backtop


Print 51 comment(s) - last by notyourmamma2.. on May 11 at 9:23 PM

House Speaker John Boehner now plans to deliver the bill to the House Judiciary Committee

The Internet sales tax bill passed with flying colors in the Senate, but the House of Representatives may prove to be more of an obstacle.

The Senate voted 69-27 in favor of the Internet sales tax bill (also known as the Marketplace Fairness Act) on Monday. The Marketplace Fairness Act would allow states to force out-of-state retailers to collect sales tax on Internet purchases -- even if the e-tailer has no physical presence in that buyer's state.

The legislation offers an exemption for merchants that generate less than $1 million in annual out-of-state revenue.

However, many e-tailers like eBay and Overstock.com oppose the new bill, saying that it would hurt small businesses. 

Those who are onboard with the legislation include Amazon, which is looking to simplify its U.S. state sales tax payments, and brick-and-mortar stores like Wal-Mart and Best Buy, which have complained about the unfair advantage online retailers have when it comes to the lack of sales tax collection in certain states. 

Also, state government's in need of extra revenue like the idea of the new bill. The California Board of Equalization, for instance, said it made $96.4 million in sales tax on internet commerce from September-December 2012, which is the first full quarter that the state started collecting.

Back in April, the Marketplace Fairness Act scored a big victory in a procedural vote of 74-20 in the Senate. It even won backing from U.S. President Barack Obama. 

While the Marketplace Fairness Act has had an easy time in the Senate, things are expected to change in the House of Representatives. The issue is that Republicans control the House, and they refuse to consider new federal revenue from eliminating tax breaks (which would be part of tax reform). 

House Speaker John Boehner now plans to deliver the bill to the House Judiciary Committee. 

Source: Reuters



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Lies!
By Ammohunt on 5/7/2013 3:31:04 PM , Rating: 5
The idea that brick and mortar stores can't compete with online retailers because of taxes is pure garbage. Have you been in a Best Buy lately? poor selection of overpriced products.




RE: Lies!
By Flunk on 5/7/2013 4:32:07 PM , Rating: 4
Why can't it be both?


RE: Lies!
By AssBall on 5/7/2013 4:38:10 PM , Rating: 2
Because tax overhead is ultimately paid for by the consumer anyway. That's why.


RE: Lies!
By Samus on 5/8/2013 1:58:40 PM , Rating: 2
Exactly. If there is any tax that makes absolutely no sense, it's sales tax. Imagine that. A tax on spending your money. Because already being taxed on your income isn't enough.

Sales tax is the only tax I don't really agree with. At least other taxes (travel, alcohol/tobacco, gasoline, etc) aren't as barbaric as taxing something like food.


RE: Lies!
By tayb on 5/7/2013 4:51:43 PM , Rating: 3
It will certainly help level the playing field, that is undeniable.

Best Buy is a bad example as they are pathetically overpriced. Fry's is a much better example. Before Amazon started charging tax I would always buy at Amazon. Now? I check Fry's and quite often buy from there because I get instant gratification. Shipping costs are also something I consider at most etailers but at Amazon I have Prime so it doesn't really matter.

The idea that taxation isn't a factor in buying decisions is pure garbage.


RE: Lies!
By Ammohunt on 5/7/2013 5:19:15 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
The idea that taxation isn't a factor in buying decisions is pure garbage.


Never said it wasn't a factor, i implied that it wasn't the primary factor like the above article would lead you to believe. You actually think people wouldn't shop locally more if the price and selection were inline with online stores? For computer components of which i am a large consumer of, i have a single choice 70 miles away that being Microcenter. Who's prices are significantly beyond newgg+shipping prior to taxation; oh and their selection sucks. Large etailers can afford to trim profit margins below what retail can primarily because of the sheer volume of product they move, Its called economy of scale. The main problem with this tax scheme is not so much the added cost of the taxes but the added cost of bureaucracy needed to managed the thousands of different tax codes spread across states and home rule municipalities within those states.


RE: Lies!
By mcnabney on 5/7/2013 10:46:37 PM , Rating: 2
I would totally disagree with you about Microcenter vs Newegg.

I just priced out a new PC build. Microcenter had Newegg beat on every component except the GPU - and that was only $10. So I could save $110 at Microcenter on a $1200 build. However, I am going to have to pay about $90 in sales taxes at Microcenter - making deal much closer in price. Once you factor in gas and drive time - it is about even or maybe a bit in Newegg's favor. Sales tax is clearly punishing Microcenter.


RE: Lies!
By anactoraaron on 5/8/2013 12:26:06 AM , Rating: 2
Not only that but microcenter purposely prices their i3 and i5 unlocked "k" parts well below newegg (even says that on the ads). Price a 3570-k with microcenter vs newegg... then take a look at the motherboard combos at microcenter ($40 off motherboard with cpu purchase that's already $30-$40 cheaper than newegg).

Not that microcenter always beats newegg, but it pays to shop around.


RE: Lies!
By lagomorpha on 5/8/2013 6:14:07 AM , Rating: 2
Microcenter will match newegg prices as well (normal prices not the ones that show up in your email or I think the shellshockers).

You're right about the K series CPUs though, the other week I picked up an i7-3770k at microcenter for what newegg was charging for an i5-3570k.


RE: Lies!
By tastyratz on 5/8/2013 9:49:34 AM , Rating: 2
before online sales we had mail order companies.

The difference here is convenience, that is what we are competing with and that carries a cost advantage no taxation could ever compare to. This might provide some incentive but there will always be a need for both sources. Sometimes you can't wait for shipping and sometimes you cant drive the distance to find a place. non strategically placed establishments are the ones that will continue to suffer in time.


RE: Lies!
By Ammohunt on 5/9/2013 12:08:19 PM , Rating: 2
I sit corrected about microcenter. i am the luck guy today that has a failing hard drive in his laptop i priced SSD's at Microcenter because i need it today and with taxes its still cheaper than newegg. Learn something everyday!


RE: Lies!
By tecknurd on 5/7/2013 6:32:26 PM , Rating: 2
In my area Frys Electronics is far from me and the customer service sucks. Also my Frys Electronics is not in a good neighborhood, so I have to be careful where I park my car. I have not been to Fry Electronics in a long time. By now the customer service should have changed, but I still do not want to go to Frys because it is a long drive. The gas price that I paid for a tank of gas is figure in when I make a trip to Frys Electronics whenever that will be.

Not all products that Best Buy sells are over priced. If you do your homework, Best Buy can be competitive. The in store pickup is nice because I just go pick up the product and get out of there. Luckily for me, Best Buy is a 5 minute drive if stupid traffic lights are not counted for.

I basically count taxes, shipping and handling charges, gas price, and time the product takes to get into my hands.


RE: Lies!
By dgingerich on 5/8/2013 8:37:44 AM , Rating: 3
There's a much bigger impact here than anyone has noted: staffing.

Most internet sales companies can get away with far, far fewer employees because retail stores have to go around picking up after customers. Back when I worked retail, that was all I did most of the time. Sure, I'd stock some things and run a register some times, but most of my job was straightening the aisles after the customers demolished them.

With a company that sells everything online, the only people who touch the stock are the employees. they can keep things neat, and be able to do everything else with less than half the staff of a regular retail company.

Less staff means lower operating costs. lower operating costs means either higher margins or lower prices. This has allowed smaller businesses to grow and survive because they can make enough profit to survive an onslaught of large corporate competition who could offer lower prices because of scale.

On top of that, this will cost every business millions in implementation costs. The software to handle taxing people properly is going to have to be incredibly complex, and constantly updated, with absolutely no advantage to the business. Big businesses will be able to absorb those costs fairly easily, but the one man shops that sell single pieces of software, making a profit of $100k-300k/year, won't be able to stay in business because of the implementation costs. While it may cost a big business 5% of their profit to implement, it will cost a small business 200-300%, or even higher, of their profit.

Don't get it wrong. This is a very big business friendly bill. It will cost thousands of jobs in small businesses. Perhaps they don't mean to, but that's going to be the end effect.

Then there is the effect that it will cost all of us more. Most companies operate on pretty slim margins. investors invest in order to make more money, so the company has to show a certain level of profit and returns or the investors go elsewhere. In order to maintain the level of profit they need to stay operating, these costs, both the taxes themselves and the cost of implementing them, will be passed on to the customers. All prices will rise. This will slow the economy because less money will be spent on actual items and more will be spent on bureaucracy.

Oh, sure, there will be some jobs created, in software development for the new complex tax systems. However, there is a shortage of software developers in this country, so many of those jobs will wind up elsewhere. it won't create a single job here in the US.

I know it's more of a money grab by state governments, but regardless of their intentions, there is the law of unintended consequences to deal with. This bill will shut down thousands of small businesses, cost thousands of jobs, and slow the economy. This is a very, very bad thing, far worse than what people are talking about here.


RE: Lies!
By Rukkian on 5/8/2013 9:45:29 AM , Rating: 2
While I agree with much of what you said, your comments on small businesses are incorrect. The bill clearly states it only applies to business consistently selling over 1mil a year. The small businesses will actually get a boost since they still wont have to worry about tax, and can be more competitive.


RE: Lies!
By dgingerich on 5/8/2013 11:40:22 AM , Rating: 2
I didn't know about the $1mil limitation. That's at least a good thing. However, that's still a pretty big impact. Many small businesses sell a lot, but don't make much profit.

My Mom used to work at a Hallmark store several years ago. They'd sell about $2mil per month, but their profits only allowed for a total of 5 employees, two of which were the owners. The owners also didn't live all that high on the hog, as the old saying goes. Sure, a 6% profit on $2 million is still $120,000 per month, but if you're also paying income taxes (35% federal and 12% state, at current rates in Colorado) on that, payroll taxes on three employees, workers comp and unemployment insurance for three employees, and finally the employees' pay, that $120k in profit comes down to about $5k/month for the owners to live on.

Let's put forward another business model: internet sales. a small internet sales company consisting of the owner and their spouse to handle the management and inventory and one employee to gather the items, pack, and ship. They sell $2 million per year of knickknacks (decorative statues, doilies, decorative pictures, coasters, bookends, etc.) ranging in price from $5 to $100. Knickknacks have a low margin on the internet because there is always someone around the country that can sell them for less. So, they're pulling down $300,000 in margin per year. They also have to pay for IT costs for the web site, employee pay, taxes, and insurance, and business taxes. So, the owners take home, after all taxes, about $100,000 per year. Sounds pretty nice, eh? Not a bad living. Not really rich, but still comfy. They're also working 60 hours a week for it.

All of a sudden, they have to cover an additional $30,000 per year for the software (pretty common cost for business software) to handle the new tax system. In addition, because they now have to charge tax, they lose business. So, now they have to let their employee go, so they're now working 80 hours per week and only taking home $60,000 per year. The owners burn out, the business goes under, and three more people are unemployed and bankrupt.

It's still going to cost many jobs and small businesses.

Prices will rise, because there is going to be additional costs involved. All people, not just the business owners, will have less money to spend. This will cause a slowdown in spending. This will cost more jobs and more small businesses as we spiral down to a lower level of economic growth. (It's not as if we're not hurting already.)


RE: Lies!
By wempa on 5/8/2013 10:56:58 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
On top of that, this will cost every business millions in implementation costs. The software to handle taxing people properly is going to have to be incredibly complex, and constantly updated, with absolutely no advantage to the business.


I don't necessarily agree with this bill, but I disagree that the software will be incredibly complex. How hard is it to have a table of each state and its corresponding tax rate ? Just get the state from the customer's address, look up the tax rate in the table and calculate the tax. If a state changes its rate, just update the table. No code changes necessary. A junior developer could easily do that. Now, if they require merchants to other taxes like city/county taxes, then it could become messy. Retrieving the amount of tax to send each state is a simple database query as well.


RE: Lies!
By dgingerich on 5/8/2013 11:20:39 AM , Rating: 2
It's not that simple. They have to keep track of how to tax by both where the customer is ordering from as well as where the company is shipping from and how they're getting it to the customer.

Many small businesses don't work from stock. They have a middle man who will sometimes ship to the warehouse/business who then ships it as sometimes drop ships directly to the customer.

So, if the small business is based in Montana, who doesn't require collecting tax, and a customer from Colorado orders something from stock and something that has to be drop shipped from California, they don't collect the tax on what was shipped from stock while they have to both collect tax for what is dropped shipped as well as pay tax themselves on what was drop shipped. (Technically, a drop ship is selling from middle man to business and then from business to customer, but only shipped once. So, twice the tax.)

The software will have to handle all that automatically. That's some complex stuff.

In addition, there may be complications of a business of all digital goods that operates from one state and has their servers hosted in another state. There's also a lot of talk by state government about flat taxes rather than % rate taxes on digital downloads. On top of all that, the states all handle their laws individually, and there will be changes from one state or another all the time, so we're talking monthly updates to the program, or perhaps even more often than that.

How do you code web sites around all that? A business owner would have to deal with updates not just in the program on the tax rates, but also the checkout process if some new circumstance comes up.

This whole thing in an unholy mess.


RE: Lies!
By Mint on 5/8/2013 12:03:40 PM , Rating: 2
I don't know why you're making such a big deal out of this. The state that the item is being shipped to gets the tax. It doesn't matter where the warehouse or middlemen are.

Look at the shipping address, charge that state's sales tax, and transfer it to that state.


RE: Lies!
By jwbarker on 5/8/2013 1:30:14 PM , Rating: 2
Not quite correct, you might try reading the actual proposed law:
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c113:4:./tem...

In the first place, taxes must be charged for localities, not just states. This means the counties/cities/etc where the item is delivered. And, as you may know, the city listed in the mailing address often has little to do with the city the location actually belongs to. This is, indeed, a very complex problem.

On the other hand, each participating state is required to provide, free-of-charge, software which performs all of these calculations. Further, they are required to either provide 90 day notice of any changes to the rules, or forgive any errors for 90 days after the change.

A bigger problem is that these entities often charge different tax levels for different items. For example, here in Ohio, food is not taxed at all. So now, sellers must categorize each item they are selling. This might seem simple at first, but keep in mind the categories must match each and every state's laws, a much more daunting task. (and also difficult to automate.)


RE: Lies!
By wempa on 5/8/2013 2:34:43 PM , Rating: 2
Well, the text is kind of hard to read. However, if they are required to collect local taxes too, then I agree that this law is a big mess. It'd be easier to just have a flat tax on online purchases.


RE: Lies!
By Mint on 5/8/2013 11:20:55 AM , Rating: 2
Your post is a self contradicting mess.

You say internet companies - which benefit greatly from currently not having tax charged on all sales except within their own state - have "far, far fewer employees".

So by taking away part of their advantage, retail stores get more business, right? Retail stores with more employees, according to your own statements. So how does this bill cost jobs?

We also need a bill like this to avoid pointless inefficiency .

If two online companies in NY and CA have the same prices, the current rules make customers in NY buy from CA and customers in CA buy from NY (assuming shipping charges are than the tax), which is ridiculous. We then have all these unnecessary shipping miles, basically shifting would-be sales tax dollars to the shipping companies, all because of this loophole.

You also need to read the article before going on a spiel. Companies with less than $1M/yr in out of state sales are exempted.


RE: Lies!
By dgingerich on 5/8/2013 8:54:45 PM , Rating: 2
The beginning part was expanding on the advantage of online businesses and why they will always have a price advantage and retail stores will never be able to catch up with them. That's all. The rest was about the complexities of this idiotic tax law.

You know what would solve this whole thing without a federal tax law? A simple expansion of the existing local and state sales tax laws with a simple "if it sold here, we tax it here" clause instead of basing it on the location of the buyer. If a company is based out of Anaheim, California, then whoever buys from that company pays Anaheim, California sales taxes. Plain and simple. The feds and the idiots in Congress don't have to get involved at all. Better yet, the business has one straightforward tax law to follow. No complex software would be needed.

There is the side effect of businesses flocking away from California and to tax friendly states like Montana, New Hampshire, or Oregon, and buyers would flock there as well, but I really don't care of California loses a bunch of tax revenue. they deserve to lose it. California has lived high on the hog for far too long. the state is run by a bunch of spoiled, rich idiots that think they own the world, and know what's right and wrong for everyone, just because they happen to have beautiful weather and a bunch of beautiful movie stars.


Looking a bit closer.
By drycrust3 on 5/7/2013 4:47:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
The Marketplace Fairness Act would allow states to force out-of-state retailers to collect sales tax on Internet purchases -- even if the e-tailer has no physical presence in that buyer's state.

I should point out that I'm not American, so I guess one can argue this isn't my business, but when I looked at the actual wording of the Market Fairness Act, which I found rather confusing, it seems to me the onus is on the state the e-retailer is in to determine whether that e-retailer should or should not collect the sales taxes another state wants. Also, if a state's sales tax system doesn't comply with the requirements of the Market Fairness Act then sellers sending goods to other states don't need to collect sales taxes another state wants.
For example, if someone in a cash starved state like California orders something from an e-retailer, who happens to have two warehouses, one in Arizona and one in Pennsylvania, and either Arizona decides it doesn't want to collect taxes for other states or its sales tax system doesn't comply with the Market Fairness Act, but Pennsylvania state does comply or want to collect for other states, then the e-retailer doesn't need to collect the sales taxes for shipments to California from the Arizona warehouse, but it does from the one in Pennsylvania.
I can see this will result in some very confusing pricing differentials depending on where the shipping warehouse is located.




RE: Looking a bit closer.
By Quadrillity on 5/7/2013 4:51:48 PM , Rating: 2
And to think... just how many of these problems could be solved with a flat tax system.


RE: Looking a bit closer.
By mcnabney on 5/7/2013 10:49:32 PM , Rating: 2
You think a Federal sales tax is going to change state sales taxes?

If anything, pushing sales taxes over 30% will destroy retail, bring back barter, and boost international purchases. I have bought a fair number of items directly from overseas. That would skirt a Federal sales tax too.


RE: Looking a bit closer.
By ianweck on 5/7/2013 4:59:19 PM , Rating: 3
So you're saying this is a piece of legislation that hasn't been fully thought out yet?
I'd say that's impossible but then I look over at Obamacare.


RE: Looking a bit closer.
By gglenn on 5/7/2013 6:40:14 PM , Rating: 3
Well heck, we should just pass it to see what's in it then.


RE: Looking a bit closer.
By dgingerich on 5/8/2013 8:40:32 AM , Rating: 2
That just worked out SO well last time!


RE: Looking a bit closer.
By drycrust3 on 5/7/2013 6:57:00 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure it is well thought out, after all you Americans do pay people to write this stuff, so I'm guessing they do a good job, but there are questions about this legislation that remain unanswered. Like what happens if a state decides it wants its retailers and e-retailers to comply with this legislation and then later on decides it doesn't want them to comply? There is a 90 day or a 6 months implementation time frame (well, that's what your act says), but no exiting time frame. Does this mean that once a state implements this act it can't exit from it? Or does it mean that no one thought about exiting from the agreement?
Or what happens if later on down the track a state implements a law that means it no longer complies with the requirements under which an e-retailer has to send sales taxes to other states? Does that mean e-retailers now have an option as to whether or not they do collect the extra-state sales tax, or do they still have to collect it but now have a choice about forwarding it on or not?
And what happens when an e-retailer collects sales taxes and then finds it wasn't necessary? Does the collected sales tax still have to go to the relevant state, or should it be sent to the state the e-retailer is in, or can the e-retailer refund sales taxes collected to those they have collected it from, and can it charge an administrative fee for all their wasted time before they return it?


RE: Looking a bit closer.
By StuckMojo on 5/7/2013 8:53:26 PM , Rating: 2
Your guess would be wrong.


RE: Looking a bit closer.
By ianweck on 5/9/2013 2:31:04 PM , Rating: 2
All good questions.
Like I said, not well thought out.


More misinformation
By CZroe on 5/7/2013 3:01:08 PM , Rating: 5
This is a mail/phone order sales tax as well. STOP reporting it as an "Internet sales tax! Singling out the Internet is what allowed this to happen. The Internet is just a communication method that provides numerous benefits, but there's no reason Amazon couldn't print out an order form or give you a phone number with a cart ID when it came time to check out.

This bill applies to cable shopping channels, informercials, TV commercials, mail-order catalogs, and order forms in the back of manuals, just the same. REPORT THAT!




RE: More misinformation
By Shadowself on 5/7/2013 6:02:05 PM , Rating: 3
EXACTLY!

I know I'm ancient by most of the poster's standards, but way back when (60+ years ago) there were sales taxes in a few areas.

If I got a Sears Roebuck catalog catalog in the mail then sent in an order through the mail then received that order thought the mail I didn't pay that sales tax. Why? States don't get to control interstate commerce in any way. They don't get to tax interstate commerce, just commerce within that specific state. (The same goes for county and municipal governments.)

Then came phone ordering. I'd get a catalog in the mail, phone in the order, then receive the product in the mail. Still no sales tax for the same reasons.

Then came infomercials. If I ever did, I'd view the infomercial then phone in the order and get the product in the mail. Still no sales tax for the same reasons.

Then came the early internet. I'd see an offer online, order it by phone then get the product through the mail (or FedEx, etc.). Still no sales tax for the same reasons.

Then came Mike Leavitt, Gov. Utah. He believed that his state was missing out on revenues (a LOT of them) due to internet sales. (It didn't matter that Utah had a relatively low tax rate and low sales. Damn it, Utah was getting cheated!) He started campaigning nationwide to anyone and everyone who would listen that all interstate sales through the internet MUST be taxed and Utah get its fair proceeds with regard to any sales involving Utahns. Under his direction any company that wanted to do anything significant in Utah (e.g., Intuit's TurboTax including Utah forms) had to collect Utah sales tax no matter where they were based if the transaction involved Utah sales. A lot of people listened to him -- from California to Massachusetts, and carried the ball after he became a non player.

Then came internet sales with full transactions over the 'net with only the physical delivery in through a non 'net means -- except in situations where the company was strong armed like Intuit was.

Now the U.S. Federal Government is attempting to say that the various states and localities can control (tax) interstate commerce.

For an old timer, this is a HUGE change in the structure of taxation. While this is likely overreaction... It feels like as big a change as the 16th amendment.


RE: More misinformation
By MadMan007 on 5/7/13, Rating: 0
RE: More misinformation
By CZroe on 5/8/2013 7:33:59 PM , Rating: 2
Also, a lot of official accessories were only available by phone or mail-order from the manufacturer for many devices. In particular, I recall Nintendo putting a list of all the ohm adapters and S-VHS cables in the 1991 Super Nintendo Entertainment System manual and you would call 1-800-355-3700 to order. Even in the age of the Internet, factory direct was the only way to go for replacement battery doors (Gameboy), official component cables (Gamecube), and headphone adapters (Gameboy Advance SP), so I called that number a lot over the years. I even ordered a few items that were back-ordered at retail (Broadband Adapter).

With these changes and today's digital software delivery and (usually) ubiquitous Internet access, many manufacturers are going to turn their product offerings into services, which are usually excluded from sales tax (sorry, Hawaii). Amazon will sell you the Playstation 4 and then you will start ordering all the games from Sony online. Microsoft will discourage retail copies of Microsoft Office and start selling subscriptions like Adobe Creative Cloud (no more boxed Photoshop/Creative Suite). It's going to have repercussions that hurt brick and mortar retailers more than they know. Soon, electronics retailers will be worse than "Amazon's showroom" when the manufacturers start using them just to get a foot in your living room and the exclude them from the future profit the initial sale was promising (software and accessories).

At one time, all those TV commercials for soon-to-be "As Seen on TV" products would tell you to include X amount for tax in a particular state. Now they tell you to go online or call. The way this bill is being reported as if it only affects Internet sales, they'd simply push the phone and mail options as alternatives. Too bad that's not the case. The misreporting is hiding the true impact. You'd better believe that Turbo Tax will shift further away from the old boxed-product to a service and you'd better believe that expensive video games and movies are going to be delivered more and more often as a service.


ffs
By AssBall on 5/7/2013 4:34:45 PM , Rating: 2
It is not a revenue problem.

It is a spending problem.

You don't cut off you foot to stop your arm bleeding.




RE: ffs
By tayb on 5/7/2013 4:47:15 PM , Rating: 2
What are you even talking about? This bill doesn't collect federal sales tax. No such tax on consumers even exists. This is a bill that will force online and mail orders to charge the same state taxes as brick and mortar retailers. That is, if I go into Best Buy and buy a television in Dallas, TX for $1,000 I pay 8.25% sales tax. If I logon to Newegg and buy a $1,000 TV I don't pay sales tax. The money goes to the states.

I don't think it will actually help brick and mortar stores compete but I don't disagree with the reasoning behind the bill. If you oppose sales tax for items purchased you should oppose it globally not just for online or mail order stores.


RE: ffs
By chick0n on 5/7/2013 8:16:31 PM , Rating: 1
what u mean it's not a spending problem? how many States are not running with a HUGE freaking deficit ? Why? Cuz they love spending on completely useless shit, pay their "friends" 100K a year for doing nothing. etc etc.

Reason why Brick n mortar retails die cuz they overcharge EVERYTHING. I mean sure they have to pay rent and everything, but charging the same TV for 100% more is NOT something I considered as "fair."

I truly hope shitheads like Worst buy just die and become part of the history.


RE: ffs
By MadMan007 on 5/7/2013 11:37:06 PM , Rating: 2
Or because they make budgets that project out for 5-10 years, and 5-10 years ago the revenue estimates didn't factor in the amount of e-commerce. I'm not saying it would balance budgets, but it would clearly have an impact on revenue estimates that didn't account for the amount e-commerce and other intrastate commerce has grown.


Missing the point
By elchemist on 5/7/2013 6:14:38 PM , Rating: 3
Come on people, you're all missing the point!

Its clearly stated, the issue here is not if the tax is fair/unfair, not if it affects buying decisions, not if this is just big companies using government to help themselves, not about a spending vs revenue issue.

The real problem here are those darn republicans.

quote:
The issue is that Republicans control the House




RE: Missing the point
By MadMan007 on 5/7/2013 11:41:01 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah, it's an issue because they're being inconsistent depending upon the topic. Gun laws? Republicans say 'Why don't you enforce existing laws?!' Taxes? 'Uh...these existing laws shouldn't be enforced!?' (Existing tax laws in this case being Use Tax.)


it will cost jobs. lots of them.
By dgingerich on 5/8/2013 8:02:20 AM , Rating: 2
Most people wouldn't be able to imagine how many jobs this will cost. The Democrats have already cost us so many jobs we'll probably never recover. It's like they're intentionally trying to castrate the economy.

I, for one, would like to be able to keep my job. This bill would cost my company millions to even try to implement, let alone the actual cost of the taxes themselves. They'd probably just take away the ability to buy our software online and only sell it through sales people rather than try to cover all the overly complicated different state taxes. It would cost us less, both in the short run and the long run. I may even cost me my job.




RE: it will cost jobs. lots of them.
By BRB29 on 5/8/2013 8:37:30 AM , Rating: 1
wut? the whole recession happened during Bush administration and Republican dominance buddy.

Not to point fingers at any party. Let's try to fix the problem rather than blame. Blaming never got anyone anything besides more hate and wars.


By Master Kenobi (blog) on 5/8/2013 10:57:27 AM , Rating: 2
If you think the recession was Bush's fault, you never took classes in macroeconomics.

There is a multi-year lag time between the state of the US economy and the policies being put into place by those in power. Generally of the 3-4 year timeframe. Everyone seems to think Congress/President can adeptly wield our economy with the agility of a tiny restaurant. It doesn't work that way. The problems with this economy started with Clinton, continued through Bush, now with Obama. None of them has done anything fantastic to help it out, but parroting Obama who blames everything on Bush is incorrect.

Obama has been in office 4.5 years now, his policies are now directly reflecting on the state of our economy. The result? No change. The US economy will inch along for the next several years as it recovers from bad policies from Congress and too much greed all at once from certain key companies. Nothing Obama does at this point is going to speed that process up. Which is probably why he hasn't said much about it lately, he knows and his advisors know that the only time will improve things.

Of course as for overall federal debt, it's always a good idea to cut back the useless spending in areas where it makes sense. Clinton cut federal spending and while it hurt us later because he cut too deeply, it wasn't inherently a bad idea. Bush increased spending and Obama has increased it further. Federal spending increases as the economy goes down, and tends to draw back as the economy improves. So far we haven't seen the spending cuts that show the government is confident in the economy. Federal spending likely won't start drawing back until Obama's last year or two in office, perhaps not until his successor.


By Pneumothorax on 5/7/2013 3:52:20 PM , Rating: 2
If this passes, I'm going to be buying a !@#-ton of expensive photographic equipment soon from NYC. No way I'm sending another penny to this feckless state of CA.




By BubbaJoe TBoneMalone on 5/7/2013 11:03:01 PM , Rating: 2
If this passes and goes into effect before the Christmas season, I'm looking forward on finding out how much is made in sales taxes. I'm sure it will be enormous and a good chunk coming from Amazon.com. Cha-Ching!




By Shadowmaster625 on 5/8/2013 9:05:46 AM , Rating: 2
As the brains of americans continue to devolve, it is clear that people have completely forgotten what this tax money is for. It used to be to provide services to the residents and businesses within the state. And so of course out of state sales were exempt since there was no logic in paying those taxes. There was no use for or benefit from the services that tax money provided.

But nowadays, taxation isnt about providing public services, nor is it about providing any logical tie to the money being tax with how it is spent. Nowadays, it is about paying fat bloated pensions to a bunch of lazy pathetic braindead entitled public workers who make way to much damn money for what they do, and are now flailing about in a mad money grab. And no one is exempt from that, even out of state retailers.

This is taxation without representation, in its very simplest form. And the result of it will be the same as in the 18th century. Government is so far out of control that they dont even attempt to tie tax revenue with public services. It is just a blatant money grab, the short definition for this is tyranny.




Wait and see
By xtort107 on 5/8/2013 5:52:57 PM , Rating: 2
This will not generate the same amount of money these states trying to push this think it will. This is implemented and you will see mass Internet company die offs, companies that are not already established as brick and mortar will be hurt tremendously I predict a 20% loss of sales already. As hard as they are pushing this in the Senate I really hope the House kills it.




internet tax
By notyourmamma2 on 5/11/2013 9:23:03 PM , Rating: 2
If the shopper pays tax for online purchases based on the state tax where the business exists and is to be paid to that state only then would it be fair to online businesses. This idea of online businesses having to deal with state taxes all over the US is insane. Here we have the government making laws on something they know nothing about and what kind of impact this law will have on small online businesses. I guarantee you none of these lawmakers have an online store where they personally would have to deal with the massive headache this would cause. If you went to a physical store in another state, I'm sure you would pay that states sale taxes. Oh, you live in another state, no sales tax for you. Be sure to report it when you file your taxes. Hogwash, get real. Read the first sentence again.




Right now, we're all Republicans
By Dorkyman on 5/7/2013 2:48:32 PM , Rating: 1
Here's hoping the R's can put a stake through its heart.




By AngelaCarter08 on 5/8/2013 1:12:33 PM , Rating: 1
Evan. if you, thought Marcus`s bl0g is unimaginable... on sunday I got a top of the range Lancia sincee geting a check for $6285 this past four weeks and just a little over 10 grand this past munth. this is really the most-comfortable work Ive ever had. I actually started 3 months ago and almost immediately started to make more than $80, p/h. I went to this website,




"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki