View Full Version : WH Endorses Internet Sales Tax
Shell game.
http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/white-house-endorses-internet-sales-tax_718208.html
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.
Although States presently have the authority to tax the sale of goods or services sold from out-of-state vendors, they are prevented under current law from requiring the collection of such duly-enacted taxes. As a consequence, while local small business retailers follow the law and collect sales taxes from customers who make purchases in their stores, many big business online and catalog retailers do not collect the same taxes. Because these out-of-state companies are able to play by a different set of rules, this disparity undermines the ability of cities and States to invest in K-12 education, police and fire protection, access to affordable health care, and funding for roads and bridges. This bill would eliminate the unfair advantage currently enjoyed by big out-of-state online companies over local neighborhood-based small businesses.
In recent years, collection technologies have improved and States have made significant strides to cut red tape and simplify their tax systems. At the same time, Internet-facilitated sales continue to grow as a share of total transactions, contributing to ongoing State budget pressures. In recognition of these developments, a broad and growing group of bipartisan State and Federal leaders — including governors, mayors, business and labor groups, and members of Congress from both parties — has called for commonsense Federal legislation to make the system more fair.
Snip
You wonder why Amazon and WalMart support this bill?
They have the bucks to run the software programs to track the thousands of different tax laws - state, county and local - across the nation.
This will hammer small business - as usual.
But notice it's targeted at the end user - Me - not the point of origin - the seller.
If I drive to a retail building I pay tax for that location. If I buy from an online business why don't I just be charged tax for that location? That would be simple.
Instead they want to make the seller conform to all the tax laws in all the states, counties and local governments.
Money Grab.
This bill would kill "Mom and Pop" internet sites. Why the efe would anyone want to do that? Aren't all revenue bills supposed to start in the House (Article 1, Section 7) anyway?
[QUOTe
"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,"
Snip[/QUOTE]
I don't think I have ever been able to purchase something online, whether from a small company or a large, without paying sales tax. It's alwayz calculated once I put my address in. What I want to know is how $.743 sales tax levels the playing field. The state I live in has a 6% sales tax-am I going to be penalized for buying something that I can't obtain in my area?
On a side note-when ever I hear a politician say it's 'just common sense', I'm pretty much positive the next sentence is going to be the exact opposite.
Even with a tax for internet sales, many consumers are probably still saving money as they get to bypass the cost of driving to a store (at $0.56/mile). Meanwhile, on line businesses can still avoid the rents they'd have to pay by having an establishment that provided adequate parking for IRL customers--costs that get passed along to consumers and to local tax payers.
This bill would kill "Mom and Pop" internet sites. Why the efe would anyone want to do that? Aren't all revenue bills supposed to start in the House (Article 1, Section 7) anyway?
"Because these out-of-state companies are able to play by a different set of rules, this disparity undermines the ability of cities and States to invest in K-12 education (indoctrination of kids into the lib ideology), police and fire protection (Fed payroll/unions), access to affordable health care (Obamacare), and funding for roads and bridges (shovel-ready jobs)."
Same ol' BS from '07.
GratefulCitizen
04-22-2013, 17:59
The tax won't help local businesses, as it's not the significant part of the price advantage.
The Internet connects distant buyers and sellers, disrupting the old profit model based on local distribution monopolies.
Now the distribution monopoly is dominated by UPS and FedEx.
The tax won't help local businesses, as it's not the significant part of the price advantage.
The Internet connects distant buyers and sellers, disrupting the old profit model based on local distribution monopolies.
Now the distribution monopoly is dominated by UPS and FedEx.
I think their reasoning is, "Look - you still have to pay state tax + shipping. Is it worth it? It might be less to look and shop locally for a number of things - not always, but worth the look. Just sayin'..."
I think the intentions are good - whether or not it would change accepted behaviors or benefit anyone is TBD.
Richard :munchin
No tax intention is ever good. Their appetite is voracious and insatiable. It is just another way to get money. I do alot of internet shopping and there are MANY companies that do not charge tax. Each state is different and it would be more of an economical burden for small companies to have the kind of software required to decipher and charge all the different local and state taxes. There is reason that Amazon and Walmart support this.
..... Is it worth it? It might be less to look and shop locally for a number of things - not always, but worth the look. Just sayin'...".................... :munchin
Being tall and large with a size 14 foot there is no reason to shop local. I can spend the day just trying to find a pair of shoes that fit.
Pants? For some reason as the waist gets larger the legs get shorter.
Shirts? Forget about it.
Shop on line? I do it because I can plug in a size and style (like cargo pants) and get dozens of sites with my size.
Besides - I hate going to the Mall.
Red Flag 1
04-22-2013, 19:04
No tax intention is ever good. Their appetite is voracious and insatiable. It is just another way to get money. I do alot of internet shopping and there are MANY companies that do not charge tax. Each state is different and it would be more of an economical burden for small companies to have the kind of software required to decipher and charge all the different local and state taxes. There is reason that Amazon and Walmart support this.
I can't help but think that it is a simple, unthinking grab for money. it has little thought behind he proposal, just the typical, shallow, greedy quest for bucks from it's citizens.
RF 1
Last hard class
04-22-2013, 19:09
A free market should reward companies with a competitive advantage. Selective taxation should not be the competitive advantage that allows companies to succeed.
Depending on the sale, the tax advantage is very real. Just ask Best Buy.
Amazon fought this for years. They are behind it now because they have achieved an economy of scale that will benefit them over small business. More importantly, they have also recently begun same day delivery which will require warehouses in every state. It is believed this will force them to collect sales taxes just as a local business would. Oddly enough, this will put them at a tax disadvantage to single location on-line retailers if the bill does not pass.
Your average citizen does not realize that just because you didn't pay the sales tax for that online purchase doesn't mean you do not owe the tax.
As internet sales continue to rise so does lost sales tax revenue.
LHC
No tax intention is ever good. Their appetite is voracious and insatiable. It is just another way to get money. I do alot of internet shopping and there are MANY companies that do not charge tax. Each state is different and it would be more of an economical burden for small companies to have the kind of software required to decipher and charge all the different local and state taxes. There is reason that Amazon and Walmart support this.
Well said. No tax is well intentioned. The only purpose of any tax is to raise revenue. For a government to spend. Any time the term "level playing field" is inserted, someone's going to get screwed.
Well said. No tax is well intentioned. The only purpose of any tax is to raise revenue. For a government to spend.
I've experienced life in many so-called "Third World" countires and can only imagine the state of our national infratructure and public and protective services without taxes being levied to support them; I hope to never see such a vision realized.
Richard :munchin
Trapper John
04-22-2013, 19:35
I would have no problem with this if there was a commensurate reduction in the income tax rate. Frankly, and for a variety of reasons, I think we should tax consumption and not tax income. And if a balanced budget amendment was added to the US Constitution, a lot of problems would be solved. But, what do I know? :D
I would have no problem with this if there was a commensurate reduction in the income tax rate. Frankly, and for a variety of reasons, I think we should tax consumption and not tax income. And if a balanced budget amendment was added to the US Constitution, a lot of problems would be solved. But, what do I know? :D
A Balanced Budget Amendment will do nothing without a guillotine enforcement clause. Now there's a cut I can get behind.
Hmmm... Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself.
I would have no problem with this if there was a commensurate reduction in the income tax rate. Frankly, and for a variety of reasons, I think we should tax consumption and not tax income. And if a balanced budget amendment was added to the US Constitution, a lot of problems would be solved. But, what do I know? :D
I agree. I would never advocate that there should be no taxes paid, just a "fair" tax. At the end of the day all Americans use the same services and have a vested in interest in the same things (infrastructure, defense, schools, emergency medical service, police, etc). IMO, We all ought to be paying an equal percentage. Fair or flat.
Team Sergeant
04-22-2013, 19:49
I've experienced life in many so-called "Third World" countires and can only imagine the state of our national infratructure and public and protective services without taxes being levied to support them; I hope to never see such a vision realized.
Richard :munchin
And in all my years I've never seen a government waste so much money in so little time. We're now seeing large US cities going bankrupt due to socialist ideals and crazy wasteful spending. Never in my life has out of control gov spending botherd me so much. This train wreck isn't over yet...
Lawmakers warn cost of federal free phone program spinning out of control
By Jim Angle
Published April 22, 2013
FoxNews.com
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/22/lawmakers-warn-cost-federal-free-phone-program-spinning-out-control/
IMO - taxes are one thing, waste is another; one is necesary and the other is something to be attacked at all levels of society.
Richard :munchin
I've experienced life in many so-called "Third World" countires and can only imagine the state of our national infratructure and public and protective services without taxes being levied to support them; I hope to never see such a vision realized.
Richard :munchin
Richard, what you say is true. I, too, have spent several years in many of the same countries, I'm sure. However, there are extremes. And I do firmly believe that we are approaching an extreme. And, I can say that many of the people that I work with who supported the current administration are being to feel the same way. When the payroll tax holiday expired in Jan., people making $12-14/hour found themselves bringing home $60-80 less per month. In Jan. 2014, these same people will be paying $100/month more for their employee contribution to their company provided health insurance. There is a serious discussion of a 9 cent/gallon federal gasoline sales tax. Taxes are a necessary "evil" for all the points that you made. They buy all that plus: Yarborough knives, body armor, Israeli dressings. But without a balanced budget and entitlement reform, that will even hit those of us that are retired military (I am one,) this country is destined for more dissention and tough times. For all. Those of us who make six figures as well as those of us just above the poverty line.
On a lighter note, it is interesting how those of us in health care tend to be more conservative in our views, while those of us in education are more liberal. And both professions are fairly altruistic, at least in theory. Congratulations on your nice note from your former student. It is always nice to know that you've made a difference in a young person's life.
Maybe it is a question of timing. Taxes are a price we pay for a civilized society, but...
IMO, meaningfully reducing wasteful government spending before providing .GOV more easy access to additional revenue appeals to me.
IMO, government spending has become like the worst stereotypical drug addict...and all they both want is more, more, more.
Dozer523
04-22-2013, 21:29
Personally, I'm really happy Pete can shop on line. we need to do whatever it takes to preserve his on-line stay-at-home shopping experience:)
Personally, I'm really happy Pete can shop on line. we need to do whatever it takes to preserve his on-line stay-at-home shopping experience:)
And IMO there's the crux of the issue - change - whether painful, moderately painful, or just plain different...with its inherent benefit to some and disadvantage to others no matter what the proposal's advocates claim.
Taxation was an issue with the Articles of Confederation and remains an issue today.
Richard :munchin
miclo18d
04-23-2013, 04:47
I've experienced life in many so-called "Third World" countires and can only imagine the state of our national infratructure and public and protective services without taxes being levied to support them; I hope to never see such a vision realized.
Richard :munchin
It's hard to collect taxes from the tribe in the middle of the Amazon jungle. Or from the population that makes about $100/year.
Not so hard to collect taxes from EVERY single American.
Streck-Fu
04-23-2013, 05:39
Depending on the sale, the tax advantage is very real. Just ask Best Buy.
Amazon fought this for years. They are behind it now because they have achieved an economy of scale that will benefit them over small business. More importantly, they have also recently begun same day delivery which will require warehouses in every state. It is believed this will force them to collect sales taxes just as a local business would. Oddly enough, this will put them at a tax disadvantage to single location on-line retailers if the bill does not pass.
Many states (Indiana, where I live, being one) have passed laws for online retailers with a presence in the state requiring them to collect sales tax. As more of these laws have passed where Amazon has or is putting warehouses, they are trying to get in on the game to control its output to their advatage.
It's not too dissimilar from health insurance companies helping with ObamaCare. If they are going to be forced into it, they may as well try to have a say in the process.
And Amazon has developed a software set to gather this tax information so they get to sell it as well....
Streck-Fu
04-23-2013, 05:43
IMO - taxes are one thing, waste is another; one is necesary and the other is something to be attacked at all levels of society.
Richard :munchin
Some taxation is necessary for the function of a limited government but there is no justification to create taxes to compensate for runaway spending.
It the spending.....
Trapper John
04-23-2013, 05:47
Interestingly, when most congress-critters talk about increasing revenue, they mean taxes. That is only one way to increase revenue. Probably the worst way, but the easiest way for the feeble minded.
Rarely is the discussion about how to increase the standard of living. That requires creative thinking. Only the conservatives have proposed measures to increase efficiency - spending cuts, elimination of wasteful government spending. But that too is only half the equation.
IMO, the key to increasing the standard of living (productivity) is investment in infrastructure (roads, schools, power distribution, energy sources, etc). The money doesn't need to come from increased taxation - stimulate private sector investment instead. For example, the federal government can, through the regional Federal Reserve Banks solicit regional infrastructure projects, vet the projects,and with 30y bonds to be purchased by mutual funds, investors, hedge funds, and pension funds. Repayment of the bonds would be say 50/50 the responsibility of the federal government and the regional issuer. The program could be marketed similar to what was done with War Bonds.
Tax revenue comes solely from consumption taxes. Income tax is repealed and a balanced budget amendment is added to the Constitution.
The cost for the infrastructure investment becomes a long-term liability/contingent liability. The risk is that the infrastructure investment would not increase the GDP sufficiently to pay for the bonds. I would characterize that as low-risk.
The remaining major problem would be entitlement reform. This problem becomes simplified because of (i) the balance budget amendment i.e. no more discussion of raising taxes to pay for it and (ii) commensurate with an increasing standard of living as a result of the infrastructure investment - the private sector will absorb more of the cost of the entitlements e.g. long-term health care, retirement benefits, etc. Why, because people and corporations have more disposable income. And what will they do with it? Invest more! With more investment comes increasing national wealth - Duh! :D
Badger52
04-23-2013, 06:31
A Balanced Budget Amendment will do nothing without a guillotine enforcement clause. Now there's a cut I can get behind.
Hmmm... Maybe I'm getting ahead of myself.Nope, drive on. I have the same issues as Pete when it comes to clothing; takes me 15 minutes to rule-out the local 'dorf' wares. While I'm online shopping want me to pickup any wicker baskets for your legislative 'output'? This online thingy ships all over!
:D
Red Flag 1
04-23-2013, 07:12
I would have no problem with this if there was a commensurate reduction in the income tax rate. Frankly, and for a variety of reasons, I think we should tax consumption and not tax income. And if a balanced budget amendment was added to the US Constitution, a lot of problems would be solved. But, what do I know? :D
Concur. If, the income tax were to vanish; would aa flat Value Added Tax (VAT) be a reasonable move? VAT tax in Germany, and other Europen nations, have had them for years. In the early '80's, German nationals had the luxuryy of a week or two, under Drs orders, of rest and relaxation at some pretty nice spas; all on the government's DM . We do seem to be moving more and more towards the European plan' the VAT would fit right in.
RF 1
The Reaper
04-23-2013, 17:11
Taxing work only punishes those that work, and incentivizes those who do not.
I am sure that the White House supports any and all taxes.
TR