Posted on 04/22/2013 6:37:19 PM PDT by SoFloFreeper
The White House today endorsed the Marketplace Fairness Act, which would be a tax hike for purchases made over the Internet. The White House claims the tax would "level playing field for local retailers."
"The Administration strongly supports S. 743, which will level the playing field for local small business retailers that are in competition every day with large out-of-state online companies," reads the Obama administration's statement on the policy.
(Excerpt) Read more at weeklystandard.com ...
I think I’m one of around 200 people in Virginia who actually pays my Use Tax. I don’t know if I am a law-abiding citizen, or a sucker.
I write my representatives each year to have them eliminate the Use Tax if they aren’t going to enforce it, because it isn’t fair to the few of us who still think our word means something.
Thanks SoFloFreeper.
A Conservative despises taxes... they enable socialist spending because any money the kenyan gets his mitts on... or congress gets its paws on... will be spent and not one dime will go to debt reduction or into reducing the deficit. They might pay down the sequester... which will just restore the growth of spending... and is itself... a fake crisis. NO NEW TAXES... CUT SPENDING!
LLS
“Or maybe you think government shouldn’t exist at all, and doesn’t need any money.”
Or maybe I think government already collects plenty of taxes and WASTES ALL OUR MONEY ON NEEDLESS AND REDUNDANT SOCIAL PROGRAMS, and that giving them these additional tax revenues will only INCREASE THEIR APPETITE TO WASTE MORE OF OUR MONEY.
And maybe I think that if you claim to be a conservative, you should oppose on principle ANY LEGISLATION that makes it easier for any part of the government to collect more of our hard earned money.
If the retail business is any size at all it has products shipped in in large number on large trucks. Online businesses also have other costs: warehouses with all associated costs, administrative staff, warehouse workers to pick orders and folks to pack and ship orders, one order at at time, computer centers and staff. They have just about all the same costs except fancy buildings and retail sales staffs. Staffing is probably not that different for sales staff compared to warehouse and shipping personnel.
And most of the competition to local business is coming from large internet vendors such as Amazon and even Wal-mart. In fact, every retailer of any size is already online and shipping from warehouses because they see the future. It's definitely not just new online startups that are competition from brick and mortar retail stores.
And shipping is a critical cost for online vendors, especially when it comes to smaller dollar orders.
Given the abuse I’ve taken during discussions on this topic during past years, the Freeper consensus is “sucker”. I just have the feeling that if I’m going to battle for responsible use of taxpayer money, my standing is enhanced if I’m actually paying the taxes I owe. And I usually get a more respectful hearing from politicians if I don’t prove my ignorance by claiming that existing taxes are new taxes.
As a conservative, I think it should be as easy as possible to have taxes collected. I don’t want to think that the only reason the government doesn’t tax us more is that it is too hard.
If we are going to fight taxes, we should fight taxes, not fight to keep a byzantine system of special-interest tax policies in place that benefit the well-connected at the expense of the law-abiding.
If the state has too much in tax, we should implement the internet collection, and then get the state government (which is OUR representatives, elected by our vote) to lower the sales tax rate to balance the new revenue.
That way, all people who buy things are paying the same share of taxes, and because the burden is more evenly spread out, everybody can pay a little bit less.
I totally oppose the idea that our government would be better if half the people in the state figured out how to cheat on taxes, so that the entire tax burden was borne by the half of the people who obey the law.
That’s like noting that a department store charges too much for their stuff, an arguing that you should be able to shoplift, because if they crack down on shoplifters, the company will just collect that much more money for their goods. When in fact, if there weren’t people shoplifting, the price in the stores would be a little bit lower for everybody.
Yes, I know that the argument is that the states will NOT lower other taxes, they will just spend the extra money. I’m still for it — because at least then they will be burdening ALL the residents of the state, not just the law-abiding, and if they are going to spend too much, at least I, a law-abiding citizen, might get a little bit more out of the state. I’d rather they lower my taxes, but I’m all for making sure my neighbor pays the same tax if they buy the same product at the same price.
It’s probably worth noting that the burden of any new taxes that are assessed because of the revenue lost to non-payers invariably falls on the honest (because the guys who weren’t paying the old tax also won’t pay any new tax), so encouraging compliance is to your financial benefit.
You know that FedEx also has a large number of products shipped in a large number on large trucks; there’s just the incremental cost of driving the truck to individual homes, instead of a large building.
THe warehouses are a cost, but the local shop probably has a warehouse as well, to store the product they send to the individual stores around the country. If the shop is standalone, they have a warehouse in the back.
They have warehouse workers, which do the same job as the people who unload the trucks for the local shop.
The warehouse is likely in a much lower-cost area than the retail store. They have economy of scale since they can stock a hundred store’s worth of items. The local store has to hire people who spend time with customers — in some cases these local stores are actively trying to stop customers from wasting an hour of time of their hired workers, and then getting on their ipod and ordering the product online for much cheaper.
There’s a reason online items cost less, even with shipping. Heck, I buy from Amazon, and I never pay shipping. I buy $25 worth of stuff at a time. My daughter is Amazon Prime (student, half-price) so she never pays shipping either.
And note that Walmart, which does compete online, collects sales tax, since it has shops in every state.
In fact, it is funny that first you argued that local shops had a cost advantage over the internet companies, and then argue correctly that everybody is going internet because it is so much cheaper.
Whether the internet is the future or not, that determination should NOT be influenced by a tax policy that discriminates against local brick-and-mortar shops and provides competitive advantage to internet companies that purposely do NOT set up shops in states, specifically so they do not have to collect sales taxes, and by not doing so, help their customers cheat on their taxes.
As a conservative, I want my taxes to be neutral in the market, hurting all companies and individuals equally. We should strive to eliminate all market distortions caused by tax policy. And the sales tax is one of the more distorted taxes we have. Which is clear by the very fact that a company like Amazon makes business decisions SPECIFICALLY based on sales tax considerations.
In other words, Amazon knows that setting up a warehouse in Northern Virginia would actually lower their cost of business. BUT, it would require them to collect sales tax from Virginia purchasers, and that skews the economics just enough to keep them from setting up a shop, or in this case, to instead waste money setting up the shipper as a sub-contract instead of part of their business, and thus separating them just enough to avoid the “nexus”.
Let’s let businesses make decisions based on what is the best in the competitive market, without skewing things by tax policy.
I’m a glutton for punishment, so I enjoy these discussions. I do think “sucker”.
And I’ll admit that for the coming year, I’m sorely tempted, because Virginia just introduced new taxes that are grossly unfair — two specifically, one which taxes me MORE just because I bought a hybrid car, and another which taxes me MORE just because I live in Northern Virginia.
I don’t like it when the government picks winners and losers.
Gummint hasn’t been paying attention for a long time:
Art 1, Sec 9, Cl 5:
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
Since it doesn’t say by who, Congress, any State, or the Pope, then it is safe to assume it means what it says.
Bingo!
Can you pay your state “buying a hybrid” tax with your Federal “buying a hybrid” write-off? Zero sum tax policy, my favorite discovery.
I’m still trying to figure out why a tax bill originated in the Senate. I guess I’m old-fashioned in that Constitutional way. I’m sure Mr. Chief Justice Roberts can square that circle for us.
In a slightly different area, although it fits under the rubric of whacko public policy. We have a local law that requires you to clear brush away from your home to reduce fire risk and a state law that prohibits you from clearing brush if there’s any (highly common) protected species in the vicinity. Whatever you do, you’re wrong...
However, the city has a large amount of public park land on which they will sell open space rights which essentially say they won’t do the developing they weren’t going to do any way because it’s a park. So you buy the rights from them, then trade them to the state for the right to clear your land.
and people say government doesn’t produce any revenue...
It’s not a federal tax bill perhaps?
I’ve always wondered very much about the various taxes on tobacco. I mean tobacco is as critical to some of the states well being as cotton or wheat or manufactured goods.
“Maybe you would prefer higher property taxes, or a larger income tax which the liberals can make “progressive” so that rich people pay a lot more than the rest of us.
Or maybe you think government shouldn’t exist at all, and doesn’t need any money.”
Wow, Chuck! What the hell are you doing here?
If you had any ability to read between the lines, you’d see that my point revolves around government ALWAYS looking to increase taxes, NEVER looking to reduce them.
I thought it rather novel to purpose an across-the-board elimination of an onerous tax (9% in California), making those of us with brick and mortar stores in a much inferior position to those who have internet only operations.
I guess I should’ve added a “/sarc” after the post, but I thought most Freepers bright enough to get the thrust of the message.
BTW, “rich” people ALREADY pay MORE than their “fair share”, subsidizing almost half of the country with ZERO federal tax liability.
Frankly, I’d LOVE to see the federal government live within the constraints of our Constitution, and within a balanced budget (as the rest of us “little people” do).
Do you think government should have a blank check, with the people on the hook for their excesses? Your post certainly seems to indicate that.
They WILL HAVE TO tax the Monkey Ward and SCREW-EAS mail catalogs now won’t they?
Wouldn’t that be “fair”
And if they don;t well I smell a loophole...
You got to “amazon” or whatever, browse their online catalog, then you hit a submit button it e-mails the order to the system and e-mails you back a CODE then you call “amazon” back and confirm the order... See see...
Mail order via... Internet “Catalog”
>Or maybe you think government shouldn’t exist at all, and doesn’t need any money.
Sales tax is criminal period. Everything being sold has already been taxed out the wazoo and then the SOBs tax it again and again. Copulate that nonsense.
Government needs to shrink, not expand. Maybe you think otherwise.
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.