Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

White House Endorses Internet Sales Tax ["Not One Dime" of your taxes will go up?]
Weekly Standard ^ | 4/22/13 | Daniel Halper

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 ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: liar; obama; taxes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last
To: CharlesWayneCT

>As a conservative, I think it should be as easy as possible to have taxes collected

Only if you are conserving using your brain. I guess you think business should collect union dues with their payroll too?


41 posted on 04/22/2013 9:17:50 PM PDT by soycd
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

As someone who buy s a lot of specialty items I can’t get in state over the internet......

He can go screw himself over Valerie Jarrett and Cass Susteins cold reptilian bodies. No doubt he already did this...

The freeking internet commerce is the only damn thing keeping this country somewhat afloat, he does this and it will really put an even worse squeeze on the economy than obamacare, they really see dollar signs every damn time they see an opportunity for F****ING revunue collection.....

Not to mention i know a few people who sell their goods online through a third party seller... They will really be affected...Badly.. they are struggling right now, this will KILL THEM FINANCIALLY....

So pissed off right now...

http://www.wnd.com/2013/04/americans-snapping-by-the-millions/

Yeah, i know how you feel America...


42 posted on 04/22/2013 9:18:32 PM PDT by GraceG
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg

maybe not. The Constitution speaks to bills that raise revenue, but is silent as to the final resting place of said revenue. They could be trying to exercise their interstate commerce power (though I doubt they see a need to seek a source for power). This should raise some interesting questions about state sovereignty. Every out-of-state company is somebody’s in-state company. The Administration’s statement even seeks to treat states differently, by granting the power/responsibility to collect to “only those States and localities that have simplified their sales tax systems...” I haven’t read the bill, and I hope it doesn’t advance to the point where I want to.


43 posted on 04/22/2013 9:21:57 PM PDT by cdcdawg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: cdcdawg
I think one could argue that the limitation on raising revenue applies only to revenue that's paid to the federal government. The instant bill allows states to raise revenues that go directly to the state and local government. They actually already have that authority for businesses physically located in their state.

I don't see a sovereignty issue, since the burden falls on a business which is shipping in interstate commerce. The state's still free to tax that business in any other way it sees fit, and the state's also free to try to achieve competitive advantage by being a state that doesn't charge sales tax on out of state purchases.

Mostly what they're doing is rationalizing what is now a chaotic mess. Addressing the dysfunction that the individual states can't solve on their own is probably a proper use of the commerce power.

44 posted on 04/22/2013 9:56:15 PM PDT by ArmstedFragg (hoaxy dopey changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: cdcdawg

Bottom line: the bill enables the states to collect the money they were already owed from those who weren’t paying it.


45 posted on 04/22/2013 10:00:12 PM PDT by ArmstedFragg (hoaxy dopey changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
I don’t know if I am a law-abiding citizen, or a sucker.I will not insult you by writing what I really think about you being a sucker :)

government at ALL levels is far too powerful and far too wasteful.

Most government bureaucrats are very sadistic. They do very little productive "work."

Any time government gets more money it either p*sses it away or uses it to fill the bureaucracy with more sadistic humans who then go out and harass the truly productive citizens working in the private sector.

Our Founders were right by viewing government as a necessary EVIL.

Our Republic is being destroyed by an insane increase of power at all levels of government.

To sit by and think the government "deserves" or has "rights" to more of our money because they say so with their evil edicts is the height of foolishness and affront to the spirit of our Founding.

In the coming years we will all clearly see the sadistic face of government bear down upon the citizens in horrible ways.

46 posted on 04/22/2013 10:56:49 PM PDT by sand88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg
Mostly what they're doing is rationalizing what is now a chaotic mess. Addressing the dysfunction that the individual states can't solve on their own is probably a proper use of the commerce power.

Huh? do you live in a fantasy world whereby government is the "ideal" of what was envisioned by our Founders.

This bill is nothing but another way the parasite class at all levels will literally STEAL more of the productive output of the overburdened private sector worker.

This evil bill has nothing to do with justice or equality.

It astounds me how many Freepers view another pathway into our pocketbooks as a good.

Only pure evil comes out of any bill that results in more dollars sent to the parasites that infest government.

47 posted on 04/22/2013 11:02:19 PM PDT by sand88
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg
my standing is enhanced if I’m actually paying the taxes I owe.

Suppose we had a law that required you accept soldiers quartered in your home? Now that's plainly unconstitutional, but if we follow your reasoning, we can't question the law unless we diligently obey it.

Therefore the correctness of the argument against a bad law can't depend on your virtue with respect to following said law, correctness must stand or fall on the argument's own merit. Your diligence in observing a bad law doesn't make the law good any more than avoidance of a good law makes the law bad...attacks on your character can not undermine your argument.

The legal system says there's no cause for action anyway when you pay your taxes - there is no dispute. Unfortunately the road to unwinding bad laws via the legal system is expensive and prone to running into blockheads who feel the existence of a law is incontrovertible evidence the existence of the law is not subject to question.

48 posted on 04/23/2013 1:08:21 AM PDT by no-s (when democracy is displaced by tyranny, the armed citizen still gets to vote)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Amazon cuts Ill. ties over sales tax collection
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2687366/posts
Posted on Friday, March 11, 2011 2:30:23 PM by SmithL

my, how things change. now big bidness is in bed with gubmint again...


49 posted on 04/23/2013 4:25:24 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad & lived with his parents most his life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: benldguy

Since when does the Constitution get in their way?

As they compete with big retail, Amazon is advocating for this legislation too, while at the same time they are seeking local tax exemptions across the country to build warehouses.

Typical crony crapitalism.


50 posted on 04/23/2013 4:27:51 AM PDT by TurboZamboni (Marx smelled bad & lived with his parents most his life.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
You are supposed to pay them anyway. Most don’t.

So if you order things on Amazon, and don’t report it on your return, you are a tax cheat.

Yes, taxes are going up. Yes I hate it. But if you don’t like state sales taxes, move to repeal it at the state level.

51 posted on 04/23/2013 5:15:51 AM PDT by redgolum ("God is dead" -- Nietzsche. "Nietzsche is dead" -- God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: soycd

Why would making it easy for people to pay their taxes in any way be related to making it easier for unions to take away your dues? (BTW, I have no idea if businesses collect union dues directly — I imagine they probably do, and it is probably in the union contract, but again that has nothing to do with the issue of whether your taxes should be as easy to pay, and as easy to determine that people are paying, as possible).

I think you believe that if it is really hard for the government to collect taxes, it will somehow mean they will try to tax you less. That doesn’t make sense if that is what you are thinking (not sure of course, and don’t want to put words in your mouth). When it is harder to collect taxes, government responds by setting the taxes higher than necessary, assuming they won’t collect from everybody.

Then, some people who want to be law-abiding make it easier for the government, and the government gets their taxes, while others who don’t want to pay their legal taxes due do things to hide their money and avoid taxes, and the government gives up.

And I argue that this is bad, and is something conservatives should oppose, because we should support taxes being collected fairly, evenly, and from as large a group of people as possible. Spread out the burden as widely as you can, collect fairly from every person, don’t let some get away with not paying, and therefore moving the burden to others.


52 posted on 04/23/2013 12:15:09 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg

The stupid federal “buying a hybrid” credit — that’s another great example of government skewing tax policy to pick winners and losers. Anyway, I bought these cars long ago, so I’ve long since spent that money.

It is absurd. In my state, if I pay extra I can get an “alternative vehicle” license plate. WIth that plate, I get to use the HOV lanes without being HOV. Now, if HOV was meant to save gasoline, or cut pollution, then maybe this would make sense. But since HOV is really about getting cars off the road, it makes no sense to let hybrids use HOV like that.

And now, they are essentially give hybrid owners an incentive, and at the same time charging them more (realize the license plate also cost more, so you were paying a small fee for the service).

I never got the plate, because I don’t commute. I live 3 miles from where I work. And when I do drive distances, I virtually always have other people in the car, so I can use HOV if I want.

But I would prefer if government would just stop handing out special favors, and treat everybody the same.


53 posted on 04/23/2013 12:23:06 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Tigerized
BTW, “rich” people ALREADY pay MORE than their “fair share”, subsidizing almost half of the country with ZERO federal tax liability.

And about the only taxes that DON'T feed into that overtaxing of the rich are sales taxes, which apply equally to everybody based on what they spend. Yes, rich people spend more, so they would pay more, but they control how much they spend, and the tax for a rich person to buy a rocking chair is the same as the tax for a poor person.

So I do not support getting rid of the sales tax, I'd rather get rid of the property tax. Income tax has the advantage of taxing you for money you clearly have, since you just made it. Sales tax gets you for money you clearly had, since you just spent it.

Property tax gets you for what you had a long time ago, and gets you again and again, even if you have no money anymore. Taxing people for what they own to me seems very wrong.

Now, property taxes cover things like the cost of government to support a property. I would prefer that be handled by a residence tax. The road I drive on costs the same for government whether I drove from a townhouse or a mansion. The sewer, water, fire and rescue, even the school costs, are all based on me living here, and do not cost more because my house is worth more.

Anyway, most states have a variety of taxes, so that they can get a steady revenue stream in all types of economies. Kind of like "diversity of investments".

54 posted on 04/23/2013 12:30:30 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: soycd

I think government needs to shrink. I think sales taxes are a good way for the government to collect money needed for the services we need from government. A government that has been limited will still need money, just less of it.

And when we reduce the money the government has, I want to do it by reducing everybody’s taxes, not by letting some people get away with paying no taxes, while others have to pick up the burden for them.

These are two entirely separate issues — how much tax government needs, and how fairly taxes are collected from the citizens.


55 posted on 04/23/2013 12:33:23 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
I would prefer if government would just stop handing out special favors, and treat everybody the same

Yeah, agreed. My other objection is that government is the least efficient possible means of doing good deeds. So, in those circumstances where there's a legitimate rationale for dispensing a favor, not only do the favors get handed out in a manner where the favor doesn't go to those who deserve it, a sizable portion of the "favor" gets eaten up by overhead. The financial incentive for government employees is to operate their function in a manner that requires the maximum amount of government employees.

Somewhere around ten years ago, there was a midwest city that got into financial difficulties, and decided to put the functions of most of its departments out for bid by private contractors. The various departments were ultimately the low bidder in about 90 percent of the cases, but they were able to reach low bid status by laying off employees. Almost every one of those layoffs was an administrative employee. Essentially, they made the government efficient by getting rid of the people who operated the government and keeping those who performed the service.

56 posted on 04/23/2013 1:10:57 PM PDT by ArmstedFragg (hoaxy dopey changey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Not one dime.

A whole LOTTA dimes.

They will never understand that taxation in the sweet spot of the Laffer Curve actually stimulates economic activity, and revenue all the way around. Continuing to pile on taxes, and increasing tax rates, just kills the source of revenue. It ignores the laws of economics, as well as the factor of human choice.


57 posted on 04/23/2013 3:47:37 PM PDT by bootless ("If we lose freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on Earth."~RWR)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper
"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,

Oh BS!

I am a small on-line company. I pay sales tax in my state.

This law will force small businesses like me to close. Why? Because it does not "level the playing field" it tilts it 90 degrees toward the "large out-of-state online companies".

You see this law means I would have to remit taxes to 9,600 tax jurisdictions. I would have to comply with all their rules and regulations.

The software that would allow me to do that costs around $20,000.00

I didn't make that gross last year.

The big boys?

Most of them already do sales tax. Those that don't can afford the software.

This is aimed directly at me and people like me.

Small businesses.

I have worked hard to build my business. Last year I turned a profit.

With this law it becomes, "why bother?"

Obama, GTH!

58 posted on 04/23/2013 3:56:45 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Promotional Fee Paid for by "Ouchies" The Sharp, Prickly Toy You Bathe With!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ArmstedFragg; CharlesWayneCT
Both of you need to read my Post #58.

Ready to have a real "level playing field"?

If you are for this then you must support any and every store asking for id, finding out where you live, charging you the sales tax of that area and sending it in.

Because that is exactly what you are trying to force on me.

59 posted on 04/23/2013 4:03:26 PM PDT by Harmless Teddy Bear (Promotional Fee Paid for by "Ouchies" The Sharp, Prickly Toy You Bathe With!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 56 | View Replies]

To: SoFloFreeper

Admittedly these taxes are on commerce, and he fully expected commerce to have been reduced to zero under his leadership by now.


60 posted on 04/23/2013 4:05:38 PM PDT by Cyber Liberty (I am a dissident. Will you join me? My name is John....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-76 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson