Internet Sales Tax Bill Gains Ground in Senate

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]That is an idiotic bill and a perfect example of the government being a destroyer rather than a creator. The government does not "level the playing field" by raising people up so they can compete with the best; it tears down the best with restrictive regulations so that any incompetent can compete with it. Online retail is only a threat to brick-and-mortar stores because brick-and-mortar stores are becoming obsolete. Now the government wants to restrict online retail to keep the obsolete stores in business, despite a clear trend among consumers of a growing preference for online shopping. The government destroys entire industries before they even happen just so that some hick "mom-and-pop" store will stay in business despite not being any good. Anyone who supports this bill is a looter, a killer, and scum.jimkabrhel

:roll:

Your rhetoric has become rathen lately... killer?

WASHINGTON It has been labeled a tax grab and a bureaucratic nightmare by conservative antitax activists, an infringement on states rights and a federal encroachment on the almost-sacred ground of Internet commerce.

An Amazon.com center in Phoenix. Amazon, once an opponent of collecting a sales tax, has reversed its policy.

Yet legislation to help states force online retailers to collect sales taxes easily cleared its first procedural hurdle on Monday evening, and even its fiercest opponents are looking to the House for a last stand. The Senate voted 74-20 to take up the legislation for debate and amendment.

Im not above believing in miracles, said Dan Holler, a spokesman for Heritage Action, the activist arm of the conservative Heritage Foundation, which has made opposition to the Internet tax bill a key vote so far with little impact.

The bill, known as the Marketplace Fairness Act, is that rare piece of legislation that has turned Democrat against Democrat, Republican against Republican and business against business, while uniting states as different as New Hampshire, Montana and Oregon which have no sales taxes against virtually every other state.NY Times

Read more

Yeah... This sucks...

You can't have too many taxes!

I don't like it but it should have been expected to happen eventually. The sales of almost everything are shifting, or already has, to online. Taxes eventually were going to make the shift also.

we had a nice internet once...comp_atkins

I guess not all Republicans are against tax increases.

I guess not all Republicans are against tax increases.

jimkabrhel

Well, truth be told, if you are going to tax some businesses and not others, it is a little unfair.

Well, truth be told, if you are going to tax some businesses and not others, it is a little unfair.

sonicare

Maybe I'm missing something, but it sounds fair and perfectly reasonable.  What's the problem?

I guess not all Republicans are against tax increases.

jimkabrhel

On the positive side of this bill, taxing online purchases takes away one of the advantages of online shopping over in-store shopping, and thus might lead to more in-store shopping and thus create more jobs at these stores.

Well, truth be told, if you are going to tax some businesses and not others, it is a little unfair.

sonicare

I don't like it but it should have been expected to happen eventually. The sales of almost everything are shifting, or already has, to online. Taxes eventually were going to make the shift also.

Pirate700

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

Sounds like a rational shift given how technology is influencing commerce.

With the amount of transactions going through places like Amazon daily, you could make a large amount of revenue from a 3-4% sales tax. In addition, you could incentivize this policy by reducing the physical store sales tax by a percent or so since the online tax would make up the difference.

THE_DRUGGIE

Because it encourages equality between the two formats and allows small businesses who lack technological support to appear as attractive of an option to their consumer base as online retailers (given that, when you compare the potential consumer base of the formats, offline is at a severe disadvantage since one offline customer lost to online retailers does far more damage than an online consumer switching to offline, this is a particular problem that equity of attractiveness would be more able to solve). Through this, they will gain a little extra revenue so they can build a technological framework to allow themselves to compete effectively in the online market.

In addition to this, people who prefer offline retailers and/or lack the technology to utilize the online market for purchases would benefit.

The idea that restricting online commerce will help offline retailers make more money so they can afford to establish themselves online is just stupid.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] How is it rational to restrict online commerce and encourage offline local commerce when consumers are demonstrating a clear and growing preference for online commerce?Laihendi

Because it encourages equality between the two formats and allows small businesses who lack technological support to appear as attractive of an option to their consumer base as online retailers (given that, when you compare the potential consumer base of the formats, offline is at a severe disadvantage since one offline customer lost to online retailers does far more damage than an online consumer switching to offline, this is a particular problem that equity of attractiveness would be more able to solve). Through this, they will gain a little extra revenue so they can build a technological framework to allow themselves to compete effectively in the online market.

In addition to this, people who prefer offline retailers and/or lack the technology to utilize the online market for purchases would benefit.

Not necessarily, given that I have stated before that it would allow technologically inferior businesses to catch up and compete without having to go bankrupt in the process. One particular example that this legislation wants to prevent in other areas is bookstores, which have taken a significant hit in brick-and-mortar sales due to online retailers undercutting their prices. In addition to not being able to match prices, tax burdens exclusive to offline retailers caused many chains to go out of business. This situation could have had less casualties if brick-and-mortar stores were not so heavily burdened by taxes.

However, how could the tax burden be decreased without causing a lengthy legislative bout?

Shifting weight equally between offline and online would be one answer, as it would have allowed offline stores to have more attractive prices without sacrificing structure. Unfortunately, the absence of this idea caused massive casualties in the bookstore market, with the exception of massive chains like Barnes and Noble, which managed to squeak by and adapt to the online market.

This legislation hopes to allow more small businesses the option to do what Barnes and Noble did, thus creating an online marketplace that is more diverse, competitive and, in the end, benefits consumers.

when will Washington realize it has a spending problem rather than a revenue problem?

Though I suppose it makes sense...

when will Washington realize it has a spending problem rather than a revenue problem?

sexyweapons

I'm not happy about it, but it was kind of inevitable really.

That is an idiotic bill and a perfect example of the government being a destroyer rather than a creator. The government does not "level the playing field" by raising people up so they can compete with the best; it tears down the best with restrictive regulations so that any incompetent can compete with it. Online retail is only a threat to brick-and-mortar stores because brick-and-mortar stores are becoming obsolete. Now the government wants to restrict online retail to keep the obsolete stores in business, despite a clear trend among consumers of a growing preference for online shopping. The government destroys entire industries before they even happen just so that some hick "mom-and-pop" store will stay in business despite not being any good. Anyone who supports this bill is a looter, a killer, and scum.Laihendi

:roll:

Your rhetoric has become rathen lately... killer?

[QUOTE="Laihendi"]That is an idiotic bill and a perfect example of the government being a destroyer rather than a creator. The government does not "level the playing field" by raising people up so they can compete with the best; it tears down the best with restrictive regulations so that any incompetent can compete with it. Online retail is only a threat to brick-and-mortar stores because brick-and-mortar stores are becoming obsolete. Now the government wants to restrict online retail to keep the obsolete stores in business, despite a clear trend among consumers of a growing preference for online shopping. The government destroys entire industries before they even happen just so that some hick "mom-and-pop" store will stay in business despite not being any good. Anyone who supports this bill is a looter, a killer, and scum.jimkabrhel

:roll:

Your rhetoric has become rathen lately... killer?

Does the US at the moment not pay any tax for online goods?

If so I wish the UK were like that.

If so I wish the UK were like that.

gameofthering

Does the US at the moment not pay any tax for online goods?

If so I wish the UK were like that.

gameofthering

[QUOTE="gameofthering"]

If so I wish the UK were like that.

sexyweapons

[QUOTE="sexyweapons"][QUOTE="gameofthering"]

If so I wish the UK were like that.

gameofthering

I've been paying internet sales tax. Have no sympathy for the rest of you who haven't. :P

Sounds like a rational shift given how technology is influencing commerce.

With the amount of transactions going through places like Amazon daily, you could make a large amount of revenue from a 3-4% sales tax. In addition, you could incentivize this policy by reducing the physical store sales tax by a percent or so since the online tax would make up the difference.

it sucks balls and obama is backing it 110%

http://www.courant.com/business/hc-senate-internet-tax-20130423,0,5639668.story

You're supposed to report stuff you bought without paying tax, so all this does is make you pay it all at once come tax season. Unless you lie on your taxes.

It was bound to happen. Online sales are soaring. HoolaHoopMan

Sounds like a rational shift given how technology is influencing commerce.

With the amount of transactions going through places like Amazon daily, you could make a large amount of revenue from a 3-4% sales tax. In addition, you could incentivize this policy by reducing the physical store sales tax by a percent or so since the online tax would make up the difference.

THE_DRUGGIE

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

Sounds like a rational shift given how technology is influencing commerce.

With the amount of transactions going through places like Amazon daily, you could make a large amount of revenue from a 3-4% sales tax. In addition, you could incentivize this policy by reducing the physical store sales tax by a percent or so since the online tax would make up the difference.

Laihendi

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

Sounds like a rational shift given how technology is influencing commerce.

With the amount of transactions going through places like Amazon daily, you could make a large amount of revenue from a 3-4% sales tax. In addition, you could incentivize this policy by reducing the physical store sales tax by a percent or so since the online tax would make up the difference.

Laihendi

Because it encourages equality between the two formats and allows small businesses who lack technological support to appear as attractive of an option to their consumer base as online retailers (given that, when you compare the potential consumer base of the formats, offline is at a severe disadvantage since one offline customer lost to online retailers does far more damage than an online consumer switching to offline, this is a particular problem that equity of attractiveness would be more able to solve). Through this, they will gain a little extra revenue so they can build a technological framework to allow themselves to compete effectively in the online market.

In addition to this, people who prefer offline retailers and/or lack the technology to utilize the online market for purchases would benefit.

[QUOTE="Laihendi"][QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

Sounds like a rational shift given how technology is influencing commerce.

With the amount of transactions going through places like Amazon daily, you could make a large amount of revenue from a 3-4% sales tax. In addition, you could incentivize this policy by reducing the physical store sales tax by a percent or so since the online tax would make up the difference.

THE_DRUGGIE

Because it encourages equality between the two formats and allows small businesses who lack technological support to appear as attractive of an option to their consumer base as online retailers (given that, when you compare the potential consumer base of the formats, offline is at a severe disadvantage since one offline customer lost to online retailers does far more damage than an online consumer switching to offline, this is a particular problem that equity of attractiveness would be more able to solve). Through this, they will gain a little extra revenue so they can build a technological framework to allow themselves to compete effectively in the online market.

In addition to this, people who prefer offline retailers and/or lack the technology to utilize the online market for purchases would benefit.

[QUOTE="THE_DRUGGIE"]

[QUOTE="Laihendi"] How is it rational to restrict online commerce and encourage offline local commerce when consumers are demonstrating a clear and growing preference for online commerce?buccomatic

Because it encourages equality between the two formats and allows small businesses who lack technological support to appear as attractive of an option to their consumer base as online retailers (given that, when you compare the potential consumer base of the formats, offline is at a severe disadvantage since one offline customer lost to online retailers does far more damage than an online consumer switching to offline, this is a particular problem that equity of attractiveness would be more able to solve). Through this, they will gain a little extra revenue so they can build a technological framework to allow themselves to compete effectively in the online market.

In addition to this, people who prefer offline retailers and/or lack the technology to utilize the online market for purchases would benefit.

The good thing about this legislation is that it can rationally put an option on the table for reducing those taxes, given the revenue from online sales tax would make up for the difference in taxes. This is an argument you would hear from birck-and-mortar stores in support of this policy. Essentially, it puts some pressure off local offline businesses to foot the commerce bill the government demands by spreading the weight over to online retailers.

Repulician's show their true colors....they're not really anti-tax....when it come's to taxes they will tax you to death just like democrat's....  there's not really a dimes worth of differences between...Republians's an Demorocratic's..... excurse me....they just really want YOUR money.  You think it's not so....well think again!  History is on my side.

Because it encourages equality between the two formats and allows small businesses who lack technological support to appear as attractive of an option to their consumer base as online retailers (given that, when you compare the potential consumer base of the formats, offline is at a severe disadvantage since one offline customer lost to online retailers does far more damage than an online consumer switching to offline, this is a particular problem that equity of attractiveness would be more able to solve). Through this, they will gain a little extra revenue so they can build a technological framework to allow themselves to compete effectively in the online market.

In addition to this, people who prefer offline retailers and/or lack the technology to utilize the online market for purchases would benefit.

--Anna--

The good thing about this legislation is that it can rationally put an option on the table for reducing those taxes, given the revenue from online sales tax would make up for the difference in taxes. This is an argument you would hear from birck-and-mortar stores in support of this policy. Essentially, it puts some pressure off local offline businesses to foot the commerce bill the government demands by spreading the weight over to online retailers.

I think I'm better off with no sales tax, thanks washington f#ckwads. Now go hang yourselves, all of you.