Slashdot Mirror
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.
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.
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.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
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.
-TheDawgLives suckitdown
well, repealing obamacare would in fact be a reduction in government. so thats not really a good argument
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
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.
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.
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".
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?
"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.
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.
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.)
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
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.
The IRS actually did not do anything wrong until they were shamed into letting the groups keep their 501(c)(3) status.
Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
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.
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.)
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
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.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
are you thick??? The IRS ADMITTED to targeting.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
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.