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

These retards live in a world I am not familiar with and I think they should all get a reality check. When are we going to stop allowing retarded people to run in elections? Note: the definition of retard being used in the above statement is: liberals and RINO’s.

Tbone McGraw on April 27, 2013 at 10:34 AM

It’ll be great when I have to register and pay a fee for my car to all 50 states, too. After all, I might drive to any one of them without warning.

Well, Hawaii might be scroomed on that one…

trigon on April 27, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Question. Why does “Fairness” always equate to the government taking more money from the people?

Tbone McGraw on April 27, 2013 at 10:36 AM

ReaganWasRight on April 27, 2013 at 10:30 AM

I hope you have been, and still are, on the phone with your state, local and federal politicians. You have a business that you need to protect! Your employees too!

Vince on April 27, 2013 at 10:36 AM

The only solution, other than drop this scheme altogether, would be to abolish all state sales taxes…in every jurisdiction…all of them…and impose a single national sales tax, and to be “fair” peg it at the highest rate current…New York or California, not sure which…and have the federal government collect it all and then dole it out to all states according to percentage of sales…and also, make sure to collect these taxes from overseas…but that’d involve the United Nations collecting taxes globally…kinda sorta what the current Administration would find utopic.

Constitution usurped.

All hail the state!

And liberals keep telling us about slippery slopes and such.

Pish posh.

coldwarrior on April 27, 2013 at 10:36 AM

It’ll be great when I have to register and pay a fee for my car to all 50 states, too. After all, I might drive to any one of them without warning.

Well, Hawaii might be scroomed on that one…

trigon on April 27, 2013 at 10:35 AM

Further proof that fairness as sold by politicians is an illusion.

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 10:36 AM

It’s fair? To whom? Walmart? Macy’s? The local car dealer?

Vince on April 27, 2013 at 10:18 AM

It’s your duty to bail out companies that operate with a hundred year old business model!

whatcat on April 27, 2013 at 10:37 AM

It’s fair? To whom? Walmart? Macy’s? The local car dealer?

Vince on April 27, 2013 at 10:18 AM

It’s your duty to bail out companies that operate with a hundred year old business model!

whatcat on April 27, 2013 at 10:37 AM

That!!!

jimver on April 27, 2013 at 10:39 AM

As conceived, compliance is going to be brutal on small businesses. It’d be easier to simply consider the point of sale to occur at the seller and apply the seller’s state’s tax rate. That way, we’d have only one taxing authority (one with whom we’re already registered) to contend with. The cost and difficulty of compliance will drive many small businesses out of business and drive many others into the gray market.

mbrendzel on April 27, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Question. Why does “Fairness” always equate to the government taking more money from the people?

Tbone McGraw on April 27, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Good question. While we’re at it (and somewhat O/T)…

Why does “gun safety” mean violating the second amendment?

Why does “reproductive health” mean killing unborn children?

I could go on, but this is too depressing.

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 10:40 AM

If a state has no sovereignty over a business, it should not be collecting taxes from that business. Period.

With that thought in mind, when I go from California to Nevada and purchase things, I pay Nevada sales taxes for the area I’m in.

That’s how it should be in the online arena if we are going to be doing this at all. The taxes paid should be those in force at the nexus of sale — which is the vendor.

The thing about this sort of arrangement is that a tax authority could (as San Bernardino here in California did for Amazon) choose to charge NO TAX at all for purchases, in exchange for the increased employment which an online company would bring to its citizens. An online company, faced with competition, would tend to locate in a place with the lowest online sales taxes.

I’m fine with that. But California doesn’t provide services to the business I’m buying from, and I certainly consume less California resources if I buy online — the two views of why a state tax is morally permissible.

unclesmrgol on April 27, 2013 at 10:41 AM

As conceived, compliance is going to be brutal on small businesses. It’d be easier to simply consider the point of sale to occur at the seller and apply the seller’s state’s tax rate. That way, we’d have only one taxing authority (one with whom we’re already registered) to contend with. The cost and difficulty of compliance will drive many small businesses out of business and drive many others into the gray market.

mbrendzel on April 27, 2013 at 10:39 AM

What you’ll see then is sellers jockeying to low/no sales tax jurisdictions in an effort to compete with each other. Just move your headquarters or lone distribution center to Anchorage, AK for instance, and you’re home free. Back to square one, but at least the law is fair. Right? LOLOLOL

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 10:42 AM

This is a tax that does not exist now so it would be a new tax.

Vince on April 27, 2013 at 10:18 AM

While I can’t say with certainty that somewhere, somehow, in some way this bill would unintendedly result in a “new” tax, it is overwhelmingly not a new tax but an old tax with a largely ineffective compliance regimen. Citizens of each state owe taxes to their state when they purchase out of state goods and import them to their state. The problem is that people have no reservation about evading the payment of these taxes. Technology has exacerbated this problem by making this simpler, easier and cheaper to do, and to the point where all states now feel it in their treasuries.

The governors want to change the method for compliance for their sales tax laws. For the most part, this is all the proposal is doing.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 10:45 AM

In Florida, the taxes are different from county to county. If the fact that I live in a lower taxed county works into the equation of the sale, that’s what I will be charged. Is there an app for this? And what about when you return something, how does the retailer get those funds back. We bought a vehicle in VA but live in Florida….what a cluster beeeeeeep!

Cindy Munford on April 27, 2013 at 10:49 AM

The governors want to change the method for compliance for their sales tax laws. For the most part, this is all the proposal is doing.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 10:45 AM

But I pay sales tax in Minnesota when I go to Minnesota. “Use Tax,” such as it is, is horrendously unenforced and enforced mainly on businesses when it is enforced at all.

Look, you can give any number of reasons why this is a good idea. I’ll disagree with all of them, but “fairness” is not on the radar here. The governors aren’t doing it out of a notion of fairness. They see a threat to their states’ tax revenue, right or wrong. They want more money. That’s it. It is really just that simple. And the people are going to roll over and allow it to happen.

/sigh

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 10:50 AM

What you’ll see then is sellers jockeying to low/no sales tax jurisdictions in an effort to compete with each other. Just move your headquarters or lone distribution center to Anchorage, AK for instance, and you’re home free. Back to square one, but at least the law is fair. Right? LOLOLOL

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 10:42 AM

that, or people will turn to internet sellers from China, Korea and HK (their ebay businesses have thrive in recent years), their shipping costs are extremely low, and no tax involved.

jimver on April 27, 2013 at 10:50 AM

And I haven’t heard a damn thing about how this will apply to drop shipping. Drop shipping did not begin with Amazon.com, though they took it to a whole new level.

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 10:52 AM

The only way I can see implementing the sales tax collection is to have the small business collect the amount of sales taxes that are in effect in their respective state and county. it would be like visiting that business at their physical location. Oregon would have the advantage of attracting lots of new businesses.

Since I’m retired military, Travis AFB gets more of my business for high cost items.

PrettyD_Vicious on April 27, 2013 at 9:01 AM

Ding, ding, ding thread winner. Let every consumer chose which state and tax rate he is going to purchase goods from. The high tax states will get zero revenue which they deserve an the low tax states will get an economic boost.

trs on April 27, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Did one of these bozos consider the fact
that no online sales or less online sales
will hurt the post office ?
Oh goody another enity to bail out .

Lucano on April 27, 2013 at 10:53 AM

The governors want to change the method for compliance for their sales tax laws. For the most part, this is all the proposal is doing.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 10:45 AM

So you’re saying that this tax already exists but is not complied with?

Vince on April 27, 2013 at 10:53 AM

I sell something online to someone in my state. I have to pay sales tax on that item.

Since I am a wholly owned business and file income tax with the state, that sale I made counts as income.

Thus, for selling a set of widgets I am taxed twice for the same dollar earned, by the same state.

Then I got to turn around and pay the feds for that same dollar earned, again.

Then I got to turn around, if the purchaser was in another state, and send that state a check, too.

What’s “fair” about that?

I’d be farther ahead by not earning anything at all…just get on the dole. Given the demographics there, I doubt they’ll be taxing welfare anytime soon.

coldwarrior on April 27, 2013 at 10:54 AM

Ding, ding, ding thread winner. Let every consumer chose which state and tax rate he is going to purchase goods from. The high tax states will get zero revenue which they deserve an the low tax states will get an economic boost.

trs on April 27, 2013 at 10:52 AM

That makes too much sense, it’s not going to happen. Btw, are there many idiotic republicans behind this proposal, any idea? Or just the usual suspects?

jimver on April 27, 2013 at 10:55 AM

Ding, ding, ding thread winner. Let every consumer chose which state and tax rate he is going to purchase goods from. The high tax states will get zero revenue which they deserve an the low tax states will get an economic boost.

trs on April 27, 2013 at 10:52 AM

Except that’s not how the MpFA works. Besides which, how is it “fair” that the low-tax jurisdictions will get more business than the higher-tax jurisdictions anyway? Fairness my ass!

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 10:55 AM

“It’s not a tax, tax.”

Woo-Pee Goldberg.

Mimzey on April 27, 2013 at 10:56 AM

trs ,
Surely someone can write a program that
lists the lowest tax rate for the item you
want to purchase .

Lucano on April 27, 2013 at 10:58 AM

Marketplace Fairness Act

Comrades! Welcome to Soviet America! When I was in grade school and high school, we used to laugh at the propaganda coming from the Soviet Union where they would name laws like these with names opposite of their real intentions. Now we are doing it here in the US: Affordable Care Act, “Reproductive Rights” (killing the unborn), and “Gun Safety” or “Gun Violence Prevention” (destroying the 2nd amendment). We now sound just like the Former Soviet Union.

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

But you see, this puts the thumb on the scale for the other fellow. Sales tax savings generally just about cover the shipping costs. Now, if buyers have to pay sales taxes plus shipping costs, the local retailer gains the advantage because they have the benefit of bulk shipping vs. individual shipping to their place of business.

… and yes, this is an automatic no vote for conservatives. Unless you like the idea that a municipality in Tucson, Arizona can reach out and tax (including auditing and prosecution) an entity in Fargo, North Dakota. Just think if somebody in Berkeley, CA decided that it would like to audit Bass Pro in Missouri just to make sure that the gun and ammo dealer was “properly collecting taxes” in Berzerkely. This could have some very unintended consequences.

AZfederalist on April 27, 2013 at 11:02 AM

This could will have some very unintended consequences.

AZfederalist on April 27, 2013 at 11:02 AM

FIFY, comrade.

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 11:05 AM

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 11:05 AM

Yep.

AZfederalist on April 27, 2013 at 11:08 AM

Good luck getting the state legislatures on board with this plan. 45 of them, I believe.

[gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 10:28 AM]

Yeah, I realize my one possible outcome is very unlikely.

My use of that outcome as an example might be considered radical, extreme, even revolutionary, but my purpose for using it was merely to indicate the process might prove an outcome is the exact opposite of that which people assume is reasonable by mere virtue of being where we are now.

It’s the process, I’m arguing, that is important because it might reveal that we’ve heaped one unintended consequence upon another over the year and that a much different, simpler and more effective solution, one not readily apparent, is available.

Here’s a proposal to solve the major problem — simplicity and ease of compliance leveling the market playing field for both large and small business – have the proposal set the sales tax for interstates sales at a single rate, say 3% or 4%. Now businesses don’t need to keep track of every last state tax rate and municipal add-on. They only need to keep track of two — their state own rate and the other fixed figure.

Even that is not necessarily a good approach. For instance would the single rate apply to food goods, which many states exempt from sales taxes? But a single rate accomplishes much:

- reduces the compliance issue
- levels the playing field, overall, and
- reduces the unfair advantage large businesses would have over small businesses in internet sales.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 11:09 AM

Here’s a proposal to solve the major problem — simplicity and ease of compliance leveling the market playing field for both large and small business – have the proposal set the sales tax for interstates sales at a single rate, say 3% or 4%. Now businesses don’t need to keep track of every last state tax rate and municipal add-on. They only need to keep track of two — their state own rate and the other fixed figure.

Even that is not necessarily a good approach. For instance would the single rate apply to food goods, which many states exempt from sales taxes? But a single rate accomplishes much:

- reduces the compliance issue
- levels the playing field, overall, and
- reduces the unfair advantage large businesses would have over small businesses in internet sales.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 11:09 AM

So internet taxes would be different than brick-and-mortar taxes. In some jurisdictions, it would be higher. In others, lower. Again, this blows the whole “fairness” argument out of the water. If you define fairness as “no party operates at an advantage over another,” then government should not even be involved in private transactions of this sort. At all. Ever. Because that’s as fair as it’s going to get.

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Fairness, Reform, Sensible, Reasonable – the vernacular and euphemisms of Statism.

May Orwell piss on all of the political pigs in perpetuity who use these words.

OhEssYouCowboys on April 27, 2013 at 11:15 AM

IDIOTS….The country is run by idiots and morons.
We’re doomed.

dirtengineer on April 27, 2013 at 11:16 AM

I suppose this “already existing” tax should have been enforced back in 1900 when the “new kid on the block” catalog mail order businesses were well established.

The reasoning and justification, such as they are, are exactly the same.

Why is it that from the 1800s right through about 1980, about the time internet “mail order” sales got started, the catalog mail order businesses were not required to do this? Not even after that new-fangled method of taking orders over the telephone was implemented.

farsighted on April 27, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Question. Why does “Fairness” always equate to the government taking more money from the people?

Tbone McGraw on April 27, 2013 at 10:36 AM

Since YOU aren’t paying your fair share… belly up to the bar, the “state” needs more of your money…

Khun Joe on April 27, 2013 at 11:19 AM

So you’re saying that this tax already exists but is not complied with?

[Vince on April 27, 2013 at 10:53 AM]

Pretty much. I know several states require their citizens pay taxes on what they purchase out of state. I’m assuming all states do and, knowing government, I think it’s a reasonable assumption. In NY there is a line item on the income tax form for paying this sales tax owed.

I don’t know what the current disposition is generally for the sale of used goods. Many states place a sales tax on the purchase of used cars and boats that require registration so used goods are not exempt. People sometimes think its a special requirement rather than a general requirement because the state enforces the collection. But that’s enforced because you have to do business with the state to register it, thus they can collect the tax effortlessly. Plus it’s a large ticket item. I’m guessing the garage sale, or maybe just large items (like anything over $100) et al, is on the books in a lot of places, but compliance is more of a headache and enforcement would create too much of a ruckus, so the state never bothers with attempting enforcement and ignores the widespread evasion.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 11:29 AM

*Facepalm.* It’s because it bases it where the buyer is located, not the seller. It is a massive thumb on the scale for Amazon over eBay and every small eBusiness.

BigWillieStyles on April 27, 2013 at 11:30 AM

ANY politician that votes for this bill, as is stands, should be voted out of office. This is horrible legislation.

JeffPBlues on April 27, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Why is it that from the 1800s right through about 1980, about the time internet “mail order” sales got started, the catalog mail order businesses were not required to do this? Not even after that new-fangled method of taking orders over the telephone was implemented.
farsighted on April 27, 2013 at 11:19 AM

Just to pick a nit, the WWW didn’t get going much until about 1992. E-commerce didn’t really come on like gangbusters until the late 90s.

whatcat on April 27, 2013 at 11:37 AM

*Facepalm.* It’s because it bases it where the buyer is located, not the seller. It is a massive thumb on the scale for Amazon over eBay and every small eBusiness.

BigWillieStyles on April 27, 2013 at 11:30 AM

And it is protectionism for the brick-and-mortar stores located within the borders of high sales tax states.

Next thing on the agenda for these states could be border checks with adjoining states that do not have as high of a sales tax, to make sure its states’ residents do not smuggle goods in purchased in the other state, goods not intended for resale.

Shouldn’t residents who take advantage of this “loophole” be required to pay the sales tax difference to their resident state? If their home state sales tax is 7% and the other state’s sales tax is only 2% they should be required to pay the difference, 5%, to their home state. That would be “fair”, right? It would “level the playing field”, wouldn’t it?

farsighted on April 27, 2013 at 11:43 AM

So internet taxes would be different than brick-and-mortar taxes. In some jurisdictions, it would be higher. In others, lower. Again, this blows the whole “fairness” argument out of the water. If you define fairness as “no party operates at an advantage over another,” then government should not even be involved in private transactions of this sort. At all. Ever. Because that’s as fair as it’s going to get.

[gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 11:13 AM]

No, sales tax on in-state purchases would be different than sales taxes on out-of-state purchases.

That narrows your “jurisdictions” to include only states.

Sure, some would be higher and some lower. Pick a ‘happy’ medium and let the rest be left to competition; I don’t think the Feds should arrange for states to be immune to competition and especially not if the costs are such that it favors large over small business and raise the overall cost to society from a major make work accounting requirements, ot to mention adding sales tax collection violation chilling aura that states like to threaten people with, because they’re “just doing their job”.

I don’t know that the proposal blows the “fairness” argument out of the water. Maybe it’s an above the water line hit, maybe not even a penetration. Maybe a scratch in the varnish.

I don’t define fairness the way you do. If I did, there would be no government.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 11:51 AM

so we’re not citizens, not part of government by and for the citizens, but merely ever open pocketbooks -ATMs at the end of the government’s considerable ability to use force on us- for our supposedly duly elected representatives to, whenever they decree, withdraw funds to basically give to government employees, give to other people, and give to, oh, the muslim brotherhood, say, in other countries?

i am shocked- isn’t that.. communism or at least some sort of imperial dictatorship- voting itself plunder to keep for itself or REDISTRIBUTE?

how about instead of raising taxes in a depression we :cut government waste,drill baby drill and tell saudi arabia the terrorist maker of the world to take a hike, end king barry and family’s lavish vacays and partying, repeal obamacare, end sweetheart loans of tax payer money to crappy companies, reform entitlements, stop giving benefits for life to illegals and restrict welfare to citizens demanding immigrants here have to be able to support themselves-really the list could go on and on. namely-no more money no more taxes until government reforms its spending. why is that such a difficult concept for even certain conservatives?

but instead of addressing why the federal government and states need an endless supply of taxes soaked out of the gainfully employed- that government is too big and too corrupt and needs to be forced into fiscal restraint and accountability to us, the tax payers- it’s only ‘fair’ to look to grab more money from us. ..

and this line of thinking is coming not just from the usual commies and democrats but beltway republicant’s… and we wonder why we’re such an fing mess- the supposed opposition thinks the same as those destroying the country.

mittens on April 27, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Just to pick a nit, the WWW didn’t get going much until about 1992. E-commerce didn’t really come on like gangbusters until the late 90s.

whatcat on April 27, 2013 at 11:37 AM

I was too lazy to look it up and grabbed what I thought might be the earliest possible date people may have started using email to place an order.

farsighted on April 27, 2013 at 11:55 AM

If I have to pay taxes where I didn’t before, it’s an effin tax increase.

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 10:05 AM

No argument from me on that score. I have no doubt that lots and lots of other folks are going to view it the same way… hence my disdain for the weasel-speak coming from the Governors Group.

I think this opens up a whole can of worms beyond sales tax collection. It speaks more to the ability of petty despots at the state and local level being able to adversely impact the lives and livelyhoods of citizens that do not do business within the physical boundaries of their little fiefdoms.

As I said before. The states already have the means to collect the use tax from their own citizens, they simply lack the will to do so. Instead they would rather lay the burden of ‘tax collector’ on the backs of out of state business owners who have no voice or vote in the matter.

Snorkdoodle Whizbang on April 27, 2013 at 11:55 AM

Why even refer to it by their chosen euphemism? It’s not a “Marketplace Fairness Act.” It’s the Internet Sales Tax.

Similarly Orwellian is to look at a proposed new tax and declare it’s not a violation of a pledge to not add new taxes.

There Goes the Neighborhood on April 27, 2013 at 11:58 AM

But I pay sales tax in Minnesota when I go to Minnesota. “Use Tax,” such as it is, is horrendously unenforced and enforced mainly on businesses when it is enforced at all.

Look, you can give any number of reasons why this is a good idea. I’ll disagree with all of them, but “fairness” is not on the radar here. The governors aren’t doing it out of a notion of fairness. They see a threat to their states’ tax revenue, right or wrong. They want more money. That’s it. It is really just that simple. And the people are going to roll over and allow it to happen.

/sigh

[gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 10:50 AM]

So what if you pay sales taxes in Minn when you go there. And what does “use tax” have to do with it? We’re talking sales tax not use tax.

I didn’t say it was a good idea. My point is it is a better idea than the one being proposed now. You do see the difference, don’t you?

Nothing in life is “fair”, much less being ‘full of fair’. I won’t complain about your denigration of the use of the term. After all it is a term thrust into the political lexicon and used constantly by lefty /progressive types to further “self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism“. But trying to bludgeon me with it is of no use because my ultimate goal here in this post is not to perfect it with respect to this proposal.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 12:13 PM

How long before the socialists propose replacing all of those pesky individual state sales taxes on internet sales with a single tax the feds collect and administer, giving each state what is deemed their “fair share” of the revenues?

That would truly “level the playing field” and simplify things.

When you start talking about “fairness” in taxing this is where it leads.

farsighted on April 27, 2013 at 12:16 PM

If I have to pay taxes where I didn’t before, it’s an effin tax increase.

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 10:05 AM

Really? Explain how it is that your didn’t have to pay those sales taxes before?

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 12:20 PM

Really? Explain how it is that your didn’t have to pay those sales taxes before?

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 12:20 PM

I don’t pay sales taxes on Amazon.com purchases. What cave have you been living in for the last 110 years, caveman? Use tax applies to mail order transactions, and that’s damn near impossible to enforce for individuals in my home state.

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 12:44 PM

While Amazon is in favor of this tax, I will bet that on-line sales will fall off because of it. And as a consequence Amazon stock will get trashed.

Dasher on April 27, 2013 at 12:45 PM

Nothing in life is “fair”, much less being ‘full of fair’. I won’t complain about your denigration of the use of the term. After all it is a term thrust into the political lexicon and used constantly by lefty /progressive types to further “self-interest, prejudice, or favoritism“. But trying to bludgeon me with it is of no use because my ultimate goal here in this post is not to perfect it with respect to this proposal.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Of course nothing in life is fair. So how come the NGA is floating a tax increase (which is absolutely what it is) in the guise of “fairness?” And how come Amazon.com and Walmart support the initiative? I’m not bludgeoning you with anything. I’m merely pointing out that any politician or pundit who talks about this issue in terms of “fairness” is blowing smoke up our asses.

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 12:46 PM

A tax is a tax is a tax. It is what it is. No analysis required. Lawmakers have been itching to do this for some time.

They are also salivating at cutting mortgage tax-relief (i.e. “loopholes”), so expect your real wages to drop significantly when they get to that one. What will that do to consumer spending?

So this tax is a job-killer. The bottom percentile of on-line and mail order businesses will fail, prices to the consumer will rise and tax revenues will drop.

Since everyone loses, you could say this is “fair”.

virgo on April 27, 2013 at 12:48 PM

Need I remind you folks who want to tell me this isn’t an issue of “fairness,” the bill is entitled “The Marketplace Fairness Act.”

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Citizens of each state owe taxes to their state when they purchase out of state goods and import them to their state.
Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 10:45 AM

That is not a tax. That is a tariff

If I go to California, buy an orange, and ship it home to myself, I do not have to pay Michigan to eat my own orange

If I have an agent buy an orange for me, and ship it to Michigan, they say I have to pay a tariff to Michigan to receive it.

State sales taxes are supposedly to provide State services to maintain the brick and mortar in the taxing State. The State of Michigan is supplying zero services to the brick and mortar of the agent and growers in California who ship an orange to me. The only purpose of this out of state tax is to ‘equalize’ the playing field in the marketplace

That is a tariff

A tariff against the citizens to redistribute wealth as perceived by those in power with the biggest lobby

A nicer name for such a tariff is raw naked greed

entagor on April 27, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Need I remind you folks who want to tell me this isn’t an issue of “fairness,” the bill is entitled “The Marketplace Fairness Act.”

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Yes, and in Soviet USA in Pravda there is no Tass and in Tass there is no Pravda

Old Soviet statement, Pravda was “News” and Tass was “Truth”. We have the media arm of the DNC as our “news” organizations. Same state-controlled media aspects.

AZfederalist on April 27, 2013 at 12:57 PM

“….so we’re not citizens, not part of government by and for the citizens, but merely ever open pocketbooks -ATMs at the end of the government’s considerable ability to use force on us- for our supposedly duly elected representatives to, whenever they decree, withdraw funds to basically give to government employees, give to other people, and give to, oh, the Muslim brotherhood, say, in other countries…..”

mittens on April 27, 2013 at 11:51 AM

US conservatives should remember that Jesus liked tax collectors better than Pharisees and priests. Most of this thread spoke of sending or demonizing business activities the writer doesn’t like. Jazz didn’t set this thread for that.

During the time of Jesus in first century Israel, there were publicans and tax collectors who could walk up to a man and tax him for what he was carrying, and much more. These tax collectors were hated and despised because they were usually fellow Jews who worked for Rome. There were many taxes needed from the provinces to administrate the Roman Empire. These taxes paid for a good system of roads, law and order, security, religious freedom, a certain amount of self government and other benefits.

Source:
http://www.bible-history.com/sketches/ancient/tax-collector.html

It is also a fact that it is easy, soooo easy, to be generous with other people’s lucre. Witness the paucity of charity from their own pockets which are hallmarks of many public spirited folks on the left.

They can’t help the suffering people in West Virginia or Chicago but will give military hardware to crackpot nations without blinking. Even when the same people would gladly destroy the American culture and cut their throats. Why?

The mental illness in elites and the media is another issue. It is part of a mental irregularity which leads to faulty decision making by our rulers. I have found a collection of these error tendencies in different groups of people like our media.

But people tend to morph spending decisions into tax discussions — don’t do that, it is not constructive.

IlikedAUH2O on April 27, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Yes, and in Soviet USA in Pravda there is no Tass and in Tass there is no Pravda

Old Soviet statement, Pravda was “News” and Tass was “Truth”. We have the media arm of the DNC as our “news” organizations. Same state-controlled media aspects.

AZfederalist on April 27, 2013 at 12:57 PM

Dusty makes it sound like I’m the only one talking about fairness here. I’m not. The politicians are. Jazz is. The NGA is. “Fairness” gets tossed around like it’s some kind of virtue. Isn’t that how liberals think? Or did I miss something?

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 1:00 PM

spoke of sending .. spoke of spending

Sorry.

IlikedAUH2O on April 27, 2013 at 1:01 PM

I am disgusted by the attempt to get it all through Congress in one big ugly power play:

End the Second Amendment

End the Borders

End the last Free Market

Both parties are in on this. They need to complete their pillage before the next election. They can play bait and switch, pretend they tried to stop all but it was too much so they could only get some of it stopped. They use the information overload to obfuscate what is going on in Congress at any single moment.

They are using the tactics of the flash mob to keep the opposition from rallying behind any one point

Pack of con men

entagor on April 27, 2013 at 1:07 PM

State sales taxes are supposedly to provide State services to maintain the brick and mortar in the taxing State. The State of Michigan is supplying zero services to the brick and mortar of the agent and growers in California who ship an orange to me. The only purpose of this out of state tax is to ‘equalize’ the playing field in the marketplace

That is a tariff

A tariff against the citizens to redistribute wealth as perceived by those in power with the biggest lobby

A nicer name for such a tariff is raw naked greedA nicer name for such a tariff is raw naked greed

entagor on April 27, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Wow. Do you have a source for all that?

IlikedAUH2O on April 27, 2013 at 1:08 PM

There is nothing “fair” about the Marketplace Fairness Act.

First of all, NOBODY shops online just to avoid sales tax. People shop on line so they can shop at 1am or “visit” several stores comparing prices without leaving their home, finding a place to park, driving all over the place, or having to put on pants.

Secondly, all of the major online retailers already collect sales taxes. If you order something from Amazon or Target or Sears online in California, you pay California taxes.

The ones who suffer in this are the little mom and pop stores selling some niche product on the internet. The fella at Crystal Radio Supply that hand winds coils and sells them mail order on the Internet will now need a mechanism for collecting sales tax for every state that has one or he will be forced to take his site off the Internet.

This is yet ANOTHER regulation that pretends to help local brick and mortar business that does absolutely NOTHING to help local small business and instead makes it harder for small businesses to compete with the huge multistate operators. The big stores are on board because they ALREADY collect the sales tax because they already have a physical presence in most states.

In California, for example, Amazon agreed to collect state sales tax. Then they built dozens of local distribution centers in the various metro areas and offered same day delivery. How does that help small local business?

This is going to hurt a lot more small operators than it is going to help. Not because it is hard to pay sales tax for the consumer, but because it is hard for a one person web operation to collect the tax for every single state that has them and they all differ in amount and what is and what is not taxed.

crosspatch on April 27, 2013 at 1:08 PM

IlikedAUH2O on April 27, 2013 at 12:59 PM

Regarding your comments w.r.t. Jesus “liking” tax collectors better than the Scribes and Pharisees, there should be some clarification.

Yes, Christ acknowledged the need for taxes, even to a repressive regime, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s and unto God the things that are God’s”

However, it wasn’t that Jesus “liked” the tax collectors more, or that they were more righteous — they were more receptive to his message. The end result of Christ’s interaction with tax collectors was a change in their lives. Remember that during that time, being a tax collector, in addition to being a person who had thrown in with the occupying army, was a position for which the applicant paid. The tax collector paid for the appointment and then was free to collect whatever they could over and above what was owed to Rome. That over and above was the tax collector’s salary and in many cases amounted to no less than extortion and using the power of the state to enrich themselves. Those tax collectors receptive to Jesus’s message repented of their deeds of extortion and in the case of Zacheus, pledged to pay back three-fold what they had taken dishonestly.

Not sure this is really applicable to the current discussion however.

AZfederalist on April 27, 2013 at 1:16 PM

crosspatch on April 27, 2013 at 1:08 PM

Disgusting, isnt it. Taxing is a disease

Amazon was pushed and is now on board. Now Amazon is marketing itself as the safe marketing center for the little guys. Amazon will be the tax collector – and charge a cut of the little guys take for doing it.

Government intervention narrows the market. States have two ways to go. They can change themselves to attract the sellers to re locate, or they can impose a tariff against their own citizens to drive them back to the businesses the citizens were refusing to patronize.

These Governors chose greed and control over competition. Bunch of crooks. You can quote me

entagor on April 27, 2013 at 1:25 PM

I don’t pay sales taxes on Amazon.com purchases. What cave have you been living in for the last 110 years, caveman? Use tax applies to mail order transactions, and that’s damn near impossible to enforce for individuals in my home state.

[gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 12:44 PM]

No you are right, you do not. There’s no reason to be a smart alec about it.

I’ll also not you were right in bring up the subject of use tax, because in Arizona the term use tax is applied to include those sa … Here, I’ll let Arizona tell you:

How does use tax differ from sales tax?

Use tax is similar to sales tax, in that it is a tax collected in relation to sales made to Arizona customers. However, it is differentiated from sales tax in that for sales tax, the primary consideration is whether or not the sale occurred in the state, while for use tax it is whether the property purchased out-of-state is brought into the state for use, storage or consumption.

I’ll also let them tell you about liability for payment:

Who bears the liability for use tax?

In general, the purchaser, rather than the out-of-state vendor, is liable to the Arizona Department of Revenue for use tax. Vendors who do not have physical presence in Arizona but who nonetheless have sufficient contact with the state are required to register with the Arizona Department of Revenue and collect use tax from its Arizona customers. In this case, the vendor will have a license to collect use tax.

As to whether you have a liability, only Arizona knows for sure, but here is a hint:

Are some purchases exempt from use tax?

- Tangible personal property, the sale or use of which has already been subject to an equal or greater excise tax under the laws of some other state

You might want to check on whether you have been, not avoiding taxes, but evading taxes, with your Amazon purchases you say are tax free. You might start with this link, which is where I got the quotes from. Until then I’ll take with a grain of salt your argument it is a tax increase for you “since damn near impossible to enforce” does not equate to a tax increase just because they will now have a way to enforce it.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 1:27 PM

“Marketplace Fairness Act” – may the heads of those who come up with, then pass such, Orwellian names, all split, spontaneously.

Schadenfreude on April 27, 2013 at 1:31 PM

seeing that the words Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, Creator, Divine, and God are no where in the Constitution and that jesus has nothing to do with modern tax policy in america… (Marx is actually a more important philosopher to reference in regards to this.).. stop dragging in religion where it has no place- it adds no clarity to the situation or your arguments.our tax policies are not based on the new testament.

mittens on April 27, 2013 at 1:33 PM

You might want to check on whether you have been, not avoiding taxes, but evading taxes, with your Amazon purchases you say are tax free. You might start with this link, which is where I got the quotes from. Until then I’ll take with a grain of salt your argument it is a tax increase for you “since damn near impossible to enforce” does not equate to a tax increase just because they will now have a way to enforce it.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 1:27 PM

Whether I am avoiding/evading taxes is between myself and the taxing jurisdiction, in this case, my home state’s legislature. If South Dakota (for instance) has the authority to tax, it shouldn’t need another law to enforce it. If South Dakota doesn’t have the authority to tax, the Federales have no business inserting themselves into this situation. It’s far easier for the governors to leave the decision making process to a bunch of bureaucrats up on Capital Hill who don’t have to go back and face their constituents on a regular basis.

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 1:35 PM

I’m sick to death of grown men using the word “fairness.”

tom daschle concerned on April 27, 2013 at 1:35 PM

I’m sick to death of grown men using the word “fairness.”

tom daschle concerned on April 27, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Let’s call the bill what it really is, then:

The Federal Sales Tax Jurisdicton Consolidation Act of 2013.

Not as nice a ring to it, but truth in advertising.

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 1:41 PM

That is not a tax. That is a tariff

entagor on April 27, 2013 at 12:56 PM

Whatever. You’re delving into semantics, among other things. Per my last comment to gryphon, Arizona calls it a “Use Tax”. I think the point of the post and the arguing going on here is whether it is a tax increase in the sense that the public will have more money taken by the government than what is due them now according to what is already described as owed per statute. My point from the start had been that this isn’t “new”. It’s already on the books.

Also from the start I’d stated I’d oppose it unless we revisited the concept of sales tax and how it has evolved so we can determine what to do about the problem we are now dealing with.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Also from the start I’d stated I’d oppose it unless we revisited the concept of sales tax and how it has evolved so we can determine what to do about the problem we are now dealing with.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 1:45 PM

We’re not dealing with a problem. We’re dealing with a solution in search of a problem. As things stand with the internet right now, I’m okay with the status quo, as are a solid majority of my fellow Americans.

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Nobody likes taxes… that’s a given.

Not quite

Stoic Patriot on April 27, 2013 at 1:52 PM

There are already appropriate gun control use tax laws on the books. If it is worth complaining about, then enforce existing law. If it’s not worth the cost then stop complaining.
 
What I think we’ll eventually discover is that Amazon, Wal-Mart, Dicks, etc. all had lobbyists pushing this through because they know their small-time competitors can’t afford to implement it.

rogerb on April 27, 2013 at 1:53 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… 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.

When did hotair turn into DKos? I’m glad we’re so enlightened and can be reasonable conservatives about such things.

THEY DO NOT TAKE CARE OF THE MONEY THEY ALREADY STEAL FROM US.

THEY DO NOT NEED MORE.

thirtyandseven on April 27, 2013 at 1:53 PM

[gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 1:00 PM]

Sorry about that. That was not my intent. But you kept bringing it up wrt to my comments, including the most strict reading of “fairness”, and that has been a very insignificant aspect of my comments.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Sorry about that. That was not my intent. But you kept bringing it up wrt to my comments, including the most strict reading of “fairness”, and that has been a very insignificant aspect of my comments.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 1:54 PM

Yeah. I’ll give you that. My concern for “fairness” is more directed at the other folks who bring it up. Taxation is unfair by its very nature and always will be which is precisely why I don’t think the federales should have anything to do with this debate at all. Let the state legislatures get it sussed out like they have already in Arizona and California. We don’t need federal intervention.

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Need I remind you folks who want to tell me this isn’t an issue of “fairness,” the bill is entitled “The Marketplace Fairness Act.”

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 12:49 PM

Every tax increase and new tax the Dems propose and support is sold as more “fair”, and some Republicans are obliging them on that.

Provisions in the tax code that were deliberately put there by Congress that reduce “taxable income” are now being called “loopholes”, including by some Republicans. A loophole used to be an unintentional mistake in the tax code.

Tax deductions that have been in place for half a century or more are now called “tax breaks”.

Government spending is called “investment”.

A $700 billion dollar reduction in future tax revenue intended to finance Medicare, that will still be collected under the Medicare label, is not a cut in Medicare spending and it actually “strengthens” Medicare.

Anything that will reduce government revenue is called a “tax cut” and it must be “paid for”. But a new bill from Congress that increases government revenue and increase the taxes paid by citizens is “not a tax increase”.

Shifting much of the cost of Obamacare off on the States made it “revenue neutral”.

And so on and so forth.

Welcome to our brave new Orwelllian doublespeak world. The socialist indoctrination and rot has been internalized and has penetrated widely and deeply in the minds of most Americans, including many who call themselves Republicans or who usually vote R.

farsighted on April 27, 2013 at 1:57 PM

It does a whole lotta nothing, but I think I’ve twitter-twatted two dozen twit-twats to Senator Mike Enzi (@SenatorEnzi) asking for an explanation on this abomination.

I dont expect to get one, though I might settle for pestering a Senator enough into blocking me on twitter (or his aides, whatever).

Jeddite on April 27, 2013 at 2:24 PM

Whether I am avoiding/evading taxes is between myself and the taxing jurisdiction, in this case, my home state’s legislature. If South Dakota (for instance) has the authority to tax, it shouldn’t need another law to enforce it. If South Dakota doesn’t have the authority to tax, the Federales have no business inserting themselves into this situation. It’s far easier for the governors to leave the decision making process to a bunch of bureaucrats up on Capital Hill who don’t have to go back and face their constituents on a regular basis.

[gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 1:35 PM]

When you engage me in discussion wherein you assert this is a new tax while it appears via a quick search of Arizona statutes that it is an old tax which you may be evading, then that is between you and me for the purposes of arguing that this bill imposes a new tax.

Looking at South Dakota’s laws, they appear to be of same nature as AZ’s, NY’s and every other state I’ve looked at. Now, whether it is the responsibility, or, less so, a good idea, for the federal government to help the state(s) catch or stop a state tax evader like you appear to be is another matter entirely. The point the governors are making is that it’s a common problem. I suppose they could solve it non-federally by coming to individual agreements with each and every state; I don’t know that that is a better option. Most of this subject is about options, not new taxes. Some of it is about fairness, but I see fairness as being about as simple as possible and level as possible, not some ambiguous or strict reading of fairness.

Let me note, I have no general animosity towards smugglers. It’s a long and, I’ll hazard, noble tradition for Americans. A large proportion of our founding fathers were involved in smuggling in order to evade taxes like these and you know darn well more than half of our state governors and federal representative “observe” this sales tax loophole, too. So, I’m just ribbing you about evasion, in relation to whether it is new or not.

I really don’t care what the title of the bill is. That seems to me to be a useless struggle and a distraction, especially when there are much better arguments to put forward for not doing what this bill wants to do.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 2:32 PM

We don’t need federal intervention.

[gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 1:56 PM]

My knee-jerk inclination is to agree. Even my knee-jerk judgement after a lot of consideration is to still agree. Personally, in my usual fashion of kneejerkedly jumping off the fence, I’d prefer to get rid of sales taxes.

I don’t know that I absolutely agree, though. One problem with leaving it to each of the fifty states come up with 49 agreements or something, might actually be worse for small business, in a level playing field sort of way with large business, that I might think a federal involvement would be better.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Whatever. You’re delving into semantics, among other things. Per my last comment to gryphon, Arizona calls it a “Use Tax”. I think the point of the post and the arguing going on here is whether it is a tax increase in the sense that the public will have more money taken by the government than what is due them now according to what is already described as owed per statute. My point from the start had been that this isn’t “new”. It’s already on the books.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Well… since some of those state statutes hold that the declaration of out of state internet purchases is a strictly voluntary action on the part of the taxpayer (as my state does), would not the mandatory assessment and collection of the tax at time of purchase not constitute a ‘New Tax’? It would appear to based on the definition your offering. If compliance is voluntary, then what is ‘owed’ per statute is $0.00. If compliance is no longer voluntary, but now obligatory, then I think it would be fair to call it a ‘New Tax’. I certainly imagine that the vast majority of consumers will see it as such, IMHO.

Snorkdoodle Whizbang on April 27, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Anything called by a name which includes the word “fair” or any derivative of it is nearly always a terrible idea.

rightmind on April 27, 2013 at 2:49 PM

I don’t know that I absolutely agree, though. One problem with leaving it to each of the fifty states come up with 49 agreements or something, might actually be worse for small business, in a level playing field sort of way with large business, that I might think a federal involvement would be better.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 2:41 PM

Federal involvement would be simpler. Simpler =/= better. If a small business does not wish to negotiate taxe rates with a given state, under the current system (and under my ideal system), they wouldn’t have to. They could just refuse to do business in those states they don’t want to deal with. The all-or-nothing-at-all approach espoused by the MpFA and the federales will force businesses to play ball according to a NEW federal law which I think is unnecessary, or they will have to shutter their businesses altogether. How that can be construed as “better” is beyond me.

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 2:55 PM

Well, regardless of what – if anything – passes, we can be sure of at least one thing… our ‘wise leaders’ at both the state and federal level will eff it up.

Snorkdoodle Whizbang on April 27, 2013 at 3:09 PM

Dusty, I love how you toss around the term “knee-jerk” so casually, as if my revulsion towards federal intervention and new revenue taxing authority is somehow ill-thought out and reactionary. Ever stop to think that maybe my position on this is actually based on principles I’ve espoused my entire adult life?

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 3:11 PM

[gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 2:55 PM]

True, simpler =/= better, but at times they might coincide. Simpler is usually better isn’t it?

I don’t know how the law will shutter businesses as you suggest. Is there a provision to require businesses, say a Hess gas station off an interchange of I75 to check a buyer’s residence in order to charge the correct sales tax? If not, then I don’t see how your point, i.e., that businesses which don’t want to comply will have to shutter their business. Can’t they just decide to not make interstate sales via internet/catalogs/etc, just as you suggest they do under no federal law and just state to state deals?

Your point does bring up a potentially serious problem, an unintended consequence, if you will, as to your hypothetical. What happens if you go to Minnesota and buy stuff with a credit/debit card? If not in this Congressional bill, will a revision slide through later which amends the law for to allow applying the correct sales tax based on the address of the credit card holder, automatically? That would force a business to comply with out-of-state collection of sales taxes when the business had decided to just avoid out-of-state dealings.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Dusty, I love how you toss around the term “knee-jerk” so casually, as if my revulsion towards federal intervention and new revenue taxing authority is somehow ill-thought out and reactionary. Ever stop to think that maybe my position on this is actually based on principles I’ve espoused my entire adult life?

[gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 3:11 PM]

I was not using kneejerk to refer to you. I had Jazz in mind and was using it satirically. I guess it was too subtle.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 3:28 PM

Simpler is usually better isn’t it?

The simplest way to go would be maintenance of the status quo, which I believe would be the best way. Government, particularly the federales, never simplifies things. They always make things more complex in their wise prerogative.

I don’t know how the law will shutter businesses as you suggest. Is there a provision to require businesses, say a Hess gas station off an interchange of I75 to check a buyer’s residence in order to charge the correct sales tax? If not, then I don’t see how your point, i.e., that businesses which don’t want to comply will have to shutter their business. Can’t they just decide to not make interstate sales via internet/catalogs/etc, just as you suggest they do under no federal law and just state to state deals?

Businesses that can’t or won’t comply with a regulation under a certain jurisdiction move to places where they can. And when they can’t move, they shutter. History has proven this time and again.

Your point does bring up a potentially serious problem, an unintended consequence, if you will, as to your hypothetical. What happens if you go to Minnesota and buy stuff with a credit/debit card? If not in this Congressional bill, will a revision slide through later which amends the law for to allow applying the correct sales tax based on the address of the credit card holder, automatically? That would force a business to comply with out-of-state collection of sales taxes when the business had decided to just avoid out-of-state dealings.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 3:25 PM

I fear the day the federales make that a mandate. My disgust at conservative acquiescence is principled. It’s my first reaction, but it is not knee-jerk.

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 3:31 PM

I was not using kneejerk to refer to you. I had Jazz in mind and was using it satirically. I guess it was too subtle.

[Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 3:28 PM]

Oh and yes, gryphon, I do think you are arguing on principle and one that overlaps my concern, unnoted in this post, based on the same principle.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 3:32 PM

I might think a federal involvement would be better.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 2:41 PM

You would then be mistaken. The weight of history argues strenuously against this, with only a few mild exceptions.

Well, regardless of what – if anything – passes, we can be sure of at least one thing… our ‘wise leaders’ at both the state and federal level will eff it up.

Snorkdoodle Whizbang on April 27, 2013 at 3:09 PM

Ditto.

Meanwhile $16T+ debt and climbing means that anything that nibbles around the edges of “revenue problems” is just so much tilting at windmills. Without touching entitlements in some meaningful way, the feds will continue to fail, and by extension of economic realities so will the states.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on April 27, 2013 at 3:34 PM

Well… since some of those state statutes hold that the declaration of out of state internet purchases is a strictly voluntary action on the part of the taxpayer (as my state does),

Snorkdoodle Whizbang on April 27, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Sorry, but I don’t know that your state is strictly voluntary, because, well, I don’t know what state you are in, and I’ll beg forgiveness in advance for not believing you are correctly stating their position on that.

What state is it that passes voluntary laws?

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Need I remind you folks who want to tell me this isn’t an issue of “fairness,” the bill is entitled “The Marketplace Fairness Act.”

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 12:49 PM

A primary rule of Titles in Congressional legislation. The legislation does the opposite of the title.

Dasher on April 27, 2013 at 3:47 PM

What state is it that passes voluntary laws?

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 3:43 PM

What state is it that prosecutes individuals for failure to pay use tax/tariff?

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Sometimes I can’t figure out what the “conservative” position on taxes is supposed to be when reading the comments.

We gripe about income taxes because they tax productive citizens and do not encourage success.

But then we grip about sales taxes because it makes the business be the tax collector.

Are property taxes the only “conservative” tax anymore?

I wish I lived in a state that was mainly sales tax. It seems like we used to be positive about states that did away with income taxes to rely on sales tax. Without this type of bill (no opinion on this specific bill) we will see these states add back in income taxes. Think your sales tax is too high, then march on your state capitol.

ChipDaddy on April 27, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Welcome to our brave new Orwelllian doublespeak world. The socialist indoctrination and rot has been internalized and has penetrated widely and deeply in the minds of most Americans, including many who call themselves Republicans or who usually vote R.

farsighted on April 27, 2013 at 1:57 PM

Well said. It’s impossible to have a useful discussion when you start from the left’s lexicon. People of all belief patterns fall into this trap — that’s why it’s used everywhere now. It works.

rightmind on April 27, 2013 at 4:01 PM

What state is it that prosecutes individuals for failure to pay use tax/tariff?

[gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 3:50 PM]

Irrelevant to my question. To use your circumlocution, lax enforcement =/= voluntary.

Some people have a very quirky view of obligation.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Some people have a very quirky view of obligation.

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Yeah, like us wingnuts who believe that we’re not obliged to follow unjust laws. Heh.

gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 4:28 PM

What state is it that passes voluntary laws?

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 3:43 PM

The self assessment of taxable amounts are voluntary on the part of the tax payer. You don’t have to believe me, a decent google of ‘Use Tax’ should suffice. Many states maintain that the self assessment is on a voluntary basis. There is no voluntary assessment of sales tax.

Personally, I’d rather do away with sales tax altogether.

Snorkdoodle Whizbang on April 27, 2013 at 4:30 PM

[Snorkdoodle Whizbang on April 27, 2013 at 4:30 PM]

So you know more about characterizing unspecified state definitions of voluntary, than you do about how to spell the name of the state you reside in?

Why don’t you help me reduce looking for such a state and give me the name of your state so I can look it up?

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Yeah, like us wingnuts who believe that we’re not obliged to follow unjust laws. Heh.

[gryphon202 on April 27, 2013 at 4:28 PM]

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

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 5:01 PM

So you know more about characterizing unspecified state definitions of voluntary, than you do about how to spell the name of the state you reside in?

Dusty on April 27, 2013 at 4:57 PM

Gee Dusty… ad hominum much? Bless your pea pickin heart.

The voluntary nature of use tax assessment is pretty common knowledge and its really, really easy to find specifics regarding compliance, statutes, and even the forms themselves, for many states… not just the one I happen to reside in.

You have a terrific day.

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

Comment pages: 1 2 3