Comments on: Tax-free Internet shopping may be at an end

An influential alliance of state tax collectors and large retailers are hoping to end what they view as a loophole allowing tax-free Internet and mail-order purchases.

[kcotham]

NO MORE TAXES!

[ewelch]

No more idiots who think society can exist without taxes.

By the way, get off our streets and sidewalks freeloader.

[oo7-maverick]

Internet sales tax not moral or legal by ?Natural Law?

Consider the following:

Consumer (A) while on vacation in New York purchases a stereo-system from Vender (A) in New York, paying the proper sales tax upon receiving the goods from Vender (A).
This Constitutes a Moral and Legal tax upon receipt of goods purchased in the State of New York.

Consumer (B) who lives in Ohio, while online surfing the net, comes across a website from Vender (B) who lives in New York. Upon considering the shipping cost Consumer (B) decides to purchase a stereo from Vender (B) website. Vender (B) charges the price of the goods and shipping and Consumer (B) receives an online conformation of goods purchased and an approximate delivery date of goods.
This Constitutes a Moral and Legal tax free transaction conducted in the non-state of cyberspace, because a promise of delivery of goods from Vender (B), by a third party, the shipping entity, to Consumer (B) is the only thing that has transpired in the State of New York. Therefore the State of New York cannot, Morally or Legally charge Consumer (B) a New York sales tax because the Consumer has not received any goods in the State of New York. New York could charge the New York shipping company being used by Vender (B) some form of transport of goods tax.

But New York cannot ever morally and legally be given the right to tax Consumer (B) in Ohio. Because if they can so can the state of Florida.

[GStevens1]

You have got to be joking.

Let me get this straight.

We would get taxed the following under this new legislation:

Tax #1: We would purchase the product (thus local state/sales tax) which is common.

Tax #2: We would sell the product online (and get taxed from the income/profit of the sale).

Tax #3: The purchaser of our product would get taxed from their local state government wherever they reside.

Am I reading this correctly? So are we now talking about 3 different sets of taxes in addition to our standard state and federal income tax? In california it is currently 9.25% and climing for just the sales tax.

God help us all, we have politicians living on a different planet.
This is not a partisan, liberal, republican, etc.. issue. This is an issue about common sense on a level as broad as humanity. Revenues are down because people do not have the money they used to. They have lost their jobs. You don't keep jacking the $hit out of people when they don't have jobs and don't have the money they used to.

Taxing online sales is the straw that broke the camels back.

I am offended, ashamed, and not proud to be american any longer.

[ibeetle]

You are reading it right but you are coming to the wrong conclusion. You will only be taxed once on any and all purchases.
If you go to your local Sears you pay local and state tax
Under the proposal:
If you go to Sears.com you would pay local and state tax
As it is now Sears does not charge you any tax and leaves it up to you to make that declaration on your income tax return. Which of course nobody does.

The loop poll is an interesting one. If I go to Target and buy a shirt I pay sales tax. If I go to Target.com and buy that same shirt I pay sales tax because Target has a brick and mortar presence in my state. However, if I go to Amazon.com and buy that same shirt through Targets Amazon partnership I do not pay sales tax.

Your conclusion that this will double or triple tax people is incorrect. It is trying to close (rightly or wrongly) the loop poll that give Amazon sales tax free business.

[thelemurking]

I was under the assumption that you would be charged state tax if the place you were buying from operated in your state. For instance, since I live in TN and I order from NewEgg frequently... I get charged sales tax because they have a distrobution center in Memphis. But if I lived 20 minutes away in Virginia and had my order shipped there, I would not have to pay sales tax.

Since Sears, Target, Best Buy, Wal Mart etc operate in nearly ever state, it would make sense that you would be charged tax, but for a business with no in state operations where you are located... it seems wrong to be charged state tax.

It does seem like the same item will end up being taxed multiple times by the government and I just can't find it in me to agree to that. I can understand the need for taxes, but not taxing and taxing it again.

[DevinB999]

I personally don't have a problem with paying for taxes when shopping over the internet. In fact I think the bill is long overdue. Why shouldn't we have to pay state sales tax just because we buy over the internet? I'm happy shopping over the internet tax or no tax because prices are generally cheaper anyway. I would gladly pay it and I hope I'm not the only one. The benefit could be huge to our state's schools, roads, ect...

[thelemurking]

If only it went to schools and roads... I would have absolutely no problem paying an internet tax IF and I stress IF the government was forced to work under the same standards as the rest of us... that means dropping their tax paid health care, pension plans and retirement fund. You see, we pay into social security and if it dries up and disappears, well that doesn't mean squat to your senator or your congressman because we will continue to pay for his retirement and health care costs until he dies.

Of course the other side of it is all the government paid parties, hooker excursions, pork belly spending and so on.

[helpusallnow]

Yes, and the new agency and staff to manage it.

[abjrcoco]

Dude, are you for real? We are taxed to death. Most of the money that the government gets goes to paying their salaries, not for helping the kids. Everyone thinks that it's good because it for the children. If that's the case, then to hell with the children.

[mythicalpoet]

This is a government shill. They are all over the internet pretending to be a regualr citizen. They sell disinformation and propaganda. BEWARE!!!

[skshrews]

Anyone who has visited high sales tax states like Maine and New York know how devastated the retail environment in these jurisdictions is, outside a few economically privileged urban areas.

Now the same political hacks will direct their incompetence on the one element of the economy that has eluded them-the internet. I'm sure they'll do everything they can to turn the internet into the same bleak wasteland they've created in so many of the Main Streets of their own states.

As for the "brick and mortar" retailers, they should be doing everything they can to lower sales taxes in their home states, not rob the consumer of their ability to shop either the internet or their local store.

[thelemurking]

In TN the state tax is 7% with a local tax anywhere from 1-2.75% My current sales tax is 9.5% so nearly a dollar for every 10 spent. Since I live on the border with Virginia, I know lots of people who go an extra 10 miles to save half on tax for big ticket items. While that's not exactly legal... what do states expect when the tax like mad?

[Ramon366]

Pass this internet mugging law and watch the economy take a further plunge south. These clowns can't *force* us to spend our hard-earned money. And as far as the school law enforcement argument is concerned, we already pay substantial tax on other items in-state, but our lawmakers aren't going hungry or passing on their on salary increases, are they? Make pot legal - that can be an excellent source of tax revenue. And a word to the whining California retailers: Get competitive with out-of-state retailers and watch your sales increase.

[8301]

"a little-known but influential alliance of state politicians, large retailers, and tax collectors..."

My, doesn't that arrangement sound beneficial to the public.

[markypolo911]

Oh well? This is what the people voted for. "Change".
I say make the people that voted for "change" pay the taxes.
Why are people so STUPID!

[JoeNYC]

Did you notice that the legislation is being introduced by a Republican and a Democrat? You might ask yourself why you only see one side of things. You wonder why people are so stupid but you could probably look in the mirror and answer that yourself.

[DosEquisXX]

From the article the states have been working to get this done since 2003 or earlier. It's not even up for discussion in congress yet and you're already jumping on the This is Obama's fault train. Interesting

[SMB-IL]

No, DosEquisXX, it's not "interesting" at all, just idiotic. The OP should READ a little more before posting this partisan drivel.

[celticbrewer]

Yeah, DosEquis, this has been in the works for years but it was consistently defeated. Now, as the article says, They're "very optimistic about Congress this year." Hmmm. I wonder why... Tax & Spend, Tax & Bailout.

Sure, maybe there's going to be meager income tax cuts for middle america, and then we're going to get taxed to death on everything else.

[dynesh]

Elections have consequences folks.

[macNCheeseB]

Unfortunately it mostly leads to re-elections. The problem is too many politicians live in a different world from their constituents when they are there too long. Vote anybody in office over two terms out, regardless of party.

[ibeetle]

Prepare to vote out the remaining Republicans then. They are the ones who introduced and support it 100% while only a few Democrats do. In fact look at its local supporters; overwhelming Republican Governors and Mayors and business that have made heavy contributions to conservative candidates such as Wal-mart and Home Depot.

[Vegaman_Dan]

@ibeetle

That's a common argument to throw blame to others and try to make one party seem innocent- well, in this case, the Democrats had the ability to stop this but did not take those actions. By their inaction, they are guilty of this result as well.

Both parties are very much interested in seeing taxes raised wherever and however possible. Blaming one or the other won't change that.

[msjonker]

Just tax income and forget about all these stupid taxing rules, laws, and restrictions. Simplify the whole ridiculous, out-of-control system.

[ewelch]

A flat tax of 15 percent would pay for more than what we pay not (most of us about 30 percent).

[ibeetle]

@ewelch

15%? You wish. Even when Regan floated the idea of a flat tax he was talking somewhere between 12 and 15% and that was 25 years ago when the coast of government was cheaper. Most Flat Taxer's today are talking in the 20% figure.
Which would be a significant increase for about 60% of Americans. The majority do not pay the 30% you claim. That is very much a minority tax bracket; unless you believe the average yearly income is six figures.

[i_am_still_wade]

That is exactly what we need, to give people less money to spend. Yeah, that will fix the economy.

[ferricoxide]

I gotta think that a retailer that wholly offshores themselves would make a killing after such laws took effect.

[rapier1]

Except for import duties.

[dcase99]

tax what we spend - only - not what we earn

[GHynson]

And we'll just buy from sites in China,..
Problem Solved

[scottthesculptor]

*Anywhere* out of the country. Pass this law and they'll be whole new retail distribution complexes just over the border on both coasts.
Customs already can't track the millions (billions?) of individual small purchases that are already coming from China, Korea, Thailand, Mexico, etc.

Why pay some rich American to import, ship, and tax an item?

A whole new economy for those poor caribbean islands . . .

[loobosh1]

This is not going to work.
All you have to do is sell on ebay you will need a tax id # .
Now you can buy things online tax free with your tax id # for resale.
They will never win this one.

[lonestarState]

This country is so lost... Freaking taxation up the arse... Politicians sucking every last penny out of us. The state of California along with the Federal Government should be ashamed for their out of control spending. I am sure in the next few years we will be paying 15% in local taxes along with 40% income taxes. Soon we will we robots tweeting and myfacing gibberish, bowing to the Imperial guard, asking for permission if we can walk on the beach.

[aka_tripleB]

I have an idea, how about reducing how much politicians are paid. Why should they get more than what people make annually on minimum wage? There are two reason I feel this way. One, they are called public servants, they should be paid like one. Two, they don't even work a full year; that should definately constitute pay well under 10 times more than what people make on minimum wage. And this would solve two problems: tax rates and minimum wage rates. Just think how much we would save, even on the federal level, if they were only paid $10,712 a year ($5.15 x 40 x 52). I'm not sure if that is the current rate, but you get my point. And if they don't like it, they could raise minimum wage to get more. Not a good idea to raise minimum wage all the time, but again, focus on the point I'm making.

[2ndfallout]

Yeah, but then you wouldn't get any good candidates. Granted some may argue this is already the case, but paying them minimum wage (which I believe is in the $6 range and soon to be in the $7) means no one would apply/run except high school kids.

[thelemurking]

Any good candidates... you are assuming the ones we have now are outstanding in their job duties? If that were so, we would not be in the mess we are in. There should also be a term limit set just like for president. It's a shame that the best candidate doesn't always win... it's mostly the richest one... and rich people have one goal, to get richer!

[celticbrewer]

I premise, I agree. But then they'll be far more likely to be influenced by special interests. "hey, if you do this for me, my company will pay for the 3,000 sq foot addition on your house" etc...

[winstein]

Unlike other times, I am for the first time considering moving to a lower tax state/city.

[rklrkl]

If they do introduce taxes for US online shopping sites, I hope that the prices are quoted *including* the sales tax. Being from the UK, I am always confused and bemused by the frankly barmy US practice of not including sales tax in the sticker price of goods sold in bricks'n'mortar stores. Not only is it annoying that what you pay at the checkout till is different from what's on the sticker, but it also makes it virtually impossible to provide "exact change" if you're paying in cash (unless you have a calculator handy).

Why does the US do this - I can see it only making sense when the bricks'n'mortar store only sells to businesses (e.g. warehouse stores like Costco) that can claim back the sales tax, but open-to-the-general-public US stores do it too and it's maddening!

[solitare_pax]

I do agree with you on this - and that is why I am happy to be living in one of the two US States that does not have a sales tax on merchandise. Interestingly enough, they seem to be doing okay, as opposed to the other 48 sales-tax states.

[2ndfallout]

I beleive there are 5 states without sales tax:

Alaska
Oregon
Montana
Delaware
New Hampshire

[taphilo]

50 different states, plus our "colonies" like Puetro Rico, Guam, Virgin Islands, Washington DC, etc, are each independant nations joined into a Union thus are free to make up their own taxes and laws indepdenant of the Union - Federal - rules. In addition, local governments also have the right to tax, as do counties. Thus there are at least three levels of local sales (VAT like) taxes that could be levied at any one time and subject to change at any time. To include the sales tax price on any stickered object would not work since at any time the tax rate could (and does) change and thus the sticker price would almost always be invalid for a period of time. And our laws also have rules concerning "sticker" prices seen must be honored, so the state / county / city would lose sales taxes if incorrect and no taxing authority likes to lose any income!
Oh, and some states that have no STATE sales tax, there exists some local governments do have a sales tax on goods.
The only way a universal sticker price in USA would work is if the Federal government abolished the ability of any other government entity from imposing sales tax and make a universal sales tax law stating the amount of sales tax that can be levied anywhere at the same time. And due to the size, and that darn Constituion of the USA (lucikly for us), they can't. Course the people who has authortiy to tax usually ignore the Constitition when they can get more money (power) and there is no appeal from the tax man. You appeal to the same people who make the rules and thus always lose.

[too_many_taxes]

VAT vs Separate Sales Tax: The trouble with VAT is that it is added at every step of the process, from producer to final sale. The politicians can raise the VAT any time they feel like it, and most people don't even know how much tax they're paying on sales. If the price is too high, the public will blame the seller, not the government! With the separate listing of sales tax, the purchaser knows how much they're paying for the product and how much the government is sucking out of them. With sales tax, the politicians cannot raise the tax without the public at least being aware of it.

I have a small online business. If the Internet tax passes, I'll simply have to close my business because I do not have the time to change all my sales pages, and keep records for 50 states.

The worst thing any government can do is raise taxes during a recession. My state increased what was taxable by sales taxes during the last recession and put my brick and mortar store out of businesss because it had the effect of raising prices when my customers' incomes were down or disappearing.

[dwimmer38]

Typical democrat response to everything. Instead of cutting spending they find new ways of taxing. The current tax laws are adequate and should be left alone. Many times I buy things over the internet and eat the shipping charges knowing the lack of tax will make up for it. If you want to help kill Internet commerce then let the Obama lemmings start taxing it.

[jspencer09]

The *current* bill is being introduced by a Democrat AND a Republican. Further, this is a debate that the Congress has had many times before - this is clearly a bi-partisan issue, so please spare me your Faux News Regurgitation Rhetoric.

Thanks.

[biffhenerson]

No true Republican would sponsor such a bill. The guy can call himself whatever he wants. He is not a true Republican. Lots of people claim to be Catholics, but they are not because they don't qualify to be members.

[jspencer09]

@bif
I stand corrected. I don't live in his state, nor do I know much about his policies. He ran and was elected as a Republican however. But I'm not trying to argue semantics -- you can call him a pink bunny rabbit if it makes you happy.
My original point is that this is a bipartisan issue -- meaning that both major parties want a piece of the Internet Tax action. This bill has come up before Congress before -- and if this measure is defeated, it will come up again. There are 20 states that are part of the streamlined tax coalition -- not all Democrat states. Kansas, North Dakota, Iowa and Oklahoma are not exactly Democrat strongholds. Simple point being, don't try to oversimplify this as a typical Democrats vs. Republicans issue, because it's not.

[celticbrewer]

I'd be happy to blame one side or the other, but you know this is all about large B&M stores (I'm looking at you walmart, target, homedepot, etc..) who have to charge taxes since they have a presence in almost every state vs more local operations like Amazon, LL Bean, etc... I do a lot of online shopping, mainly because it's cheaper, faster, and more convenient. After paying for shipping, if I have to pay sales taxes, too, I might as well go to a local store- exactly what the big stores want.

[mmormando]

It all very well to pass this law...then its up to the merchants to implement the friggin thing! How 'bout this can only go into effect after all the states have some sort of web service put up that would take something like zip code, item ID number, and sale price, then return the tax owed and to what tax authority.
Otherwise, screw'em.

[desertd]

It's not even that easy. I worked for a company that did business online. When we sold soda pop to a specific county in Texas, it was treated as food, and not taxed, but a neighbor down the street (same zip code) lived in a different county. There, the soda was treated as a convenience item, and was taxable. In some places, if you buy a single can, that's taxable, but if you buy a six-pack, that's not taxable. Also, since a neighbor may live in a different town or county, you had to know if that town or county had it's own tax rate. There was no software for our ecommerce package that would do handle these types of situations. The tax auditor for the state of Texas had no sympathy. It didn't matter to them that doing this was nearly impossible. We were a small company, and I can't imagine how would we handle this for 50 states, let alone one state.

[mmormando]

Right, that's why I said that the states would be responsible for providing a service that would allow you to tell them what was being sold and how much is was, and it would be THEIR responsibility to give you back the amount of tax. I agree its too big a burden for individual businesses to implement, if the states want items taxed, then they need to bear the responsibility of figuring out what that amount should be.