CNet.com: Republican Senators Push for Internet Sales Taxes

[stevenaa]

Of course it will, we can't very well stimulate the economy by increasing spending when we can just continually tax the people who are already carrying the heaviest burden.

---------- Post added November-4th-2011 at 11:20 AM ----------

Yeah, right and the lottery is going to save the schools and give us new roads....

---------- Post added November-4th-2011 at 11:21 AM ----------

I'm in favor of looking at the corporations that are only paying an effective tax rate of 17% instead of putting more of a burden on those carrying more than their share of the load.

There is no solution, then, that can ever be acceptible to you. Any increase in taxes to any entity is going to result in higher costs of a final product. However, IMO, sales tax will result in less of a base product cost increase then will an increase in corporate taxes, though I beleive those should be raised as well.

[AsburySkinsFan]

There is no solution, then, that can ever be acceptible to you. Any increase in taxes to any entity is going to result in higher costs of a final product. However, IMO, sales tax will result in less of a base product cost increase then will an increase in corporate taxes, though I beleive those should be raised as well.

Oh yes there is a solution that will be acceptable to me, corporations take less profits in order to willingly shoulder their share of the burden....after all they're people dontcha know.

[First Colony]

I would not mind paying the sales tax that I pay for everything else in my state. In fact, I would like to volunteer to pay double my sales tax, as a gesture of how much I value what my government does for me. And I am completely serious.

Ha,ha I get it. You're in DE, and 2 times 0 is still 0.

[Predicto]

This is a very good idea, and long overdue. The devil is in the details, but the current situation is totally unfair to brick and mortar retailers.

[stevenaa]

Oh yes there is a solution that will be acceptable to me, corporations take less profits in order to willingly shoulder their share of the burden....after all they're people dontcha know.

I never suggested they are people. You, however, ascribe people like attitudes towards them in suggesting they "shoulder their share of the burden". Once you own the fact they are not people, maybe you can lessen your frustration and focus your efforts on finding alternative solutions to help those you are so passionate for. Tax corporations and somehow magically prevent them from increasing prices to cover the additional costs and they will offshore completely.

Our current host of problems is so multifaceted and it goes far beyond just Corporate Taxes and Taxation of the 1%. It needs fixing on both ends. Revenue needs to increase to handle the current debt problem and assistance programs. Corruptoin and abuse of assistance programs needs to end.

My wifes cousin is married and she stays at home. They have a child and are on government assistance. She could work but she just quit her job to stay at home. Now, they've decided to get pregnant and have another child. No insurance and can't even currently provide for themselves. This is not an isolated problem. It's rampant and it is a huge burden on a system that should be available for those in real need.

You do an awful lot of blaming corporations and the 1% for the woes of the poor. It would sure be nice to see some balance in your posts that includes personal responsibility and living within your means as part of the overall solution. A one sided solution is going to have a one sided result.

Mabye some of your contituents/flock will benefit from the increaesed Brick and Mortar retail sales.

[AsburySkinsFan]

I never suggested they are people.

The noise from the Right sure does.

You, however, ascribe people like attitudes towards them in suggesting they "shoulder their share of the burden".

So because they aren't people the corps don't need to be called to "shoulder their share" or pay an equitable amount or (insert whatever line makes you feel better that means "their rightful share") of the tax burden?

Once you own the fact they are not people, maybe you can lessen your frustration and focus your efforts on finding alternative solutions to help those you are so passionate for.

And once their CEO's start caring about more than their profit margin I won't need to.

Tax corporations and somehow magically prevent them from increasing prices to cover the additional costs and they will offshore completely.

Yeah, it's called CEO's with a conscience...it's not magic...and yet what we keep hearing is that these corporations are our saviors...sorry but if they must be placated or else they'll leave us high and dry then they are not saviors but instead our the oppressors.

Our current host of problems is so multifaceted and it goes far beyond just Corporate Taxes and Taxation of the 1%. It needs fixing on both ends. Revenue needs to increase to handle the current debt problem and assistance programs. Corruptoin and abuse of assistance programs needs to end.

My wifes cousin is married and she stays at home. They have a child and are on government assistance. She could work but she just quit her job to stay at home. Now, they've decided to get pregnant and have another child. No insurance and can't even currently provide for themselves. This is not an isolated problem. It's rampant and it is a huge burden on a system that should be available for those in real need.

And that's not good, and is a problem...yet it is NOT the topic of this thread.

You do an awful lot of blaming corporations and the 1% for the woes of the poor.

That's because they deserve an awful lot of the blame...but instead we hear that those complaining are lazy, greedy class warriors....whatev....

It would sure be nice to see some balance in your posts that includes personal responsibility and living within your means as part of the overall solution. A one sided solution is going to have a one sided result.

In a thread about social program abuse I will most certainly do so. I am all for work-for-assistance programs that hold people accountable for the assistance they receive...yet that's not the point of THIS thread, and if I started in on that idea I would rightly be accused of hijacking.

Maybe some of your contituents/flock will benefit from the increaesed Brick and Mortar retail sales.

You really think people are going to return to the brick and mortar stores just because the Amazon will charge tax across state lines? Here's a hint...I live in a state where Amazon already charges me...and I still shop through Amazon.

[TimmySmith]

This is a very good idea, and long overdue. The devil is in the details, but the current situation is totally unfair to brick and mortar retailers.

Unfair, meh, maybe. But I don't see people jumping in the car and driving to the mall to pay the same 7% sales tax. They use Amazon for convenience and will continue to do so, except now they'll pay more. A loss for the consumer.

[Predicto]

You really think people are going to return to the brick and mortar stores just because the Amazon will charge tax across state lines? Here's a hint...I live in a state where Amazon already charges me...and I still shop through Amazon.

Unfair, meh, maybe. But I don't see people jumping in the car and driving to the mall to pay the same 7% sales tax. They use Amazon for convenience and will continue to do so, except now they'll pay more. A loss for the consumer.

If they do, it will be because Amazon provides a better service. That's fair.

It's not fair that Amazon also has a built in enormous tax advantage. It is also bad for the government fiscal bottom line.

[AsburySkinsFan]

It's not fair that Amazon also has a built in enormous tax advantage.

And they get tax breaks from the communities where they build their distribution centers that's not fair either...yet.....

The solution is it seems constantly "make sure we get as much tax revenue from the "purchasing class" as we possibly can" rather than looking to see which areas are already paying far too little.

---------- Post added November-4th-2011 at 12:29 PM ----------

Unfair, meh, maybe. But I don't see people jumping in the car and driving to the mall to pay the same 7% sales tax. They use Amazon for convenience and will continue to do so, except now they'll pay more. A loss for the consumer.

Agreed.

[Predicto]

And they get tax breaks from the communities where they build their distribution centers that's not fair either...yet.....

The solution is it seems constantly "make sure we get as much tax revenue from the "purchasing class" as we possibly can" rather than looking to see which areas are already paying far too little.

Then cut all sales taxes. Not just the sales taxes on one competitor in an open market, one which is already successfully driving thousands of small businesses out of business.

[TheLongshot]

Additional tax revenue could help fund programs that assist those out of work with re-education programs. My wifes uncle used such a program after getting laid off from the printing business a few years ago. He got retrained and the program assisted with getting him placed with a company. Such a great investment of tax dollars as opposed to never ending unemployment that does nothing to improve the situation of the unemployed.

If I felt like Republicans would get behind something like that, I could believe in something like this. But, in the environment of the convervative 'starve the beast' attitude that is going on right now (Not that starve the beast has ever really worked.), I have little confidence that this will go to job creation.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Then cut all sales taxes. Not just the sales taxes on one competitor in an open market, one which is already successfully driving thousands of small businesses out of business.

You think that the sales tax issue is the reason why Amazon is driving small businesses out of business?

[Riggo-toni]

The biggest "job-creators" over the past 15 years have been tech and internet companies. The banking and most of the financial sectors have contributed virtually nothing since '08 because it's easier (and safer) for them to make money with financial instruments and gambling with derivatives (see Scumbag Corzine). Yet those who want to remove tax loopholes like the absurd ethanol subsidy are class warrior socialists, but raising taxes on internet transactions is just so responsible.

Oh,and half the startups in Silicon Valley are created by immigrants, but let's be sure to keep them out.

[PokerPacker]

unless the company is in your state, it is interstate commerce and no one state has control of the sale, thus it refers to federal law, no? Being that there is no federal sales tax, there is no tax on the sale. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't there tend to be a sales tax for online purchases when you are in the same state as the company you are purchasing from?

[AsburySkinsFan]

unless the company is in your state, it is interstate commerce and no one state has control of the sale, thus it refers to federal law, no? Being that there is no federal sales tax, there is no tax on the sale.

Yep...unless these Republicans get their way.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't there tend to be a sales tax for online purchases when you are in the same state as the company you are purchasing from?

You're correct, since Amazon has a distribution centers in Kentucky when I buy from them I am charged sales tax.

[PokerPacker]

If they do, it will be because Amazon provides a better service. That's fair.

It's not fair that Amazon also has a built in enormous tax advantage. It is also bad for the government fiscal bottom line.

the sales tax is a pretty regressive tax, anyways, is it not? Perhaps we should be moving away from that and move it towards something a bit more flat.

[Prosperity]

unless the company is in your state, it is interstate commerce and no one state has control of the sale, thus it refers to federal law, no? Being that there is no federal sales tax, there is no tax on the sale. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't there tend to be a sales tax for online purchases when you are in the same state as the company you are purchasing from?

yeah you have to pay the sales tax, but instead of making the seller collect it automatically, adding it on to what you pay immediately, you have to report it on your taxes on your own... which I imagine nobody actually does.

So in CA for example, it's not like there is no internet sales tax, it's just that it's collected in such a way that it's never substantially collected (though I think the law recently changed so that internet companies will have to collect it themselves just like every other retailer)

[elkabong82]

I get having state taxes apply so that companies w/o don't continue to take sales away and tax from the state.

However, this proposal still irks me because it has Republican support, which has been averse to any kind of taxation that would affect anyone other than the middle and lower class. They keep piling it on us, despite the widening disparity and the shrinking spending class, yet do everything they can to prevent taxing upper income brackets which would have a larger benefit and come from people who can afford it.

whoever said it earlier is right, most of the right is completely in the pockets of big business.

let's tax the middle class more, but filibuster bills which tax the 1% in a time where solutions are needed right away. How anyone can vote for those scumbags right now is beyond me

[Prosperity]

I get having state taxes apply so that companies w/o don't continue to take sales away and tax from the state.

However, this proposal still irks me because it has Republican support, which has been averse to any kind of taxation that would affect anyone other than the middle and lower class. They keep piling it on us, despite the widening disparity and the shrinking spending class, yet do everything they can to prevent taxing upper income brackets which would have a larger benefit and come from people who can afford it.

whoever said it earlier is right, most of the right is completely in the pockets of big business.

let's tax the middle class more, but filibuster bills which tax the 1% in a time where solutions are needed right away. How anyone can vote for those scumbags right now is beyond me

pay your fair share you bum

though I'll add that it's not just that the Right is in the pocket of business.... it's that they are in the pockets of those that siphon money off from businesses. Lawyers, Executives, Financial managers... people that don't necessarily produce anything, but are instead transaction costs on the entire system. Things like education and infrastructure are good for businesses, it's just that what's good for commerce is not necessarily better for the rich and powerful than say... a lower tax burden. Again, it's not businesses that benefit, but the elites who wormed their way into positions of massive wealth. What's good for the corporation is not necessarily what is good for the Corporate Board Members... we shouldn't forget that.

[elkabong82]

pay your fair share you bum

though I'll add that it's not just that the Right is in the pocket of business.... it's that they are in the pockets of those that siphon money off from businesses. Lawyers, Executives, Financial managers... people that don't necessarily produce anything, but are instead transaction costs on the entire system. Things like education and infrastructure are good for businesses, it's just that what's good for commerce is not necessarily better for the rich and powerful than say... a lower tax burden. Again, it's not businesses that benefit, but the elites who wormed their way into positions of massive wealth. What's good for the corporation is not necessarily what is good for the Corporate Board Members... we shouldn't forget that.

I'd love it if we actually taxed them on all their income, like the rest of us are. Or if we taxed them on business moves which netted them profits. Corporate sales tax, if you will.

[Larry]

The solution is it seems constantly "make sure we get as much tax revenue from the "purchasing class" as we possibly can" rather than looking to see which areas are already paying far too little.

Which might be a reason to oppose all sales taxes.

Now, tell us a reason why walmart.com should pay sales tax, but amazon.com shouldn't.

---------- Post added November-4th-2011 at 01:17 PM ----------

unless the company is in your state, it is interstate commerce and no one state has control of the sale, thus it refers to federal law, no? Being that there is no federal sales tax, there is no tax on the sale. Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't there tend to be a sales tax for online purchases when you are in the same state as the company you are purchasing from?

Actually, the law is that all sales made in Florida (for example) must collect sales tax.

Right now, amazon.com is legally required to collect sales tax, in every state that has sales tax.

However, the courts have ruled that if a company doesn't own real estate in State X, then even though the company is violating the law, by not collecting sales tax, State X can't do anything about it.

Right now, the law is that every business must collect sales tax in every state. It's just that companies that aren't physically in the state can break the law, and not get punished.

[stevenaa]

And that's not good, and is a problem...yet it is NOT the topic of this thread.

You chose to frame your argument against this tax on it's impact on the lower classes. You opend up the discussion beyond the market fairness of the tax.

This is a fair tax in light of how all other markets are taxed. Stop giving the corporations who mainly do business online a competitive advantage. Given your bent on fair play, I'd have thought this would appeal to you. And yes, I absolutely believe this will benefit brick and mortar sales. I make a lot of online purchases. If the online price is better than I can get locally by just the difference in Taxes, after adding shipping costs, I'll generally order online. I wouldn't do that any longer and it could account for several thousands of dollars into local stores from me. But I'm a small sample size.

[AsburySkinsFan]

Which might be a reason to oppose all sales taxes.

Now, tell us a reason why walmart.com should pay sales tax, but amazon.com shouldn't.

Amazon and WalMart do pay sales taxes. What you want to know is why they aren't charged sales taxes when the sales are made across state lines, and that was spoken to by PokerPacker.

---------- Post added November-4th-2011 at 01:29 PM ----------

You chose to frame your argument against this tax on it's impact on the lower classes. You opened up the discussion beyond the market fairness of the tax.

But that doesn't mean that the discussion then goes to entitlement spending....that's a leap.

This is a fair tax in light of how all other markets are taxed. Stop giving the corporations who mainly do business online a competitive advantage. Given your bent on fair play, I'd have thought this would appeal to you. And yes, I absolutely believe this will benefit brick and mortar sales. I make a lot of online purchases. If the online price is better than I can get locally by just the difference in Taxes, after adding shipping costs, I'll generally order online. I wouldn't do that any longer and it could account for several thousands of dollars into local stores from me. But I'm a small sample size.

And if this didn't come across as a pure and simple money grab then I might be better with it, but the Right cannot scream about not raising taxes for the "job creators" and then in the next breath try to pass legislation that would raise taxes on the purchasing class.

[Larry]

Amazon and WalMart do pay sales taxes. What you want to know is why they aren't charged sales taxes when the sales are made across state lines, and that was spoken to by PokerPacker.

No, amazon collects taxes if the government has the power to sieze their warehouse and auction off their assets if they don't.

If they have the power to VIOLATE THE LAW with impunity, then they do.

Repeating the question: the reason why a company should be able to ignore state law, IF the company has placed its assets outside the state's jurisdiction, is . . .

[AsburySkinsFan]

I get having state taxes apply so that companies w/o don't continue to take sales away and tax from the state.

However, this proposal still irks me because it has Republican support, which has been averse to any kind of taxation that would affect anyone other than the middle and lower class. They keep piling it on us, despite the widening disparity and the shrinking spending class, yet do everything they can to prevent taxing upper income brackets which would have a larger benefit and come from people who can afford it.

That is the main part of my objection to it as well.

---------- Post added November-4th-2011 at 01:33 PM ----------

No, amazon collects taxes if the government has the power to sieze their warehouse and auction off their assets if they don't.

If they have the power to VIOLATE THE LAW with impunity, then they do.

Repeating the question: the reason why a company should be able to ignore state law, IF the company has placed its assets outside the state's jurisdiction, is . . .

They aren't violating that state's law, the sale was not made in that state, unless you're going to claim that a web presence in a state means that the state can tax an entity.