Mitch Daniels going with Marketplace Fairness Act?

posted at 9:50 am on January 21, 2012 by Jazz Shaw

Last year we talked about the simmering battle brewing over the Marketplace Fairness Act, which would set the stage for having states collect sales taxes from internet marketers such as Amazon. Honestly, given that this is, in general, a move which includes the phrase “more taxes,” I initially expected a lot more pushback on it from conservatives, but the issue is obviously more complicated than that. After getting some tacit endorsements from people like Haley Barbour and Mike Pence, it now looks like Mitch Daniels is getting in on the act.

Indiana government officials and the nation’s largest online retailer have reached an agreement to begin collecting Indiana sales tax on Internet purchases.

Indiana will become the fourth state to reach such an agreement with Amazon.com, but Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) said he wants federal legislation to address the online sales tax issue.

“The only complete answer to this problem is a federal solution that treats all retailers and all states the same,” said Daniels in a statement.

We’re not talking about small amounts of money here. The article notes that this move will wind up costing shoppers in just the state of Indiana as much as $75M per year. But I can see the point Daniels is making, at least to a certain extent. First of all, brick and mortar businesses are facing plenty of issues as it is, and competition with online outlets – which by now have firmly established themselves in the marketplace – makes things all the harder. And he’s also right to be concerned that doing it only in some states, such as his, makes living there less attractive if shoppers can save more money elsewhere.

Of course, none of this dulls the pain that many of you will feel at the thought of all your internet shopping suddenly costing more. But while more taxes are always “bad” by definition, in a truly level playing field for the free market economy, everyone needs to compete under the same rules and handicaps, no? I’m still not sure. Your thoughts are welcome.


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3

When the government and maroons like little Mitchie Daniels begin to enforce “market fairness,” then the price of bread in Bread Store No.3 will be the same as the price in Bread Store No. 12.

And when we all have to wear blue Mao suits, everyone will be equal and utopia will come at last.

Or, at least for everyone not an “enemy of the people” in those re-education camps.

Gawd! I try not to hate anyone, but I can’t help myself from loathing all liberals and their twisted idea of the role of government.

Horace on January 21, 2012 at 2:09 PM

We are in an economic depression and all Mitch Daniels compares about is figuring out ways Americans can pay more taxes

Somebody explain to me how this guy got the reputation of being a fiscal conservative, even a liberterian.

The reality is brick and mortar companies have the freedom to close up their shop and become an online company exclusively. They choose not to do that b/c obviously that make profits even despite being forced to impose sales taxes on their customers.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 11:06 AM

Daniels’ rep is phony and it was cultivated primarily in anticipation of a presidential run.

I am pretty much against any tax increase, any time, any where, until I see actual spending cuts.

Big disappointment in Pence here too. He’s pretty much my number #1 choice in 2016 if we lose here and aren’t bankrupt before the next election.

Doomberg on January 21, 2012 at 2:10 PM

One other thing – the slimy term “level the playing field” means we will all starve at the same rate.

Horace on January 21, 2012 at 2:10 PM

I’ve done multistate sales tax administration, and it is a HUGE pain in the nether quarters.

cthulhu on January 21, 2012 at 2:14 PM

Daniels, Pence, Barbour.

A complete set.

They will tax you until you’re completely out of money and then the monthly government blood draws will begin. After that comes the carving out of a pound of flesh every other month.

And all the while they will all be telling you how much they LUV Reagan.

Horace on January 21, 2012 at 2:17 PM

and to think, plenty of HotGasians lament this guy didnt run for president…

chasdal on January 21, 2012 at 2:19 PM

Local retailers have an advantage in that the items are available to the consumer right then. If you really want to make it fair, put a 3-day waiting period on all taxable items in the state.

Let’s see how well that lead balloon goes over….

Odysseus on January 21, 2012 at 2:21 PM

But while more taxes are always “bad” by definition, in a truly level playing field for the free market economy, everyone needs to compete under the same rules and handicaps, no?

Everyone does compete under the same rules and handicaps. If a local retailer decides to sale nationwide, they operate under the same rules that Amazon does. If Amazon decides to locate in that local retailer’s area, Amazon operates under the same rules as that local retailer. If my neighbor gets caught speeding, he gets a speeding ticket. They don’t give me a speeding ticket too in the name of fairness if I’m not speeding.

xblade on January 21, 2012 at 2:21 PM

I can’t wait to be audited by 50 states.

ReaganWasRight on January 21, 2012 at 2:30 PM

Let’s see how well that lead balloon goes over….

Odysseus on January 21, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Well, to be really fair, that hold would have to have a buyout option to turn it into two or one day. Say 2 day would be $20 for each item with a cap of $120 for up to 70 lbs of merchandise. The 1 day hold would be about $60 for each item with a cap of $350.

astonerii on January 21, 2012 at 2:39 PM

There are a few misconceptions floating around in the comments here about how Internet sales tax works, so I’m going to try to clear them up so that hopefully the discussion will not continue to be based on false premises. I am not for the Market Fairness Act nor do I support Daniels, but let’s get our facts straight.

The Internet sales holiday applies to on-line sales in which the buyer lives in a state the seller has no physical prasence. It does NOT exempt all on-line sales for sales taxes currently. For instance, if you live in CA and buy something on eBay from a seller in CA, they are legally supposed to collect sales tax from you according to CA state tax code. A state can regulate companies with physical presences in their state when they sell within that state even if they sell on-line currently.

Now, what Amazon has been doing is saying that their warehouses such as in IN and PA don’t count as physical presences or nexuses because they are held in a different subsidy company. As states are getting cash strapped they are saying, hey, you have a warehouse here, you have a physical presence, you need to be collecting sale taxes to sales in our state as any brick and mortar store who held goods in a warehouse in our state would. Amazon has been fighting states like PA on this for years. Now that they see they are not going to win against individual states and they are growing their warehouse system into more states, they are pushing for all on-line companies to pay in all states so they are not at a disadvantage, hence the Fairness Marketplace thing. Really, Amazon is not one of the good guys here. At least Daniels bought his state until 2014, but yeah, he probably should have spoken against taxes in general, not an overall “fair” system.

rose-of-sharon on January 21, 2012 at 2:40 PM

Local retailers have an advantage in that the items are available to the consumer right then. If you really want to make it fair, put a 3-day waiting period on all taxable items in the state.

Let’s see how well that lead balloon goes over….

Odysseus on January 21, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Good point!!!

Also, why do the “fairness” advocates insist that the DESTINATION should control the tax??? It would be much easier and “fairer” to tax businesses where they are located (SOURCE taxation, just like the brick-and-mortar businesses) so everyone will know what the rate is!!!

Of course, this solution (SOURCE-based sales tax) would encourage competition among taxing districts…and would reward low-tax venues while punishing high-tax venues!!! Is it any mystery why the politicians aren’t discussing this easy-to-understand-and-administer solution which is actually much more “fair” than theirs???

landlines on January 21, 2012 at 2:42 PM

I continue to look forward to the first time you make a comment that isn’t idiotic. And I’ve been really patient…come on, show me that you can.

Jaibones on January 21, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Sucking up to little bald tax hikers seems to be what you think is intelligent.

Daniels and pols like him need to get their greedy hands out of our bank accounts, out of our wallets. Everything is about funding the government in their view.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 2:56 PM

I’m against tax hikes even if we have significant spending cuts. We are not undertaxed this country and it’s not a lack of tax revenue that lead to the out of control spending, deficits, and borrowing.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 2:57 PM

As all taxes are taxes on private property, I would rather have property taxed when it is exchanged in the marketplace rather then when it is sitting inactive.

If we are to use taxes at marketplaces to subsidize both buyer’s and seller’s use of the public commons (e.g a shared currency, an internet to conduct transactions, and so on), then the tax on the transaction to be split between the two, benefiting the geographic commons each benefits and depends upon. Internet seller A should pay a tax to seller A’s public commons, and buyer B should pay a tax to sustaing buyer B’s public commons.

Just keep the tax low so that the velocity of commerce or alternative marketplaces are not made more attractive.

Rosey on January 21, 2012 at 3:19 PM

First, I have to disagree that enforcing sales tax to all consumers is a tax hike. Unless any of us have a legitimate exemption, our purchases are supposed to be subject to sales tax. We’ve been getting a free ride thanks to the internet. Second, if the tax base is expanded then we should realistically expect to see an increase in tax collections whereby we should demand from our representatives a reduction in tax rates and/or reduction in income taxes or property taxes as the states increase revenues from sales tax collections. And finally, there are justifiable government services performed on our behalf for which we, the public, should be expected to contribute to pay for those services. Our legitimate anger should be directed at worthless programs, fraud and abuse within those programs, and tax cheats who find ways to skirt their responsibility to contribute toward paying for the programs whereby the rest of us have to carry a heavier burden.

HoosierStateofMind on January 21, 2012 at 3:20 PM

I live in NC. I just returned from WV where I spent a large amount of money at Cabelas in Wheeling.
 
If this “fairness” law passes, shouldn’t that physical Cabelas store, 500 miles from my home, tax me at my local rate and be required to submit those taxes to the appropriate local authority?
 
If not, why not?

rogerb on January 21, 2012 at 3:26 PM

HoosierStateofMind on January 21, 2012 at 3:20 PM

Is it illegal to disagree with the liberal Mitch Daniels in Hoosier state? Never seen such a sorry politician so worshiped.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 3:26 PM

The Democrat’s tax collectors in the Republican Party are making themselves known.

We are not under taxed! If Daniels, Pence and Barbour want to ‘level the playing field’ then they should be talking about cutting taxes on brick & mortar businesses not helping the Democrats raise taxes.

Listen carefully and when you hear Republicans talking about raising taxes for the Democrats, ever so quickly vote them out of office.

RJL on January 21, 2012 at 3:28 PM

So it’s the lack of an online sales tax that makes brick and mortar businesses unable to compete with companies like Amazon? Prove it.

Knott Buyinit on January 21, 2012 at 3:32 PM

HoosierStateofMind on January 21, 2012 at 3:20 PM

There is nothing to stop you from paying sales tax on your online purchases. There’s probably even a field on your state tax return for you to do so. Why should a business that has no presence in your state collect and pay your taxes?

ReaganWasRight on January 21, 2012 at 3:38 PM

There’s no greed like a politician’s greed!

RJL on January 21, 2012 at 3:39 PM

Where, exactly, does a transaction take place?

When you click on purchasing an item? When the company is not present in your State and the bank account for the seller is not in your State and the financial transaction network that is used by your financial institution is across multiple States and possibly Nations just where, exactly, does the money change hands?

As the delivery is not immediate, which is to say it does not take place at time that is of the immediate transaction of money, but is shipped from a warehouse that may be in a different State or Nation, then where does the transaction for delivering it take place? When you hit ‘enter’ on an order from a web page that is the exact, same thing as sending a paper order via the mails: the mail system is neutral to delivery as is the internet. Where does that transaction take place? It isn’t when you write down the order as you don’t get the goods immediately. Your accounts still have their funds or the intermediary system used holds your cash during transit. When the money is finally withdrawn by the seller they do not have the item at your home for immediate delivery but is delayed.

A sales tax is on a sale of an item at a given place and at a given time, and is done within a State that is within a federalist system that does NOT guarantee an even playing field across all States for sales taxation. It does guarantee that no State will seek to put imposts and duties upon goods from other States, and those States with multiple different sales taxes would be violating that as there is no understood even playing field across the States. Even worse is that the federal government is not designed to take in sales taxes, nor to create them, nor to administer them. If multiple States wish to get together and form a system for doing that, the federal government only needs to insure that they do not step into federal jurisdiction by doing that.

What happened to our Nation where our States do not realize that the unenumerated powers includes doing such things? This is perfectly allowable and so long as a group of States does not violate the constitutional division of powers then the States can do this on their OWN. Those States in such an agreement would still have to accept the transfer of goods to their citizens from other States and Nations, so they had best put a value on ensuring that other States that currently see no reason to take part in such things will find a good reason to do so WITHOUT federal coercion.

This is not a National issue, but an issue for the States exercising the unenumerated taxing power of the sales tax and they have to figure it out for themselves. The federal government isn’t designed to do this, just as it isn’t designed to take part in education, retirement, the environment… it is the same argument against larger government save this is in the area of taxation. Do you really WANT the federal government involved in any WAY with a tax power it isn’t given? How has that worked out in other venues?

ajacksonian on January 21, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Brick and Mortar stores in Indiana are penalized 7% in addition to the overhead of running a storefront. Why are online stores afforded the advantage of not having this penalty? What is special about the online status? Indiana ran a surplus last year. By collecting the $75 million from online retailers, the sales tax rate can be lowered for everybody in the state. That is a good thing! Lower taxes, same revenue!

The fact that Mitch Daniels is called a RINO and Liberal for this is what infuriates me about conservatives. If someone doesn’t agree completely 100% with your political view, you rain down hellfire and fury.

tdarrington on January 21, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Indiana is not going to run surpluses with Daniels’s healthcare scheme. He’s already raised cigareteet taxes to fund it, plus other taxpayers in other states are footing the bill, but it’s still going to have cost overruns and Indiana will run a deficit as a result.

His suppport for taxing sales on the interneti s about him funding his HOoiserCare boondoggle.

This guy isn’t a conservative. He support higher taxes, more taxes, and more government dependency.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 3:47 PM

Companies don’t pay sales taxe….customers do. They past the costs on to the customers.

If companies are not profitable, they are free to go online. Nothing stopping them from doing that.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Danielsi s the kind of pol who sees something not being taxed and it pisses him off. Everything has to be taxed for a guy like Daniels to be happy.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 3:50 PM

Companies don’t pay sales taxe….customers do. They past the costs on to the customers.

If companies are not profitable, they are free to go online. Nothing stopping them from doing that.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 3:49 PM

Ayup

Sultanofsham on January 21, 2012 at 3:52 PM

Any act with the word “fair” in it, will be unfair to taxpayers.

sandspur on January 21, 2012 at 3:52 PM

PROGRESSIVE CODE WORDS:

Equality

Fairness

Justice

Diversity

Tolerance

Compassionate

Re-alignment

Evolving

Transformative

PappyD61 on January 21, 2012 at 3:53 PM

tdarrington on January 21, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Why should a business that is not located in Indiana collect and pay your taxes? Sales taxes are paid by citizens and are not a tax on companies. What if TX decided they wanted to tax sales from its citizens for all out of state purchases? Should a brick and mortar in Indiana be forced to collect and pay taxes to TX when a tourist makes a purchase? Don’t you think that would be an undue burden on any business?

ReaganWasRight on January 21, 2012 at 3:54 PM

First, I have to disagree that enforcing sales tax to all consumers is a tax hike. Unless any of us have a legitimate exemption, our purchases are supposed to be subject to sales tax.

Is that a natural law? Are we endowed by our Creator to pay sales tax? Or is it just another way for the looter class to take away people’s money at the point of a gun? My legitimate objection is the principle of private property. Whatever I earn is mine. Whatever I own is mine. Whatever I buy is mine. The state has nothing but what it is given, or what it takes by force. It is parasitic by nature. It creates nothing.

I agree that there is a social contract. I agree that a citizenry may allow a polity a portion of its wealth in return for providing services that cannot be handled efficiently by the private sector. But the underlying assumption is that property is private; it is something I have that I agree to let the state have. Property is not something that belongs to the state, that they allow us to keep some portion of.

Its not their money, its ours. And just because we let them have this, it does not mean that they can have that, just because they say so.

Mr. Arkadin on January 21, 2012 at 3:55 PM

Brick and Mortar stores in Indiana are penalized 7% in addition to the overhead of running a storefront. Why are online stores afforded the advantage of not having this penalty? What is special about the online status? Indiana ran a surplus last year. By collecting the $75 million from online retailers, the sales tax rate can be lowered for everybody in the state. That is a good thing! Lower taxes, same revenue!
The fact that Mitch Daniels is called a RINO and Liberal for this is what infuriates me about conservatives. If someone doesn’t agree completely 100% with your political view, you rain down hellfire and fury.
tdarrington on January 21, 2012 at 3:42 PM

A-freaking-men.

Lord of the Wings on January 21, 2012 at 3:57 PM

Why are online stores afforded the advantage of not having this penalty? What is special about the online status?
 
tdarrington on January 21, 2012 at 3:42 PM

 
I think it comes into play mostly when you consider where the taxes (penalties) go. Fire? Police? Teachers? Local parks? Libraries? Trash collectors?
 
Does an out-of-state .com need or benefit from any of these? Should they be allowed to somehow vote in local elections if they are forced to collect taxes?
 
Although I don’t agree with it, the “use tax” approach makes the most sense in this situation even though it makes liars and tax cheats out of every single person who files a return.

rogerb on January 21, 2012 at 3:59 PM

State got surplus? Good for you. How about level the playing field by sending that money to CA or NJ?

Maybe because each state is supposed to be responsible for its own affairs?

So it’s ok to force small business owners into becoming indentured tax collectors for states they don’t reside in?

The point is creating more red tape will cripple the small businesses while helping big companies like Amazon and Walmart who already have these systems in place. These rules help them squish the competition.

People who have never been in business and had to comply with the sale tax requirements need to take a back seat.

lctrinity on January 21, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Those that love paying taxes so much, move to Indiana and give more money to Mitch Daniels. You love his greed, so go pay him.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 4:06 PM

Mitch Daniels wants to build monuments to himself, with your tax dollars.

But some want to say he’s a conservative. If you disagree with Mitch Daniels, you are a bad bad person.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 4:08 PM

I continue to look forward to the first time you make a comment that isn’t idiotic. And I’ve been really patient…come on, show me that you can.

Jaibones on January 21, 2012 at 1:29 PM

Sucking up to little bald tax hikers seems to be what you think is intelligent.
Daniels and pols like him need to get their greedy hands out of our bank accounts, out of our wallets. Everything is about funding the government in their view.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 2:56 PM

I don’t think this next one is to idiotic!

I’m against tax hikes even if we have significant spending cuts. We are not undertaxed this country and it’s not a lack of tax revenue that lead to the out of control spending, deficits, and borrowing.
Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 2:57 PM

I know you tire of this Dr….but your meds are working today.

KOOLAID2 on January 21, 2012 at 4:16 PM

Level the playing field? Isn’t that just another way of saying “share the wealth “?

beselfish on January 21, 2012 at 4:23 PM

The free market determines “fairness” and “what the market will bear.”

Horace on January 21, 2012 at 2:04 PM

Did it before the emancipation proclamation? I’m sure we could think of a few exceptions to your rule.

Buddahpundit on January 21, 2012 at 4:24 PM

Yeah I like Daniels, and Pence, but what the hell is this?

I give up on the GOP. When Lincoln represented the young Republican party, we had two national parties who represented small government and states rights; today we have just the opposite.

Daemonocracy on January 21, 2012 at 4:26 PM

By collecting the $75 million from online retailers, the sales tax rate can be lowered for everybody in the state. That is a good thing! Lower taxes, same revenue!

tdarrington on January 21, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Do you really believe that they will cut the sales tax rate for everyone if they are able to slap a $75 million tax on on-line sales?

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but it’s about a 100% sure thing that they already know where they will spend another $100 million with that extra revenue of $75 million.

RJL on January 21, 2012 at 4:27 PM

By collecting the $75 million from online retailers, the sales tax rate can be lowered for everybody in the state.

How about chopping $75 million in stupid from the state budget? Oh, I know. They’ll have to lay off teachers, cops and firefighters!

Mr. Arkadin on January 21, 2012 at 4:29 PM

When Lincoln represented the young Republican party, we had two national parties who represented small government and states rights; today we have just the opposite.

Daemonocracy on January 21, 2012 at 4:26 PM

Wasn’t it the newly born Republican Party that forced a bunch of states into a union against their will?

Buddahpundit on January 21, 2012 at 4:34 PM

Indiana ran a surplus and chose not to spend it, which angered the left. I have no reason to believe that the Pence administration will not lower sales taxes once they start bringing in more revenue next year. This is Indiana, not IL, WI, NY, CA, WA, NJ, etc. Progressives have no home here.

Amazon has several large warehouse complexes in the state, yet because their headquarters are not here, they claim to be an out of state retailer. When I buy from Amazon, my purchase usually comes from 20 miles up the road.

tdarrington on January 21, 2012 at 4:40 PM

Indiana will become the fourth state to reach such an agreement with Amazon.com, but Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) said he wants federal legislation to address the online sales tax issue.

“The only complete answer to this problem is a federal solution that treats all retailers and all states the same,” said Daniels in a statement.

Isn’t this the same BS thinking that led to Obamacare and away from multi-state health insurance shopping?

kim roy on January 21, 2012 at 4:43 PM

I thought it might be helpful to know what the Marketplace Fairness Act is actually going to do. The best explanation I could find on the topic was here: http://www.salestaxsupport.com/blogs/sales-use-tax/internet-tax-ecommerce/main-street-to-marketplace-fairness-acts-sales-tax-2011/

Spend a fun Saturday afternoon wading through that.

What is interesting is the exception for small business under $500,000 in sales volume. Of course that is only going to cover really, really small businesses, but what it would do is give a huge competitive advantage to people who sell on-line as part-time supplement it their or their families income.

rose-of-sharon on January 21, 2012 at 4:44 PM

Wasn’t it the newly born Republican Party that forced a bunch of states into a union against their will?

Buddahpundit on January 21, 2012 at 4:34 PM

What?

Daemonocracy on January 21, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Local retailers have an advantage in that the items are available to the consumer right then. If you really want to make it fair, put a 3-day waiting period on all taxable items in the state.

Let’s see how well that lead balloon goes over….

Odysseus on January 21, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Bingo! That is a big edge to the local retailer.

Look, TAXES are EVIL!

Can’t we agree on that here at HotAir?

The only way I’d be for this is if it is part of the elimination of all taxes by the federal government except tariffs as part of phasing in the Fair Tax, or the national retail sales tax.

Then I might ..consider it.

KirknBurker on January 21, 2012 at 4:56 PM

Sucking up to little bald tax hikers seems to be what you think is intelligent.

Daniels and pols like him need to get their greedy hands out of our bank accounts, out of our wallets. Everything is about funding the government in their view.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 2:56 PM

Actually Daniels did reform Property taxes and Taxes on our license plates and I personally pay less on both counts. He has also taken huge steps to make our Government more efficient and has cut the size the state government.

But most everyone has missing the point – You are rquired to pay state taxes for online purchases already – it’s just not collected by the retailer unless they have a physical presence in the state, which Amazon does in Indidna. Nobody is talking about tax increases, they are just trying to find a way to force people to comply with the law.

One would assume that the Doctor of dumb is a tax cheat like Treasury Tim.

HoosierHawk on January 21, 2012 at 5:24 PM

tdarrington on January 21, 2012 at 3:42 PM

actually its when someone tries to increase our tax burden taht we rain down hellfire and brimstone. govt trying to make things “fair” is what fouls things up in the first place.

and one little observation, if the playing field isnt level between brick-mortar and online stores why is the most commonly accepted solution to impose a burden on the online stores and suck more money out of consumers?? why couldnt daniels, if he is a conservative, propose lowering the taxes brick-mortar stores have to collect? see, now that would be a real conservative solution and something consumers would love!

chasdal on January 21, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Wasn’t it the newly born Republican Party that forced a bunch of states into a union against their will?

Buddahpundit on January 21, 2012 at 4:34 PM

What?

Daemonocracy on January 21, 2012 at 4:52 PM

Is that one of those Hawaiian burgers?

Buddahpundit on January 21, 2012 at 5:35 PM

chasdal on January 21, 2012 at 5:29 PM

Because use tax is the best form of taxation. I would rather he lower my income taxes first. The citizens of Indiana have decided that there are certain services we would like the state to perform (not the Feds). We can remove these services if we choose, but we have them for now. I would rather pay for these things with a consumption tax than income.

tdarrington on January 21, 2012 at 5:37 PM

All this talk about what is “fair” on “unfair” in the comments on this thread make my butt tired.

Let the marketplace decide. Let capitalism separate those who succeed and those who don’t. Quit the Marxist nonsense about the “rich.”

So someone makes more money than you. Well, boo-gd-hoo. Go out and make your own.

My Dad took an eighth grade education and speaking only Czech until he started grade school and turned it into a successful business, supporting and raising three sons, home ownership and a good retirement. Never did whine and bitch about a “level playing field” or what was “fair” or “unfair.” He just worked and made money.

However, most of the moochers and bitchers on this thread seem to want others to support them so they can move out of Mommy’s basement and be really cool. Morons!

“Here’s the best way to do a sales tax, etc.” Well, la, dee, da.
Here’s how to do it – no city, state or federal sales taxes at all.

So, someone has an “advantage” in the marketplace? Unless it is a monopoly, there is no such thing. Some build better mousetraps.

Bill Gates didn’t start “rich.” He started as a college drop-out tinkering in the garage. Same with Steve Jobs.

What right does government, or little Mitchie Daniels, have in telling people how to make decisions on buying or selling? Absent fraud or insider trading, let the market decide.

This country is so far in the Marxist hole due to people like Obama, Daniels, Pence and Barbour that I worry whether or not we will ever see the light of day again.

Horace on January 21, 2012 at 5:39 PM

“our purchases are supposed to be subject to sales tax.”

Oh, really? Who says so? You? Little Mitchie Daniels? Pence the Taxer? Lard Butt Barbour?

And who decides what is “fair” or “unfair?” Very ambiguous terms, while “profit” and “loss” are quite easily objectively quantifiable.

“Level playing field?” Says who? Who decides when it is level? I there a mystic plumb line or leveler we can use to determine this?

Marxist nonsense backed by pay-offs from Hoosier to stifle captialist competition in Indiana.

Our country is declining, and Little Mitchie Daniels wants to squeeze out more taxes from the serfs.

Horace on January 21, 2012 at 5:45 PM

HoosierHawk

Oh my! Little Mitchie Daniels is just like Reagan! Well…except for the fact that he’s about a foot and a half shorter.

Maybe Indiana should dissolve and join eastern Kentucky to form a new state. Would probably double the average Hoosier IQ.

Horace on January 21, 2012 at 5:50 PM

Sorry, but it’s not government’s job to penalize larger companies because people don’t shop at smaller competitors.

You ever buy stuff at a mom & pop store? Outside of occasionally finding rare SEALED games at them, the stuff they sell is overpriced (since they need to make a profit). I like buying things I want for less money than other places sell them at.

mintycrys on January 21, 2012 at 5:51 PM

“The only complete answer to this problem is a federal solution that treats all retailers and all states the same,” said Daniels in a statement.

Amazon has been so successful because most of the time, they have a better price on products than the brick and mortar stores. The convenience is also a factor. I purchased my entire Christmas list online because it was impossible for me to go shopping. Free shipping, no taxes, and doing my shopping in the nude or pajamas, depending on my mood, wins every time.
And, I could give a flying f$#k what Mitch Daniels says. The fact that the party chose this wet noodle to give the retort to the state of the union address during an election year makes me believe these idiots don’t want to win the office. That guy makes Tim Pawlenty look interesting.

RovesChins on January 21, 2012 at 6:03 PM

Brick and Mortar stores in Indiana are penalized 7% in addition to the overhead of running a storefront. Why are online stores afforded the advantage of not having this penalty? What is special about the online status? Indiana ran a surplus last year. By collecting the $75 million from online retailers, the sales tax rate can be lowered for everybody in the state. That is a good thing! Lower taxes, same revenue!

The fact that Mitch Daniels is called a RINO and Liberal for this is what infuriates me about conservatives. If someone doesn’t agree completely 100% with your political view, you rain down hellfire and fury.

tdarrington on January 21, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Indiana taxpayers are ALREADY required to pay taxes on their out-of-state purchases. It’s called Use Tax, and many states (including Indiana) already have it on the books:
http://www.in.gov/dor/files/brochure3.pdf

The problem seems to be that Indianans are tax dodgers, and that their state government is unwilling (or unable) to shoulder the burden of collecting those taxes themselves, so they’re shifting the responsibility to someone else.

spinach.chin on January 21, 2012 at 6:13 PM

“And he’s also right to be concerned that doing it only in some states, such as his, makes living there less attractive if shoppers can save more money elsewhere.”

Yes, but that’s part of just evaluating the tax basis of any state, which every governor should be doing.

Compare that to Washington State, which has a high sales tax, and Oregon, which has a high income tax but no sales tax. (and perhaps the luckiest, people live across the river from Portland to avoid income tax, but come across to shop. )

At the end of the day, the key is to (1) restrain government spending, so you don’t need any sales tax increases to cover spending, and (2) we need to fight the perception of all the darn governors who think this is necessary to protect local businesses.

There is no obligation to support a failing business model over another.

For that, I refer to the masterpiece http://on.wsj.com/zefywo … read it, and understand how all participants try to make you guilty for not subsidizing their business model.

Baloney.

Use what works, and tax them all as little as possible.

PrincetonAl on January 21, 2012 at 6:36 PM

spinach.chin on January 21, 2012 at 6:13 PM

THIS.

ReaganWasRight on January 21, 2012 at 6:39 PM

p0s3r on January 21, 2012 at 12:01 PM

You will have to forgive him for his ignorance and inability to understand the consequences of a given action. He has a liberal arts degree and his instructors taught him liberal logic.

NotCoach on January 21, 2012 at 6:39 PM

Actually Daniels did reform Property taxes and Taxes on our

license plates and I personally pay less on both counts. He has also taken huge steps to make our Government more efficient and has cut the size the state government.

But most everyone has missing the point – You are rquired to pay state taxes for online purchases already – it’s just not collected by the retailer unless they have a physical presence in the state, which Amazon does in Indidna. Nobody is talking about tax increases, they are just trying to find a way to force people to comply with the law.

One would assume that the Doctor of dumb is a tax cheat like Treasury Tim.

HoosierHawk on January 21, 2012 at 5:24 PM

Hoosiers are the only “conservatives” who like Mitch Daniels. He’s a big government guy. First thing he did was raise taxes as gov. Then raised taxes on cigs to fund his big governrment healthcare plan.

This about taxing people for online purchases.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 7:01 PM

Mitch Daniels is the kind of pol who wants to tax everything.

Dr. Tesla on January 21, 2012 at 7:03 PM

Everyone just needs to channel their inner-Reagan since he is the godfather of fiscal conservatism. Oops, he raised taxes many times.

Mitch has moved Indiana to the right a good amount. Knocked down state unions with collective bargaining reform, smaller and more efficient government, cap on property taxes, and now pushing Indiana to be a right-to-work state. These are definitely Marxist-Liberal policies according to some on here.

Those looking for your perfect fiscal conservative that is in public office, he/she does not exist. See Reagan above. Also, theory is a whole he!! of a lot different than the real world.

bej on January 21, 2012 at 7:23 PM

By collecting the $75 million from online retailers, the sales tax rate can be lowered for everybody in the state. That is a good thing! Lower taxes, same revenue!

tdarrington on January 21, 2012 at 3:42 PM

Yeah.
But will it lower taxes? The monster never has enough food.

Mimzey on January 21, 2012 at 7:28 PM

The right course would be to eliminate taxes on “brick and mortar” businesses — not to impose taxes on “non-brick-and-mortar” businesses.

The country needs drastically lower taxes — and very, very, very drastically lower government spending.

Politicians for more taxes are part of the problem, not part of the solution.

Steve Stoddard on January 21, 2012 at 8:10 PM

I feel that this is inevitable.

JLPicard on January 21, 2012 at 10:35 PM

What up R-man. I’d recognize your writing style anywhere.

Curtiss

SlaveDog on January 21, 2012

Long time, bud.
Back at ya, oh and the “lovely and vivacious” Mrs. Curtiss too.
(grin)

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 22, 2012 at 8:49 AM

The internet gave us a way to peel back many level of government intrusion. Taxes being one. Lets draw the line and defend the new frontier. IP is also going to see its decline. Good riddance.

RutRoh on January 22, 2012 at 9:49 AM

If a local retailer decides to sale nationwide, they operate under the same rules that Amazon does. If Amazon decides to locate in that local retailer’s area, Amazon operates under the same rules as that local retailer.

xblade on January 21, 2012 at 2:21 PM

Good point.

Paul_in_NJ on January 22, 2012 at 11:30 AM

Local retailers have an advantage in that the items are available to the consumer right then. If you really want to make it fair, put a 3-day waiting period on all taxable items in the state.

Let’s see how well that lead balloon goes over….

Odysseus on January 21, 2012 at 2:21 PM

haha, nut.

You assume the local retailer has the item I WANT. 99 times out of 100 they do NOT HAVE THE ITEM I WANT or NEED.

Retails stores are inefficient uses of resources.

As a previous posted said, theres a line on your state tax form to declare all your purchases. I believe Illinois even goes so far as to ‘put you down for $150′ already, and you have to prove more or less than that amount.

You are seeing states get desperate for money.

I see many arguments here that would make Orwell proud.

I am seeing the news in the last 2 days set the groundwork for 1 party government in the USA.

orbitalair on January 22, 2012 at 11:34 AM

I keep coming back to the “fairness” issue, because fairness has little to do with this. It’s about greedy states that can’t live within their means looking for more money to spend.

Brick-and-mortar businesses get something in return for the burden of collecting and remitting sales tax: They get services from the city (or cities) and state(s) in which they’re located. If they’re robbed, the police come. If there’s a fire, big red trucks arrive on the scene. When it snows, plows clear their lots. And so on. Having a “substantial physical presence” means they get those services.

Now, Indiana, California, New York, etc., want Amazon to collect taxes for them. What would Amazon get in return for being an unpaid tax collector? Will Daniels dispatch fire trucks to Amazon warehouses in other states? Will Brown send trucks to plow their parking lots in Seattle? Is Cuomo gonna offer to provide police protection? Of course not.

So where, exactly, is this “level playing field” I’ve heard so much about?

Oh, one more thing: Whenever some pundit pops off about states “losing money” due to that pesky Supreme Court, hold onto your wallet. The correct way to look at it is that we, the people, are graciously allowed to keep a little of our money to spend as we see fit.

Paul_in_NJ on January 22, 2012 at 11:41 AM

A “fairness tax” for brick and mortar stores?
Well, shouldn’t WE then be able to deduct from our taxes the mileage to and from?
I mean IS “fair”, right?

Just a Thawt

~(Ä)~

Karl Magnus on January 22, 2012 at 11:43 AM

Let’s make it really fair and mandate identical prices in the entire US and mandate just how much tax each state/city can charge. /sarc

This is one more example of government interfering with business and costing them money. Can you imagine the nightmare of figuring out how much each state/city/county tax is for each zip code? And what about people who order from US companies from overseas?

Get real – this nonsense will cost us all in higher prices because of higher expenses to internet businesses.

suehimel on January 22, 2012 at 12:30 PM

Let the market place take care of it on its own. That is the “fairest” way of resolving it! If the brick and mortar retailers can’t survive against internet sales, so be it. It’s the nature of market evolution and we all benefit from it. Dear governors, “Laissez nous Faire” without your meddling sticky fingers! And these are our conservative governors.Amazing!

DC555 on January 22, 2012 at 5:47 PM

It should be left up to the states to decide on whether to tax internet sales in their state..Some already do I believe..:)

Dire Straits on January 22, 2012 at 6:52 PM

If not for government’s insatiable tax appetite, I would be amazed how people keep overlooking the downsides to internet purchases. Speaking from personal exeprience, the disadvantages are:

Convienence: must wait at least one day to receive the item versus driving to the store and taking the item home within one hour.
Failed expexctation: item was not what you expected, since the decision to purchase can only weigh its visaul appearance and honest description versus picking the item up and possibly manipulating a store model (test drive).
Returns and exchanges: the item fails or was broken, so returning or exchanging the item incurs time delay versus driving to store to return or exchange the item within the hour.
Scheduling: you must plan how to receive the item, including signature reuqirements for expensive items (waiting for the delivery to arrive before you can leave home for other activities) versus purchasing the item on your way to or from home on your schedule.

The rational for taxing online sales is dubious as well. Without having property in the taxing locale, the online retailer does not consume local resources (water, sewer, power, police, fire services). Online retailers do pay for the one resource they do consume – roads – by paying fuel taxes with the shipping charges. Income taxes are also collected from the delivery personnel. Property taxes are paid for the delivery facilities. Finally, other fees are collected from registration of the delivery vehicles. Because these taxes and fees may be less than the revenue realized from brick and mortar store is not a justification of taxes on online sales.

The implication of taxes on online sales is states imposing tarriffs on out of state goods. In my understanding of the Constitution, this was to be prevented by the Commerce Clause – preventing states from creating barriers to internal trade within the United States. Would such a tax withstand Constitutional scrutiny, since it would be undistiquishable from travelling out of state, purchasing and item in a non-sales taxes locale, then returning home with the item?

What should be realized, these negative factors of online purchases are outweighed by the sales taxes, despite the advantages of the brick and mortar stores. The market is trying to signal that the sales taxes are too high (value of services provides are less than taxes paid). Government’s always act as though they are entitled to the revenue (divine right of taxation). Online purchases are consumers voting with their virtual feet.

HonestDork on January 23, 2012 at 11:27 AM

Whenever a Poli Sci retard type says the word “fairness” it is ALWAYS anything but.

I take it Haley “butler service for pardons” Barbour is no longer the number one spokesman for this massive tax hike?

MNHawk on January 24, 2012 at 8:10 AM

Comment pages: 1 2 3