Governors Group: Marketplace Fairness Act not a violation of tax pledge

posted at 8:31 am on April 27, 2013 by Jazz Shaw

The Marketplace Fairness Act (which we’ve been talking about here since 2011) has passed another hurdle in Congress, but the debate continues. As we’ve covered at length, the idea involves the “T-word” so people immediately get up on their hind legs about it on the conservative side of the aisle. But does it violate the elected officials’ oath for “no new taxes” if they support it? The National Governors Association says no.

The National Governors Association has a message for Grover Norquist and Americans for Tax Reform: The online sales tax bill on the Senate floor does not violate ATR’s no-tax pledge.

The NGA, which backs the sales tax bill, noted in a Thursday statement that the Congressional Budget Office had ruled that the Marketplace Fairness Act had no impact on federal revenues.

The group also said that the anti-tax pledge that the ATR administers – and the vast majority of congressional Republicans have signed – calls on lawmakers to oppose marginal rate increases or the net reduction of tax credits and deductions.

“Marketplace Fairness does neither. It is not a new tax or a tax increase,” the NGA said in its statement. “It clearly does not violate the pledge. In fact, the American for Tax Reform themselves admitted to leadership of the National Governors Association that this was not a violation. To say anything else is disingenuous.

As I’ve said in the past, I’ve been on the fence on this one since the beginning, but I’ve never signed on with the knee-jerk reaction that simply because the proposal involves taxation it’s a bad thing by default. Nobody likes taxes… that’s a given. But this still strikes me as an adjustment of something that’s already part of the fabric of extant society. States have to raise money to accomplish the basic services which voters actually expect and are entitled to, right down to infrastructure demands. The entire idea of not taxing internet sales was always intended as a temporary shield which would allow the emerging (and widely distrusted) idea of online commerce to take hold.

That’s no longer a worry. E-commerce is now part of the essential fabric of American capitalism. But there are still plenty of local merchants in every location who are doing business, providing jobs and helping to structure communities. Giving the new kid on the block a perpetual thumb on the scale by not having to charge taxes which the state has agreed to collect anyway isn’t exactly “fair” if you think about it. We all love free stuff and saving money, but at the end of the day, somebody has to pay the bills. I’m just not sure this is an automatic no vote for conservatives.


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

[Snorkdoodle Whizbang on April 27, 2013 at 5:20 PM]

This pea pickin’ heart kind of thought it was likely this “voluntary” thing you assert is merely your opinion. People who know they’re right point to proof and you’re just obfuscating.

Others just bless you and run when asked to supply the answer to even the most simple of questions.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 5:40 PM

How are your state’s sales tax laws unjust? South Dakota, right?

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 5:01 PM

My state’s sales tax laws don’t bother me. The MpFA bothers me, particularly concerning the fact that so many otherwise conservative congressweasels are on board with it.

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 6:00 PM

but I’ve never signed on with the knee-jerk reaction that simply because the proposal involves taxation it’s a bad thing by default.

There’s your first mistake.

States have to raise money to accomplish the basic services which voters actually expect and are entitled to

There’s your second mistake.

Bishop on April 27, 2013 at 8:39 AM

Exactly…Jazz should write for DKos. Yes, taxation by its self is a bad thing unless you are talking about lowering it.

Panther on April 27, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Repubelicans

HondaV65 on April 27, 2013 at 7:10 PM

Yes, taxation by its self is a bad thing…

Panther on April 27, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Yes, it is. It is a necessary evil, as is government itself. Which is why taxes should be minimized, not maximized.

But when someone has already bought into the notion that the government(s) we have is not too big and does not spend too much, then if “revenue” falls short obviously the problem must be that not enough people are paying their “fair share”.

Now we have the federal government stepping in to help States collect State taxes the States cannot collect themselves, by forcing private citizens who do not live there to do their tax collecting for them. How screwed up is that? And yet some Republicans thinks that’s just fine.

farsighted on April 27, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Governors Group: Marketplace Fairness Act not a violation of tax pledge

Thieves and liars.

Dr. ZhivBlago on April 27, 2013 at 7:29 PM

As I’ve said in the past, I’ve been on the fence on this one since the beginning, but I’ve never signed on with the knee-jerk reaction that simply because the proposal involves taxation it’s a bad thing by default. Nobody likes taxes…

No, the average HA writer hates taxes.

I usually show up in awe of the remarks and sing praises.

This is the dumbest thread I have seen outside of the Daily KOS and the local newspaper. Comments like some of these inspire leftys to thin April 15 might lead conservatives to get violent. Ie. Chris Matthews on the Marathon bombing.

Unfortunately it never occurred to Chris that the perps might pay little or no taxes between state transfers like welfare and tax free drug deals.

BTW, criminals HATE sales taxes which the writers seem to consistently miss.

There is a great resource on taxes for conservatives.

It is http://www.taxfoundation.org

IlikedAUH2O on April 27, 2013 at 7:33 PM

One article in the Tax Foundation’s recent magazine concluded that Cutting the Corporate Tax Rate Would Pay for Itself (title) based on their dynamic tax simulation model.

It was written by Michael Schuyler, Ph D.

Another tackled the soda tax in Vermont.

Exciting and sickening at the same time!

IlikedAUH2O on April 27, 2013 at 7:39 PM

farsighted on April 27, 2013 at 7:18 PM

Well said.

Panther on April 27, 2013 at 7:45 PM

It all depends on what the meaning of sex is and what the meaning of new tax is and what the meaning os is, is. They are all Bill Clinton now.

VorDaj on April 27, 2013 at 8:01 PM

This pea pickin’ heart kind of thought it was likely this “voluntary” thing you assert is merely your opinion. People who know they’re right point to proof and you’re just obfuscating.

Others just bless you and run when asked to supply the answer to even the most simple of questions.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Ignoring you isn’t running. I just don’t play the ‘Ad Hominum’ game.

When a commenter resorts to that line of attack it pretty much means that they really don’t have anything of substance to add to the discussion.

Oh, and trying to make the debate about me instead of internet sales tax doesn’t exactly prove any points either.

Snorkdoodle Whizbang on April 27, 2013 at 8:03 PM

really need to change the masthead to liberal air here if this is the writing we will see from now on.

dmacleo on April 27, 2013 at 8:04 PM

Now we have the federal government stepping in to help States collect State taxes the States cannot collect themselves, by forcing private citizens who do not live there to do their tax collecting for them. How screwed up is that? And yet some Republicans thinks that’s just fine.

farsighted on April 27, 2013 at 7:18 PM

summed up rather well there.

dmacleo on April 27, 2013 at 8:06 PM

I’m inclined not to support it simply because it has “Fairness” in the title.

wte9 on April 27, 2013 at 8:13 PM

This website is becoming way too liberal for me…, the fact they allow Jazz to post here tells me a lot.

Panther on April 27, 2013 at 9:56 PM

Dumb idea.

I don’t get paid to collect taxes for states, counties and cities I do not reside in.

That is tributary slavery no different than what caused the Revolutionary War.

William Eaton on April 27, 2013 at 9:58 PM

Giving the new kid on the block a perpetual thumb on the scale by not having to charge taxes which the state has agreed to collect anyway isn’t exactly “fair” if you think about it.

Here’s the problem. If you have online merchants collect tax, that tax has to be the tax rate at merchant’s physical location otherwise, brick and mortar stores have and unfair advantage. When I go into a store, they don’t ask me where I live and then charge tax based on that location. So they only have to have one tax rate. Online stores would have to figure tax on EVERY county, city and state in the USA – putting an undue burden on them.

katablog.com on April 28, 2013 at 12:19 AM

Ignoring you isn’t running. I just don’t play the ‘Ad Hominum’ game.

When a commenter resorts to that line of attack it pretty much means that they really don’t have anything of substance to add to the discussion.

Oh, and trying to make the debate about me instead of internet sales tax doesn’t exactly prove any points either.

[Snorkdoodle Whizbang on April 27, 2013 at 8:03 PM]

Bah, ignoring me is not interjecting your opinion into a 3/4′s of the way into a conversation I am having with gryphon. It is, in fact, just the opposite.

You did, however, ignore my respectful request to know what state you reside in because you used it as an example of your assertion. Your evasion of the question that would put to rest, or on the flip side, prove your case, is what prompted my snide remark and you deserved it.

Anyway, I thought you were ignoring me. Now you’ve come back. I detect a pattern of unsubstantiated assertions being thrown and running away. I also detect a pattern of you running away from defending your assertions with proof. And now you’ve come back with nothing more of substance to add. Funny, that.

Dusty on April 28, 2013 at 2:09 AM

Big businesses like Amazon will be able to comply easily. Small start-ups will find it difficult.

It’s a typical business use of government to stifle competition.

If my online business is in South Carolina, I don’t collect New York State taxes. But I don’t use NY police, NY fire protection, my customers don’t wear down their roads getting to me, New York just wants a piece of me without regard to the effects on my business.

Well, anyone who supports this is on the side of bigger government, not the side of freedom or free markets.

Adjoran on April 28, 2013 at 3:42 AM

Big businesses like Amazon will be able to comply easily. Small start-ups will find it difficult.

That’s why the big businesses want it, to snuff out the competition. Seems pretty anti-free market to me.

nazo311 on April 28, 2013 at 3:56 AM

Marketplace Fairness Act not a violation of tax pledge

Mostly agreed. Give to Cesar what is Cesar’s. You don’t like your state and local tax rate? Vote Republican and quit your whining.

Jaibones on April 28, 2013 at 8:03 AM

Bah, ignoring me is not interjecting your opinion into a 3/4′s of the way into a conversation I am having with gryphon. It is, in fact, just the opposite.

Wasn’t aware that this was a private chat forum for you and Gryphon. If you don’t want it to be public, perhaps you two should have taken it offline.

You did, however, ignore my respectful request to know what state you reside in because you used it as an example of your assertion. Your evasion of the question that would put to rest, or on the flip side, prove your case, is what prompted my snide remark and you deserved it.

No… you just didn’t like the way I answered. I didn’t say that my state was the only one that had a voluntary Use Tax assessment component. I said it was one of several. I also told you how you could confirm it on your own. To try an bait me with your subsequent ad hominum just confirmed to me that you aren’t interested in a discussion of the impact of an Internet Sales Tax, but simply want to squabble with other commenters

Anyway, I thought you were ignoring me. Now you’ve come back. I detect a pattern of unsubstantiated assertions being thrown and running away. I also detect a pattern of you running away from defending your assertions with proof.

Oh look… more taunting. Again: noting a fairly common component of Use Tax self assessment and then telling you how you can confirm it on your own is hardly making an ‘unsubstantiated assertion’. You just didn’t like how I answered your question.

And now you’ve come back with nothing more of substance to add. Funny, that.

Dusty on April 28, 2013 at 2:09 AM

Odd… that’s what I thougt about your response. Funny, that indeed.

As I said before… you have a nice day.

Snorkdoodle Whizbang on April 28, 2013 at 8:05 AM

Mostly agreed. Give to Cesar what is Cesar’s. You don’t like your state and local tax rate? Vote Republican and quit your whining.

Jaibones on April 28, 2013 at 8:03 AM

Except that the Republicans are on board with this, Jai. My state is as blood-red as they come, and our governor here is crossing his fingers hoping that Thune will vote for MpFA.

If this was a Dem initiative, if this was all liberal all the time, I could understand it. But make no mistake, the Republicans want to screw us over on this just as surely as any Capital Hill Dem does.

gryphon202 on April 28, 2013 at 8:25 AM

What part of “no new taxes” do they not understand?

I can remember a time when I didn’t hate politicians.

petefrt on April 28, 2013 at 8:29 AM

Just proof that the GOP is tone deaf, leaderless, and just as power hungry as their Democrat brethren.

Im done voting for them.

Its a giant new tax, for God’s sake. If they cant remember that basic tenet of supposed Republican philosophy, whats their purpose for existing as a party?

Between this, amnesty, and John Boehner, the GOP has become a sad joke.

alecj on April 28, 2013 at 9:05 AM

As I said before… you have a nice day.

[Snorkdoodle Whizbang on April 28, 2013 at 8:05 AM]

Ha! Still ignoring me, I see. So, do we add ignore to the words voluntary and obligation that you don’t know the definition of?

I’m resisting the urge to waste time looking at the sales tax laws of all the states so as to prove me wrong, because you are too much of a lily-livered coward to back up your own bald assertion.

Dusty on April 28, 2013 at 9:36 AM

I would allege Jazz, that you’re a pretty smart guy. So I am mildly stunned you entirely missed the issues this poorly named “MarketPlace Fairness “Tax” presents.

Let’s start with the simple issue that with this act, they have first and foremost crossed the simple threshold of “no taxation without representation”. That is, they have now expanded the tax collection domain beyond their borders, into other states and applying their tax laws and policies to citizens beyond their borders. This not only defies traditional taxation policy and law since our founding, but is most likely unconstitutional.

The primary effect of this act is to force people, outside your jurisdiction to become tax collectors on behalf of the state. Not withstanding the expense and liability it creates, such an act corrupts the law in order to coerce behavior from a person who is not even a resident of your state and otherwise not subject to local law. In most other times we would call that tyrannical and despotic.

Finally, I would remind you that interstate commerce is the domain of our federal government. I say that not just because this bill defies precedent, but to enlighten you on the natural next step when this becomes law. There will be a metamorphism to additional federal internet taxes either in addition to (or if this fails) in place of the punitive state tax regime being proposed.

Either way, this is going nowhere good. You would think by now that when a coalition such as this gets together, people would realize it won’t end well for the taxpayer.

Marcus Traianus on April 28, 2013 at 9:44 AM

As I said before… you have a nice day.

[Snorkdoodle Whizbang on April 28, 2013 at 8:05 AM]

I’m resisting the urge to waste time looking at the sales tax laws of all the states so as to prove me wrong, because you are too much of a lily-livered coward to back up your own bald assertion.

Dusty on April 28, 2013 at 9:36 AM

Enjoy your pissing match, boys.

gryphon202 on April 28, 2013 at 9:44 AM

I don’t mind paying sales tax on Internet purchases, but it still annoys me. It is my responsibility as a citizen in this state to pay it regardless of whether or not the retailer collects it.

State law here requires people to track their own Internet purchases and remit the appropriate sales tax to the state. Obviously, less than 1% of people do this, and one can safely assume that includes zero democrats. The “honor system” and all that.

Now instead of tracking Internet purchases for the benefit of the government, it flips to benefit me individually. The state collects city sales tax here and remits it back to the individual cities. I Live outside of city limits, but have a city mailing address. Online retailers who already charge the appropriate tax currently tack on the additional city sales tax for me to pay, annoying if you aren’t paying attention. Taxation without representation and all that, so I have to track those purchases to get it back at the end of the year.

I am sure there will be similar problems for sales-tax exempt organizations like state and government offices.

All this does is place a burden on individual tax filers who now have to ensure that they aren’t overpaying sales tax, instead of obtaining a benefit for not keeping track.

I predict many small-time online retailers will move to Ebay and skirt the law that way.

Side question. Who will be responsible for enforcing this? Is the IRS now going to be auditing online retailers to ensure they are collecting state taxes? That would be a scary thought and set a bad precedent.

weaselyone on April 28, 2013 at 10:21 AM

.

Let’s start with the simple issue that with this act, they have first and foremost crossed the simple threshold of “no taxation without representation”. That is, they have now expanded the tax collection domain beyond their borders, into other states and applying their tax laws and policies to citizens beyond their borders. This not only defies traditional taxation policy and law since our founding, but is most likely unconstitutional.

Marcus Traianus on April 28, 2013 at 9:44 AM

I don’t think is is entirely accurate in terms of tax law. Most state sales taxes are destination based, meaning that the tax is owed wherever something is delivered or ultimately used.

JCPenney was collecting sales tax prior to the Internet with their catalog and mail order business. Granted they operate in all 50 states, but this is hardly a new concept and I don’t see the issue of taxation without representation so long as you are paying the sales tax rate of your city/state when you make a purchase.

An interesting question would be for orders you place online and have delivered to a different city/state, like a gift purchased for a niece/nephew. I imagine that you would pay the sales tax rate for where your niece/nephew lives. You would still have the choice to have the item delivered to yourself, pay your state’s sales tax rate and then re-ship it to the recipient.

It’s all based on where the transaction “takes place”, which most states have defined as the delivery address. Think of it this way,a transaction is not complete until the item is received.

weaselyone on April 28, 2013 at 10:37 AM

Bullshit. I just was in Oregon and bought three iPhones. Saved $150 off California price with tax.

Nexialist on April 28, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Lots of posters saying they don’t mind paying different sales taxes…

OK, fine.

Now, the poor schmuck who has the internet business where you “paid” your sales tax when you bought your widget will still have to file in potentially 9,000 jurisdictions, keep accurate records, and try to keep costs down so as to be able to compete in a marketplace where two-percent profit over a year is considered pretty good.

This is not about buyers paying taxes…it is about driving sellers out of the market to the benefit of mega-businesses such as Amazon.

coldwarrior on April 28, 2013 at 11:03 AM

This bill may not violate some pledge made to Norquist, but it sure as hell violates Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution. There’s already several incidences of legal precedent that a business must have physical presence in a state for it to be responsible to collect sales tax for that state, regardless of the origin of the goods sold.

subsonic on April 28, 2013 at 12:05 PM

This is not about buyers paying taxes…it is about driving sellers out of the market to the benefit of mega-businesses such as Amazon.

Amazon is built on affiliations with small businesses to supply the goods. It’s a drop ship business model. Here’s a look at why they severed contracts with affiliates in CA:

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2011/06/30/amazon-to-california-read-my-lips-no-online-sales-tax/

subsonic on April 28, 2013 at 12:15 PM

The Marketplace Fairness Act

They’re stealing Ayn Rand’s material.

Naturally Curly on April 27, 2013 at 8:45 AM

Next comes ‘unification’ plans.

TfromV on April 28, 2013 at 1:24 PM

Any HA poster or writer who supports this is an idiot.

This is a massive new tax and completely unnecessary. Actual revenues the states take in will drop because of it; revenues that would only be spend on welfare crap anyhow.

This Dusty fellow is really creepy. Just gives me this Jared Laughner vibe.

There is no reason for many retail stores or restaurant. Adapt to a new business model that includes online retailers and food trucks or die.

antisense on April 28, 2013 at 2:44 PM

We all love free stuff and saving money, but at the end of the day, somebody has to pay the bills. I’m just not sure this is an automatic no vote for conservatives.

No Jazz, not paying taxes on the sale of a product that comes from another state or overseas is not “free stuff”.

Please, how about you pay the taxes for us then? No matter how much the government taxes, it will never be enough. They will always spend more.

Comment redacted.

antisense on April 28, 2013 at 2:48 PM

Anything with Fairness in the title almost always isn’t…

PatriotRider on April 28, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Marketplace Fairness Act sounds like a Wesley Mouch scheme. (Atlas Shrugged)

SpiderMike on April 28, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Okay, this is getting my dander up a bit.

I work for a company that does online retail, and no it isn’t Amazon or any of the other of the big guys. Online consumers already have to pay more than our local customers because of shipping, so for the vast majority of online retailers, the situation is already fair.

Lets look beyond that though.

Sales taxes are collected and paid through the retailer, so tell me, why should we, a company located in Idaho, have to pay California’s sales tax? Or New Yorks, or Illinois, or any number of states sales taxes that’re higher than our own?

If people that came to our site had to pay Idaho’s sales tax, that’d be one thing. We the retailer, can always get together and petition the state to lower the sales tax. We have that sort of representation in our home state, and no such representation in New York, or California.

On top of that, paying the sales tax of the state the retailer is located in, at least would be good for consumers nation wide. If a high sales tax in a specific state made retailers there noncompetitive, it either forces the retailers to move to state with low or non-existent sales tax, or forces the states themselves to keep sales tax at parity with other states.

Instead, they’re proposing that people pay the sales tax of the state they’re residing in, regardless of where the retailer is located. That is akin to forcing consumers to pay their state sales tax whenever they go on a road trip, and then requiring the store owner to mail it back to the state of origin.

And lets not forget how much extra complexity this adds to the day to day business of actually running online retail. Yes, companies like Amazon will be able to afford hugely expensive pieces of software to track sales tax, and can afford a team of software engineers to make that software work with their existing systems. Many smaller retailers will not have that sort of option. Many of them are barely holding on, others essentially have their sales systems held together by duct-tape and super glue, and won’t be able to easily make major changes.

All in all, this whole thing is just, a hugely bad idea! It’s designed specifically to prop up failing brick and mortar stores, to lock in the major online retailers to their current position of dominance, and traps consumers and retailers in a system where they have very little representation when it comes to sales tax.

This, is NOT, conservative legislation. This isn’t even halfway conservative legislation. Even I can admit that, sales tax free online retail may someday have to end. If it does though, it should be structured in a way that marginalizes the impact to retailers, consumers, and affords as many parties as possible as much representation as possible.

This proposal however, is just one great big boondoggle.

WolvenOne on April 28, 2013 at 4:31 PM

This seems like an unusual name for a law that is not fair.

States charge sales tax for purchases made within their state. If I travel from Ohio to California, and purchase some items, I pay California sales tax because I purchased the items in California… regardless of whether I’m a California resident or Ohio resident.

But here, we have Ohio trying to get sales tax for items I purchased from a company in California. Which is NEW tax policy. And yes, this would be a violation of the “no new tax” pledge and questionable under the Constitution.

If they wished to accurately extend brick and mortar purchases to the internet, they should charge state sales tax based on the location of of the company headquarters in the US.

The interesting side effect of this, of course, would be to bring back state competition as a location for doing business. Many startups would then find it advantageous to start in red states instead of blue states.

dominigan on April 28, 2013 at 4:32 PM

If they wished to accurately extend brick and mortar purchases to the internet, they should charge state sales tax based on the location of of the company headquarters in the US.

The interesting side effect of this, of course, would be to bring back state competition as a location for doing business. Many startups would then find it advantageous to start in red states instead of blue states.

Which is exactly why they aren’t doing it that way.

Most warehouses for online retail are in red states, on account of it being cheaper to do business there. The most heavily populated states however, sans Texas and Florida, are deep blue states however, and are more or less deeply in debt. One of the things they’re hoping to do, is to throw a lifeline to these states, while simultaneously preventing consumers from meaningful tax representation. Basically, citizens on an individual scale, tend to be horribly ineffective when it comes to pressuring a state government on tax policy. Get a dozen or so mid sized businesses together though, and they can put quite a bit of pressure on a state government to revise tax law.

Of course, lawmakers know this, and know that if they set it up that way it’d put more pressure on states like California and New York to adopt more conservative tax policies. Which, is exactly why those pushing for this the hardest, didn’t do it that way.

WolvenOne on April 28, 2013 at 4:41 PM

After all this time, many people misunderstand the implications of internet sales tax collection. Many internet retailers, such as Walmart and Best Buy, already collect sales taxes for purchases from the net. The buyer pays sales tax for the state in which he resides to the retailer who passes it on to the state.

Under current law, however, retailers without “nexus” (no store, no inventory or no employees) in your state are not required to be a tax collector. The governors are only saying that you already owed the taxes but may not have paid them.

From an internet retailers standpoint, however, the extra cost and effort to collect taxes is not being paid by the states that benefit. From the buyers standpoint, one of the benefits that have been available – no sales tax if you buy from the right retailer is gone – simply because the ta loophole is closed.

herdgadfly on April 28, 2013 at 4:52 PM

PS

Just the fact that they’re throwing around the word, “fairness,” should make it plain that this isn’t conservative. Conservative means, in fiscal terms, not messing with private markets and private individuals to make things more, “fair.”

Granted, they’re talking about taxes, which isn’t quite the same thing. They’re still using liberal tactics and liberal language however, so that should tell people where this bill is rooted.

WolvenOne on April 28, 2013 at 5:37 PM

Most state sales taxes are destination based, meaning that the tax is owed wherever something is delivered or ultimately used.

A taxpayer is responsible for the purchases he makes. If a purchase are made out of state and brought back to his home state, in most states those are reportable tax events.

However, a company having presence in a single state is not responsible for collecting taxes for other state jurisdictions. This law would change that. That IMVHO is unconstitutional.

You cannot force a taxpayer or company who is located within one state to abide by another states tax policies if they do not have a physical presence. Nor can the federal government coerce through legislation that action. That is, unless they create a federal tax scheme (read internet tax) and then kick back a portion of that tax to the states. We call that extortion under the guise of taxation, which is where this is going.

In the end any attempt to impose these taxes upon internet purchases (both state and federal taxation) will destroy the e-commerce business. Which is where this is going and the sponsors know it.

By the way, any business who belongs to any of the organizations sponsoring or lobbying for this, will permanently lose my business.

Marcus Traianus on April 28, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Whatever happened to starving the beast?

I DO NOT WANT those clowns in Montgomery to get more of my money than they do already. They are worse than the US Congress as far as being able to control themselves when it comes to spending.

NOR DO I WANT THIS EXTRA MONEY TO GO TO COUNTIES, CITIES, ETC., who are also having spending control issues.

This IS an automatic no for small-government conservatives.

jclittlep on April 30, 2013 at 1:22 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3