Posted on 04/28/2013 6:02:06 AM PDT by IbJensen
The U.S. Senate is debating the so-called Marketplace Fairness Act. It’s a bill that would result in the taxation of Internet sales, driving up costs for consumers. The legislation cleared a procedural hurdle Monday and could have a floor vote by Thursday.
This is a classic case of where the interests of big business and big government intersect.
But not all businesses are signing on to this new scheme. Etsy, an e-commerce hub where individuals can sell handmade items such as arts and crafts, warned yesterday that the legislation would “unnecessarily burden small businesses. Most Etsy sellers work from home and don’t have the administrative resources to comply with the law.”
According to the Tax Foundation, there are 9,646 tax jurisdictions in the United States, creating the kind of complexity that would frighten any small business.
“How can we possibly know the tax rates in [those] jurisdictions?” said Overstock.com CEO Patrick Byrne. “In one jurisdiction, cotton candy is food; in another it’s entertainment or candy.”
Reason TV’s Nick Gillespie interviewed Byrne in 2009 about why he’s opposed to the plan. Byrne said the Marketplace Fairness Act is anything but fair.
Byrne argued that Internet merchants “put a lot lesser load on a local infrastructure” than a corporation like Target or Walmart. Big corporations not only have multiple storefronts, but they serve employees and their children with roads, sewers, schools, and other buildings.
“We don’t impose nearly that load, so it isn’t fair that we should have to pay those taxes,” Byrne said.
Overstock.com is not the only popular Internet retail company that opposes the bill. One of the biggest critics is eBay, which is attempting to drum up a grassroots rebellion against the Marketplace Fairness Act.
These companies are members of NetChoice, a coalition of e-commerce companies. Executive Director Steve DelBianco said NetChoice opposes the bill because of its incredibly complex sales tax regimes that threaten a fragile economic recovery.
“The bill has never been about helping Main Street, but about helping Big Box stores,” DelBianco said.
If we really wanted to make it “fair” we would eliminate the tax incentives offered to brick and mortar stores to build in our communities in the first place.
First of all, this legislation is not needed. States have what they call “use taxes” which is simply a way to tax out of state purchases the local sales tax. Collection for this tax falls upon the state that has such a law. What this does is limit commerce by forcing other states to collect the tax someone should be paying in their resident state, in other words, making businesses tax collectors for other states, states where the business and its personnel have no vote on those taxes. Utter BS IMO.
It isn’t the business that owes the sales tax on transacted commerce, it is the purchaser. If localities find low compliance on the part of their citizens paying their lawful taxes, maybe the local governments should ponder enacting alternate taxes which would be more difficult to avoid.
While they’re at it force them to remove the onerous taxes on hotels and car rentals.
I’ve thought that they might use that same tactic and impose a special internet tax similar to a Hotel tax. Maybe only one or two percent.
Using the logic that they are leveling the “playing field” with the brick and mortar stores in their taxing district. We all know that the opposite will happen. People will leave those special taxing districts. and then they will go bankrupt even faster than they are now.
1. Tax increases are always used to justify spending increases.
2. Spending increases are always used to justify tax increases.
Repeat 1 and 2 until the system collapses.
If we really wanted to make it “fair” we would require brick and mortar stores to charge shipping and handling and hold whatever you buy for a week before you can actually have it.
Governments rely on sales taxes.
The sales tax revenue is eroding as Internet sales increase.
Government looks for ways to make up the lost revenue.
Income?
Sales?
Property?
Where should they go?
Aha! You nailed it.
If the us government is for it, then I’m against it.
I love that! Going to send it to all my email addresses.
Every time you hear the word “tax”, think about the observation of Justice John Marshall who said “The power to tax involves the power to destroy”. Every word, thought, action, inclination and gesture of the left is absolutely dedicated to the acquisition of that power.
“If it moves, tax it...”
A simple “bipartisan” solution that Congress would love: a flat 11% tax regardless of where the buyer & seller live (unless located in the same state) paid to the IRS, which then divies it out to the proper jurisdictions, keeping any overage!
I’m sure McCain & Graham would co-sponsor it, if Dirty Harry & Biden asked them to.
I shouldn’t give them ideas.
Assuming there is such a thing as “lost revenue”...
Maybe quit giving businesses 5 or 10 year property tax “incentives” to build, then move on at the end of the tax breaks.
Maybe find ways to live within their means.
Maybe I could think of a place or three they could go, but it is Sunday; nor do I want to get the Mods riled at me.
I had an internet site try to collect sales tax from me once-here’s the problem. My mailing address is a city that has a sales tax. However, my residence is not within the actual city limits. When I called them they accepted my point and took off the tax, but I’m going to be pretty pissed if I have to that for every internet order I make in the future.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.