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

Skip to comments.

State Coalition Approves Internet Sales Tax Plan (The Greedy Hand At Work!)
Washington (com)Post ^ | 11/12/2002 | Brian Krebs

Posted on 11/12/2002 5:27:35 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat

Revenue-hungry states today took the first step toward building a national framework for taxing items sold over the Internet.

In a meeting in Chicago, lawmakers and tax officials from 30 states -- including Virginia and the District of Columbia - endorsed a proposal to simplify their tax laws and enter into a voluntary pact to collect online sales taxes.

(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...


TOPICS: Announcements; Business/Economy; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: greed; internet; robbery; taxes
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 next last
The Greedy Hand is now trying hard to steal from your pocketbook. Let these people know you won't stand for it!
1 posted on 11/12/2002 5:27:35 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Any time I buy online, when an attempt is made to charge a Sales Tax, I cancel the sale.

It speaks in the loude$t voice of all. Only if a business has a business presence in my state, can they collect it.

Some people in business tell me they pocket it..In this way, the "Free Shipping" is paid for.

A relative in the computer business tells me that this is the entire basis of computer shows. Most of the fly by night dealers are hundreds of miles away in a few days. They sell 5% off, and charge a 7% sales tax...Which they pocket.

2 posted on 11/12/2002 5:37:12 PM PST by Gorzaloon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Why is the imposition of this tax a manifestation of a Greedy Hand? Could you explaint that?

And, while at that, do you see any other considerations for the imposition of the internet tax?

3 posted on 11/12/2002 5:37:52 PM PST by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
You know the greedy people that run state governments want to destroy the Internet as we have known it. The post office doesn't like it because they think it robs them of revenue, but I have news for them, we would not send that slow mail anyway. Also, I am sick that they want to charge for us to listen to radio stations. You cannot hear all that well if you live where you have a slow connection. But, someday you might go to that big city and buy some advertised product and give them some sales tax money.
4 posted on 11/12/2002 5:39:19 PM PST by HoundsTooth_BP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
I hope these people provoke enough people into anger and action to stop this nonsense. As someone who markets quality items via the internet I have NO interest in what these people are trying to do. They already steal way more than what's a proportionally fair share of my money.
5 posted on 11/12/2002 5:39:24 PM PST by toddst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HoundsTooth_BP
You know it made me angry at Rush that he charges for his Internet radio, so although I like him and listen to him on the radio, I do not go to his web site very often. If he had not done that I would probably put it up for my home page. Rush's position on charging for everything like it was stealing about these music cd's seemed crazy to me too. You can listen to the radio and tape what you want, so what is the difference?
6 posted on 11/12/2002 5:50:04 PM PST by HoundsTooth_BP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Is there a way to find out the names of the people
involved?
These cockroaches won't like it someone turns the light
of public attention on them.
7 posted on 11/12/2002 6:00:59 PM PST by greasepaint
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
Why is the imposition of this tax a manifestation of a Greedy Hand? Could you explaint that?

Absolutely. The term comes from Thomas Paine, as explained in the book of the same name by Amity Shlaes. The Amazon.com review says it very well:

The average family with two wage-earners is now seeing almost 40 percent of its money go to local, state, and federal taxes. "The greedy hand of government"--first described by American revolutionary Thomas Paine--is greedier than ever, creating a situation ripe for tax reform, if not revolt, Shlaes writes. "We think of our forefathers who felt compelled to rebel against the Crown for 'imposing Taxes on us without our consent.' We know we live in a democracy, and so must have chosen this arrangement. Yet nowadays we find ourselves feeling that taxes are imposed on us 'without our consent'," she writes.

What we need are fewer taxes. Not more.

8 posted on 11/12/2002 6:20:09 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
It ignores the fact that sales and use taxes aren't imposed on people who collect them, they are paid by the people doing the buying," Leavitt said.

This part of the article is not true. Collecting sales tax does cost the vendor time and money. It's hardly worth it for the little guy any more. I used to sell computer goods and web hosting online. Now I just sell web hosting. In CT, web hosting is exempt from sales tax. Of course the state still wants you to send in all the paperwork, even when you don't owe them anything.
I think it's much better to have no online sales tax and leave it to the buyer to pay the use tax.
9 posted on 11/12/2002 6:20:27 PM PST by xNavspook
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Leading the "charge" is Utah Republican Governor Leavitt. I guess he doesn't get the message of November 5. We can't blame only the Democrats.
10 posted on 11/12/2002 6:20:32 PM PST by caisson71
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HoundsTooth_BP
You know it made me angry at Rush that he charges for his Internet radio, so although I like him and listen to him on the radio, I do not go to his web site very often.

Why does it make you angry? You aren't forced to purchase his product. He has a lot of stuff for free on the site. I think he's doing a great job--practicing the capitalism he preaches.

I am not a subscriber to Rush's site, but I'm not mad at him for making extra $$ on the 'net.

He's got a point about downloading music, though I must admit for me personally, it has resulted, I know, in me buying more music than I had before. I'll download some stuff from an artist I've only heard once or twice, and then if I like it I'll go buy a CD. File sharing, in my case, has resulted in MORE CD sales for the RIAA.

11 posted on 11/12/2002 6:25:14 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
What we need are fewer taxes. Not more. That is an incorrect conclusion from the premise. What we need is lower total tax. This is what motivated my question.

The absence of taxation on internet hurts small businessman with brick and mortar shops. That is both unfair and unproductive (creates allocative distortions). What one needs to do is to introduce an internet tax and reduce the current tax liability.

12 posted on 11/12/2002 6:25:27 PM PST by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: HoundsTooth_BP
I listen to Rush's internet broadcast and have never paid for it.
13 posted on 11/12/2002 6:25:39 PM PST by razorbak
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
That is an incorrect conclusion from the premise. What we need is lower total tax. This is what motivated my question.
The absence of taxation on internet hurts small businessman with brick and mortar shops. That is both unfair and unproductive (creates allocative distortions). What one needs to do is to introduce an internet tax and reduce the current tax liability.

I think your conclusion is partially wrong. The solution to helping a brick and mortar business is not to impose more taxes on the users of internet commerce. Who is keeping the brick and mortar businessman from entering cyberspace? No one.

Although we do agree the current tax liability should be reduced. :)

14 posted on 11/12/2002 6:30:49 PM PST by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: HoundsTooth_BP
You know it made me angry at Rush that he charges for his Internet radio,

Are you dysfunctional or something?

He CHARGES for the SERVICE of re-playing a broadcast, but his LIVE internet broadcast can be had FOR FREE ...

(You DON'T THINK that it takes real, live RESOURCES to provide ANY kind of service on the internet?)

15 posted on 11/12/2002 6:33:22 PM PST by _Jim
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
The absence of taxation on internet hurts small businessman with brick and mortar shops.

Catalog sales (paper) don't charge sales tax for out-of-State sales. Are you suggesting that they be taxed also? Why is the internet any different?

16 posted on 11/12/2002 6:38:41 PM PST by rivercat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
(You aren't forced to purchase his product. He has a lot of stuff for free on the site. I think he's doing a great job--practicing the capitalism he preaches.)

Yes, he has a right to do that. I am sure he wants me to listen to him on the radio, so why not the net. It seems that sometimes one gets greedy. But that is okay, I hope he makes all the money he wants too, I just am not going to pay for it in that way. My main complaint is the stopping of radio stations sending out the radio Internet at the same time the station is playing, because I live in a rural area where I do not get those stations. I cannot see how that hurts anyone.
17 posted on 11/12/2002 6:40:24 PM PST by HoundsTooth_BP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
" The absence of taxation on internet hurts small businessman with brick and mortar shops."

You are flying into the face of the premise of free enterprise. I own both. I set up two seperate companies, one brick and mortar and to exploit my volume discounts an internet resale company also. I now dedicate 80% of my resources to the internet business because my cost structure is lower AND I am not being over-regulated to death nor overtaxed to death. If you are trying to use taxation to structure social policy to preserve brick and mortar shops, then you are no better than the tax and spend Pelosis and Kennedys of this world.

"That is both unfair and unproductive (creates allocative distortions)."

Another false premise. Most of my older customers now prefer to deal with my internet company? Why? Because I can sell at a lower cost. Someone has to manufacture the goods I sell. So I cut back on my local employment (thank you Workman's comp and a multitude of other absurd taxes) and increased what I purchased from the manufacturer because I could afford to charge lower prices to my clients and make a higher profit. Overhead is reduced. Customers are happier and I get a higher market share. It's called capitalism. It also introduces efficiency into the market place which is a requirement for growth in any industry. If you want a "fair" economy, move to Cuba or France.

"What one needs to do is to introduce an internet tax and reduce the current tax liability."

I apologize in advance for this:

BWHWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH

Since when the hell has any government EVER reduced the tax level AFTER a new tax has been intorduced???? We are still paying a telephone excise tax that was introduced in 1898 to pay for the Spanish-American War!!!!!!

I'm sorry but your statements ring hollow. They sound like those of my competition which has been whalloped by my business because they were not nimble and I was. You want a liberal solution to a business problem. Government does not make things fair or equal. Government action distorts and slows down free enterprise and innovation.
18 posted on 11/12/2002 6:41:35 PM PST by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: HoundsTooth_BP
If any company wants to charge for a service they have the right to. The day we introduce regulations forcing companies to share their goods to be "fair" then we might as well remove the stars and put the hammer and sickle on the flag instead.
19 posted on 11/12/2002 6:43:23 PM PST by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: razorbak
(I listen to Rush's internet broadcast and have never paid for it.) Yes, when he is playing on the air you can go to his website and listen. What I was referring to is that radio stations around the country can play his show, but they can no longer send it out on the Internet. You must go to his website to listen. Hope you understand what I mean.
20 posted on 11/12/2002 6:44:48 PM PST by HoundsTooth_BP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: _Jim
Are you dysfunctional or something?

He CHARGES for the SERVICE of re-playing a broadcast, but his LIVE internet broadcast can be had FOR FREE ...

(You DON'T THINK that it takes real, live RESOURCES to provide ANY kind of service on the internet?)


You don't have to get nasty. He has a perfect right to charge for re-playing a broadcast, and yes, his LIVE broadcast is for FREE....but my point is he wants us to listen on our radio to him and we can tape it off the radio for later if we want to, in fact, I have some songs. Anyway
radio station IMHO already pay for his show and I think they should be allowed to send out their LIVE broadcasts anyway they want too, including REAL PLAYER. If you all want to pay for re-play more power to you.
21 posted on 11/12/2002 6:53:22 PM PST by HoundsTooth_BP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
I say let the states exercise their perrogatives with regard to taxes on Internet sales, subject of course to any constraints imposed by that pesky ol' US Constitution. I mean, it's just not logical that a more efficient means of making purchases should not be taxed simply by virtue of its efficiency.

It amazes me how many of my fellow conservatives will gripe about new taxes and yet exert so little effort to lift existing tax burdens.

22 posted on 11/12/2002 6:53:48 PM PST by The Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Nuke'm Glowing
If any company wants to charge for a service they have the right to. The day we introduce regulations forcing companies to share their goods to be "fair" then we might as well remove the stars and put the hammer and sickle on the flag instead.


You make a giant leap. All I am saying is that I liked the Internet without regulations. I believe in freedom and charging whatever you want.
23 posted on 11/12/2002 7:19:03 PM PST by HoundsTooth_BP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Who is keeping the brick and mortar businessman from entering cyberspace? No one. Now, you assume that this is a good thing, entering the cyberspace. Firstly, this is just an assumption. Secondly, this is not how economy functions and distortions appear: I did not say that that the tax will help them: it with stop what is hurting them now. Again, there is a difference.

If you disagree, that is fine, but you may want to read on the distortionary effects of taxation. In essence, it moves the capitale differently from where it would have gone in the absence of tax. The amount of tax affects the size of the capital, but the unequal taxation creates perverted incentives as to where the already reduced capital flows. The size and structure are different things.

24 posted on 11/12/2002 7:38:30 PM PST by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dcam
To the best of my knowledge, catalogue sales are taxed if the seller has a brick-and-mortar site in your state.

I personally do not have a detailed opinion on the matter because that requires a detailed study. However, a simple dismissal of any tax is wrong for the reasons I mentioned. It is also wrong --- and that was the motivation for my original post --- to be against that tax because we think that the tax burden is high.

In sum, I do no pretend to know what is completely "right," that is, best in this situation. But that does not preclude one to recognize some wrong arguments, does it?

25 posted on 11/12/2002 7:42:27 PM PST by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Nuke'm Glowing
Sorry to disappoint you with my "hollow statements," but you do not seem to know the difference between knowledge and anecdotal evidence.

I own both. I set up two seperate companies, one brick and mortar and to exploit my volume discounts an internet resale company also. GOod for you. It may work in your sector, with good you provide, with segment of the market you serve.

Even in this area you have no idea (unless you have done research and not sales) who has left you. Your remark is a great example of an error of many practitioners: they listen to their customers. That's easy: what is hard is to listen to those who are not your customers.

trying to use taxation to structure social policy to preserve brick and mortar shops, then you are no better than the tax and spend Pelosis and Kennedys of this world. I did not say that, you did.

Another false premise. Most of my older customers now prefer to deal with my internet company? That is among your customers. Another example of how little knowlege is more dangerous than none at all.

efficiency into the market place which is a requirement for growth in any industry. Look, you may be a suceessful businessman --- and I am happy for you if you are. BUt why don't you stick to business and do not assume that economy and your business is the same thing.

Efficiency sometimes exludes people from the market entirely. It's not your responsibility to take care of them as you are running a business, but it is a responsibility of those who are running the economy.

If you want a "fair" economy, move to Cuba or France. It's a deal: I'll do that if you finish college first.

I apologize in advance for this: BWHWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHM No need to apologize: we are laughing together.

ce when the hell has any government EVER reduced the tax level AFTER a new tax has been intorduced???? Again, learn to read before you laugh: I did not say that the internet tax should be reduced.

You want a liberal solution to a business problem.

That's all you have told us so far: that you are a businessman. But you are discussing not business but the economy. The business class is down the hall; you are in a wrong room. Government action distorts and slows down free enterprise and innovation.

We finally agree on something: it does distort and it does slow priovate enterprize. This is because enterpreneurs like you can only produce private goods and someone has to take care of public ones.

So stick with what you do best: produce your private goods. Just understand that this is not all the universe consists of, and be a little humble: there is knowledge beyond what you see in your own store.

26 posted on 11/12/2002 7:58:30 PM PST by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Nuke'm Glowing
Since when the hell has any government EVER reduced the tax level AFTER a new tax has been intorduced????

In 2001, the Bush administration and a Republican Congress reduced income tax rates. At the same time, they created a plan to eliminate the death tax altogether.

Sales taxes do seem to only increase, though. I'm sure there have been instances in history where they've been reduced, but I can't think of any.

Also, the point needs to be made to sales tax advocates that this plan is essentially a national sales tax. The fears of sales tax opponents have come to pass -- a national sales tax without the repeal of the income tax. The pro-sales-tax crowd never fully thought through the economic consequences of their tax. Neither did they consider the practical consequences we see in this article. In short, sales tax advocates don't think.

27 posted on 11/12/2002 8:13:34 PM PST by SolidSupplySide
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat

TAX! TAX! TAX!

The ignorant, socialist boogers just don't get it. THERE"S TOO MUCH TAX NOW!

Here in the rat run socialist stronghold of Pittsburgh not only are we shackled to a never-ending one percent addition to our local sales tax, but Mayor Murph the Smurph is proposing a new half percent payroll tax as well as a 10 percent tax on each alcholic drink. The city is on the brink of bankruptcy, facing a huge budget shortfall.

Property taxes are way out of sight, and many people are being forced out of their homes.

Adding to the mix is the Governor Elect Fast Eddie Rendell who wants to do to the state what he did as mayor to Philadelphia.

The internet tax agreement is icing on the cake, and it affects everyone. As I see it the plan is just another attack by buggy whip manufacturers to stave off The Future.

Pittsburgh and Pennsylvania taxpayers bend over and grab your ankles! The next couple of year are NOT gonna be easy.

prisoner6

28 posted on 11/12/2002 10:55:40 PM PST by prisoner6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Gorzaloon
Some people in business tell me they pocket it..In this way, the "Free Shipping" is paid for.

In my reply I mentioned a new local tax being proposed in Pittsburgh. The Mayor would like to add a ten perent tax to each and every alcoholic beverage served.

When I talked about it with the owner of the local watering hole I frequent, he laughed and said with more than a little sarcasm, "Good! I'll pay the city b@st@rds a third and keep the rest for me!"

Now since his bar is located at the intersetion of Pittsburgh and two independent suburbs, he WILL lose customers. But he figures he'll make it up with the money he skims from the new tax.

prisoner6

29 posted on 11/12/2002 11:03:56 PM PST by prisoner6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: prisoner6
You think YOU have it bad??? Try California...we are facing about 10 billion in new taxes thanks to Gray Davis and his out of control spending. He actually said, It's not a spending problem, it's a revenue problem".
30 posted on 11/12/2002 11:12:54 PM PST by Feiny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
I guess you can not take my entire post in it's context. You were the one that made the statement that it's "unfair" to the brick and mortar stores. No one, as another poster stated, prevents the "brick and mortar" businesses from participating in the net explosion. You assume I don't do research. You are very wrong. My segment of the market was traditionally served by the old mom and pop storefronts which plodded along with a less than 10% annual growth rate in my region. Instead of having a "local" business, I now own a statewide business which enables me to increase the buying power and translate that into higher profits. If you are moronic enough to think that taxation policies will create "fairness" (your words not mine) then you obviously must live in one of the liberal fantasy lands that believe in the power of the government to encourage social change.

As a businessman I pay a large number of taxes as does anyone else who participates on the internet. The introduction of state to state sales taxes will discourage the growth of this market segment. Are you really foolish enough to believe that the raw materials were not taxed before they were molded into a final product? Are you really foolish enough to believe I do not pay a substantial income, property and payroll tax for my business? It's the alleged "conservatives" who encourage higher taxation that proves that the so-called Republican party still does not have a true soul in every aspect. Anyone who is in favor of this tax is not a businessman and does not understand how our "economy" works on a larger scale. The more taxation you introduce on business, the higher our prices go. I will not pay for this sales tax, the customers will. And if you think taxation is such a great thing, then explain why the "brick and mortar" businesses are fleeing this country in droves? The Bermuda basing of corporations is to prevent these companies from beign raped any further by the federal government. Until you own a business or create one for that matter, your opinion on taxation is somewhat worthless.
31 posted on 11/13/2002 3:42:57 AM PST by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
He's got a point about downloading music, though I must admit for me personally, it has resulted, I know, in me buying more music than I had before.

I would bet you are in the minority. The music collection of most kids these days consist mainly of MP3s.

32 posted on 11/13/2002 3:47:31 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: SolidSupplySide
" In 2001, the Bush administration and a Republican Congress reduced income tax rates. At the same time, they created a plan to eliminate the death tax altogether."

BFD. That doesn't do squat for my business which is at the highest tax rate. It's great if you are a middle class taxpayer, but for business it's moot. Your point is well taken but I won't believe it until I see it permanently enacted.

" Also, the point needs to be made to sales tax advocates that this plan is essentially a national sales tax. The fears of sales tax opponents have come to pass -- a national sales tax without the repeal of the income tax. The pro-sales-tax crowd never fully thought through the economic consequences of their tax. Neither did they consider the practical consequences we see in this article. In short, sales tax advocates don't think."

Agreed. I am a proponent of a national sales tax but ONLY after a total repeal of the income tax. I knew that once the government figured out a way to introduce this, that the consumer would pay the ultimate price. Since this will be a state by state plan initially, the customers in those states will be the first to feel the effects as I am sure many businesses who are too small to add the overhead will simply refuse to sell to people in those states. As the tax becomes national, it will be what killed the goose that laid the golden egg. So much for the economic recovery once this becomes national. These idiots just have no idea how much damage they can really do.
33 posted on 11/13/2002 3:48:12 AM PST by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Recovering_Democrat
Shoot.........NC has been doing this for some time now. However, the way it's supposed to work: If you buy something online from a company that has a presence of some kind in YOUR state, then they are supposed to collect sales taxes for your state. If they have no presence in your state (no stores, offices, etc.), then they don't have to collect.
34 posted on 11/13/2002 3:50:56 AM PST by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #35 Removed by Moderator

To: billyjoebob
Agreed........but I supposed the logic is this: If you walked into one of their stores up the street and purchased the same item, you'd pay State sales tax. They figure this is the same thing. If they don't have a store in your state, then you wouldn't be buying it from them (if the Internet didn't exist), therefore, they don't expect sales tax to be collected.

..........or something like that...........

36 posted on 11/13/2002 4:39:11 AM PST by RightOnline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: HoundsTooth_BP
"Rush that he charges for his Internet radio"

I have never paid a dime to listen to Rush online. I listen to him most days at work.
37 posted on 11/13/2002 5:13:17 AM PST by calenel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: billyjoebob
"I guess they just dont like being able to control the internet"

That statement sums it all up. They are not going to be happy until they figure out a way to tax email transactions also. This is the beginning of the end of the internet boom. There will still be substantial commerce conducted on the net, but the concept that eBay introduced will soon go away. And can you imagine how much more expensive the B2B sites are going to become. The administrative nightmare to pay each state it's allocation of sales tax is terrifying. Once that's started, it's only a matter of time before the municipalities who charge additional sales taxes join in.
38 posted on 11/13/2002 5:31:13 AM PST by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

Comment #39 Removed by Moderator

Comment #40 Removed by Moderator

To: billyjoebob
Under the proposed legislation (and in some states already) a grandmother selling an old toaster on eBay has to charge sales tax to another individual and file with the state. This is the absurdity of this proposed law. It will turn individuals into criminals (because they won't realize they have to file) and make the filing of sales taxes a nightmare for the small business owner. If it passes, I will talk to my attorney and accountant and decide if it's better to contract my business or just shut it down and move to the islands in the Carribbean. I'm about taxed to death and the idiots who don't think so never looked at the fact that alot of us are getting clipped at a 60% plus rate when you factor in all of the state and local taxes and fees on top of the federal nonsense.
41 posted on 11/13/2002 5:45:32 AM PST by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Nuke'm Glowing
that taxation policies will create "fairness" (your words not mine) As I said, it is hard to conduct a discussion with someone who does not bother or cannot read and yet decides to paint issues with a broad brush.

You can have the last word if you wish.

Best of luck in your business.

42 posted on 11/13/2002 5:47:43 AM PST by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
The absence of taxation on internet hurts small businessman with brick and mortar shops.

Brick and mortar shops use local utilities, fire and police protection, etc. at the point of sale. An internet business isn't using any of these things at the point of the mouse click. Thus, the difference in tax treatment is perfectly fair.

A real-estate tax, charging both the brick and mortar shop and the internet business warehouse at their actual locations where they use local services, would be legitimate, however.

43 posted on 11/13/2002 5:58:54 AM PST by steve-b
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: caisson71
I'm pleased to say Governor Owens of Colorado has consistently imposed this tax.
44 posted on 11/13/2002 6:01:11 AM PST by ffrancone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
Broad brush???? What you are looking at is a microeconomic issue. Since you obviously have never owned or created a successful business, it's apparent that you believe that taxation is the cure to all inequalities or that you believe that there should be a "level playing field" in the business world. B.S. If Microsoft had played by all the rules, they would not dominate the industry. Under your idealism, Packard would still be making cars, Hallicrafters televisions, and we would still be using the internet at 9600 baud. Business is pure Darwinism; the strong survive and prosper, innovation creates strength, and the dissolution of unsuccessful enterprises is part of the natural order. The Chrysler bailout was a boondoggle and violated the way the business world actually works. It also violates the premises of all macroeconomic theory which yes, I studied profusely in college. If you honestly think that the government is the ultimate solution to all economic and social injustice, then you my friend are the narrow minded one. There is not broad brush. It's hardcore reality. The fact that you want businesses to be preserved or given a "fair" playing field demonstrates you lack the concept of absolute capitalism. Here is your quote again:

" The absence of taxation on internet hurts small businessman with brick and mortar shops."

No. What hurts the businessman with brick and mortar shops is a lack of innovation and shortsightedness, period. Someone is always looking to come along and do something better and more profitably. The internet has allowed thousands of enterprising souls to do this without the burden of the "brick and mortar shops" you speak about.

Your other key quote:

"That is both unfair and unproductive (creates allocative distortions)."

Unfair? Progress is unfair??????? Efficiency is unfair? The fact that I've put 3 competitors out of business in my market is unfair? Too bad. That's the price they paid for trying to stick to an extinct business model.

Unproductive? Bunk. It's much more productive to find better business models across the economic scale than it is to continue to do business the same way. The last word is that there are no allocative distortions as you propose. In reality, there is an inherent efficiency of the market which will eventually catch up to my business if I do not continue to innovate and increase my profit margins. Under your two statements, the telegraph would still be the primary mode of communications because it would be government's duty to preserve it as the only accepted mode of communication. The introduction of additional taxation will only have the effect of driving businesses like mine to do what the American public does not understand; relocate overseas and sell into the U.S. to escape the tax entanglements and regulatory environment. I don't have to live here to run an internet business, but it is much more practical. At some point when my profit margin is reduced, then I will either close down, create a new business or relocate to Bermuda or another tax friendly nation. The workers in this nation are screwing themselves out of their jobs depending on the social engineering abilities of the government to solve all of their problems. The creation of a higher tax base will only add to their problems. The final word is that I can only assume based on your statements that you never have owned or created a business. You should try it some time.
45 posted on 11/13/2002 6:06:10 AM PST by Nuke'm Glowing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: RightOnline
I supposed the logic is this: If you walked into one of their stores up the street and purchased the same item, you'd pay State sales tax.

Your logic is correct and it's unconstitutional for a State to tax commerce in another State. The States may try to argue that the transaction takes place on the buyer's computer and is therefore taxable in the buyer's State, or they may perform "use" tax collection for other States, but there will always be States who don't go along with either charade.

46 posted on 11/13/2002 6:26:42 AM PST by palmer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Always Right
Maybe I am in the minority...I am young at heart, but don't consider myself a kid. I can see how college-age people (and those on both immediate sides) would use file sharing software exclusively for new music.
47 posted on 11/13/2002 6:32:54 AM PST by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Nuke'm Glowing
Thanks, Nuke, for making sense from a "real life" perspective. I've engaged the same arguments with Top Quark on this thread, but have been hamstrung because I do not have the first person experience a business owner can provide.
48 posted on 11/13/2002 6:35:29 AM PST by Recovering_Democrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: TopQuark
What one needs to do is to introduce an internet tax and reduce the current tax liability.

No, what one needs to do is to eliminate the current taxes on brick and mortar operations.
49 posted on 11/13/2002 6:38:17 AM PST by aruanan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: aruanan
No, what one needs to do is to eliminate the current taxes on brick and mortar operations. That's it? Just get rid of taxes? So easy, Aruanan. And what will pay for the military? Your voluntary donations?

I just love simplicity of your soluton. Why did not I think of that?

50 posted on 11/13/2002 6:43:39 AM PST by TopQuark
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-56 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