Supreme Court Rules States Can Require Online Retailers To Collect Sales Tax (npr.org)

New submitter zippo01 shares a report: Online shopping will soon become more expensive after the U.S. Supreme court ruled Thursday that states can require internet retailers to collect sales taxes. The 5-4 decision broke with 50 years' worth of legal rulings that barred states from imposing sales taxes on most purchases their residents make from out-of-state retailers. The decision was a victory for South Dakota, which had asked the court to uphold its recently passed law imposing an internet sales tax. "Our state is losing millions for education, health care and infrastructure, and our citizens are harmed by an uneven playing field," said Marty Jackley, South Dakota's attorney general.

Comments

"Our state is losing millions for education...."

[magusxxx]

You'll, of course, make it illegal to use this money for anything else, right?

Remeber this

[whoever57]

"The Internet's prevalence and power have changed the dynamics of the national economy," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote for the majority.

Remember this the next time Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch or Clarence Thomas talk about the following the original text of the constitution.

Re: No constitutional amendment?

[Zero__Kelvin]

The constitution doesn't grant states power, it *limits* federal power.

Not so fast

[mysidia]

They have not ruled that states can require online retailers to collect sales tax in general. They have overturned the argument that there is no nexus because of No Physical Presence, and Nexus can be established in other ways for large National retailers such as Quill or Amazon, for example. The court ruled there --- This quantity of business could not have occurred unless the seller availed itself of the substantial privilege of carrying on business in South Dakota.
And respondents are large, national companies that undoubtedly maintain an extensive virtual presence. Thus, the substantial nexus requirement of Complete Auto is satisfied in this case
 

The question remains whether some other principle in
the Court’s Commerce Clause doctrine might invalidate
the Act. Because the Quill physical presence rule was an
obvious barrier to the Act’s validity, these issues have not
yet been litigated or briefed, and so the Court need not
resolve them here. That said, South Dakota’s tax system
includes several features that appear designed to prevent
discrimination against or undue burdens upon interstate
commerce. First, the Act applies a safe harbor to those
who transact only limited business in South Dakota.

The fantasy of targeted tax revenues

[kenh]

When politicians designate new tax revenues as going towards some worthy cause (lottery profits for education, for example), rather than increasing the money spent on education, the lottery money instead offsets other tax revenues, freeing them up to be spent on politicians pet projects.

If the lottery generates $20M for education, the net result is that $20M in lottery money takes the place of $20M that used to come from property taxes.

Politicians expect you to think that the new revenue is in addition to what was already being spent, but it isn't.