Sure Amazon might be the person shipping it or place handeling the money transaction - but you are agreeing to purchase it from a "Affiliate"
this is no diffrent then going to a regional store for goods made and shipped from out side the state.
It is different. The store is a physical presence in the state. Amazon is more than likely not in the state. The affiliate may or may not be. A professor I had in college in Minnesota had his own website for his classes, and it was hosted in Texas. If states are allowed to tax online sales from out of state what state would be paid? Where the person lives or where the host is? Or both? If the person running it is set up as a business he or she is already paying taxes. My sister has her Masters and is a Certified Public Accountant and runs her own accounting business and she has clients all over the nation. Profits she makes from out of state clients she pays state income tax on. She also pays for the office lease and the property owner pays both income and property tax. The owner makes enough from the lease to pay those taxes and make a profit. She has employees which she also pays taxes on.
I want to start my own business, sell locally but also online, as a photographer and I don't want to be forced to collect sales taxes for what I sale to someone in another state. To start I'm looking at joining online stock agencies and some may have have affiliates in different states. While the agency probably would handle taxes I eventually want to open my own online store and I if I have to collect out of state sales taxes I may think it's not worth it. Especially if I use affiliates. If so then both state as well as federal government and the economy will not be helped, whereas if I do start a business it can help. Not only would I be paying income tax but I'd also to be paying my suppliers who would in turn be paying taxes.
The US used to have a lot of small businesses which have been closed due to price competition from business like Walmart.
And Amazon's affiliates aren't businesses? Maybe not all right I bet some are run just like that, as businesses. Amazon also uses other businesses too for goods. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more businesses now than just 10 years ago.
The US used to have a large and vibrant small family farm / produce sales.
Oh I agree but that's not because of Amazon. That is because large agribusinesses receive billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. Archer Daniels Midland, ADM, and Cargill alone each receive billions. Amazon does not receive subsidies. Here's a list of subsidies Cargill gets from Belgium, and Cargill is one of the largest private US corporations. Fact is is small farmers are not the main beneficiary of farm subsidies. And I have railed against farm subsides for years.
Now the family farm is a myth, and Americans consume industrialized food products manufactured by large transnational corporations and shipped around the world.
No, small family farms still exist. I am a member of two member owned co-ops and they both support both organic and local farms. All over the US both community supported agriculture or CSA which both of my co-ops sell shares in, and farmers markets are booming. Farmers markets are even blooming at hospitals.
The government is just people. If you have a problem with them, I would suggest that you not vote for parties who think the government is bad and want to "strangle it in a bath tub". They've long since proven disastrously incapable of governance.
I vote, yes I vote, for people not parties. For each position I look at what position each candidate takes then vote for the one that comes closest to my beliefs no matter what party they are from. I have voted for Democrats, Libertarians, Republicans, and Reform Party candidates.
The huge variations of state & local tax codes is, again, not a problem of the Federal Government
Can youn show me where I said it was a problem of the federal government? Or is this FUD?
If you don't like that, don't vote for people who are strongly in favor of states' rights.
Ah but I do favor states' rights, that is one of the issues I look at. However requiring Amazon or any other business that sells online to collect sales taxes in a state they are not located in is not a state right, it directly contravenes the commerce clause of the Constitution of the USA.
Finally I don't buy into your 3 exclamation point hysteria.
You're part of the problem of this country, someone who will let politicians do whatever they want instead of holding up the Constitution of the USA. Requiring out of state businesses to collect sales tax for that state is unconstitutional.
this way... Think of a Wal-mart. In many Walmarts, there is a fast-food joint, usually some type of salon, an eye doctor of some kind.
And they have their own registers where customers pay. However all Amazon's affiliates do is link to Amazon, where the order is placed. Now if the affiliate actually took orders then your scenario would be correct but it does not work that way. Now if I buy a book online from Barnes and Noble because B&N has stores in my state I would have to pay sales tax on that book.
Mail order companies do it all the time for the states they operate in
For the state they have a presence in, but not for every state. The US Supreme Court has already ruled states can not force catalog companies to collect sales taxes for states they do not have a presence in. Using the net is no different.
Huh? How so? A customer walks into a store in NC and the price of an item is automatically 7.75% higher than if they bought the same product online. How is that level?
Nothing is stopping that NC store from going online and compeating as well, if they don't it's their own fault.
You are taxing the customer - in particular, you're making sure he is paying the tax he is obligated to.
The customer is supposed to pay the tax themself not Amazon. In Minnesota, my state, there is a line on the income tax forms that asks how much you ordered from out of state businesses, you are then required to pay a use tax on those purchases. By requiring Amazon to collect the tax you are adding to Amazon's expenses.
In particular, you are avoiding discriminating local businesses who contribute to their local societies and provide jobs there.
Two problems here, one those local affiliates are part or the local society and they pay taxes. Two, local businesses can start selling online as well, and by doing so expand their business. I knew someone who started a small book store in a converted house. When the internet came along she took her store online. Eventually she sold the brick and mortar store because it cost her more to run and the online store made more money. Another store owner I knew had her son build an online store as well. Some of her customers traveled more than 100 miles to get to her store so when the online store was opened she benefited because they could easily and cheaply visit the online store.
Of course if you look at the internet as an enemy instead of an opportunity then it's your fault if you lose. Amazon, eBay, and others saw the potential and grabbed for the rings. Now their competitors who didn't want to gripe.
These are not the only states to impose this type of tax. NY requires collection of sales tax, but Amazon isn't shutting out those affiliates.
Amazon is suing New York though, so to be consistent it would have to spend money to sue every state that demands Amazon collect taxes. That can be more expensive than dropping affiliates.
So why are we already spending tons on health care?
Because we don't have a free market in health care.
Higher than the supposedly expensive Canadian healthcare (which is at around 3K a person).
Yet we have Canadians who can afford to to come to the US to get health care, including surgery. Medical care in Canada is rationed.
The reason health, medical, care is so expensive in the US is because we do not have a free market in medicine.
You either accept that those with no insurance will be turn away and left to fend for them selves or you give basic coverage and reduce the paperwork and control the price inflation of health care.
Making the market in medicine freer will drive costs down. Then for those who still can not afford insurance have the policy issuers contribute to a fund that will cover them. A non-profit like Blue Cross and Blue Shield can run the fund. With a million people looking for private insurance policy issuers will be doing what they can to lower premium costs, as well as different types of policies. A family of four or a single person may only want catastrophic coverage but have Health Savings Accounts for ordinary medical expenses while others may want insurance that covers everything.
Health or medical care costs so much because we do not have a free market in it. There is no free market in health insurance nor is there in medical practice. Nor drugs.
State revenues have fallen through the floor. California how has the worst credit record around, and on July 2nd will start issuing IOUs instead of cutting cheques, because they're out of money.
Maybe then California has to cut spending. I know when my income was cut I had to cut spending, and so should governments.
everyone agrees it's not sustainable, and that taxes will have to rise.
No, not everyone agrees taxes have to rise, many say spending has to be cut. Heck even taxpayers know this. When the government gave tax refunds last year, most people used it not to buy more but to pay off some of their debt.
Fuel taxes don't pay for the cost of disposing of the packaging, they don't pay for the cost of recycling the end product
No those who dispose and recycle pay. I have to pay for garbage collection as well as recycling, when I used to be paid to recycle.
Look at the bond issues your local government has to make when they put streets in place - and which residents have to pay for through their municipal taxes.
Those streets should be paid for with fuel tax. If the tax doesn't cover it then raise the tax. Those who use the roads more pay more then, er at least until they buy more fuel efficient vehicles. But when everyone is driving more fuel efficient vehicles then they can be taxed on their mileage.
Consumption taxes help pay for your local schools, etc
Sales tax should not be paying for schools, property tax should. It should also pay for fire and police. And fuel tax should pay for roads.
The "tax holiday" was supposed to be temporary
There is no "tax holiday". And buyers are paying taxes. When I've bought online from Amazon part of the price I paid was for shipment, which goes to the shipper. The shipper pays fuel tax when it buys fuel. For downloads buyers also pay. Buyers pay directly for their net access, which the ISP then uses to pay it's own expenses. Sellers also pays for their connection. There is no free lunch.
if you order from an affiliate in your sate - it is the same as a brick and mortor store in the state - when you look at the affiliate. when you look at Amazon.. they are a supplier or the affiliate - and there for the fact that the Affiliate is purchacing it from Amazon for resell means
Affiliates are not buying from Amazon then selling to other buyers. When someone clicks on an affiliates link that link goes to Amazon. All the affiliate is doing is providing that link. Amazon itself takes the order and fulfills it. It then gives or credits money to the affiliate. Look at one of slashodt's affiliate links, for the book A Practical Guide to Ubuntu Linux 2nd ed." Down at the bottom of the review you'll see a link to Amazon with slashdot as part of the url: http://www.amazon.com/dp/0137003889/ref=nosim/?tag=slashdot0c-20.
I think the attitude of "We should try to keep *things* cheap" has done a lot to destroy a lot of what was nice about the United States. I'd rather to see things cost a little as rational but not so little we're driving small businesses & communities to bankruptcy and supporting a permanent underclass.
And how does keeping "things" cheap destroy "a lot of what was nice about the United States"? No, what's destroying the US is government!!! And how does it drive small businesses out of business? Oh, you must mean Amazon sprang full grown out of the ground and didn't start as a small business. I knew someone who ran a small book store out of a converted house, then she opened an online store as well. After a couple of years she sold the brick and mortar store to someone else because it cost her more yet she made more online. Now by forcing these small online stores to collect the sales tax from different states you're adding to their cost which can drive them out of business.
I myself want to start an online business, as a photographer, and I do not want to pay the extra cost of collecting sales tax from every state I sell photos to residents of. Paying tax for what I sell instate is one thing but having to collect and pay taxes to other states is bad and there is no reason I should have to.
I wouldn't support a broad replacement of income tax with sales tax because of the highly regressive nature of sales taxes.
Oh, I left something out in my previous reply. Sales taxes are not regressive if clothing, food, medicine and other things that are needed for life are not taxed. A sales tax is actually fair because the more you spend the more you pay in tax. On the other hand by taxing income you're taxing work, and many people work hard to make the money they earn. This discourages work.
I was thinking that a national VAT would replace state sales taxes and the bulk of revenue returning to the states anyway.
For many purchases this increases the cost of collecting and distributing taxes. There is no reason a state should tax purchases made that are from businesses that do not have a presence in that state.
my infrastructure pays for parks I enjoy, roads I use, schools which educate the people around me so that they don't all turn to street crime, police to deal with the ones who do, etc.
Fuel tax should pay for roads. Property taxes should pay for schools, fire, parks, and police.
Sales tax is not to defray infrastructure costs associated with the seller. It's to defray what the infrastructure the reciever uses, often in non-sales venues. Roads, schools, etc. But I agree that Portland has choosen to fund those some other way, and RI should not try to grab money.
Roads should be paid for by a tax on fuel, the more you drive and use the roads the more you pay. Schools, and fire and police, should be paid for with property taxes.
I fail to see the distinction between paying sales tax on goods purchased at Amazon and goods purchased in a local Walmart
Except the US Supreme Court has already ruled states can not force out of state businesses to collect sales tax on goods sold to residents of that state, as it interferes with the commerce clause of the Constitution of the USA.
I believe all sales taxes should be abolished in favor or progressive income taxes
And I believe just the opposite. The federal income tax should be abolished, then the size of the federal government cut back to it's Constitutional limits. Once that's done if user fees aren't enough them have a federal sales tax. People should not be taxed for their hard work, just for what they buy and or use and the pollution they create.
Amazon should charge sales tax on those states that pass these laws.
Why should Amazon or any other business pay sales tax to a state they do not operate in? They shouldn't period!!!
The fight is between the citizens of those states and their publicly elected governments, not between Amazon and the government.
This is as it should be between Amazon and those states who would require Amazon to collect taxes for goods sold to residents of those states. Those states are demanding Amazon spent more money to collect and distribute taxes. And the US Supreme Court has already told states they could not do that to a business that was not located in those states that want collect sales taxes from businesses that are not located in the state.
This has everything to do with the commerce clause.
That's right, these states are trying to get around the commerce clause of the Constitution of the USA. And they should not be allowed to. Now if the federal government had stayed within the limits put on it by the Constitution or is forced to then it got rid of or lowered income taxes then states could raise their own taxes to pay their own needs.
The federal fuel tax doesn't come close to paying for road transportation.
That's why fuel taxes should be raised. The tax on fuel should cover the cost of building and maintaining roads. And the more your drive the more you should pay. Now this presents a problem with more fuel efficient vehicles. But a way to solve that is by taxing mileage, miles driven. The first tyme a vehicle is registered the odometer is read. The following year it is read again and the owner is charged a fee based on how many miles they drove. The only problem I see with this is that people may not have an idea of how much they will owe, in which case people may be able to check mileage and pay monthly.
Third, the feds don't even pay for all of the maintenance on U.S. highways and interstates. Your state is paying for some of that too.
And states have their own fuel tax. In New York the total fuel tax including local, state, and federal is 59.7 and in Georgia it's 30.8 cents per gallon.
Slashdot Mirror
Sure Amazon might be the person shipping it or place handeling the money transaction - but you are agreeing to purchase it from a "Affiliate"
this is no diffrent then going to a regional store for goods made and shipped from out side the state.
It is different. The store is a physical presence in the state. Amazon is more than likely not in the state. The affiliate may or may not be. A professor I had in college in Minnesota had his own website for his classes, and it was hosted in Texas. If states are allowed to tax online sales from out of state what state would be paid? Where the person lives or where the host is? Or both? If the person running it is set up as a business he or she is already paying taxes. My sister has her Masters and is a Certified Public Accountant and runs her own accounting business and she has clients all over the nation. Profits she makes from out of state clients she pays state income tax on. She also pays for the office lease and the property owner pays both income and property tax. The owner makes enough from the lease to pay those taxes and make a profit. She has employees which she also pays taxes on.
I want to start my own business, sell locally but also online, as a photographer and I don't want to be forced to collect sales taxes for what I sale to someone in another state. To start I'm looking at joining online stock agencies and some may have have affiliates in different states. While the agency probably would handle taxes I eventually want to open my own online store and I if I have to collect out of state sales taxes I may think it's not worth it. Especially if I use affiliates. If so then both state as well as federal government and the economy will not be helped, whereas if I do start a business it can help. Not only would I be paying income tax but I'd also to be paying my suppliers who would in turn be paying taxes.
Falcon
The US used to have a lot of small businesses which have been closed due to price competition from business like Walmart.
And Amazon's affiliates aren't businesses? Maybe not all right I bet some are run just like that, as businesses. Amazon also uses other businesses too for goods. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more businesses now than just 10 years ago.
The US used to have a large and vibrant small family farm / produce sales.
Oh I agree but that's not because of Amazon. That is because large agribusinesses receive billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. Archer Daniels Midland, ADM, and Cargill alone each receive billions. Amazon does not receive subsidies. Here's a list of subsidies Cargill gets from Belgium, and Cargill is one of the largest private US corporations. Fact is is small farmers are not the main beneficiary of farm subsidies. And I have railed against farm subsides for years.
Now the family farm is a myth, and Americans consume industrialized food products manufactured by large transnational corporations and shipped around the world.
No, small family farms still exist. I am a member of two member owned co-ops and they both support both organic and local farms. All over the US both community supported agriculture or CSA which both of my co-ops sell shares in, and farmers markets are booming. Farmers markets are even blooming at hospitals.
The government is just people. If you have a problem with them, I would suggest that you not vote for parties who think the government is bad and want to "strangle it in a bath tub". They've long since proven disastrously incapable of governance.
I vote, yes I vote, for people not parties. For each position I look at what position each candidate takes then vote for the one that comes closest to my beliefs no matter what party they are from. I have voted for Democrats, Libertarians, Republicans, and Reform Party candidates.
The huge variations of state & local tax codes is, again, not a problem of the Federal Government
Can youn show me where I said it was a problem of the federal government? Or is this FUD?
If you don't like that, don't vote for people who are strongly in favor of states' rights.
Ah but I do favor states' rights, that is one of the issues I look at. However requiring Amazon or any other business that sells online to collect sales taxes in a state they are not located in is not a state right, it directly contravenes the commerce clause of the Constitution of the USA.
Finally I don't buy into your 3 exclamation point hysteria.
You're part of the problem of this country, someone who will let politicians do whatever they want instead of holding up the Constitution of the USA. Requiring out of state businesses to collect sales tax for that state is unconstitutional.
Falcon
this way... Think of a Wal-mart. In many Walmarts, there is a fast-food joint, usually some type of salon, an eye doctor of some kind.
And they have their own registers where customers pay. However all Amazon's affiliates do is link to Amazon, where the order is placed. Now if the affiliate actually took orders then your scenario would be correct but it does not work that way. Now if I buy a book online from Barnes and Noble because B&N has stores in my state I would have to pay sales tax on that book.
Falcon
Mail order companies do it all the time for the states they operate in
For the state they have a presence in, but not for every state. The US Supreme Court has already ruled states can not force catalog companies to collect sales taxes for states they do not have a presence in. Using the net is no different.
Falcon
Huh? How so? A customer walks into a store in NC and the price of an item is automatically 7.75% higher than if they bought the same product online. How is that level?
Nothing is stopping that NC store from going online and compeating as well, if they don't it's their own fault.
Falcon
You are taxing the customer - in particular, you're making sure he is paying the tax he is obligated to.
The customer is supposed to pay the tax themself not Amazon. In Minnesota, my state, there is a line on the income tax forms that asks how much you ordered from out of state businesses, you are then required to pay a use tax on those purchases. By requiring Amazon to collect the tax you are adding to Amazon's expenses.
In particular, you are avoiding discriminating local businesses who contribute to their local societies and provide jobs there.
Two problems here, one those local affiliates are part or the local society and they pay taxes. Two, local businesses can start selling online as well, and by doing so expand their business. I knew someone who started a small book store in a converted house. When the internet came along she took her store online. Eventually she sold the brick and mortar store because it cost her more to run and the online store made more money. Another store owner I knew had her son build an online store as well. Some of her customers traveled more than 100 miles to get to her store so when the online store was opened she benefited because they could easily and cheaply visit the online store.
Of course if you look at the internet as an enemy instead of an opportunity then it's your fault if you lose. Amazon, eBay, and others saw the potential and grabbed for the rings. Now their competitors who didn't want to gripe.
Falcon
These are not the only states to impose this type of tax. NY requires collection of sales tax, but Amazon isn't shutting out those affiliates.
Amazon is suing New York though, so to be consistent it would have to spend money to sue every state that demands Amazon collect taxes. That can be more expensive than dropping affiliates.
Falcon
I can remember when the Republican party was the party of fiscal conservatism
I certainly can't recall when Republicans were fiscally conservative. They certainly haven't been since before Reagan maybe Nixon.
Falcon
So why are we already spending tons on health care?
Because we don't have a free market in health care.
Higher than the supposedly expensive Canadian healthcare (which is at around 3K a person).
Yet we have Canadians who can afford to to come to the US to get health care, including surgery. Medical care in Canada is rationed.
The reason health, medical, care is so expensive in the US is because we do not have a free market in medicine.
You either accept that those with no insurance will be turn away and left to fend for them selves or you give basic coverage and reduce the paperwork and control the price inflation of health care.
Making the market in medicine freer will drive costs down. Then for those who still can not afford insurance have the policy issuers contribute to a fund that will cover them. A non-profit like Blue Cross and Blue Shield can run the fund. With a million people looking for private insurance policy issuers will be doing what they can to lower premium costs, as well as different types of policies. A family of four or a single person may only want catastrophic coverage but have Health Savings Accounts for ordinary medical expenses while others may want insurance that covers everything.
Falcon
Half of all bankruptcies involve medical bills. In countries without universal health care, not every citizen can afford the recent drugs, surgery, etc. to keep him alive and working.
Health or medical care costs so much because we do not have a free market in it. There is no free market in health insurance nor is there in medical practice. Nor drugs.
Falcon
State revenues have fallen through the floor. California how has the worst credit record around, and on July 2nd will start issuing IOUs instead of cutting cheques, because they're out of money.
Maybe then California has to cut spending. I know when my income was cut I had to cut spending, and so should governments.
everyone agrees it's not sustainable, and that taxes will have to rise.
No, not everyone agrees taxes have to rise, many say spending has to be cut. Heck even taxpayers know this. When the government gave tax refunds last year, most people used it not to buy more but to pay off some of their debt.
Falcon
The issue is really Amazon dodging any kind of sales tax whatsoever, while still doing business in the state.
Amazon is not dodging taxes if Amazon does not have a presence in the state. And being online does not create that presence.
Falcon
Fuel taxes don't pay for the cost of disposing of the packaging, they don't pay for the cost of recycling the end product
No those who dispose and recycle pay. I have to pay for garbage collection as well as recycling, when I used to be paid to recycle.
Look at the bond issues your local government has to make when they put streets in place - and which residents have to pay for through their municipal taxes.
Those streets should be paid for with fuel tax. If the tax doesn't cover it then raise the tax. Those who use the roads more pay more then, er at least until they buy more fuel efficient vehicles. But when everyone is driving more fuel efficient vehicles then they can be taxed on their mileage.
Falcon
Consumption taxes help pay for your local schools, etc
Sales tax should not be paying for schools, property tax should. It should also pay for fire and police. And fuel tax should pay for roads.
The "tax holiday" was supposed to be temporary
There is no "tax holiday". And buyers are paying taxes. When I've bought online from Amazon part of the price I paid was for shipment, which goes to the shipper. The shipper pays fuel tax when it buys fuel. For downloads buyers also pay. Buyers pay directly for their net access, which the ISP then uses to pay it's own expenses. Sellers also pays for their connection. There is no free lunch.
Falcon
if you order from an affiliate in your sate - it is the same as a brick and mortor store in the state - when you look at the affiliate. when you look at Amazon .. they are a supplier or the affiliate - and there for the fact that the Affiliate is purchacing it from Amazon for resell means
Affiliates are not buying from Amazon then selling to other buyers. When someone clicks on an affiliates link that link goes to Amazon. All the affiliate is doing is providing that link. Amazon itself takes the order and fulfills it. It then gives or credits money to the affiliate. Look at one of slashodt's affiliate links, for the book A Practical Guide to Ubuntu Linux 2nd ed." Down at the bottom of the review you'll see a link to Amazon with slashdot as part of the url:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0137003889/ref=nosim/?tag=slashdot0c-20.
Falcon
I think the attitude of "We should try to keep *things* cheap" has done a lot to destroy a lot of what was nice about the United States. I'd rather to see things cost a little as rational but not so little we're driving small businesses & communities to bankruptcy and supporting a permanent underclass.
And how does keeping "things" cheap destroy "a lot of what was nice about the United States"? No, what's destroying the US is government!!! And how does it drive small businesses out of business? Oh, you must mean Amazon sprang full grown out of the ground and didn't start as a small business. I knew someone who ran a small book store out of a converted house, then she opened an online store as well. After a couple of years she sold the brick and mortar store to someone else because it cost her more yet she made more online. Now by forcing these small online stores to collect the sales tax from different states you're adding to their cost which can drive them out of business.
I myself want to start an online business, as a photographer, and I do not want to pay the extra cost of collecting sales tax from every state I sell photos to residents of. Paying tax for what I sell instate is one thing but having to collect and pay taxes to other states is bad and there is no reason I should have to.
Falcon
I wouldn't support a broad replacement of income tax with sales tax because of the highly regressive nature of sales taxes.
Oh, I left something out in my previous reply. Sales taxes are not regressive if clothing, food, medicine and other things that are needed for life are not taxed. A sales tax is actually fair because the more you spend the more you pay in tax. On the other hand by taxing income you're taxing work, and many people work hard to make the money they earn. This discourages work.
Falcon
I was thinking that a national VAT would replace state sales taxes and the bulk of revenue returning to the states anyway.
For many purchases this increases the cost of collecting and distributing taxes. There is no reason a state should tax purchases made that are from businesses that do not have a presence in that state.
Falcon
I'd rather a sales tax or VAT, as well as usage and pollution taxes rather than an income tax.
Falcon
my infrastructure pays for parks I enjoy, roads I use, schools which educate the people around me so that they don't all turn to street crime, police to deal with the ones who do, etc.
Fuel tax should pay for roads. Property taxes should pay for schools, fire, parks, and police.
Falcon
Sales tax is not to defray infrastructure costs associated with the seller. It's to defray what the infrastructure the reciever uses, often in non-sales venues. Roads, schools, etc. But I agree that Portland has choosen to fund those some other way, and RI should not try to grab money.
Roads should be paid for by a tax on fuel, the more you drive and use the roads the more you pay. Schools, and fire and police, should be paid for with property taxes.
Falcon
I fail to see the distinction between paying sales tax on goods purchased at Amazon and goods purchased in a local Walmart
Except the US Supreme Court has already ruled states can not force out of state businesses to collect sales tax on goods sold to residents of that state, as it interferes with the commerce clause of the Constitution of the USA.
Falcon
I believe all sales taxes should be abolished in favor or progressive income taxes
And I believe just the opposite. The federal income tax should be abolished, then the size of the federal government cut back to it's Constitutional limits. Once that's done if user fees aren't enough them have a federal sales tax. People should not be taxed for their hard work, just for what they buy and or use and the pollution they create.
Amazon should charge sales tax on those states that pass these laws.
Why should Amazon or any other business pay sales tax to a state they do not operate in? They shouldn't period!!!
The fight is between the citizens of those states and their publicly elected governments, not between Amazon and the government.
This is as it should be between Amazon and those states who would require Amazon to collect taxes for goods sold to residents of those states. Those states are demanding Amazon spent more money to collect and distribute taxes. And the US Supreme Court has already told states they could not do that to a business that was not located in those states that want collect sales taxes from businesses that are not located in the state.
This has everything to do with the commerce clause.
That's right, these states are trying to get around the commerce clause of the Constitution of the USA. And they should not be allowed to. Now if the federal government had stayed within the limits put on it by the Constitution or is forced to then it got rid of or lowered income taxes then states could raise their own taxes to pay their own needs.
Falcon
The federal fuel tax doesn't come close to paying for road transportation.
That's why fuel taxes should be raised. The tax on fuel should cover the cost of building and maintaining roads. And the more your drive the more you should pay. Now this presents a problem with more fuel efficient vehicles. But a way to solve that is by taxing mileage, miles driven. The first tyme a vehicle is registered the odometer is read. The following year it is read again and the owner is charged a fee based on how many miles they drove. The only problem I see with this is that people may not have an idea of how much they will owe, in which case people may be able to check mileage and pay monthly.
Third, the feds don't even pay for all of the maintenance on U.S. highways and interstates. Your state is paying for some of that too.
And states have their own fuel tax. In New York the total fuel tax including local, state, and federal is 59.7 and in Georgia it's 30.8 cents per gallon.
Falcon
That is what the Federal tax on fuel is supposed to pay for.
Federal, state, and maybe local fuel taxes.
Falcon