Posted on 05/14/2013 9:09:31 AM PDT by Winged Hussar
The Senate recently approved legislation that would allow states to require out-of-state businesses to collect and remit sales tax. The argument in favor of this legislation is "fairness" to brick and mortar retailers, who must collect sales tax in the states in which they are physically present.
Advocates of the Marketplace Fairness Act like to conjure the image of shadowy Internet businesses competing unfairly with the little Mom-and-Pop store on the street corner. The truth is, however, that these Internet businesses are far more likely to compete with entities such as Wal-Mart and Best Buy, all of which have their own websites but will not set their online prices so as to undercut in-store sales. These are the same large retail chains that probably drove Mom and Pop out of business a few decades ago. Best Buy and Target, two of the loudest voices in favor of the Marketplace Fairness Act, have even colluded with municipal authorities to abuse eminent domain to take Mom's and Pop's property for private gain. (The fact that the Supreme Court said this was legal does not differentiate the underlying ethics from those of a shoplifter who switches price tags in a store to pay a lower price than the seller wants, or to "buy" something that is not for sale.)
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
Government getting “its piece of the action” on all private business transactions and should be stopped.
“The argument in favor of this legislation is “fairness” to brick and mortar retailers...”
Then make brick & mortar stores include a shipping charge on their customer’s receipts...just before the sales tax entry.
Yet another Obama-era tax to be passed in the midst of a recession.
If they don’t utterly and permamently destroy the economy, it certainly won’t be for lack of trying.
So, this law would require a merchant who has never lived in my state, has no physical presence in my state, no ties whatsoever to my state, to be forced to become a revenue collection agent for my state?
Call me crazy, but I don’t think this survives SECOND contact with the Supreme Court.
I don’t buy on the internet because they don’t collect sales tax, or even because of the price, which if you include s&h is not much if any, lower than b&m. I shop online because I can get stuff that the local b&m does not, or will not, or cannot stock.
“The argument in favor of this legislation is “fairness” to brick and mortar retailers...”
Then make brick & mortar stores include a shipping charge on their customer’s receipts...just before the sales tax entry.
This bill should be renamed “The Wall Mart and Best Buy Protection act”
Best Buy really took it in the shorts from online computer sellers when customers found out they could buy the same 15 dollar USB cable for 5 dollars and 2 bucks shipping from newegg or amazon.
Government getting “its piece of the action” on all private business transactions and should be stopped.
If this crap gets passed and gets a blessing from the supremes (think Roberts)... How long before the federal government says it can tax online sales because the “box was shipped across state lines” ......
I see this as a litmus for a FEDERAL ONLINE SALES TAX.....
Which would then be used to justify a FULL ON FEDERAL SALES TAX......
Yes, conservative principle number one, attack companies that get large and can provide cheaper products, in order to protect the "mom and pop" businesses.
Anyway, these two companies, and other big companies, support the act because they have to collect sales tax on their internet sales, while Amazon and other large on-line businesses to not.
And there are many large stores that do have different prices online than in the stores -- and Walmart is one of them, I have found items online and went to the store and had to ask for a price match to get the online price.
Some people will do anything to keep from having to pay their sales taxes.
I don’t buy on the internet because they don’t collect sales tax, or even because of the price, which if you include s&h is not much if any, lower than b&m. I shop online because I can get stuff that the local b&m does not, or will not, or cannot stock.
Most the time I get a specialty item from say “amazon” it usually is sold/fulfilled by a small specialty brick and mortar store in another state. So in a weird way I am support another birck and mortar in another state.
So, this law would require a merchant who has never lived in my state, has no physical presence in my state, no ties whatsoever to my state, to be forced to become a revenue collection agent for my state?
Call me crazy, but I don’t think this survives SECOND contact with the Supreme Court.
What if I live in a state that DOESN’T have a sales tax? Will I be taxed if the store is in California (whioch has a sales tax) and I live in Texas which doesn’t?
So you are opposed to all sales taxes? That is a good position — since sales tax is a state matter, if your state has a sales tax, you should call up your representatives and ask them to repeal your state sales tax, and replace it with something else — usually an income tax increase.
Oddly, there are many conservatives who think that a more fair tax system would LOWER or eliminate the income tax, and replace it with a large tax on the purchase of items (like a sales tax), they call it a “consumption tax”.
So, one of your battles will be to convince the conservative supporters of things like “Fairtax” that they are wrong and that taxing private business transactions should be stopped, not increased.
Some people will do anything to keep from having to pay their sales taxes.
The only tax to support the Federal government should only be a tariff, you know like how it used to be...
That also limits the size of “fed/gov”
Congress has the power through the commerce clause to impose this requirement on any business that does interstate commerce.
IN fact, while most of the ways congress uses the commerce clause are ridiculous, this would be firmly within the understanding of that constitutional principle.
That is why congress is doing this legislation — because as the Supreme Court has ruled, it would take an act of congress to make this happen.
Any company that doesn’t want to become a revenue collection agent, under this bill, can avoid it by simply not selling things to people in states that require them to collect sales tax.
If all businesses did this, then the people in those states would rise up and petition THEIR state governments to stop doing this.
But most businesses will find that the sales are worth the effort. And since ALL businesses will have to comply, there won’t be any unfair market forces benefiting some at the expense of others.
A better approach would be to include in the bill a fee process, so that companies are re-imbursed for the task of collecting sales tax.
This isn’t a federal tax. The congress is invoking the commerce clause, to allow the state governments to enforce the sales tax on their residents. It is still a state tax.
And it is a tax that is already due. This isn’t a new tax. It is an enforcement mechanism for an existing tax, because most people who buy online fail to file their taxes for those purchases. They are committing crime, sometimes a felony, but they get away with it because it is a very hard crime to police.
All well and good - but you still haven’t given your justification for businesses in states without a sales being forced to become an unpaid employee (tax collector)of the 9,400+ jurisdictions with sales taxes.
I think the government takes too much money period. I don’t want to remove or reduce a tax to simply add to another.
I wasn’t arguing justification, I was arguing against the point made by the poster.
However, one argument is implicit in my post — the tax is not currently being collected, in 45 states (which is a supermajority), and so those 45 states have petitioned the feds to correct this issue, because it is important to those states to collect the taxes that are properly due by law.
I don’t know why ANY business should have to be an unpaid employee. But that is part and parcel of our overreaching regulatory environment, where businesses do all sorts of government functions, like millions of hours of paperwork for the feds and states.
I’d prefer businesses would all be reimbursed for the work they do for the government. I mean, they are anyway, as they all raise their prices slightly to cover this overhead expense. But I’d rather it be explicit, so people could see how much it costs to have a government.
The businesses in states without a sales tax can avoid having to work for other states by simply refusing to sell products to people living in those other states. That is their choice.
If this law passes, it just means that, as a condition of selling products to people in a state, the business might have to also collect taxes on those sales.
Most states with sales tax get a significant amount of revenue from that tax. I suppose some states could take that hit and still have enough money to do all the jobs required of the state. But I know Virginia probably couldn’t.
Still, the issue is a state issue, and you should fight your state over the issue.
“while Amazon and other large on-line businesses do not.”
Not so. A few months ago I started getting emails from Amazon to ‘buy’ local services, not products. I assumed that this was a prerequisite to start charging local sales tax. I was correct.
Yesterday I made a purchase at Amazon. Local sales taxes were included in the sale. I am not in California where Amazon is based and the shipment is coming from California.
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.