The decision is indeed bad for small business.
On the other hand, internet commerce was killing the sales tax, the alternatives to which
such as income and property taxes, can be a whole lot worse for productive people.
What’s the balance?
I hardly ever buy online. I support the local places instead so this ruling doesn’t affect me much.
And I will never send a penny to Bezos/Amazon which he uses to bash Trump and conservatives through the propaganda filled Washington Post.
When I lived in Wyoming, a free Internet leveled the playing field. Tools, materials, books, etc. which were not available locally were now only a day away. It beats driving to Fort Collins for supplies, in which case Colorado reaps the sales tax, not to mention fuel and time lost. Local Wyoming contractors can compete with big multistate operations at the same level.
South Dakota is similar. The commercial and cultural gains offset the sales tax loss. South Dakotans can also participate as sellers as well as buyers. Lower taxes boost economic output. And like they say, a rising tide lifts all boats.
Another possibly in lieu of a sales tax, would be a delivery tax, where each package delivered by FedEx, UPS, etc would have a dime tax added to it. It essence it would be a flat rate sales tax. Of course the danger is that dime will creep up to a dollar. But at least here, the burden is removed from the seller. And if such a tax were to vary state to state, the delivery companies already have the apparatus in place in all 50 states to handle it.
It's really a complex topic, not well served by my off the cuff remarks.
WRONG. the alternative is simply to have government spend less. How much do you think is too much for the government to take? 70%. 80%. 90%? Fed Income tax. Up to 38%. State income tax. Up to 9% or more. SS Tax 16%. Now sales tax again up to 9%. So 38+9+16+9. Now were up to 70% and that doesnt count property tax motor vehicle tax etc. the supremes are part of the government. It is unlikely that they will restrict the selfsame government that plunders the citizens and pays the supremes.
Defining the location of a sale as happening where the merchant is would requires no additional burden for compliance. They are already set up to pay local and state sales taxes.
Defining the location of a sale as happening where the customer is puts no merchant at a disadvantage just for being in a high sales tax state.
But underlying both remains the notion that the State must be funded and that loopholes must therefore be closed.
This is kinda like Kelo: the government’s need for taxes justifies it taking something from one who pays less in taxes to give to another.
That too depends on the notion that our basic role in society is to fund our government.
And of course you only get there because government is providing services most people could under unexceptional circumstances provide for themselves, or which could be reasonably provided by more local government rather than more centralized. Government that seeks to do good ultimately demands we are here to fund it. Everything becomes a shakedown. They take freedoms and license them back to us, regulated, and the only thing that can’t be touched these days is pretty much sex ... you’re some fascist if you want to do things like outlaw homosexual acts (and soon sex with young children or animals too).
We don’t own our land, our possessions and our our income ... governments appoint themselves to have a claim for all of these, even makes themselves to have the rights of a heir ... really a sales tax was always the best choice compared to those that might be in the hand of local and state governments.
But we will not have balance while government is doing good.