick - a state enacted Internet sales tax is unconstitutional.

However, it is within the federal government's constitutional scope of authority to regulate interstate transactions, such as collecting an internet sales tax.

Re:Meh

[cashman73]

I call that the "optional tax". Because I have yet to meet anyone that actually reports it and pays it when they send out those forms.

Re:Meh

[ZipK]

Shit, Amazon is building a datacenter in Ohio, does that mean I'll have to pay sales tax?

It means that Amazon will be compelled to collect sales tax on Ohio's behalf. It doesn't change the tax you owe, since you already owe use tax on most interstate purchases for which the seller isn't collecting sales tax.

Re:Meh

[geekoid]

Not if it's a use tax. Like every state that has a sales tax also has.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U...

Re:Meh

[MachineShedFred]

I wonder if it matters what the datacenter is used for. If Amazon shows that it is strictly used for AWS hosting, then there is no Amazon.com retail sales being moved through that facility, and thus no sale has taken place within the State of Ohio?

This could get interesting unless I'm just flat wrong and Ohio will want their taste regardless.

Re:Meh

[klparrot]

Keep in mind that Amazon still doesn't collect tax for out-of-state third-party sellers (unless the order is "Fulfilled by Amazon"). From your Amazon account page, you can download your annual purchase history in spreadsheet-compatible format, with the taxes broken out into their own column, and use that to figure what purchases still need to be accounted for for calculating use tax. That was more necessary back when they didn't collect any California sales tax at all, but still comes up if you're buying from third-party sellers.

Note that if you haven't kept receipts to calculate your use tax, you're supposed to estimate it as (for 2013 in California anyway) 0.033% of your adjusted gross income. Depending on your spending, that works out to being as if, very roughly, 2% of your spending were out-of-state.

Re:Meh

[c5402dc53929211e1efb]

Yeah, sure. If it's a "use tax" why do my tax forms tell me to multiply by the sales tax rate to calculate my "use tax" liability?

Re:Meh

[SillyHamster]

If it's a "use tax", then it's not a sales tax.

But since it sounds like a sales tax, acts like a sales tax, and talks like a sales tax, you're right that it's a sales tax in all but name - and that makes it unconstitutional.

Re:Meh

[Goetterdaemmerung]

Only if you live in one of the states in which they have a physical presence. This refers to someone like me, who pays no sales tax to Newegg because they don't have a presence in my state.

Or if you live in a state like I do that has no sales tax. I don't want a new federal tax imposed on my purchases, which is one of the ideas floating around. Having the feds collect a tax and redistribute it is a tempting angle to avoid certain sticky issues of state tax collection across state lines. People who already are used to paying sales taxes might be ok with this, but what about states like mine that are quite opposed to a sales tax? Would my state have an exemption along with due recourse to fight the collection on merchants who might falsely collect it?

Re:Meh

[Creepy]

I pay my use tax when I go over the catalog exception. It doesn't happen often, but I feel it's my civic duty when it does.

I also REALLY HATE paying use tax, however - it is based on where I live and both my city/county combination has the highest sales tax in the state. Since use tax is based on where you live, you have to pay as if your house is the point of sale. I can drive 5 minutes away and pay nearly 2% less tax (1.86% I believe).

Re:Meh

[reboot246]

I do, but only the state sales tax of 4 percent (that's all that's required on the state income tax return right now). Local sales taxes around here + state sales tax usually total 8 to 10 percent. So I'm still better off shopping online and not paying that extra 4 - 6 percent.

I think I shouldn't owe the state or local governments a damned thing if I can't find what I'm looking for locally. Plus, if I'm traveling and buy something in another state, I don't think I owe my home state anything at all. I've already paid that other state's tax, and that's enough.

If Congress has its way and passes the bill in question, then online shopping will drop a hell of a lot. No more great cyber Mondays, leaving politicians wondering what happened.

One of life's rules is that when you tax something, you get less of it.

Re:Meh

[reboot246]

I agree about the ONLY way to effectively have online transactions is to consider the purchase made in the state of the seller. It would be much, much simpler for them to keep up with one rates instead of hundreds of different rates.

It could also lead to some online businesses moving to states that have no sales tax or very low sales taxes. They would be able to sell for less than their competitors in high-tax states.

Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire, and Oregon could be major winners if Amazon and others moved their businesses there.

Re:Meh

[Grishnakh]

Technically, you're supposed to pay the tax based on your residence, not the location of the merchant. Most merchants don't bother (and aren't required to) because it'd be a logistical nightmare, but try buying a car sometime: the dealer charges tax based on where you live, even if it's out-of-state.

In your case, you're probably supposed to pay that 1.86% difference in the "use tax" portion of your state taxes.

Re:Meh

[bobjr94]

Thats why I buy from newegg, they never charge me tax. Amazon charges tax but not newegg, if they both have the same price I order from newegg since Im saving almost 10% in tax.

Re:Meh

[wellsdm]

If one state can tax a transaction in other state -- for ANY reason -- what's next? Wisconsin taxing your grocery purchases in Los Angeles? It's easy to see how absurd that concept is.

Actually, check out the new changes to the EU VAT Directive effective Jan 1, 2015. They basically say that if you sell digital goods and services to an EU consumer you have to charge VAT tax at the effective rate of the consumer's country. This would appear to apply to all sellers regardless of whether or not they are located within the EU. So a seller in the United States selling to a consumer in Germany would have to charge the Germany VAT rate and collect those taxes and pay them into the Germany tax authority. If the same seller then also sells to a consumer in France he would have to collect VAT on that sale at a different rate (the rate for France) and collect that VAT and pay it into the French tax authority. See http://ec.europa.eu/taxation_c...

Re:Meh

[the_digitalmouse]

I already have a 'use tax' when I 'use' the internet. I pay that 'tax' through my internet service provider or telecom. The internet has not been 'free' for a long time.

Re:Meh

[Jane Q. Public]

What you say is correct ONLY as it pertains to forcing the RETAILER to collect/pay the tax.

No, it's not. One state has no power to collect ANY taxes on a transaction made in another state.

A "use tax" is not a tax on the transaction! That would be illegal. It is a tax on the USE of the item purchases (thus the name).

The tax you pay on a vehicle purchased out-of-state is a USE tax.

NOW... the second thing you are forgetting, which has 2 aspects: (1) State A has no legal or Constitutional power to force anybody in state B to collect or use its use tax. It is a state-level tax and one state's laws have no authority in another state.

And (2), the Federal government also has no authority to collect such tax on behalf of a state.

So Constitutionally, the Federal government's hands are tied. I repeat what stated above: this was all hashed out in the courts 150 years ago. None of the legal principles have changed in that time.

Re:Meh

[Jane Q. Public]

Of course the Federal government has authority to regulate interstate commerce. But that is a straw-man argument; it is irrelevant to the issue at hand.

Regulating interstate commerce still does not give the Federal government the authority to force somebody in one state to enforce the laws of another. A "use" tax is a STATE law. The Feds have no legal way to enforce state laws across borders, interstate commerce clause or not.

Nor does it have any authority to collect taxes on behalf of a state... again, that's state law, and that would definitely cross over the line between State and Federal authority.

This has all been done before, when mail-order purchases became common. NOTHING -- quite literally nothing -- has changed, except that you now look at the catalog online, and pay with a credit card. It's still "mail order" in every conceivable sense.

Re:Meh

[lsatenstein]

Technically, you still have to pay state sales tax on purchases made over the Internet. You just exploit the fact that the states can't force Internet retailers to collect those taxes and send them to the state as a way to skip out on paying your taxes.

There's no state sales tax on out of state purchases; that would be an unconstitutional tax on interstate transactions. There is a use tax on out of state purchases that you didn't pay sales tax on. I consider this "use tax" to be a transparently obvious evasion of the restriction on states taxing interstate commerce, and therefore invalid. Then I exploit the fact that the states can't force Internet retailers to collect those taxes to avoid getting into a dispute with the state over whether they are actually invalid.

Here in Canada, the tax is applied to internet sales, based on the billing address or shipping address. If the billing address is not known, the shipping address is used.

It is fair
If I go to a local store, I have to pay sales taxes. If I buy from the net, with delivery to my premises, I have to pay the taxes. We can't bancrupt the province.

Re:Meh

[SillyHamster]

Regulating interstate commerce still does not give the Federal government the authority to force somebody in one state to enforce the laws of another. A "use" tax is a STATE law. The Feds have no legal way to enforce state laws across borders, interstate commerce clause or not.

If the Feds regulate interstate commerce, they will not be "enforcing" one state's law over another. They would be enforcing a federal law that collects sales tax on inter-state commerce.

How that sales tax is then used is up to Federal law, not state law. The federal government could distribute that sales tax revenue to the states, or pocket all of it, or some combination thereof. This is within the Federal government's constitutional scope of authority.

This has all been done before, when mail-order purchases became common.

The cases back then dealt with states, they do not limit federal authority on the matter.

Re:Meh

[Jane Q. Public]

If the Feds regulate interstate commerce, they will not be "enforcing" one state's law over another. They would be enforcing a federal law that collects sales tax on inter-state commerce.

Nice theory, but it doesn't work. States set their OWN sales taxes. It's not a Federal tax, and it varies from state to state. And apparently you forgot the part where I pointed out that the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to collect taxes on behalf of states. There is no law anywhere -- sure as HELL not in the Constitution -- that gives the Federal government that kind of taxation power. It's taxing powers are spelled out very clearly in black and white.

Re:Meh

[SillyHamster]

Nice theory, but it doesn't work. States set their OWN sales taxes. It's not a Federal tax, and it varies from state to state. And apparently you forgot the part where I pointed out that the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to collect taxes on behalf of states. There is no law anywhere -- sure as HELL not in the Constitution -- that gives the Federal government that kind of taxation power. It's taxing powers are spelled out very clearly in black and white.

You are not following the discussion and you do not understand the points being raised.

The authority of the federal government to collect taxes on behalf of the states is not in question. The federal government can collect a sales tax because it wants to, just like it collects an income tax.

What the federal government does with a hypothetical federal sales tax revenue is its own business - it can then pass federal laws to give money to states based on a set of rules. (subject to some equitable standard; no giving all the money to a single state)

State laws have NOTHING to do with such a tax system.

Re:Meh

[Jane Q. Public]

You are not following the discussion and you do not understand the points being raised.

What an rude, arrogant thing to say. It is you who aren't following.

Sales taxes are STATE taxes. You are correct that Federal authority to collect state taxes in not in question: it doesn't exist.

What the federal government does with a hypothetical federal sales tax revenue is its own business

Sure... if it's a federal sales tax. But it isn't. Read the bill.

State laws have NOTHING to do with such a tax system.

Read the bill. Or even just read a news article about it. It wasn't a tax. It was a bill that would have unconstitutionally tried to force STATES to collect taxes for other STATES.

Now, go read up and get a clue before calling other people stupid again, or I shall start calling you Mr. Dunning.

Re:Meh

[SillyHamster]

What an rude, arrogant thing to say.

I may or may not be rude and arrogant. But I note that you did not claim it was the wrong thing to say. Based on your latest post, that's because my statement was true.

I've made two points in this discussion thread:

1. The federal government has the authority to regulate interstate commerce by collecting/authorizing an internet sales tax.

2. State use taxes are simply a relabeled sales tax on inter-state transactions and are thus unconstitutional under current federal law.

Read the bill. Or even just read a news article about it. It wasn't a tax. It was a bill that would have unconstitutionally tried to force STATES to collect taxes for other STATES.

Neither of my points care what the text of the rejected federal sales tax bill says. Your response is irrelevant - which means my comment is accurate. You are not paying attention to the content of my posts when you respond to them. That's the charitable interpretation.

You presume to correct a misunderstanding that is not there. Your behavior is rude and arrogant - which makes your accusations of the same in me seem like projection.

You can't even summarize your own article correctly. From your link: "the bill ... would allow states and local governments to collect sales taxes on Internet sales by businesses located outside their borders".

That's not one state forcing another state to act. Businesses are not states. Why don't you take your own advice on reading up and getting a clue?

Ok, they got ONE right...

[cayenne8]

...dunno how long the streak will last, but at least they got this one concept correct.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[Qzukk]

We'll just have to see. The Republicans are in charge of congress now, so we'll see if they're actually going to shrink the size of government or spend the next two years repeatedly trying to repeal obamacare another 40 times.

I doubt they're going to try and end the war on [insert everything here] or roll back IRS harassment powers or end civil forfeiture or rein in the NSA or anything else that I'd really like the government to stop doing.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[ganjadude]

well, repealing obamacare would in fact be a reduction in government. so thats not really a good argument

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[ShanghaiBill]

but at least they got this one concept correct.

No, they got this one wrong. Taxes should be sensible, fair, and enforceable. The current system of "use taxes" is not sensible, not fair, and not enforced at all (~98% cheat). Almost everyone evades the tax, and many don't even know they are cheating. That penalizes the small number of people that are both informed and honest. It also unfairly penalizes local merchants over internet merchants that thrive (partly) because of the tax evasion by their customers.

This was a sensible reform, and it is a shame to see it blocked.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[Anonymous Coward]

His point is they have spend too much time "symbolically repeal Obamacare." (Boehner's words). They can't overcome a veto and can't likely get the bill past the Senate still (or is reconciliation good now that Republicans run things?) Instead of wasting time trying to do something you'll never get done do something that you can get done. Is it too much to expect elected representatives to act like adults?

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[dywolf]

No they didnt.
Its a loophole that allows the avoidance of a tax people would otherwise have to pay.

This avoidance of taxes also hurts your local businesses and is another reason they have trouble competing with big online retailers.
Closing the loophole across the board nationwide helps level that playing field again and helps more money in the local economy and keep your local civic needs funded.

Assuming you like roads and schools and such.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[CaptainLard]

roll back IRS harassment powers

If they were smart they would increase IRS funding since it results in something like a 10:1 return rate. You know where the extra money would come from? Tax cheats! People who don't pay their taxes aren't your heros, they are your parasites. While I'm being wistful about things that will never happen, increased funding might even give us more streamlined processes and overcome the turbotax lobby...which for years has been lobbying against simpler taxes that you can do yourself on the IRS website, reducing errors and thus the likelihood the IRS would want to talk to you.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[Vermifax]

Its not a loophole. Its explicitly prohibited.

The loophole is that states try to end run the prohibition by charging you a use tax.

They're not trying to close a loophole, they are trying to overturn existing law.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[halivar]

(or is reconciliation good now that Republicans run things?)

The current thinking is that if it passed by reconciliation, then removing it by the same mechanism is fair game. "What reconciliation giveth, reconciliation taketh away."

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[smooth wombat]

if they're actually going to shrink the size of government or spend the next two years repeatedly trying to repeal obamacare another 40 times.

That would shrink the size of government so I'm all for it. Forcing me to hand over money to a private company is way beyond anything considered Constitutional.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[TemporalBeing]

I'm not so sure. My local brick and mortar store are automatically at a 7% price disadvantage because they have to include sales tax to items purchased where online retails don't.

Not really b/c no one really includes taxes when they are price comparing. They see the advertised price and compare on that. So this is really just a red-herring.

Now, that's not to say that some people do include it in comparison, but they would be by far not the norm; that's also not to say that there isn't a price difference - in the end there is, it's just one that the normal consumer doesn't take into account, mostly b/c the normal consumer doesn't know what the tax rate is.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[shaitand]

The current system of "use taxes" is not fair because it's unconstitutional. The answer isn't to allow the unconstitutional tax, the answer is to not allow the "use" tax.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

We'll just have to see. The Republicans are in charge of congress now, so we'll see if they're actually going to shrink the size of government or spend the next two years repeatedly trying to repeal obamacare another 40 times.

I doubt they're going to try and end the war on [insert everything here] or roll back IRS harassment powers or end civil forfeiture or rein in the NSA or anything else that I'd really like the government to stop doing.

John McCain has already said that while he thinks it's a waste of time to try to repeal Obamacare that so many new members of Congress promised to do it that they have to pass such a bill, wait for the President to veto it, and then get on with the serious business at hand so the new members can claim at re-election time that they tried to repeal it, but gosh darn it, just didn't have the votes to override the veto. He said he'd rather the time be spent trying to accomplish something like removing the medical device tax (some Democrats may actually be OK with this idea) than trying to repeal the entire thing, which is never going to happen.

Government isn't going to shrink and probably no libertarian concern you have will be met. My bet is that while the role of the Tea Party has been reduced, there's still too many of those crazy ideologues around and they're going to bog down Congress over trivial matters that most other Republicans don't care about. Congress allows far too much of what I call "tyranny of the minority" to happen, especially in the Senate, and all the obstructionist tactics the Senate Republicans tried recently are now going to be thrown right back at them. Expect a lot of bluster about how unfair this is and how the Republicans will conveniently forget that they used the exact same tactics themselves in this current Congress.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[Anonymous Coward]

IRS harassment? Checking whether an organization that claims to be a "social welfare" organization actually spends some money on welfare as opposed to political advertisement and lobbying is "harassment"? Way to chug that cool-aid, my friend.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[lgw]

Of course they're not going to. Both the republicans and democrats are responsible for all of that.

Indeed. The GOP has a chance here - the GOP congresscritters are now younger and more diverse than the Dems. They might just turn over a new leaf. Maybe.

I'll be all for them if they do - they keep talking about smaller government, than maximize pork distribution. Let's see them shut down anything, anything at all. Get rid of the TSA. Get rid of any government department -- I don't even care which -- just do something to show one party really intends to shrink the government machinery, rather than making BS claims about "spending" that no one at all still believes.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[SillyHamster]

It also unfairly penalizes local merchants over internet merchants that thrive (partly) because of the tax evasion by their customers.

States with sales taxes are the ones "penalizing" local merchants with their sales taxes. Not all states are penalizing their local merchants, so put the blame where it belongs.

It is not tax evasion by the consumer to buy cheaper products - by that measure, it's tax evasion to buy US-made products over foreign ones that are subject to tariffs.

Why are you evading tariffs by buying US products? For that matter, have you maximized your income? Because if you're not, you've evaded income taxes by the same standard.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[wiredlogic]

If they were serious about protecting the constitution they'd outlaw the bogus concept of use taxes.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[nabsltd]

My local brick and mortar store are automatically at a 7% price disadvantage because they have to include sales tax to items purchased where online retails don't.

No, your local brick and mortar store is at a 15-30% disadvantage simply because they charge a lot more for most things.

I just bought a gaming headset at a local B&M because I wasn't sure if it would work for me (comfort, quality, etc.) and wanted an easy return if I had to. For that, I paid 44% more than if I had purchase the item from Amazon. This is not an unusual situation, at least as far as tech is concerned, with Amazon, NewEgg, SuperBiiz, etc., all fighting for my online purchases.

Also, Amazon charges tax in my state, so that part doesn't even enter into the decision to buy online.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[RockClimbingFool]

So according to this website, the device tax will bring in $29 Billion over the next 10 years.

So are they going to pass another tax to offset that missing revenue? Probably not. Any calls for repealing any revenue generating aspect of the ACA must be offset with revenue from somewhere else. As crappy as the ACA may or may not be, it is one of the few programs passed by Congress that have built in funding mechanisms.

That is why the ACA will work to some degree. But its still benefiting a particular industry (insurance) by allowing them to take 10% off the top of all healthcare spending. They have to be eliminated at some point.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[mpercy]

The issue boils down to: Can a state force a retailer based in another state, with no point-of-presence in the taxing state, to act as a proxy tax collector?

Imagine for one moment a shopping mall full of retailers. These stores sit just across the border from you in another state, but since your house is only a few minutes drive, easily accessible. Further, the neighboring state has a *much* lower sales tax than yours--let's even say they have zero sales tax (as a few states do).

Your state is frustrated that so many of its border-dwelling residents chose to make all their purchases across the border, thus avoiding sales taxes my state perceives as being owed to my state and depriving local retailers of business. Your state has instituted a "use tax," equivalent to the sales tax, that taxpayers are supposed to report and pay for any items imported into the state. But it seems almost no one is paying it!

Your state goes to retailers across the border and *demands* that they collect and remit sales taxes to your state. The stores, recognizing the problems they will face, such as now requiring all purchasers to submit ID and proof of residence and question them as to where the goods they are buying will end up--not to mention additional operating expense and liability for any incorrect tax filings that might occur--wisely tell your state to take a flying leap. Your state has no jurisdictional authority to impose its force on these retailers.

The problem here is simply that states cannot get their own citizens to pay taxes due (use taxes) and are trying to force out-of-state businesses to act as tax collectors for them. Think about it, is your state entitled to force a Wal-Mart or a mom-n-pop store lying just across the border in another state to collect your state's sales taxes? No way! Why should they get to force some other out-of-state business to do so?

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[mpercy]

Also, on creating a "level playing field"...

What this law would have done is to make online retailers subject to *different* rules than a physical store.

It would make an online retailer demand information about the buyer so that the online retailer can act as a remote proxy tax collector based on where the items are shipped, not where the seller is physically located.

A B&M one in another state is not going to be forced to do the same thing when visitors from some other state make a purchase (which they might take home and might evade their local use taxes).

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[ZipK]

The current system of "use taxes" is not fair because it's unconstitutional. The answer isn't to allow the unconstitutional tax, the answer is to not allow the "use" tax.

Which part of the constitution does a state use tax violate? The export clause has long been consigned to governing only international commerce. The commerce clause is the subject of court precedents that prevent its application in situations that impose an "undue burden." But the common case of "undue burden" is an out-of-state retailer with no in-state nexus; individual customers being held responsible for tracking, reporting and paying their own use tax hasn't been held to be an "undue burden."

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[ZipK]

Its not a loophole. Its explicitly prohibited.

Which law(s) prohibit use taxes? Not the export or commerce clauses of the Constitution, at least not as they have been interpreted so far in court precedents.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[Holi]

Well that's a bullshit statement, Since Not one of the groups (both right and left) actually qualify for 501(c)3 status. They should all be 501(c)4 which was created just for political groups. But no they wanted to abuse the rules and hide their donors. The big right wing hullabaloo was all a smokescreen to shame the IRS into doign the wrong thing.

If your complaining about a wrongdoing then don't defend the ones doing the wrong.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[Holi]

The IRS actually did not do anything wrong until they were shamed into letting the groups keep their 501(c)(3) status.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[Holi]

Since you can't argue without insulting I have one for you Sir AssHat, Where do these groups qualify for 501(c)(3) status? They don't they should all be 501(c)(4), Same tax free status, they just want to hide their donor lists. Why was it so important to keep those lists hidden?

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[uslurper]

"I doubt they're going to try and end the war on [insert everything here] or roll back IRS harassment powers or end civil forfeiture or rein in the NSA or anything else that I'd really like the government to stop doing."

-Actually, thats exactly what they should do, expecting it all to be veto'd by the president. Then they can say say they are all for progress, but that we need a republican president to do it.

-Then when there is a republican president, and the republicans will have the opportunity to do whatever they want, they will line their pockets with money.

Adhoc tag: The future is not hard to see, but it takes balls to do something about it. -Me

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[Mysticalfruit]

I came here to make this joke but found it already made. Thanks!

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[jfengel]

This is very much a stopped-clock kind of "right". It's Congress doing nothing, by default, as per usual. Even if the bill were a good idea, there's no chance of it getting serious consideration. It's always in somebody's best interest to make sure something doesn't happen, and it's just not hard to find people to support you on that.

The only way to pass legislation now requires half the House PLUS 60% of the Senate PLUS the President, and then it has to find 56% of the Supreme Court to keep it from being overturned. Getting all of those at once is very rare.

So this isn't a sign of anybody getting anything right. It's just another instance of them failing to do anything at all. We just happen to be lucky that this one time, "do nothing" is the right answer.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[DNS-and-BIND]

Let's completely ignore the fact that the Obama administration unabashedly used the IRS to persecute its political enemies, the Tea Party.

Hey, let's play a game! Are you totally OK with the fact that this happened? You win a prize! It's called, "more criminal than Nixon". Seriously, you have to really try to achieve this goal. Even Richard Nixon wasn't as criminal as Nixon. All he did was burglarize Democratic Party headquarters. What Obama's IRS did was much, much worse.

At least Nixon had the shame to resign. Will Obama do the same? Of course not...he doesn't think his people did anything wrong. Denying American citizens political representation? There's nothing wrong with that - the Tea Party opposes the governing party! What do dissidents expect to happen? This is normal under a left-wing government! (well, the left-wing governments of the 20th century, plus 21st century Venezuela, Boliva, and Cuba.)

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[geekoid]

Except it isn't right.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[geekoid]

As soon as they got majority, Mitch was asked about repealing the Affordable Care Act. He is already back peddling from it.
Saying it's too difficult. Underscoring what we all knew: They just used it as an excuse to obstruct the government and then blame Obama for
getting nothing done'.

" roll back IRS harassment powers "
what harassment powers? DO you mean the fact the when they get a large influx of a type of non profit request the scrutinize it more becasue there is an increase of people applying when they shouldn't be? You will note that as soon as it was found out that the IRS does that for ANY large influx of a type of request, regardless of party or cause, all the politician and news stopped talking about it.

The IRS is behaving intelligently, and it's a policy they need to keep.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[smooth wombat]

Why is it my responsibility to pay for your health care? I'm not your caretaker.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[geekoid]

The you should be fighting to repeal auto insurance mandate.

And its not unconstitutional.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[geekoid]

10% off the top is good, and it's why the insurance increase has been less then projected prior to ACA.

I do agree, the insurance companies need to be eliminated, or the government needs to have an insurance program.
I said tha when aut insurance became mandatory: The government needs to offer a program for the basic mandatory requirements.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[ganjadude]

are you thick??? The IRS ADMITTED to targeting.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[geekoid]

interesting. I haven't seen that large of a price difference in anything online for a couple of years.
My state doesn't have a tax, so that part is irrelevant.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[geekoid]

I like how you told everyone that you don't know the constitution or what a use tax is in one easy sentence.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[MachineShedFred]

If the Republicans were smart, they would start blasting bill after bill out of Congress and sending them down Pennsylvania Ave for signature. We've been hearing the narrative that they are the "party of 'no'" for years now. Now, they have the golden opportunity to make Obama set new records for use of the veto and instead of having the obstructionist label applied to 300 or so people, it can all be focused on one guy; and a Senate minority that cried foul at all the filibustering, who will now be filibustering their asses off in the most hypocritical display in political history.

But I don't think they are that smart.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[jafiwam]

roll back IRS harassment powers

If they were smart they would increase IRS funding since it results in something like a 10:1 return rate. You know where the extra money would come from? Tax cheats! People who don't pay their taxes aren't your heros, they are your parasites. While I'm being wistful about things that will never happen, increased funding might even give us more streamlined processes and overcome the turbotax lobby...which for years has been lobbying against simpler taxes that you can do yourself on the IRS website, reducing errors and thus the likelihood the IRS would want to talk to you.

No. The extra money would come from harassing politically "undesirable" non-profits out of existence.

How is LESS complication going to COST MORE? By your standards, someone putting more money into developing a better snow blower would end up with a shovel. Your ideas of how the world works are ass backwards.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[MachineShedFred]

Reconciliation is only used in the budgetary process - you know, that thing that the Democrat Senate didn't even bother with for years.

It's not about being bad or good, it's just dusty and unused because Harry Reid simply wouldn't do a budget, much less have his members put their name on one.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[Whorhay]

I always wonder how much of that income from tax enforcement though is actual taxes that were owed and crazy penalties. My Mother in law made some foolish tax mistakes when she got her divorce settlement, most of it was 401k money. It's one of those cases where she made an honest mistake and the penalties are pretty punitive. I'm all for collecting owed taxes and even assessing punitive fines when necessary but as it stands now intent doesn't seem to matter at all.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[jafiwam]

The IRS actually did not do anything wrong until they were shamed into letting the groups keep their 501(c)(3) status.

People who "didn't do anything wrong" don't destroy emails that prove that they "didn't do anything wrong." The act of destroying the emails itself, is something wrong.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[onnamonnapeaahh]

People who don't pay their taxes aren't your heros, they are your parasites.

Incorrect. The people/organizations who collect the taxes are the parasites. People who don't pay their taxes are in essence wearing parasite-repellant. Blame the parasite, not the person trying to avoid getting leached off of.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[SydShamino]

Because most people in this society have empathy, and this includes most doctors and most hospitals, and they choose to treat people with critical, immediate needs without charging them, even though these types of needs incur the largest costs. Those costs are then passed on to everyone else, including you, who uses the facilities in a normal fashion, whether you like it or not.

Unless you are a doctor yourself, or are willing to ignore your own medical needs and the needs of those for whom you are a caretaker, you have no choice but to shoulder some of the shared costs when you use the services.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[SydShamino]

Congressional Republicans do not believe that tax cuts need to be offset with tax increases, only that spending increases must be offset with spending cuts.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[__aanbvm4272]

We'll now get to see how the GOP does budget wise. They will blame Obama, for the rest of his term as always. Republicans get elected by being a pain for 6 years. People need to become a PAIN in the side of accountability.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[gewalker]

The republicans were with minor exceptions out of power in congress since FDR. Finally, they got the power that they desired. Within 2 elections, they proved themselves to be no less venal than the democrats.

I helped to vote them in to power. I was disgusted by the result.

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men -- Lord Acton

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[cyberchondriac]

We'll just have to see. The Republicans are in charge of congress now, so

Technically, no, they're not.. not yet. They only have the House, currently. The election is over but the changeover is still 6 weeks away.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[mjwx]

Of course they're not going to. Both the republicans and democrats are responsible for all of that.

Indeed. The GOP has a chance here - the GOP congresscritters are now younger and more diverse than the Dems. They might just turn over a new leaf. Maybe.

And just maybe, I'll arrive for my date with Seychelles Gabriel on a flying Lamborghini unicorn.

All major political parties are controlled from the back rooms, in Australia these are called the "faceless men" and no matter what party, Democrat or Republican, Labor or Tory, Labor or Liberal they are beholden to these backroom interests. As long as we have dual party systems we'll continue to have the same problems.

Multi-party governments may not be perfect but at least the deal making is removed from the back room and made public. Otherwise it's just a choice between spit or swallow.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[mjwx]

but at least they got this one concept correct.

No, they got this one wrong. Taxes should be sensible, fair, and enforceable. The current system of "use taxes" is not sensible, not fair, and not enforced at all (~98% cheat). Almost everyone evades the tax, and many don't even know they are cheating. That penalizes the small number of people that are both informed and honest. It also unfairly penalizes local merchants over internet merchants that thrive (partly) because of the tax evasion by their customers.

This was a sensible reform, and it is a shame to see it blocked.

To make taxes fair and sensible in the US you need to throw out your current tax system and start again from scratch.

Having a different tax collection for each state is pretty stupid. Most western countries have gotten rid of the old state/territory/province based sales taxes and replaced them with a single VAT (Value Added Tax) so no matter where you are you still pay the same amount of tax (and it can be easily calculated into the advertised price of goods, so the advertised price can be the purchase price).

Having been a consumer in many countries, the taxation regime in the US is almost as retarded as that of third world nations. The biggest difference is in places like the Philippines, I can avoid paying tax by paying cash (which is why almost all hotels give you a cash discount over there).

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[volmtech]

But people are not driving across the border, their purchases are shipped to their doors. The retailer has your ID and address. Oh wow, interstate commerce!

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[lgw]

In general, I agree with you. However, the American voters are getting increasingly upset - throwing out all the Dems, then throwing out all the GOP, then throwing out all the Dems again. It's a very strong signal to the congresscritters that that guys in the backroom may give them campaign funding, but that won't save you if the voters have had enough.

The GOP is in an ongoing revolt against the party machinery. The Tea Party started that way, but got co-opted by the machinery. The revolt continues - lots of new faces in the GOP now. The potential is there, but just that.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[Grishnakh]

They'll succeed: they're going to successfully repeal the medical devices tax, and then cheer about what a huge accomplishment this is (and to be fair, it's a good idea, the tax is stupid). Then they'll move on to something different and forget about Obamacare.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[LordKronos]

No, your local brick and mortar store is at a 15-30% disadvantage simply because they charge a lot more for most things.

It really depends on what you are talking about. Since having kids a few years back, I've been absolutely surprised how, at least 95% of the time, toys are cheaper at the local Toys R Us than they are at amazon or anyplace else online. And that's even if you include sales tax. And that doesn't even include the fact that TRU has 20% off coupons fairly often, and you get a couple % back if you have rewards card, and you can often find TRU gift cards 10-20% off (I don't see the same level of discounts on Amazon gift cards).

The two exceptions I've seen to that (ie: cheaper on amazon):
1) innotab games (which is sort of a toy, though falls more into the electronics category)
2) Thomas the Train wooden train cars

Other than those, I've only found a couple other random items cheaper on amazon. Everything else is cheaper at TRU

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[mjwx]

The GOP is in an ongoing revolt against the party machinery. The Tea Party started that way, but got co-opted by the machinery. The revolt continues - lots of new faces in the GOP now. The potential is there, but just that.

LoL,

The Tea Party was just a ruse to prevent disaffected Republicans from not voting for the Republicans. They may as well have called it the "I cant believe its not the republicans" party. They receive almost all of their funding from the same lobbyists as the Republicans.

The Republicans are not revolting against the machine, they're feeding the machine. You've just been sucked in by good marketing.

As for the new faces, faces are replaceable, if one actually rebels, he'll be out before you know it. Its the "faceless men", the powerbrokers in the back room you need to worry about and I have no doubt they're still the same as they were when Clinton was in power... if not before Clinton.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[Grishnakh]

But there is an argument that physical retailers are unfairly hurt when people can use them as showroom and then go online and purchase the items without sales tax.

Too bad. Have you forgotten about shipping charges? If the retailer's price with sales tax is higher than the online price with shipping costs (plus the inconvenience factor of having to fumble around on web sites and then wait a week for it to arrive, unless you pay even more for faster shipping), then the retailer is charging too much and deserves to go under.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[cayenne8]

The Republicans are in charge of congress now, so we'll see if they're actually going to shrink the size of government or spend the next two years repeatedly trying to repeal obamacare another 40 times.

Well, to be fair...these are not two mutually exclusive concepts.

Dismantling Obamacare would be a step towards shrinking the size of govt and its influence over our everyday lives. That is the most recent intrusion.

That being said, Obama won't sign anything repealing it totally, but they can nip at parts of it, and threaten to defund much of it unless he signs some reforms to it...etc.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[CaptainLard]

Let's completely ignore the fact that the Obama administration unabashedly used the IRS to persecute its political enemies, the Tea Party.

Ok, I'll do just that. Because I'm not under some crazy delusion that Obama personally flew to freaking Ohio of all places to tell some low level employees to mess with the tea party in a way that had zero effect on their organization but would act as a political nuclear suicide vest. The attempted coverup BY THAT OFFICE, not "the administration" wasn't the smartest thing and should be prosecuted but just because humans have a predisposition to believe in conspiracy theories instead of the logical explanation doesn't make it so.

btw...I didn't feel the need to read the rest of your comment. Thanks for your support!

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[CaptainLard]

People who don't pay their taxes are in essence wearing parasite-repellant. Blame the parasite, not the person trying to avoid getting leached off of.

I'm fine with that...as long as the parasite repellant wearers also build their own roads, pay all hospital bills for their parents, fix their own houses after a hurricane, home school all their kids, personally convince the upstream industrial plants to not dump waste into their drinking water, irradiate their own beef, never sue anyone ever if anything ever goes wrong for any reason including negligence, etc....probably shouldn't use the internet either cause that was developed with tax dollars too.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[CaptainLard]

80% sounds incredibly efficient! Only 20% of their funding is spent on salary/overhead? Good gracious, if only every organization could be as well run as you claim the IRS to be.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[david_thornley]

You mean targeting groups that looked like they likely didn't qualify?

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[lgw]

Sure, mischaracterize the Tea Party however you need to demonize them. Claim they're all white, then edit out all the non-white faces in the news stories. The hate-on the mainstream media has had for them from day 1 is evidence that they were a grassroots movement: there's nothing the media hates more than people thinking unapproved thoughts.

If you believe that "keep throwing out the incumbents until they get the message" doesn't work, then frankly you don't believe in democracy. If you're entirely bitter an cynical about politics, you're not making the world a better place by telling people discussing politics to give up.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[david_thornley]

Historically, it looks more like they think spending increases need to be offset with tax cuts.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[lgw]

The GOP has more racial, age, and gender diversity now IIRC. What that implies for diversity of thought is an open question, but I'm hopeful.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[onnamonnapeaahh]

I'm fine with that... as long as the parasite stops having a monopoly over the roads; stops forcing people to pay into Medicare/SS and starts allowing them to choose their own old-age insurance plan (or invest it elsewhere) which would probably be far superior anyway; stops encouraging people to unwisely move into "hurricane alleys" by promising them they'll bail them out even if they irresponsibly don't purchase insurance; etc.

Courts don't need to be paid for with tax dollars; beef irradiation isn't necessary and shouldn't be forced on any beef suppliers (but if customers wish to purchase irradiated beef I'm sure the market would be happy to sell it to them); home schooling is great but there is also such a thing as private schools; and just because the internet was developed with tax dollars doesn't mean it couldn't have been developed without them.

As an analogy, say the government made it so that Windows was the only operating system that was legal to use, create, etc. Not just on PCs but also phones and tablets. Each person must pay a fee of $1000 per year for the "privilege" of using Windows. Try to develop or use an alternative? Enjoy your massive fine, or worse, jailtime. What you are proposing is that under these circumstances those who don't like this should simply not use a PC, tablet, or phone at all. They should instead be glad that Windows exists in the first place, that the government is so kind to allow them to use it, and should be happy about paying their $1000 "fair share". Those who use Windows without paying should be punished because they had the nerve to do what others didn't.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[ganjadude]

no targeting groups with name like "patriot" or "tea party" in them without looking at anything else.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[david_thornley]

Yes, and groups with political terms in their names are likely to be political organizations, and therefore more likely to need examination. They also examined liberal groups with suspicious-looking names. Without knowing more specifics, I simply can't tell how fair they were, and I know that whenever anything that looks like it might be bad (however legitimate it is) is done by $PARTY nowadays, there's a very good chance that $OPPOSING_PARTY will jump on it and make up all sorts of misleading accusations.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[CaptainLard]

First of all, you're getting your wish on roads. There are already 2200 private roads and bridges in the US. A hilarious example (albeit an anecdote) is the Ambassador Bridge connecting Detroit and Canada owned by Manuel Moroun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambassador_Bridge). I'll let you discover the details on your own but many deals are happening now that ceded public control to foreign companies for decades. But I'm sure they will be benign dictators and not charge any more than their shareholders demand...I mean any more than is needed for maintenance and be good stewards...for 50 CONSECUTIVE YEARS?

Courts: Sure, lets not fund the courts with tax dollars. They could instead be funded by the defendants or sponsors or something. Surely no issues would arise when Verizon/BP/Halliburton or your favorite, Microsoft is sitting in the witness box, right under a big "witness box sponsored by Microsoft" sign. I'm sure that would work out just fine.

Private School: You got me. I didn't consider private school. Which is great if you can afford $9100/year-child (combined US average for grades 1-12). If you have 2 kids and the average income of $53k/year, thats 34% of you're income just in school and about the same as all of your state and federal taxes combined. Since each private school is already essentially it's own entity I can't see a compelling argument about why costs would be drastically reduced if every US student was in a private school. Unless you introduce "Big School" which kinda defeats the whole "I can do it without big controlling entities" mantra.

Your analogy: I never proposed not using a PC/phone at all. You made that up to bolster your dubious analogy. I was trying to say that those who don't want to pay $1000 for goverment microsoft would instead have to spend $millions more making their own phone that only works for them. More generally: if all taxes and government were eliminated, the cost of maintaining the US standard of living would be significantly higher for the average person (average is the keyword). Rich peoples situation wouldn't change much because of diminishing returns on being more rich.

In closing, thanks for this debate. It makes me actually look into these subjects to get numbers to back up my opinions. Sometimes I even change them! Not this time though. It did however illuminate a flaw in the "less gov, more private" mantra. ./ usually rails against all the money in politics, how the major parties are really the same because they're owned by corporations, and private industry is our salvation. What?! That essentially says gov is the middle man and we wouldn't have problems with corporations controlling the middle man if we got rid of him. But then corporations would rule you with complete impunity! How is that better?! America used to be more like that (Rockefeller, Carnegie, etc) and many people died to change to what exists today.

Re:Ok, they got ONE right...

[ganjadude]

I cant tell if you are trying to spin or if you really are just ignorant of the facts at play.

The facts are they specifically targeted tea party groups based solely on that basis without any regard to what they wanted to accomplish. they specifically held up applications until after the elections

they apologized for doing so and confirmed that what they did was wrong. They asked for member lists, they asked for all sorts of things that have never been asked for and instead of denying it they left these groups hanging in the wind.

I got no problem with ensuring that groups play by the rules, but I do have a problem with keeping groups in limbo until after the election rather than denying them if they were wrong, or telling them to apply under the correct terms

See? He's good for something..

[fustakrakich]

Who says you can't get blood out of a rock?

Re:See? He's good for something..

[Talderas]

It's no different than what Harry Reid was doing in the Senate.

Re:See? He's good for something..

[manu0601]

You obviously need a recall procedure for US house member and senators. And while there, for US president.

This has 2 effects

[Spy Handler]

1. It helps small/startup internet merchants. (big ones like Amazon got dragged into paying money to individual states)

2. It helps poor(er) people. Rich obviously do not benefit much from the few meager dollars saved buying stuff on ebay, and the very poor don't do online shopping. So the main beneficiary are lower middle-class people.

Re:This has 2 effects

[Holi]

And the main losers are the states and their residents since they lose out a a large part of their revenue and thus have to make it up in other ways. So the trade off is pay the sales and use tax or pay higher property and income taxes. It's not like the roads get fixed for free.

Re:This has 2 effects

[geekoid]

Only have is from fuel tax.

Why not get rid of states as taxing entities?

[CRCulver]

Real federalism never enjoyed a consensus among the Founding Fathers, and it was pretty much dead before the War of 1812 anyway. A lot of states receive more funds from the federal government than they contribute to it. So, why should there be state taxes any more? Lots of developed countries have centralized tax collection where it all goes to the central government and then is redistributed to the regions. It's obvious that more and more sales will happen online and cross state borders, so why maintain the facade of empowered states collecting revenue?

Re:Why not get rid of states as taxing entities?

[pushing-robot]

Yes, Captain?

Re:Why not get rid of states as taxing entities?

[Jhon]

"Real federalism was pretty much dead before the War of 1812 anyway so why maintain the facade of empowered states"

First, it's not really "dead", but very much weakened. Second, and most important, the reason WHY we should maintain "empowered" states is for the various reasons it was set up in the first place. We are not a homogenous nation. We are spread over a huge area, of various races, faiths, cultures and economic interests and yet we haven't torn ourselves apart (came close in the 1860s).

The stronger the Federal government becomes, the more likely the US will balkanize. Want to maintain the union? Limit the powers of the Federal government and let the states dictate more of what is in there interests. Example:

Gay Marriage. States should be allowed to ban gay marriage but be forced to recognize it when performed in states which allow it. You keep those who find it in conflict with their faith happy and provide a solution to those who are homosexual who wish to wed.

What happens over time is that America will change -- SLOWLY and once gay marriage becomes as accepted to the extent that an amendment to the Constitution can pass, you've now created a "right" which was accepted by a supra majority of the states/peoples without putting stress on the Union by it being perceived as being shoved down our throats.

It was DESIGNED to work slow as the swings and dramatic changes of both whim and passions would destabilize a government. And when a population is as heterogeneous as we are -- it would just add more sparks to the fuel of succession.

Re:Why not get rid of states as taxing entities?

[CRCulver]

The US is nowhere near as heterogenous as you think. We're not a nation of soil-bound farmers anymore. Moving from one state to another for work or studies is common, and has been for many decades now (mass mobilization during World War II and Vietnam, and the great African-African migration north are just some historical phenomena that led to a blurring of the 19th-century regional boundaries). Americans broadly expect things to work the same everywhere, and if one particular state offers something they find attractive, changes are they would vote for whoever is supporting it at the federal level anyway.

Re:Why not get rid of states as taxing entities?

[__aaclcg7560]

If you remove all of those entities from being able to charge sales tax, how we will build new stadiums?

Most construction bonds are tied to property tax receipts.

Re:Why not get rid of states as taxing entities?

[shaitand]

How about we go the other direction and get rid of federal level income taxation. Let states charge income tax, potentially actually make living in one state notably different than living in another, you know, so you can choose. Let the feds ask the states for funds instead of the other way around.

Re:Why not get rid of states as taxing entities?

[Obfuscant]

The US is nowhere near as heterogenous as you think.

I've lived in three regions so far -- east coast, west coast, and midwest. All three are very different places. Actually, I spent a few months in the south, too, and THAT is a significantly different place from the other three.

Americans broadly expect things to work the same everywhere,

Half of all Americans are below average intelligence. Many Americans expected radio signals from a device they're holding in their hand that are transmitted in the clear to a receiver miles away would be secret and private. Many Americans expected those same transmissions to become private once the law that said they were was enacted, and that some serious magic would prevent a standard UHF television from picking them up. I suspect many Americans expect that the postman doesn't read their postcards.

Please, stupid people expecting stupid things isn't an argument to actually do those stupid things.

and if one particular state offers something they find attractive, changes are they would vote for whoever is supporting it at the federal level anyway.

The trouble comes when the federal level is prohibited from doing it, and those people still expect the federal government to do it anyway.

Re:Why not get rid of states as taxing entities?

[RavenLrD20k]

If you remove all of those entities from being able to charge sales tax, how we will build new stadiums?

From game ticket revenue?

Re:Why not get rid of states as taxing entities?

[__aaclcg7560]

The $100M construction bond for the San Francisco 49er's Levi Stadium is tied to lease revenue from a shopping mall being built by the team. Santa Clara approved a $25M construction bond for stadium-related improvements that's tied to property taxes. Silicon Valley might be the exception, as most local government depend on sales tax revenue for their own bonds.

Re:Why not get rid of states as taxing entities?

[devman]

The gay marraige issue isn't a States rights issue no matter how much supporters wish it was. The federal government doesn't issue or dissolve marriage licenses it is completely the domain of the States. All the Federal courts have said is that if the states wish to have a legal institution of marriage that it must be compatible with the 14th amendment, and States which do not allow gays to marry do not meet that requirement.

The federal courts are not infringing on states rights, they are protecting individual rights granted by the U.S. Constitution from infringement by the States.

Re:Why not get rid of states as taxing entities?

[Jhon]

"The US is nowhere near as heterogenous as you think. "

And I think you underestimate how important those differences are or how unevenly they are distributed. I've traveled the US numerous times. I've been to every state in the union (except alaska) numerous times and have lived long stretches (3 or more years) in 5 of them. Trust me, while we have more in common than different, those differences can become QUITE important. Particularly when we paint differences of political and economic philosophy in terms of "good" and "evil".

Moving from state to state *IS* more common that it was, but it is not universal and far from it. About 60% of the population are still residing in the state in which they were born. Of the rest, ~20% are foreign born -- leaving about ~20% "mobile" with the highest percentage of non-movers being in the mid-west. The lowest is the west. And the differences in numbers are profound (about 20+ percentage points different between the two regions).

Look it up. Census.gov is freely available. Or check up on a William Frey -- he published "The Great American Migration Slowdown".

Re:Why not get rid of states as taxing entities?

[geekoid]

No, it is not Communism.

Re:Why not get rid of states as taxing entities?

[Jhon]

"All the Federal courts have said is that if the states wish to have a legal institution of marriage that it must be compatible with the 14th amendment, and States which do not allow gays to marry do not meet that requirement."

That statement is profoundly inaccurate. There have been federal courts that have decided on both sides and SCOTUS has yet to make a final decision. Hell, Prop 8 (California) was tossed out because the SCOTUS found the petitioners had "no standing". That was honestly a poor decision and a deliberate dodge. A liberal court may likely decide that the 14th amendment applies, but a conservative court would not. We have a 5/4 SCOTUS right now that have deliberately been trying to avoid making the decision you cite. I think it's inevitable that they will take up a case where they'll need to decide, however.

This is exactly the type of of issue that SHOULD be left to the states until society is more agreeable to it. I believe it's inevitable. If the far left state of California time and time again passed legislation against same-sex marriage and even added an amendment to it's State Constitution to forbid it then it should be painfully obvious that the doesn't come anywhere near the level of acceptance that interracial marriages had in the 60's. Note that Loving v Virgina was a UNANIMOUS decision.

Re:Why not get rid of states as taxing entities?

[geekoid]

". States should be allowed to ban gay marriage"
Ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. It's forcing one person religious beliefs on another.
Banning gay marriage is no different then banning a religion.

We aren't that heterogeneous any more.
Drive around the country. Same strip malls, same gas stations, people watch the same set of entertainment.
Hell, do to TV, regional accents aren't as strong as they used to be.

Also, thats not why it was set up that way.

Re:Why not get rid of states as taxing entities?

[geekoid]

"Half of all Americans are below average intelligence. "
thanks for letting us know you don't know what average means.

if I have 9 people with an IQ of 120 and one person with an IQ of 80, are you saying half of them are below the average of those numbers?

Re:Why not get rid of states as taxing entities?

[Jhon]

"Ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional. It's forcing one person religious beliefs on another.
Banning gay marriage is no different then banning a religion."

I don't believe in rights magically appearing to be constitutional where they never have been before. I believe that if they can magically appear, they can magically disappear using the exact same mechanism. Living in such a world might appeal to you but it does not appeal to me. In fact, it scares the bejeezus out of me.

"We aren't that heterogeneous any more.
Drive around the country. Same strip malls, same gas stations, people watch the same set of entertainment.
Hell, do to TV, regional accents aren't as strong as they used to be."

Of course we are. I've driven across the country numerous times and lived in several states. Without listing countless examples, I'll cite one. Red states vs. blue states. Different political and economic philosophies.

"Also, thats not why it was set up that way."

Of course it was. Read Federalist 10 and 28. Federalism was set up to aid in preventing tyranny (and thus a civil war) by keeping all power in a central government, as well as to allow various other ideals to be tested and tried. A central authority is not by definition "tyrannical", however when trying to apply the same laws on an entire heterogeneous population with different economic religious beliefs a central single authority will by definition become tyrannical. Example, forcing a business owner to serve a customer for a service of which he has a moral objection violates his religious rights while the customer's civil rights may viewed as being violated. How long until the one who's rights are being suppressed follow Jefferson's observations:

"That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness" -- Jefferson

Re:Why not get rid of states as taxing entities?

[Jhon]

"thanks for letting us know you don't know what average means."

Your example shows you don't know what an IQ measures. Thanks for letting us know.

It's pretty apparent he meant half are below an IQ of 100, assuming 100 as the average (mean) and intelligence is evenly distributed (which basically defines an IQ test score) .

While an IQ of 99 isn't REALLY below average, his statement about expectations is appropriate.

Still, with a REAL number of about 25% below average intelligence (90 and below) we are left with about 80 million dullards out of about 320 million fellow citizens.

Re:Why not get rid of states as taxing entities?

[TheRaven64]

Gay Marriage. States should be allowed to ban gay marriage but be forced to recognize it when performed in states which allow it. You keep those who find it in conflict with their faith happy and provide a solution to those who are homosexual who wish to wed.

And states should be allowed to legalise slavery. Because that worked so well the last time.

Re:Why not get rid of states as taxing entities?

[Jhon]

"And states should be allowed to legalise (sp) slavery. Because that worked so well the last time."

Sigh... Why not look at the history of the world as a whole. What nation ever fought itself over the issue of slavery? To the tune of over 600k dead?

Many of our abolitionist founders believed that slavery was a dead end doomed to end in the near future but elected to allow the south to maintain it for the interest of the union. It was essentially the cotton gin's invention which allowed slavery to remain economically viable far longer than they expected.

Without that economic leep after the 1790s, attitudes would have changed in the south as much they had in the north regarding slavery and it would have ended -- WITHOUT bloodshed. You've effectively made my point -- when a powerful central government makes a uniform law across a heterogeneous population, someone's rights are going to feel violated and they could very well go the route of the US in 1776 or the South in 1862.

I'm not saying that slavery or the south was in any way honorable. That war needed to be fought and is an exception brought on be a dramatic and swift economic change..

Re:Why not get rid of states as taxing entities?

[david_thornley]

The Fourteenth doesn't grant equal everything to everybody. For example, it doesn't grant the right to vote to toddlers. The Constitution does not give the Federal government any role in marriage, so the Federal government needs to defer to the states. However, Article 4 says that states are required to give full faith and credence to the acts of other states, so by that a same-sex couple married in Minnesota (for example) should be recognized as married in every state.

Re:Why not get rid of states as taxing entities?

[david_thornley]

Slavery, as it used to exist, is explicitly against the Fourteenth Amendment.

Bill Naming

[ilparatzo]

I love how government goes about naming bills to make them sound a certain way so that voting against them appears evil. I suppose the makers of the bill would argue that they are coming up with a short name that defines the "essence" of the bill. But when you get into the details, it just makes them seem like they are trying to hide something from you ... aka: being politicians.

"Main Street Fairness Act" - It's simply a bill to apply fairness. You don't like fairness?
"Affordable Care Act" - It's just making care affordable. You don't want care to be affordable?

You could have a lot of fun with this actually. Increased NSA surveillance? "Terrorist Identification Act". Or even better "Protecting our Children from Terror Act". Free cars for all politicians? "Political Accessibility Act".

Re:Bill Naming

[dywolf]

It was simply a bill to enable fairness for local stores.
And the other was a bill to expand affordable insurance to more people, hence the subsidies.

No, the example you want is the Patriot Act.

Re:Bill Naming

[tomhath]

even though it was originally a Republican idea put forth by Mitt Romney.

Well, if you ignore the plans pushed by Clinton and Daschle long before Romney signed the plan passed by the Massachusetts assembly (in fact before he was even elected).

Re:Bill Naming

[mister_playboy]

You're not going back far enough. Check out what Nixon was doing in 1974.

http://kaiserhealthnews.org/st...

Re:Bill Naming

[MachineShedFred]

What's good for a single State may not be good for the other 49.

I have no problem with Massachusetts or Oregon having their own state health plans - the local electorate hashes it out and passes something that makes sense for that State. The complete mishmash federal giveaway to the insurance lobby that the PPACA (the real title is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act) gives us is too light in some places, and too heavy handed in other places, resulting in a bill that basically nobody likes.

But I guess that's what you can get through a deeply fractured single-party government like we had in 2009 and 2010.

To level the playing field...

[Ichijo]

...between online and brick & mortar stores, all a state has to do is abolish its own sales tax. Regressive taxes ought to be illegal, anyway.

Re:To level the playing field...

[judoguy]

You are correct sir! I'm astonished by the number of people that look at ANY situation and that stock response is "Raise taxes somewhere", never lower them somewhere for equity.

I'm old enough to remember when we didn't sales tax in my home town. I was just a kid but I was flabbergasted when the stores started adding extra money to the cost of things over and above the tagged price. Now the bastards have gone berserk. There must be 4 or 5 separate tax districts in the town I live in now. I had to write tax software to handle sales and it is insane.

Re:Good

[Holi]

Then don't complain when things don't get fixed in your state.

Go figure

[NickAragua]

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Re:Go figure

[Grishnakh]

It's not that at all, it's that this is one of the (probably few) issues where Republicans simply have the right idea, and Democrats are firmly in the wrong.

Another issue where Democrats are totally wrong is with patent reform. The Repubs want to reform the patent system somewhat to stop patent trolls, while the Dems apparently love patent trolls and have blocked this reform.

So do I, stopped ordering from both

[waspleg]

thanks to sales tax I can get the same thing (most of the time) cheaper from elsewhere (like NY) (although I've also had serious issues with both Amazon and Newegg's business practices/customer service - personally).

Democracy

[sunderland56]

So, a completely unelected position has total control over which bills get put up for a vote??

Corruption

[Cammi]

Corrupt states and cities already do this. I wonder if we can fire them...

Re: Good

[KenHansen]

How do 'things' get fixed in states like Delaware and New Hampshire where they have NO sales tax? This law appears based on the idea that your home state is entitled to collect sales tax on anything you buy, no matter where you buy it...

Re: Good

[__aaclcg7560]

How do 'things' get fixed in states like Delaware and New Hampshire where they have NO sales tax?

Property taxes. Most people move to Texas to avoid paying a state income tax, and then discover that property taxes are significant higher than states with a state income tax. The privilige of living in a "no tax, low reg" state.

Re:About damn time

[__aaclcg7560]

I am so happy that I voted for the right party this time.

No, you voted for the status quo. The Republicans lack the votes to get anything done in Congress. Another two years of gridlock.

They could reasonably get enough votes to

[mpercy]

overturn a veto. It would obviously take a few Democrats who have come to come to believe they fucked up when they first voted for it. Republicans will not hold enough seats to overturn a veto by themselves, that's true enough. Depending on how the La. runoff (and Ak...did they declare a winner yet?), GOP could have 54 seats. There are 2 "independents" who are Democrats in all but name. It is very unlikely but not totally unthinkable that 6 Dems or independents could support overturning a veto on at least some parts of Obamacare.

Re:They could reasonably get enough votes to

[CrimsonAvenger]

(and Ak...did they declare a winner yet?),

Yes, the winner wasn't a Democrat....

Re:They could reasonably get enough votes to

[Richy_T]

In some ways it doesn't matter. If it's going to be as big a cluster as it appears over the next couple of years, all they have to do is have Obama and the Dems be seen to be obstructing its repeal. The corporate mandate is going to make things very painful for a lot of people.

It's probably even in the Republican party's interest to not be able to override a veto, in fact.

Re:They could reasonably get enough votes to

[sconeu]

You need a 2/3 majority to override a veto. That's 67 votes. Tell me that you'll find 13 Dem/Independent senators to join the GOP in overturning the ACA.

Re:They could reasonably get enough votes to

[MachineShedFred]

It takes 67 votes to override a veto in the Senate, not 60. "Two-thirds majority in each chamber" is the constitutional language.

Only because you're a tax cheat

[mpercy]

Chances are if your state has a sales tax, it has an equivalent use tax. You are supposed to pay the use tax on goods purchased from out-of-state and imported into your state. So if you didn't cheat on your taxes, the local stores would not be at a disadvantage.

Imagine a store in a state with 0% sales-tax, say, Delaware. Further assume it is close to the border with a state that has a high sales tax, like, hmm, Maryland which is considering a 7% rate. By reputation and the lure of 0% sales tax (by virtue of evading their own local use tax), people from the neighboring state make the short trip to buy their wares. Being a brick-and-mortar store, they charge all their customers the local sales tax rate (0%). They do not care nor ask where their customers are from, there is no question *at all* where the transaction takes place.

The store decides to create a website to allow their loyal customers (and hopefully new customers) to buy things online and have them mailed to them. Under this proposed rule, the store not only have to treat their online customers differently from their in-store customers, but have to comply with 10,000 different tax regimes?

The issue here is that Maryland would and should have zero chance of enforcing its will on Delaware business to force them to act as proxy tax collectors for Maryland's use taxes--the taxes being evaded by Marylanders--even if hoards of Marylanders rolled into Delaware every day to stock up. It is the Marylanders who are violating Maryland's use tax laws. Why is it the responsibility of a store in Delaware to enforce Maryland's use tax laws?

There's no practical difference between Marylanders driving to Delaware to shop compared to Marylanders ordering from a store in Delaware and having the loot delivered.

How is it fair to force a store in Delaware to be a tax collector for a California municipality? And without *any* compensation for the favor, not to mention the overhead of tallying and remitting taxes to all those difference jurisdictions, *plus* the inherent liability should they god forbid make a mistake in their forced servitude as proxy tax collector. I'm sure California would have no problem shutting down a Delaware store for failure to comply with California's tax code.

If they really want to help

[Bruinwar]

If a state wants to actually help their local retail businesses, then they should eliminate sales tax.

Use Taxes

[ZipK]

The interstate commerce clause specifically forbids a state from charging sales tax on interstate commerce. States that want to tax interstate commerce charge a "use tax". Whether such a tax is legal, I don't know.

The commerce clause (Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution) restricts interstate tariffs to those that do not create an "undue burden." Court decisions (e.g., Quill v. North Dakota) have established that placing a collection burden on an out-of-state business that has no physical in-state presence creates such an undue burden; hence the arguments around whether or not Amazon (and others) can be compelled to collect and remit tax for states in which it claims to have no nexus. Requiring customers to remit their own use tax for interstate purchases has not been found to create such an undue burden, and has been in practice since long before the interweb was invented.

Re:The Constitution is Clear on This

[ZipK]

States have no right to regulate interstate commerce, period. It is prohibited by the Constitution. No Law can allow them to do it, because such a law would be a flagrant violation of the Constitution.

That might be more arguable had commerce clause court precedents not hinged on whether interstate tariffs created an undue burden. Imposing a collection requirement on an out-of-state seller with no in-state nexus has been held to be an undue burden; but requiring individual customers to track, report and remit state use taxes has not been held to be such an undue burden.

Re:You are wrong

[shaitand]

The use tax is a sales tax on interstate commerce which is completely unconstitutional, if I'm accused of tax evasion courts ignore all my paper structures and convict if the bottom line is I got money and didn't pay the tax. Why should it be any different if the state is simply calling the exact same tax by a different name?

No the constitution prohibits imposing a tax on stuff imported from another state, period. Saying "oh and also marbles are bad" alongside said tax does not allow the state to do so. If any provision of any bill has the RESULT of taxing commerce across state lines it is unconstitutional.

Re:Good

[cogeek]

California and New York have the highest tax rates in the nation, how well is everything fixed there? No matter how much is collected in taxes, there will always be politicians willing to flush it down the toilet. People are finally starting to realize it.

Re: Good

[geekoid]

Other taxes are higher.
If a state relies on a tax, regardless of what it is, and half those people don't pay, state services suffer.
Sate with use tax rely on sales tax for services.

Comparing them to states different tax structure is so stupid, you should be refrained for using the internet for 24 hours.

Re:About damn time

[geekoid]

Another AC liar.

Re:You are wrong

[ShanghaiBill]

The use tax is a sales tax on interstate commerce which is completely unconstitutional

The constitution gives the federal govt jurisdiction over interstate commerce. States cannot tax interstate commerce without permission from the feds. The whole point of this law was to GIVE THEM THAT PERMISSION.

Re:You are wrong

[shaitand]

Which doesn't change the fact that the state laws indicating you have to voluntarily pay them what amounts to sales tax on interstate purchases now.

Re:About damn time

[Grishnakh]

No, it sounds like gridlock is actually better. Without gridlock, we'd get a Congress that would pass an internet sales tax bill. With gridlock, the bill dies, which is exactly what I want to see happen.

So strangely, I actually have to cheer for the Republican takeover on this issue.

Re:States should pay for out of state collection

[Grishnakh]

Won't work, for the reasons the AC responder said. This company won't know whether your product/service is taxable or not, or if it needs to be taxed at a different rate, etc. They're not going to employ human representatives to look at every single thing you sell and make a determination.

Here's my suggestion: all the states have to agree on a single tax rate, nationwide, and a single set of rules (e.g., groceries are not taxable, clothing isn't taxable or is reduced, etc.). Then there's a single federal-level agency where the tax money is remitted and distributed to the right state. No localities can levy additional sales taxes. Until all this happens, no nationwide sales tax is allowed.

Re:About damn time

[__aaclcg7560]

Gridlock is expensive. I prefer my tax dollars spent on a functional government that get things done.

Re:About damn time

[Grishnakh]

If getting stuff done means a shitty internet sales tax law, then no, I don't want to get things done.

Re:About damn time

[__aaclcg7560]

People like you is why this country is in a mess. It's about you and you only, everyone else can go to hell. Shared sacrifice as a society requires taking the good with the bad.

Re:About damn time

[Grishnakh]

People like you are why this country is in a mess. You spout shit like "taking the good with the bad" and because of this you advocate horrible legislation that would put an undue burden on small-business owners, giving a huge advantage to big businesses like Amazon and local big-box stores. There's 10,000 tax jurisdictions in the US, each one with completely different rules about what can be taxed, and at what rate. In some states, shipping is taxable, in others it isn't. In some states, clothing is taxable, in others it isn't. In some states certain items have a lower tax. How the hell is some small-business owner supposed to figure all that out for 10,000 different jurisdictions?

And why do stupid liberals like you love sales taxes so much anyway? They're the most regressive form of taxation and hurt poor people the most. Obviously you're OK with making the poor working-class stiffs take the good with the bad, while letting your ultra-rich cronies at Comcast and Citibank off.

Re:About damn time

[__aaclcg7560]

And why do stupid liberals like you love sales taxes so much anyway?

I'm a moderate conservative. I prefer taxes over borrowing because the sacrifice is made today rather than tomorrow. Unfortunately, neither politicians nor voters want to sacrifice anything for anyone.

Re:About damn time

[Grishnakh]

So you prefer fucking over poorer people with regressive sales taxes, and letting the rich off easy, and somehow the poorer classes should be the ones doing all the sacrificing? Got it.

Re:About damn time

[__aaclcg7560]

I would repeal the Bush/Obama tax cuts to fix the $4T revenue hole in the annual budget and pay off the national debt in five years.

Re:About damn time

[Grishnakh]

That's great (though not what I'd call "conservative"), but it doesn't address sales tax, which is a state and local level issue, and was only being considered federally (with this bill) because so many states were pissed about it. They need to just dump sales tax altogether (i.e., ban it at the federal level), and if a consumption tax really is necessary, then levy it at the federal level only as a VAT just like every other first-world country does. A single VAT (payable to a single governmental entitiy) would be fairly simple for internet merchants to deal with, and would eliminate all the avoidance of use taxes. But if they're going to keep their crazy and arcane scheme of sales taxes with 10,000 jurisdictions, forget it. And the idea of requiring merchants to use a third-party processor to handle sales taxes is wrong too, since 1) that processor won't know what is and isn't taxable except for some general things (i.e. shipping), and 2) requiring people to use particular for-profit businesses is fascism.

What about a state that has no state tax?

[Cutting_Crew]

I live in Florida where there is no state taxes at all. I know we are talking about sales tax but in this particular case (bill) i am not sure if that is intertwined or related at all..???

Re:Get rid of Income tax

[Cutting_Crew]

move to Florida or Texas - no state income taxes :)