In other words, you don't actually give a shit.
Online Sales Tax Coming ???
- Thread starter QueEx
- Start date
Why I Oppose the Internet Tax Bill
Why I Oppose the Internet Tax Bill
By Sen. Ted Cruz
May 5, 2013
Basic tenets of economics dictate that when you tax something, you get less of it. That’s why it’s incomprehensible that the U.S. Senate is moving to raise taxes on one of the brightest sectors of our struggling economy.
The Internet is a thriving ecosystem of entrepreneurial freedom that should be protected and nourished. It has allowed new businesses to compete in the national marketplace in ways that would have been impossible 15 years ago, and it empowers consumer choice. But tax-hungry politicians view the Internet as yet another source of revenue to bail out their big-spending governments.
The misleadingly titled Marketplace Fairness Act is a job-killing tax hike, plain and simple. It is, in effect, a national Internet sales tax, which would hammer the little guy and benefit giant corporations.
Senators who vote for it are voting to impose audits, compliance costs, lost wages, and inefficiency on small businesses in every state. And they are potentially crippling an engine of new job creation at a time of economic struggle. This bill will not create jobs; it will not create new opportunities; and it will not create the economic growth our country needs and our people deserve.
Currently, online sellers collect sales taxes based on their physical location. The MFA, however, would fundamentally change how businesses collect those taxes. Instead, it would require online retailers to charge taxes based on the consumer’s location or where the product is ultimately consumed. That’s like your grocery store quizzing you on where you’re going to eat those apples or Hallmark asking where you’re going to send that Christmas card. The compliance burdens associated with charging taxes based on the consumer’s location are mind-numbingly complicated.
Consider this: Online and catalogue retailers with gross sales of $1 million -- a level that is mom & pop size in many places -- will be forced to collect sales taxes for the country’s 9,600 state and local tax jurisdictions. Just as Obamacare punishes small business with taxes and regulations for employing more than 50 people, this legislation would punish small businesses for making more than $1 million in sales. For many businesses it may be more beneficial to make less money than to keep track of all the different taxes.
Small and medium-size businesses would be subjected to monthly or quarterly tax returns to all 46 states who collect sales tax; in addition, one amendment likely to be added to the bill would also include all 565 federally recognized Indian tribes in the definition of “state,” so businesses would need to collect applicable taxes for them, too.
As if that wasn’t enough, each of the nearly 10,000 jurisdictions gets to have its own tax rates and sales tax holidays with thresholds and caps. Each state can give sellers their own “tax app” and it’s up to the seller to pay for integration into their in-house systems for ordering, fulfillment, and accounting.
Keep in mind, each state still gets to have its own audit, forms, tax base, and definitions. That means every online seller could be subject to dozens -- or eventually hundreds -- of audits each year.
So, how is this fair? After all, brick and mortar stores aren’t subjected to all these rules.
And, how is it fair for a Texas business to collect taxes to support California Gov. Jerry Brown’s big spending? Or to underwrite New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s nanny statism or Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s anti-Second Amendment agenda?
Make no mistake: Big business supports this bill because it will drive smaller competitors off the Internet and out of business.
And it wouldn't help small brick-and-mortar retailers, as its proponents claim, because the sales they are losing today are mostly going to big-box stores and giant online retailers -- both of whom are already paying sales taxes.
The largest online retailers already have physical business presences in most states. Meaning, they are already collecting and paying the state taxes. Right now, nine of the top 10 Internet retailers collect taxes in every state. Big businesses can afford to hire accountants and attorneys to pay the taxes properly and navigate audits.
Instead, this bill would just impose crushing new costs on small and mid-size Internet retailers.
Enjoy Web-based entertainment such as Netflix and iTunes? Or how about the projected 56 billion apps downloaded in 2013? Well, this bill will open the door to new taxes on every TV show, movie, game, song, or app you download.
Naturally, state and local governments are salivating at the prospect of getting a purported $23 billion in new revenue from the private economy. Especially when the out-of-state consumers paying those taxes and the out-of-state businesses owners who collect them can’t vote them out of office.
Last but not least, this bill doesn’t pass constitutional muster. The MFA overturns the fundamental idea that states’ taxing authority ends at their borders. The Supreme Court has said that an out-of-state business could subject itself to a state's taxing power if due-process concerns are satisfied, namely that the business purposefully targets its activities in that state. But because pure Internet sales by their nature don't target any one state, this legislation presents a serious constitutional problem.
Raising the tax burden on small businesses in one of the still-thriving sectors of our economy doesn't make sense. And, imposing a national Internet sales tax while the nation is still trying to desperately to create jobs and provide new opportunities for millions of Americans still struggling to find work is economic foolishness.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/05/why_i_oppose_the_internet_tax_bill_118255.html
Why I Oppose the Internet Tax Bill
By Sen. Ted Cruz
May 5, 2013
Basic tenets of economics dictate that when you tax something, you get less of it. That’s why it’s incomprehensible that the U.S. Senate is moving to raise taxes on one of the brightest sectors of our struggling economy.
The Internet is a thriving ecosystem of entrepreneurial freedom that should be protected and nourished. It has allowed new businesses to compete in the national marketplace in ways that would have been impossible 15 years ago, and it empowers consumer choice. But tax-hungry politicians view the Internet as yet another source of revenue to bail out their big-spending governments.
The misleadingly titled Marketplace Fairness Act is a job-killing tax hike, plain and simple. It is, in effect, a national Internet sales tax, which would hammer the little guy and benefit giant corporations.
Senators who vote for it are voting to impose audits, compliance costs, lost wages, and inefficiency on small businesses in every state. And they are potentially crippling an engine of new job creation at a time of economic struggle. This bill will not create jobs; it will not create new opportunities; and it will not create the economic growth our country needs and our people deserve.
Currently, online sellers collect sales taxes based on their physical location. The MFA, however, would fundamentally change how businesses collect those taxes. Instead, it would require online retailers to charge taxes based on the consumer’s location or where the product is ultimately consumed. That’s like your grocery store quizzing you on where you’re going to eat those apples or Hallmark asking where you’re going to send that Christmas card. The compliance burdens associated with charging taxes based on the consumer’s location are mind-numbingly complicated.
Consider this: Online and catalogue retailers with gross sales of $1 million -- a level that is mom & pop size in many places -- will be forced to collect sales taxes for the country’s 9,600 state and local tax jurisdictions. Just as Obamacare punishes small business with taxes and regulations for employing more than 50 people, this legislation would punish small businesses for making more than $1 million in sales. For many businesses it may be more beneficial to make less money than to keep track of all the different taxes.
Small and medium-size businesses would be subjected to monthly or quarterly tax returns to all 46 states who collect sales tax; in addition, one amendment likely to be added to the bill would also include all 565 federally recognized Indian tribes in the definition of “state,” so businesses would need to collect applicable taxes for them, too.
As if that wasn’t enough, each of the nearly 10,000 jurisdictions gets to have its own tax rates and sales tax holidays with thresholds and caps. Each state can give sellers their own “tax app” and it’s up to the seller to pay for integration into their in-house systems for ordering, fulfillment, and accounting.
Keep in mind, each state still gets to have its own audit, forms, tax base, and definitions. That means every online seller could be subject to dozens -- or eventually hundreds -- of audits each year.
So, how is this fair? After all, brick and mortar stores aren’t subjected to all these rules.
And, how is it fair for a Texas business to collect taxes to support California Gov. Jerry Brown’s big spending? Or to underwrite New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s nanny statism or Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s anti-Second Amendment agenda?
Make no mistake: Big business supports this bill because it will drive smaller competitors off the Internet and out of business.
And it wouldn't help small brick-and-mortar retailers, as its proponents claim, because the sales they are losing today are mostly going to big-box stores and giant online retailers -- both of whom are already paying sales taxes.
The largest online retailers already have physical business presences in most states. Meaning, they are already collecting and paying the state taxes. Right now, nine of the top 10 Internet retailers collect taxes in every state. Big businesses can afford to hire accountants and attorneys to pay the taxes properly and navigate audits.
Instead, this bill would just impose crushing new costs on small and mid-size Internet retailers.
Enjoy Web-based entertainment such as Netflix and iTunes? Or how about the projected 56 billion apps downloaded in 2013? Well, this bill will open the door to new taxes on every TV show, movie, game, song, or app you download.
Naturally, state and local governments are salivating at the prospect of getting a purported $23 billion in new revenue from the private economy. Especially when the out-of-state consumers paying those taxes and the out-of-state businesses owners who collect them can’t vote them out of office.
Last but not least, this bill doesn’t pass constitutional muster. The MFA overturns the fundamental idea that states’ taxing authority ends at their borders. The Supreme Court has said that an out-of-state business could subject itself to a state's taxing power if due-process concerns are satisfied, namely that the business purposefully targets its activities in that state. But because pure Internet sales by their nature don't target any one state, this legislation presents a serious constitutional problem.
Raising the tax burden on small businesses in one of the still-thriving sectors of our economy doesn't make sense. And, imposing a national Internet sales tax while the nation is still trying to desperately to create jobs and provide new opportunities for millions of Americans still struggling to find work is economic foolishness.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/05/05/why_i_oppose_the_internet_tax_bill_118255.html
Re: Why I Oppose the Internet Tax Bill
Senate approves online sales tax;
House support isn’t so certain
The Senate passes the online bill that Ebay is not in favor of | LiPo Ching/San Jose
Mercury News/MCT
By Lindsay Wise
McClatchy Washington Bureau
Monday, May 6, 2013
A bill that would authorize states to collect sales taxes for online purchases easily passed the Senate on Monday with bipartisan support, but it faces a tougher hurdle in the House of Representatives.
The Marketplace Fairness Act sailed through the Senate, 69-27, without going through the usual committee process.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., took the legislation directly to the floor last month, bypassing the Senate Finance Committee, which is led by a prominent opponent of the
bill, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.
But in the Republican-ruled House, members will be more reluctant to vote for anything that looks like a new tax, and the legislation will have to clear the Judiciary Committee. That panel’s chairman, Rep. Robert Goodlatte, R-Va., has expressed concerns that the bill could hurt small businesses and, as written, is too complicated to navigate.
“While it attempts to make tax collection simpler, it still has a long way to go,” Goodlatte said in a statement.
Current laws allow states to collect taxes only from retailers with physical presences in the buyers’ states, resulting in the loss of a projected $23 billion in annual sales tax revenue nationwide, according to a University of Tennessee study.
The bill would require all businesses that make more than $1 million in out-of-state sales to charge state and local taxes for remote purchases made on the Internet or by catalog. The businesses then would have to remit the taxes to the appropriate state agency.
Supporters of the bill say the change is needed because brick-and-mortar stores are at a competitive disadvantage to online-only businesses that don’t have to charge sales tax.
Technically, online or catalog shoppers are supposed to declare any out-of-state purchases on their state tax returns, but few do.
Retailers applauded the Senate’s passage of the bill Monday.
“Congress needs to address this sales tax disparity and allow retailers to compete freely and fairly," Stephen I. Sadove, chairman of the board of the National Retail Federation, a Washington trade group, said in a statement. “Retailers of all shapes, sizes and channels deserve a level playing field.”
Conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation and Americans for Tax Reform oppose the bill, arguing that it would create a compliance nightmare for small businesses, which would have to keep track of almost 10,000 state, local and municipal tax codes.
“The main concern here is that this would institute regulation without representation,” said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation. “This would conscript businesses that have no dealings within a state – other than having customers there – to collect sales taxes for this state. … We don’t think that states have the power to regulate businesses that do not reside within their borders.”
One of the legislation’s biggest critics is eBay Inc. The Internet auction site has been lobbying lawmakers to increase the small business exemption either to $10 million in annual out-of-state sales or to 50 employees.
“Our concern is that there are many small businesses that would now face significant new tax compliance burdens and that the Internet would be a harder place for them to grow,” said Brian Bieron, senior director of global public policy for eBay.
Bieron criticized Senate leadership for bringing the Marketplace Fairness Act directly to the floor without submitting it to debate and amendment in committee beforehand. He said he’s hopeful the bill will face more scrutiny and further modification in the House.
“We think the House process should improve the bill, we’re very confident about that,” he said. “. . . I think there are a lot of senators who are not convinced that this particular version of the bill is perfect in any way and they’re going to applaud a better version in the end.”
Email: lwise@mcclatchydc.com; Twitter: @lindsaywise
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/06/190512/senate-approves-online-sales-tax.html#storylink=cpy
Senate approves online sales tax;
House support isn’t so certain
The Senate passes the online bill that Ebay is not in favor of | LiPo Ching/San Jose
Mercury News/MCT
By Lindsay Wise
McClatchy Washington Bureau
Monday, May 6, 2013
A bill that would authorize states to collect sales taxes for online purchases easily passed the Senate on Monday with bipartisan support, but it faces a tougher hurdle in the House of Representatives.
The Marketplace Fairness Act sailed through the Senate, 69-27, without going through the usual committee process.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., took the legislation directly to the floor last month, bypassing the Senate Finance Committee, which is led by a prominent opponent of the
bill, Sen. Max Baucus, D-Mont.
But in the Republican-ruled House, members will be more reluctant to vote for anything that looks like a new tax, and the legislation will have to clear the Judiciary Committee. That panel’s chairman, Rep. Robert Goodlatte, R-Va., has expressed concerns that the bill could hurt small businesses and, as written, is too complicated to navigate.
“While it attempts to make tax collection simpler, it still has a long way to go,” Goodlatte said in a statement.
Current laws allow states to collect taxes only from retailers with physical presences in the buyers’ states, resulting in the loss of a projected $23 billion in annual sales tax revenue nationwide, according to a University of Tennessee study.
The bill would require all businesses that make more than $1 million in out-of-state sales to charge state and local taxes for remote purchases made on the Internet or by catalog. The businesses then would have to remit the taxes to the appropriate state agency.
Supporters of the bill say the change is needed because brick-and-mortar stores are at a competitive disadvantage to online-only businesses that don’t have to charge sales tax.
Technically, online or catalog shoppers are supposed to declare any out-of-state purchases on their state tax returns, but few do.
Retailers applauded the Senate’s passage of the bill Monday.
“Congress needs to address this sales tax disparity and allow retailers to compete freely and fairly," Stephen I. Sadove, chairman of the board of the National Retail Federation, a Washington trade group, said in a statement. “Retailers of all shapes, sizes and channels deserve a level playing field.”
Conservative groups such as the Heritage Foundation and Americans for Tax Reform oppose the bill, arguing that it would create a compliance nightmare for small businesses, which would have to keep track of almost 10,000 state, local and municipal tax codes.
“The main concern here is that this would institute regulation without representation,” said Curtis Dubay, senior tax policy analyst for the Heritage Foundation. “This would conscript businesses that have no dealings within a state – other than having customers there – to collect sales taxes for this state. … We don’t think that states have the power to regulate businesses that do not reside within their borders.”
One of the legislation’s biggest critics is eBay Inc. The Internet auction site has been lobbying lawmakers to increase the small business exemption either to $10 million in annual out-of-state sales or to 50 employees.
“Our concern is that there are many small businesses that would now face significant new tax compliance burdens and that the Internet would be a harder place for them to grow,” said Brian Bieron, senior director of global public policy for eBay.
Bieron criticized Senate leadership for bringing the Marketplace Fairness Act directly to the floor without submitting it to debate and amendment in committee beforehand. He said he’s hopeful the bill will face more scrutiny and further modification in the House.
“We think the House process should improve the bill, we’re very confident about that,” he said. “. . . I think there are a lot of senators who are not convinced that this particular version of the bill is perfect in any way and they’re going to applaud a better version in the end.”
Email: lwise@mcclatchydc.com; Twitter: @lindsaywise
Read more here: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/05/06/190512/senate-approves-online-sales-tax.html#storylink=cpy
If it's a narrow bill that just has those businesses pay their state taxes, I don't see the problem. Every mom and pop shop with one employee, if that many, has to pay local taxes, why should a business that works on-line be exempt?
I'm really interested in the "Gov't shouldn't pick winners and losers" crowd to explain why one form of business should pay taxes but another shouldn't.
I'm really interested in the "Gov't shouldn't pick winners and losers" crowd to explain why one form of business should pay taxes but another shouldn't.
Last edited:
Re: Why I Oppose the Internet Tax Bill
Is Ted Cruz suppose to add credibility to your argument?
Is Ted Cruz suppose to add credibility to your argument?
Re: Why I Oppose the Internet Tax Bill
When did I make those arguments?
Re: Why I Oppose the Internet Tax Bill
Why did you think I posted that article about ObamaCare being a good thing? Because I wanted to advance that argument?
I told you already, I post what interest me.
Why did you think I posted that article about ObamaCare being a good thing? Because I wanted to advance that argument?
Re: Why I Oppose the Internet Tax Bill
So you do endorse Ted Cruz's thoughts on the Internet Tax.
So you do endorse Ted Cruz's thoughts on the Internet Tax.
Re: Why I Oppose the Internet Tax Bill
I do agree that $1 million in revenue isn't as much as people think it is. I'd rather it be one million in profit if anything.
My position is government at all levels already collects $3 trillion in revenue, why is that not enough. Stop using "fairness" as an excuse to take people's money.
No, I accept his conclusion but not most of his premises. It will be an unnecessarily complicated logistical nightmare to accumulate and constantly update the relevant tax rates, whether it be 46 or the 9600 quoted by the article, but it wouldn't be "crushing." I'm sure there are already multiple enterprising people creating applications to make it easier for small businesses to keep track if such things.
I do agree that $1 million in revenue isn't as much as people think it is. I'd rather it be one million in profit if anything.
My position is government at all levels already collects $3 trillion in revenue, why is that not enough. Stop using "fairness" as an excuse to take people's money.
Re: Why I Oppose the Internet Tax Bill
In a $15.7 trillion economy? That's less than 20%. That's less than it was in the "good old days"!
Any wonder why China is kicking our asses!
In a $15.7 trillion economy? That's less than 20%. That's less than it was in the "good old days"!
Any wonder why China is kicking our asses!
Re: Why I Oppose the Internet Tax Bill
Why increase revenue with the excuse of fairness, but not the reasoning of this revenue is needed to fund government?
The obvious answer is because you can get away with doing it, which is the modern rationale of all things government.
What does any random percentage have to do with the amount that government needs to do it's job? Is $3 trillion not enough?
Why increase revenue with the excuse of fairness, but not the reasoning of this revenue is needed to fund government?
The obvious answer is because you can get away with doing it, which is the modern rationale of all things government.
Re: Why I Oppose the Internet Tax Bill
Didn't I say enough for "government needs to do it's job?"
Re: Why I Oppose the Internet Tax Bill
That's the exact argument. The fairness argument comes into play when Progressives want to raise taxes on higher earners instead of on lower income workers.
That's the exact argument. The fairness argument comes into play when Progressives want to raise taxes on higher earners instead of on lower income workers.
Re: Why I Oppose the Internet Tax Bill
This is just a move to increase revenue. Fairness should not be the government reason to raise revenue. Does government need the extra revenue or not to deliver services?
That debate should be had when we talk about the tax burden between the classes and what proportion should be applied to what income levels.
This is just a move to increase revenue. Fairness should not be the government reason to raise revenue. Does government need the extra revenue or not to deliver services?
OK, now what? I agree it's subjective in it's totality. What does that have to do with you saying whether or not $3 trillion is enough to take from people.
Similar threads
