backtop


Print 104 comment(s) - last by foolsgambit11.. on Aug 21 at 1:37 AM


Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.)  (Source: chicagotribune.com)
Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) plans to introduce a bill called the Main Street Fairness Act

Amazon's war on taxes is becoming a tale as old as time. A U.S. state pushes the online retailer to collect taxes, and Amazon simply packs its bags and leaves for the next state that will leave it alone. But this time, that may not be the case.

Amazon is the largest online retailer with over 90 million registered buyers and $34 billion in annual sales. It launched in 1995, and sells everything from food, furniture and apparel to computers, electronics and toys. 

Recently, U.S. states have started pressuring Amazon to collect sales taxes on its items due to the retailer's affiliates operating within those states, and because of large state budget deficits. For example, Texas State Comptroller Susan Combs gave Amazon a $269 million bill in unpaid sales taxes, which led to Amazon's decision to close a local distribution center and cancel all plans to expand in the state of Texas. 

In another instance, Amazon won an exemption on a new sales tax law in South Carolina after saying it would pull a distribution center from the state if forced to collect. Amazon has also cancelled tens of thousands of affiliate accounts in Illinois and Colorado due to tax problems, and has brick-and-mortar chains like Best Buy and Wal-Mart breathing down its neck because of Amazon's "unfair advantage."

The unfair advantage refers to the online sales tax reprieve that was put in place awhile ago to support the then-upcoming industry of online shopping. But now that Amazon is large and in-charge, states and brick-and-mortar retail chains believe this reprieve is no longer necessary.

Now, Amazon may be in an inescapable position as Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) plans to introduce a bill that will require all businesses to collect sales tax "in the state where the consumer resides." The bill is called the Main Street Fairness Act.

"This idea is overdue," said Durbin. "Online retail sales are now very fulsome and are growing at the expense of local units of government." 

Amazon argues that a Supreme Court ruling from 1992 excuses Amazon and other remote sellers from having to collect taxes in U.S. states that do not have the company's employees or warehouses operating within its borders. In addition, Amazon notes that it currently collects taxes in Kansas, Kentucky, New York, North Dakota and Washington, and that buyers in other states where taxes are not collected are to report it themselves, though they rarely do. 

According to a University of Tennessee study, U.S. states will collectively lose $10.1 billion in uncollected sales tax revenue this year. Next year, that number is expected to jump to $11.3 billion. With many state budgets in the red, the collection of online sales tax looks to be a quick fix that they all will continuously push for.

Jeff Bezos, Amazon CEO, has said that he would prefer that the tax situation be "fixed properly" through federal legislation, and this month, he may get his wish. Durbin is gathering support from former mayors and governors who are now in Washington "weighing the budget problems back home," and the issue will go to Capitol Hill by the end of the month.

"Doing it state by state gives the Internet companies an opportunity to go shopping, to find the state that is going to treat them the best," said Durbin. "It certainly argues for a federal approach."

Jason Brewer, vice president for communications and advocacy for the Retail Industry Leaders Association, is unsurprisingly for Durbin's new bill, saying that it's only a matter of time before Amazon will be forced to collect taxes

"Ultimately, this is a battle they are going to lose, and this is about how long they can push off that day of reckoning," said Brewer. "They always claimed to support a federal solution, but they've never lifted a finger to get there."

Even if Amazon loses this battle, it really wouldn't be that bad for the online retail giant. According to analysts at Wells Fargo Securities, Amazon's products would still be cheaper than Wal-Mart or Target even if it had to collect sales tax. In fact, if Amazon had to collect sales tax, it would be 5 to 6 percent cheaper than Wal-Mart and 12 to 13 percent cheaper than Target. In addition, with a sales tax policy in place, Amazon could add new shipping centers anywhere they pleased, and could accelerate shipping time.

With prices remaining lower than brick-and-mortar retailers and items being delivered quicker than ever with cheaper shipping prices, how could Amazon lose?



Comments     Threshold


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

B&M Changes?
By Aikouka on 6/3/2011 1:56:08 PM , Rating: 5
Does this also affect brick and mortar stores as well? As an example, I used to live in Pennsylvania, but I was only 20 minutes from the New York border and I used to shop there all the time. PA has a 6% sales tax and NY has an 8% sales tax (in the county where I shopped). Given that the article (and the Business Week article) simply states:

quote:
Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) says he plans to introduce a bill, called the Main Street Fairness Act, mandating that all businesses collect the sales tax in the state where the consumer resides.


This doesn't specifically exclude the B&M stores, so technically in my example, I would go into NY and pay 6% sales tax because of my residence in PA?




RE: B&M Changes?
By wurkfur on 6/3/2011 2:05:13 PM , Rating: 3
And on top of that, a Democrat wanting to wage additional taxes on consumers. Imagine that...


RE: B&M Changes?
By mcnabney on 6/3/2011 2:09:21 PM , Rating: 1
I know. It is much better to borrow the money from your kids.


RE: B&M Changes?
By therealnickdanger on 6/3/2011 2:14:50 PM , Rating: 3
Everyone knows it's better to introduce as much new spending as possible when in a recession, depression, or even if times are good. You should never cut spending even if you're only reducing the amount of increase. Everyone knows you can only get out of debt by spending more.

-2 - 2 = 4


RE: B&M Changes?
By Solandri on 6/3/2011 2:34:58 PM , Rating: 5
Actually, macroeconomics (economics on a national scale) does work the opposite of microeconomics (economics on an individual scale) in many cases.

The way it's supposed to work at the macroeconomic level is that the government spends more during bad economic times to stimulate the economy. But during good economic times, the government spends less so as not to overstimulate the economy. Essentially, the government should be spending during bad times, and pay for it by saving during good times.

Unfortunately, we've been doing the former, but not the latter. People who argue the macroeconomic principle of stimulus during bad economic times, suddenly switch to the microeconomic principles during good economic times ("there's lots of money, so let's spend more!"). Like a teenager with his/her first credit card, they latch on to whichever argument justifies the choice they want - to spend more - despite the economic weather.


RE: B&M Changes?
By The Raven on 6/4/2011 3:11:12 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Like a teenager with his/her first credit card, they latch on to whichever argument justifies the choice they want - to spend more - despite the economic weather.

This is because spending more always makes the lower more populous (voting) classes happier (yeay free stuff!!) and so the politician can get reelected.
Which is why these Keynesian theories should have never been brought into the halls of our gov't.

Money should be invested, and not simply spent if you want economic growth. Last I checked "the gov't" didn't have a fat portfolio of great investments. Leave it to the many various pros in the private sector and we will see real lasting economic growth. Besides, putting all of our eggs in one gov't basket doesn't sound like a good idea, does it? Gov't intervention should be kept to a minimum. If it isn't, then we are (as we are now) at the mercy of the gov't to ensure our currency doesn't turn to crap (even more than it already has). And unfortunately for anyone solely in paper (mostly low income folks), that is not something that the gov't can do.

Who gave the gov't a credit card that taxpayers (and now their children) have to payoff? Short answer: we the people did/do every time we vote for the betterment of our personal situations instead of voting to protect economic freedom. But it seems that since the recession began people are waking up to the fact that we need to cut that card up.
quote:
The way it's supposed to work at the macroeconomic level is that the government spends more during bad economic times to stimulate the economy.

If economic times are so bad, where is that money coming from? They are either printing it or taxing for it. And neither inflation nor taxes are good for economic growth.


RE: B&M Changes?
By BansheeX on 6/4/2011 10:31:18 PM , Rating: 1
In Keynes' defense, he wanted surpluses in good times to pay for the deficits in bad times. Of course, all socialist ideas are wishful thinking doomed to fail because the power of force is too easy to abuse. That's why government powers of force need to be restricted to preventing forceful behavior in others. Force can never be a tool for "the greater good" as it will always result in the opposite.


RE: B&M Changes?
By mcnabney on 6/3/11, Rating: 0
RE: B&M Changes?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/3/2011 2:47:28 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Taxes should be fair


Taxes, by their very nature, are unfair. Are you an educated individual at all? You'll find no such use of the word "fair" in U.S tax law, I assure you.

If States cared about "fairness", they would remove sales taxes altogether. This isn't about being fair, it's about getting as much money as they can instead of cutting budgets.


RE: B&M Changes?
By robert5c on 6/3/2011 5:13:11 PM , Rating: 3
hear hear!

coming from a state (Oregon) that doesn't charge sales tax (so really any of this wont help my B&M stores), i never understood sales tax. You already pay taxes on your income, at the federal if not also the state level, your then supposed to get taxed again when you spend that money?

this really only hurts the young and poor that can't save and spend every dime...they get taxed a second time on ~100% of their income


RE: B&M Changes?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/3/2011 5:32:57 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
You already pay taxes on your income, at the federal if not also the state level, your then supposed to get taxed again when you spend that money?


Yes and then when you die you pay "Estate Tax". They are triple dipping!


RE: B&M Changes?
By MadMan007 on 6/4/11, Rating: -1
RE: B&M Changes?
By TheDoc9 on 6/6/2011 12:06:39 PM , Rating: 1
It's even worse than that, because as that money is passed through the family it's continually taxed through sales/investment or further estate tax.

For some reason the poor lazy people with a victim mentality who want to steal from the evil rich don't see how fucked up that is.


RE: B&M Changes?
By callmeroy on 6/6/2011 2:16:31 PM , Rating: 2
yep! The Estate /Death Tax I have always thought as having no excuse but pure unbridled greed on the government level. Granted I'm no financial advisor so maybe there is a very rare case where an Estate tax does make sense from the simple view of what it is...its just pure greed to me.

I believe if you gift a certain amount to someone that is taxed as well....I forget the term for that tax, but I mean its just so ridiculous ...taxes taxes taxes....


RE: B&M Changes?
By cerx on 6/6/2011 5:04:27 PM , Rating: 2
The purpose of the "death" tax is to prevent the situation we left in England and Europe where families who "have" now will "have" forever. It's an attempt to level the playing field.


RE: B&M Changes?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/6/2011 8:23:17 PM , Rating: 2
If you think the Forefathers set out to make sure that people who "had" didn't "have forever", you're a sad individual.

Taxes were never meant to target unpopular people or business or to "level" anything. We've lost our way.


RE: B&M Changes?
By semiconshawn on 6/4/2011 1:00:36 PM , Rating: 2
Ahh Oregon. I used to love to drive down from Washington to shop. No state income tax Wash. no sales tax Ore. Pre Amazon tax free bliss.


RE: B&M Changes?
By foolsgambit11 on 6/4/2011 7:48:26 PM , Rating: 2
Sales taxes make sense because they can be targeted. Income taxes can also do that, but it is only half of the story. The government needs both tools to optimize economic growth. The government also needs to use the tools sensibly, lest they become implements of destruction. But just because they can be used wrong isn't a sufficient argument for their abolition. Neither is your (or my) personal belief that the money raised is being incorrectly used. These are collective decisions, made by our duly elected representatives, and changeable by our representatives (or by us in a referendum/proposition/initiative), if we as a whole truly think the change must be made.

Additionally, the poor don't get taxed on 100% of their income on the way out - they get taxed on substantially less than the rich, because essentials like food staples are not taxed at purchase (and are in fact generally subsidized at production to make them cheaper to buy). Since food makes up a larger percentage of their spending, they are taxed less than the rich - an example of sales tax being used in a targeted manner.


RE: B&M Changes?
By HrilL on 6/6/2011 11:50:39 AM , Rating: 2
How about get just get rid of non necessary spending? How about we have smaller government that stays out of our business and doesn't feel the need to protect people from their own retardedness? What ever happened to personal responsibility and taking care of ones self? Why should the middle class support people that don't want to work and just suck the government tit? If Oregon can get by without sales tax and lower income taxes then I'm sure every other state can as well.

If we really want the economy to turn around quickly we need to cut taxes. Cut spending and make government much much smaller. And cut out useless regulations. We also should make it so environmental groups can't file lawsuits without just cause because they're slowing or halting American innovation. We should also eliminate copyright and patents as these create artificial monopolies that also hinder innovation and create a tax on innovation. Capitalism is about competing in the market and government granted monopolies shouldn't be allowed to hinder true competition.


RE: B&M Changes?
By MeesterNid on 6/3/2011 2:18:10 PM , Rating: 5
Yeah, that or we could also try not spending the money we don't have, but whatever.


RE: B&M Changes?
By mcnabney on 6/3/2011 2:38:32 PM , Rating: 2
Good luck finding that. Hasn't happened since, well, since before the revolution.


RE: B&M Changes?
By MeesterNid on 6/3/2011 3:04:47 PM , Rating: 2
Oh, right, that means it can't be done and the only answer is to tax people more! Go it!


RE: B&M Changes?
By kerpwnt on 6/3/2011 5:40:04 PM , Rating: 2
But if our elected officials don't create new taxes or conjure up new programs, what will they do? They have to at least look busy...


RE: B&M Changes?
By Adonlude on 6/6/2011 3:07:09 PM , Rating: 2
I believe that is one of the major problems with our systems. What do lawmakers do? They make laws... constantly. If they dont make laws they don't have a career. It is simple math that the lawbooks can only grow to eternity, or to revolution.


RE: B&M Changes?
By enlil242 on 6/4/2011 12:50:47 AM , Rating: 5
Illinois State / Chicago / Cook County is the highest taxed metropolitan area in America and we STILL are billions in debt. It doesn't matter how much money they get in taxes, they'll spend more than they have anyway.


RE: B&M Changes?
By callmeroy on 6/6/2011 2:40:07 PM , Rating: 2
Your logic is sound and I agree with it...the problem is were aren't politicians, our views on the matter aren'g going to be weighed against people voting to re-elected (re: re-hire) us for our job again.

And that's the whole game of being a politician...all these social programs that so many depend on these days -- (and yes some are in legit need , but a LOT of people work the system that shouldn't get the aid they get) -- if you cut the spending all over the place then out of the wood work you have all this group and that group or this association and that association crying foul and then taking out TV spots to fling mud at you and generally doing whatever they can to kill any hopes you win your next term.

Not saying its right...just saying that's WHY politicians are scared to death to cut spending too much -- basically putting their own self interests in front of the country.

But there's several problems with our country right now...

1) We are in fact, becoming a nation of sissies. The "PC" culture, handle every creed, ethinicity , etc. with kid gloves, being afraid to enforce the concept of "You are responsible for your own actions"....that is killing us in more ways than one and apparently no one gives a rat's arse about it.

2) Banks. I think they finally learned their lesson from the fiasco meltdown that hit the boiling point back in 2008..but it should have NEVER gotten as bad as it did or is now. Lending standards have to be high, there has to be PROOF that you can REALISTICALLY pay back that which you borrow. I know how this killed us more than many -- I worked at one of th top 30 mortgage banks in the country that was killed due to the collapse in '08. I've seen people approve purely crap loans and not think twice about it. (Btw, I wasn't one of those approving loans, I was in IT)

3) Probably the hardest , but yet most imporant compoment is simply CONFIDENCE. Both with businesses to invest, expand and hire and consumers to SPEND. And yes I said it .. SPEND. But the assumption of this point is -- SPEND on what you HONESTLY can afford, but still SPEND!

If you are unemployed for instance...you aren't one of the people I'm talking about to spend spend spend now...but if you are fortunate to be doing ok now...you really want to help the economy -- back with your confidence and spend.

And btw I have put money were my mouth is on this one...I've been renovating my condo for almost the past year now...so far $20k spent. Plus I bought a new car...so I have definitely contributed my part as a consumer...that's for damn sure. :)

4) Then its government...they have to man up...do some cuts even where it will be controversial...tough times call for tough measures...


RE: B&M Changes?
By Arsynic on 6/3/2011 3:46:16 PM , Rating: 5
You can borrow money from your kids or stop spending so goddam much.

I swear a Democrat could be eye deep in debt and still apply for more credit cards and when you tell them that they shouldn't, they cry, "Well you want me to steal the money from my kids?"

No, motherfucker, stop spending so damn much!


RE: B&M Changes?
By AssBall on 6/3/2011 4:30:41 PM , Rating: 2
And one from one of the most highly mismanaged and financially corrupt states in the country, Illinois, to boot. Shocker.


RE: B&M Changes?
By guffwd13 on 6/3/2011 2:20:54 PM , Rating: 4
wow, really. funny how one's political affiliation changes one's perspective on a subject.

my thoughts were: what's a democrat doing defending businesses? but you're right, this is clearly a democrat trying to extort more money from hard working citiz-

oh wait, this is a tax thats already required to be paid by law! this isn't a new tax dumbass, its to replace the use tax. it wouldn't be in addition to it!


RE: B&M Changes?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/3/2011 2:40:39 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
my thoughts were: what's a democrat doing defending businesses?


Because they paid him to do it. I bet we'll see "campaign contributions" from Wal Mart and Best Buy go Mr Durbin's way next election year.

quote:
oh wait, this is a tax thats already required to be paid by law! this isn't a new tax dumbass, its to replace the use tax. it wouldn't be in addition to it!


The Constitution specifically prohibits the Federal Government from doing this though. Not that a Democrat, especially Dick Durbin, cares.


RE: B&M Changes?
By phantom505 on 6/3/11, Rating: -1
RE: B&M Changes?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/3/2011 4:19:14 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
Not only is this permitted by the constitution it is expressly written in it.


Article One, Section Nine of the Constitution of the United States says "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State."


RE: B&M Changes?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/3/2011 4:21:13 PM , Rating: 3
footnote:

Besides being wholly unconstitutional, the proposed bill usurps the rightful authority of states, not the federal government, to levy and collect state sales taxes.


RE: B&M Changes?
By yomamafor1 on 6/3/11, Rating: 0
RE: B&M Changes?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/4/2011 3:47:04 PM , Rating: 3
That's a pointless interpretation.

quote:
This clause was not written to encourage citizens to purchase goods from other states in order to avoid state tax.


What kind of logic is this? Of course it wasn't written for that, because there wasn't supposed to BE a sales tax on interstate goods in the first place! Hello? This is why "use" taxes were created, because calling them sales taxes (which they really are) is UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

Claiming that, at some point, a major Article to the Constitution got too old and doesn't apply so just ignore it, is dangerous and foolish thinking. If you want to change or update the Constitution, fine, they Forefathers built an Amendments system into the document. You aren't supposed to just shrug it off and go ahead and do anything you want or just ignore the thing completely.


RE: B&M Changes?
By foolsgambit11 on 6/4/2011 8:05:47 PM , Rating: 1
And this isn't technically breaking that clause. That clause is a limit on the power of Congress to collect taxes, but this isn't Congress collecting a tax. This is Congress clarifying whether sellers are required to collect state taxes on purchases made across state lines, and for whom they are collecting said tax. When the Supreme Court last ruled on interstate commerce tax collection in Quill (1992), it explicitly stated that, while North Dakota couldn't compel an out-of-state retailer to collect sales tax, "The underlying issue here is one that Congress may be better qualified to resolve, and one that it has the ultimate power to resolve." In other words, it explicitly stated that Congress could do exactly what this bill proposes. That is in theory, at least. In practice, depending on the implementation, the Supreme Court could still find it an overwhelming burden on interstate commerce, considering differing tax rates and definitions of taxable items, etc.


RE: B&M Changes?
By foolsgambit11 on 6/6/2011 2:10:58 AM , Rating: 2
Hooray rate down without explanation! But that's not why I'm posting....

To clarify further, Congress certainly has the power to regulate interstate commerce - Article I, Section 8, paragraph 3. While people may take issue with some laws justified under the commerce clause, this one should be pretty cut and dry, and clearly within the Framers' intent, without resorting to penumbras and emanations (to borrow a well-worn phrase). This is clearly about regulating interstate commerce, and not about regulating some tangentially related thing (e.g. gas mileage for vehicles) by using the commerce clause as a justification. Even the strictest interpretation of the Constitution would allow Congress to regulate in this area - as long as Congress itself isn't laying or collecting a tax, which they clearly aren't.


RE: B&M Changes?
By foolsgambit11 on 6/6/2011 2:23:02 AM , Rating: 2
Additionally (boy, I should have planned this all out in one post), Article IV, Section 1 applies here. "Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof." In this context, that would mean that each State would have to respect the sales tax (an Act of a State) of other States, with Congress determining the implementation (effect) across State borders.


RE: B&M Changes?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/6/2011 8:28:23 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Hooray rate down without explanation!


Because you are wrong and are pushing a bad position. I posted proof, in black and white no-uncertain terms. Your counter has been nothing but shaky interpretation after interpretation. You would make an excellent Supreme Court justice, sir.

The argument isn't if Congress can "regulate" this. Congress telling Amazon it has to ensure sales taxes are collected for every state is the crux of the issue here. And that's most certainly Unconstitutional. I'm fully aware that the goddamned "commerce" clause in modern times has been used to pass everything under the sun. But technically taxing Internet purchases are Unconstitutional as well.


RE: B&M Changes?
By foolsgambit11 on 8/21/2011 1:37:02 AM , Rating: 2
No, you posted a faulty interpretation of Article 1, Section 9. In this context, the Supreme Court has ruled that "export" explicitly means export to a foreign country, not to another State in the Union. See, for example, Dooley v US (1901), which states that taxes can be levied on goods shipped to Puerto Rico, because it isn't a foreign country.

Additionally, the court has set a pretty tight rule on what constitutes a tax on an export, essentially stating that if the tax doesn't explicitly target exports, then it isn't a violation of this rule; so even if the Supreme Court were to reverse its long-standing interpretation of this clause on the definition of "exports", it would also have to revise its definition of a "tax on exports".

Finally, again, where the Supreme Court has ruled against interstate tax collection (see National Bellas Hess v. Illinois, where it overturned a State law on interstate tax collection), it has explicitly stated that it was because this power is reserved for Congress - which again sets the precedent that it is within Congress' powers to regulate in this area.


RE: B&M Changes?
By SilthDraeth on 6/3/2011 10:25:02 PM , Rating: 2
You just got owned!


RE: B&M Changes?
By ekv on 6/3/2011 2:43:50 PM , Rating: 2
Ah, so Federal gov't usurping State's rights again, eh?


RE: B&M Changes?
By mattclary on 6/3/2011 3:00:02 PM , Rating: 1
Actually, as much as I hate taxes, this is the ONE area where the feds are explicitly granted authority.

THIS is interstate commerce, in a way that abortion and so many other subjects are not.

I have a small computer business and buy lots of stuff from Newegg. Personally, it would make my life a lot easier if Newegg charged sales tax.


RE: B&M Changes?
By ekv on 6/3/2011 3:12:47 PM , Rating: 1
Do not forget State's will levy taxes and counties will levy taxes. Interstate Commerce is highly overused and abused. Trying to over-ride State's rights in the realm of taxes will go down about as well as ObamaCare. [26 and counting]

http://topnews.us/content/232979-petitioning-state...

Newegg has never failed to charge me sales tax. If they don't charge you, they are quite accommodating. For your business account you may ask them to add sales tax. You do have a business account, no? 8)


RE: B&M Changes?
By mattclary on 6/3/2011 3:24:03 PM , Rating: 2
Like Amazon, Newegg charges taxes in some states where they have a presence. I'm in Florida, and they don't here.

And as I alluded in my post, yes, I fully agree that the interstate commerce clause has been raped like a 90lb dude in a super-max. But in this instance, I think they are spot on.


RE: B&M Changes?
By kerpwnt on 6/3/2011 5:50:25 PM , Rating: 2
Amazon is a strange beast. Amazon has warehouses where I live, in NV, but they don't charge me tax on stuff I order. However, I don't think they have ever shipped anything from a warehouse in my state. Maybe the story would change if they did. Either way, I'm pretty sure they should be charging me taxes on my orders.


RE: B&M Changes?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/3/2011 3:23:09 PM , Rating: 1
No you're wrong. The Fed does NOT have authority to bind Amazon into collecting sales taxes for the states. That is extremely Unconstitutional.


RE: B&M Changes?
By mattclary on 6/3/2011 3:24:44 PM , Rating: 2
I agree to disagree.


RE: B&M Changes?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/3/2011 4:17:49 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
I agree to disagree.


Are you just saying that because, or have you actually researched and understood the scope and legality of this proposal? I'm betting the former.

I could quote the exact Articles that this law would break, as well as many smaller ones that also become an issue if this goes into effect. But I have a feeling I would be wasting my time.


RE: B&M Changes?
By The Raven on 6/4/2011 3:20:54 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
THIS is interstate commerce, in a way that abortion and so many other subjects are not.

Just wait until Amazon starts selling home abortion kits ;-P


RE: B&M Changes?
By phantom505 on 6/3/11, Rating: 0
RE: B&M Changes?
By mcnabney on 6/3/2011 2:07:15 PM , Rating: 2
That is a really good question. I wonder why someone rated you down for it?


RE: B&M Changes?
By joex444 on 6/3/2011 2:06:55 PM , Rating: 2
If it really says "all businesses" then it would certainly seem like that change would occur. So, NH residents would get a benefit it seems.

We could just as easily abolish sales tax. Businesses like Best Buy and Wal-Mart would be basically screwed if they have to keep track of where their customers live on top of what their sales were. It's sort of an accounting nightmare, and what do you do about people without an ID to show their residency? Very common for teenagers, etc. to not have an ID but buy stuff.

When you think about it though it really just shows how out of date the B&M store model is. As the article states, even if Amazon charges sales tax their prices would still be lower. And Amazon's sales are only going up so it's only a matter of time before there Best Buy can't afford to have physical stores.


RE: B&M Changes?
By mcnabney on 6/3/2011 2:12:09 PM , Rating: 1
Do you think a computer might be helpful in tracking tax districts? I wonder if retailers might have access to one of those?


RE: B&M Changes?
By Iaiken on 6/3/2011 2:27:15 PM , Rating: 2
Because making things more complicated always makes things cheaper and easier...


RE: B&M Changes?
By Jalek on 6/4/2011 12:34:29 AM , Rating: 2
You're an unpaid tax collector anyway, why not foot the bill for updating services from various cities, counties, and states as well?

Dropping requirements on businesses to complicate things with no compensation or benefit to themselves is what the government's best at.


RE: B&M Changes?
By Nutzo on 6/3/2011 5:44:39 PM , Rating: 2
And how often do these tax rates change? Are you going to check the current rate everytime you make a sale?
How much is it going to cost to subscribe to a service that is going to guarantee the rates they list are correct?


RE: B&M Changes?
By ekv on 6/3/2011 3:04:21 PM , Rating: 2
"This idea is overdue," said Durbin. "Online retail sales are now very fulsome and are growing at the expense of local units of government."

quote:
If it really says "all businesses"
It seems that Durbin is saying all businesses are extensions of government. Which would be a scary thing to say, and perfectly consistent with his thought patterns.

Oregon, a liberal state by any measure, does not have a general sales tax. So, yes, we could abolish all state sales taxes. I agree. Me, if we're going to meddle with bringing the tax code up to date, lets do a Fair tax or a Flat tax.

[That, and spend a couple million dollars to buy-out and encourage IRS employees to retire early. Then a couple million more to up date their computers ... to abacuses.]

Is the B&M store model out of date? The role of Gov't is to enforce contracts and create a level playing field. This bill appears to do the latter. However, it does not address the real issues, but rather targets Amazon. Sure, just force Amazon to keep track of 7000+ tax districts and where residents live -- proxy servers do wonders to disguise that -- and computerize the whole thing. Right, but do B&M stores have to do that too? Have we really addressed the issue or just punted the ball down the street? again.


RE: B&M Changes?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/3/2011 3:10:12 PM , Rating: 1
It's typical for these people in Washington and big Dem's. I love how state businesses are just simply "local units" of the Fed! When did that happen, Dick?


RE: B&M Changes?
By Nutzo on 6/3/2011 5:49:48 PM , Rating: 2
Spoken like someone who has spent thier entire life in government and never run a business.

Out here in California, government workers (i.e. the schools) refuse to even check and see if people are legal, saying it's not thier job, and continue to give out government benefits (i.e tax payers money) to illegals

Yet the government expects private business to act as tax collectors for free no mater how complicates or how much it costs?


RE: B&M Changes?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/3/2011 5:59:17 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Spoken like someone who has spent thier entire life in government and never run a business.


Not only that, but Congressmen don't even pay income taxes!

It's just rhetoric. He probably doesn't even believe half of what he's saying.


RE: B&M Changes?
By ekv on 6/4/2011 2:47:14 AM , Rating: 4
quote:
Out here in California, government workers (i.e. the schools) refuse to even check and see if people are legal
I just got an email from a buddy who mentioned that Assemblyman Gil Cedillo (CA D-45) has re-sponsored the California Dream Act of 2010, whereby illegals are eligible for higher education grant money and also a potential path to citizenship.

This at a time when Calif can't even begin to meet their budget. The problem is not a lack of revenue, it is too much spending. Gov't is out of control. Instead of forcing businesses into following twisted rules and regulations, gov't ought to tighten their belts like everybody else.


RE: B&M Changes?
By ddh on 6/3/2011 2:45:00 PM , Rating: 5
As a Business owner having to collect and document sales tax rates at the point of delivery is a nightmare. People do not realize that sales tax rates differ by address. There is a base state tax rate, plus a county rate, plus a city rate, plus any special sales tax rate. Also in some cases different products have different sales tax rates.

States do not adequately provide support for business with proper databases that actively help track and collect these sales taxes. In many states there are hundreds of different composite sales tax rates, having to collect document and report on all these is a huge nightmare.
Doing it in one state is bad, in fifty it is even worse. The accounting staff and constant database maintenance is horrible, not only that if the rate you doesn't match the updated rate in the hopefully accurate state database you are required to remit at the correct rate to the state regardless of whether or not you collected.

Bottom line, amazon and every other online retailer will have to add 3% to 5% to the product cost to cover the admin costs plus the sales tax. Not only that this will be a precursor to every state wanting you to remit B&O and other taxes even though you don't operate there.

Look into the details of sales tax systems state by state and you will soon understand why they are running for there lives.

Americans are woefully ignorant of what taxes they really pay. Open your eyes and start looking around.


RE: B&M Changes?
By Ananke on 6/3/2011 4:08:06 PM , Rating: 2
Do you understand that you have a competitive advantage over Amazon of having a physical presence at your market? At the very moment when Amazon will not need to avoid a warehouse next to you, they will open one, and everybody of your clients will buy from them, because the prices will be lower AND likely the shipping charges will vanish.

I am a consumer, and I buy from local stores either because I want easy return if necessary, or to avoid shipping, or to get a "feel" of the product. I pat the sales tax premium for that luxuries. In a leveled filed, I will not buy anything from a small businesses, since Amazon will become local.


RE: B&M Changes?
By Nutzo on 6/3/2011 5:40:38 PM , Rating: 2
You also haven't considered how dificult it would be to deal with 50 different state tax offices, all with different rules and regulations.

Most require that you have a state taxpayer ID, some also require a deposit based on your estimated sales (you do have a sale estimate by state in your business plan I assume).
You can't just write a check at the end of the month either(or maybe by the quarter) since some require direct electronic transfers.

Just wait until you get hit with a sales tax audit for 20 different states the same month.


RE: B&M Changes?
By JediJeb on 6/3/2011 6:23:44 PM , Rating: 2
Maybe that is why the already collect sales taxes in Kentucky because we have one rate of 6% everywhere. There is no local sales tax here so it is much simpler to deal with.

The crazy thing they did do here a few years back was if say you were living in a state like Alabama that didn't charge sales tax on cars, if you moved to Kentucky before you could register your car you had to pay the difference between the sales tax you paid on it when you bought it and what the Kentucky sales tax was. My friend has to pay a 6% sales tax on his car he bought 4 years earlier in Alabama when he moved to Kentucky. I don't think they do it anymore because I think someone took them to court over it. I was always curious if you had bought one when you lived in Tennessee and moved to Kentucky if they would refund the difference lol.


RE: B&M Changes?
By drycrust3 on 6/4/2011 2:18:05 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
mandating that all businesses collect the sales tax in the state where the consumer resides.

I think it is worse than that ... or maybe not! The worse is that foreign companies that ship things directly to someone have to arrange for someone in THAT state to collect the tax as well, e.g. the courier who hands over the goods.
However, my reading is that the wording is such that the courier has to actually pass the collected tax back to the selling company, not to that state directly, and that the selling company would pay that state themselves. This could, of course, be open to abuse.


RE: B&M Changes?
By Hollif50 on 6/5/2011 9:22:29 AM , Rating: 2
You pay the tax that applies to where the store is.


I live in Illinois...
By Samus on 6/3/2011 2:00:05 PM , Rating: 3
Dick Durban can go screw himself. Our state has as long a history of corrupt Governors as Detroit does corrupt Mayors.

What a ridiculous proposal: the state is broke, so let us screw over the entire country by proposing an internet tax at a federal level to help us balance our budget!

Because after all, an internet tax would work wonders for our fragile and still recovering economy.




RE: I live in Illinois...
By swampthing1117 on 6/3/2011 2:09:55 PM , Rating: 2
it's not that way at all.

All people are supposed to report any of these items bought and then pay taxes at the end of the year. Almost NO ONE does this. It's a broken system that needs to be fixed and a ton of tax revenue that's being lost due to the fact that the public isn't honest enough to pay taxes that are due.

As a business owner it's hard enough to compete with amazon on price alone due to their buying power, now throw in the fact that they have ANOTHER 7% discount due to no taxes and it's beyond unfair. The playing field absolutely has to be leveled and leaving it to the consumer to pay taxes isn't working.


RE: I live in Illinois...
By DUA1939 on 6/3/2011 2:20:22 PM , Rating: 2
The point is that taxes should be lowered not raised. Especially if 50% of the tax revenue is wasted.


RE: I live in Illinois...
By Nutzo on 6/3/2011 5:52:02 PM , Rating: 2
How about cutting spending and LOWERING the sales tax to make B&M's more competative.


RE: I live in Illinois...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/3/2011 5:53:36 PM , Rating: 2
Why compete when you can stack the deck through legislation...


RE: I live in Illinois...
By Reclaimer77 on 6/3/2011 2:57:09 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah this should pretty much tell you what kind of person you are dealing with;

quote:
"Doing it state by state gives the Internet companies an opportunity to go shopping, to find the state that is going to treat them the best," said Durbin. "It certainly argues for a federal approach."


Yes, it's just so terrible that a completely legitimate business can have states freely compete for their business! How dreadful!!! The Federal government needs to squash this tomfoolery right quick, clearly. Oh forget that little document that specifically outlines and limits what the Federal Governments powers are. Wal Mart and Target bribed me, so we're doing this!


RE: I live in Illinois...
By adiposity on 6/3/2011 3:28:30 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, it's just so terrible that a completely legitimate business can have states freely compete for their business! How dreadful!!! The Federal government needs to squash this tomfoolery right quick, clearly. Oh forget that little document that specifically outlines and limits what the Federal Governments powers are. Wal Mart and Target bribed me, so we're doing this!


Going to the state where you are best treated only makes sense, and businesses should do that. However, I think this situation is unique as Amazon continues to "do business" in the other states, but uses the "better" states to help people in the "worse" states not pay taxes.

That said, I fully support what Amazon is doing. It is not their job to collect use tax. If there is a problem with use tax, it's not amazon's problem. Which is why these bills are being floated...


RE: I live in Illinois...
By enlil242 on 6/4/2011 1:22:16 AM , Rating: 2
It's happening. I know many people in affiliate marketing who are losing their livelhoods over this BS. If anyone doesn't know what affiliate marketing is, look it up. I'm certain DailyTech has an affiliate program as does most blogs. FatWallet already moved out of Illinois just days after the bill was signed into law in Illinois. Argh, I'm going to miss watching hockey in those FatWallet suites at the UC.

http://www.bizjournals.com/milwaukee/news/2011/04/...


There is no unfair advantage
By Solandri on 6/3/2011 2:26:48 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
The unfair advantage refers to the online sales tax reprieve that was put in place awhile ago to support the then-upcoming industry of online shopping. But now that Amazon is large and in-charge, states and brick-and-mortar retail chains believe this reprieve is no longer necessary.

Amazon plays by exactly the same rules as everyone else, including brick and mortar stores.

If [Amazon|B&M store] sells to someone residing in the same state, they charge sales tax.
If [Amazon|B&M store] sells to someone residing outside the state, they don't charge sales tax.

It's exactly the same. There is no unfair advantage. Everyone plays by the same rules.

What's happening is that frequently Amazon competes with a B&M store outside of the states it has operations in (and where it charges sales tax). When that happens, Amazon charges no tax, while the B&M store has to charge tax.

But that is not Amazon having an unfair advantage. It is the B&M store being put at a disadvantage by the State which is forcing it to charge a sales tax high enough to impact sales. Remember, the natural state of things is for there to be no sales tax. Sales taxes are an artificial construct imposed by government, so comparisons should be made using the natural state (zero sales tax) as a baseline. Not by using the presence of sales taxes as a baseline (which would imply that people living in states with no or low sales taxes are somehow cheating).

If a State doesn't like that Amazon is stealing business away from their B&M stores, they have an immediate remedy already within their Constitutional power - lower or eliminate their sales tax. That they won't do this tells you their real incentive. It's not to protect their B&M stores. It's to increase their tax revenue. All this talk about Amazon having an unfair advantage is just a smokescreen to try to distract people from seeing the obvious solution they don't want to take - lower their sales tax.




RE: There is no unfair advantage
By rikulus on 6/3/11, Rating: 0
By cjohnson2136 on 6/3/2011 4:56:37 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
If [Amazon|B&M store] sells to someone residing in the same state, they charge sales tax. If [Amazon|B&M store] sells to someone residing outside the state, they don't charge sales tax.


Problem with this logic.
Let's use this as an example

State A charges 10% sales tax
State B charges 5% sales tax
Amazon has presence in State A and not B

If a resident of State A buys from B&M in State A 10% sales tax is charged.
If a resident of State A buys from Amazon in State A 10% sales tax is charged
Now that seems fair but let's continue.

If a resident of State A buys from B&M in State B 5% sales tax is charged.
If a resident of State A buys from Amazon in State A 0 sales tax is charged.

See the issue? By passing this bill it would mean that Amazon would have to charge the same sales tax of the state you reside in. Now I do not agree with it because it would kill small online retailers but I am just pointing out how it is currently not fair and the logic you presented does not work.


By adiposity on 6/3/2011 7:46:32 PM , Rating: 2
quote:

If [Amazon|B&M store] sells to someone residing in the same state, they charge sales tax.
If [Amazon|B&M store] sells to someone residing outside the state, they don't charge sales tax.


Well, for B&M store, if I drive to Nevada, they do charge me sales tax, even though I live in California. But if I order it online, I don't pay. So actually, online has an "unfair" advantage over B&M stores.

I put "unfair" in quotes because the B&M store has the right to sell to out-of-state customers if they would just ship them the product, like Amazon. But you can see, there is a definite advantage to selling out of state. It's just not Amazon's fault.


What about people that arn't amazon?
By Devilpapaya on 6/3/2011 4:25:29 PM , Rating: 2
Amazon can take this - smaller online retailers won't be able to.

This has the potential to completely kill small retailers moving online to expand their business. The logistics of maintaining a database and reporting system to bill consumers based on their state (keeping track and updating when each individual state changes its tax laws) and then setting up and maintaining a way to wire that money to the appropriate state would be a nightmare for any organization, and functionally impossible for a smaller one.




RE: What about people that arn't amazon?
By Reclaimer77 on 6/3/2011 4:29:33 PM , Rating: 2
Great point! That's another alarming thing about his proposal. Where did he get the idea that it's legal, or even moral, to change the U.S tax code to specifically target ONE company out of hundreds doing the same thing?

How can ANYONE support this stuff? It was shot down in 2007 for the same reason, and here they go again in '11 trying again!


By AssBall on 6/3/2011 4:36:13 PM , Rating: 2
Illinois politicians just do whatever they want.

Need congress to read a bill before calling a vote? Na, just sneak all 2000 pages through and force one.

Maybe now they are aiming for only "less corrupt" as their goal.


Democrats love taxes
By bsimons49 on 6/3/2011 10:23:33 PM , Rating: 2
Democrats love taxing the Sh*t out of us.




RE: Democrats love taxes
By enlil242 on 6/4/2011 12:55:17 AM , Rating: 2
Ever notice how they use this phrase: "Cutting taxes costs too much money, we can't afford it." As if it's the government's money to begin with and they are "giving" me money...


By Arsynic on 6/3/2011 4:01:35 PM , Rating: 3
...they use Amazon for convenience and to avoid paying the $10 premium for retail packaging.

Why spend $30 on a USB cable with elaborate packaging that you need a katana to open when you can go on NewEgg and get it for $5 in a plastic bag.




Wrong direction
By tigen on 6/3/2011 6:39:33 PM , Rating: 3
This is going completely in the wrong direction. If anything, there should be a law saying that online retailers need to charge the sales tax of the state where THEY reside... this would make it akin to physically traveling to that state and buying stuff in person. They could justify this by saying it's unfair to selectively collect taxes based on the state of residence of the shopper.

This would keep states having an incentive to offer favorable business environments vs. other states.

If states don't want to shaft local retailers they should lower their own sales tax rates!




It's about damn time
By anubis44 on 6/4/2011 2:21:55 AM , Rating: 1
My god, the United States is still in the stone age! You people need to get with the program and implement a national sales tax like every other civilized western nation did over 20 years ago so you can pay for your aging population's health care bills. It's the biggest reason why Canada's finances have been in order since the mid 1990s. And for god's sake, cut your damned defence budget by 2/3. You don't need 17 nuclear-powered aircraft carrier battlegroups with support vessels. You can still beat the shit out of everybody combined with 4 or 5 of them. Jesus. And stop arguing about whether you can afford to cover everybody with universal health care coverage, you immoral bastards. The answer is: YES YOU CAN. If you simply adopted Canada's universal health care system, you'd cut the cost vs. your current, crappy system that leaves 50,000,000 citizens without any coverage at all by 50%. This is all proven by reputable economists. And finally, please tell your government to STOP EXPORTING ALL YOU MANUFACTURING TO CHINA. If the Chinese won't raise their minimum wages and allow unions and improve their labour and environmental regulations, then just block their stuff from coming into the US. PERIOD. Don't think about it, just DO IT. Believe me, the Chinese would change their tune instantly if you actually did this, and you'd save more of those $40/hour manufacturing jobs you need to pay for all these health care and social insurance costs and pay down your damned debts. Thank you. (A Canadian who cares).




RE: It's about damn time
By Lerianis on 6/7/2011 3:35:27 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed on the national sales tax thing. It's time to go to that and take the power away from the states to levy sales taxes, at least.

Unfortunately, a lot of people (mainly neo-conservative) are stuck on the whole "STATE POWUH!" thing where they think that having the states do everything is best.... it is not and never will be in the real world.


Sales Tax
By btc909 on 6/4/2011 1:07:03 PM , Rating: 1
What about states that don't charge sales tax, such as Alaska, Oregon, Montana, New Hampshire, & Delaware Dick Doober is going after these states as well right?




RE: Sales Tax
By ewhite06 on 6/6/2011 4:12:10 PM , Rating: 2
I don't have a degree in economics or anything close, but to me a high sales tax (whether federal or state) and ZERO income tax seems to be more logical. Why? Because its a tax of choice: I only pay taxes when I want to - when I buy something. That way everyone is taxed equally and those that have more income, will spend accordingly and be taxed accordingly. But its heresy just to speak these words... I'm sure there are various reasons why this wouldn't work.

I don't like paying taxes as much as the next person, but in this case a flat tax seems to make the most sense for the online world (or even B&M). Six percent seems about right. This lessens the administrative impact for the mom-and-pop online shops to track the rates for CA vs. AK vs. MN vs. IL etc.. I know states will complain about "our sales tax is currently 8% - we want our 8%" And to that I say "Well, currently you are collecting 0%. Which do you prefer?"


Joke
By DUA1939 on 6/3/2011 2:11:47 PM , Rating: 2
Buffoons like Durbin and Quinn in IL don’t make any sense. Democratic machine of Chicago is hard to crack, city and state is being taken down by these morons.




I don't want to pay sales tax.
By stm1185 on 6/3/2011 2:16:57 PM , Rating: 2
I get taxed when I make money. Why can't that be enough? Why do these greedy motherF%*$ers keep coming back for more? I am sick to death of these f%*^ing Democrats in CA putting their hand on my wallet. I'll start shopping online overseas and pay for international shipping on expensive orders before I start paying the CA sales tax.

And who wants to bet Dick Durbin's next campaign is funded by Walmart? or Target. I am sure that douchebag is getting a bribe for this shit.




By Arsynic on 6/3/2011 3:41:40 PM , Rating: 2
Always looking for more money to feed their nanny state. I swear...everything out of Illinois stinks.




Fairness
By nstott on 6/3/2011 3:45:33 PM , Rating: 2
So, to make things fair, the brick and mortar stores should also have to charge shipping and handling, like Amazon, whether or not any shipping is involved, and it should be at least at the overnight express rate.




By Rob94hawk on 6/3/2011 5:04:55 PM , Rating: 2
Obviously the British never left after the US won it's independence in the 1700's. They still here disguised as Democrats.....




By OPAS on 6/3/2011 6:14:31 PM , Rating: 2
You can still enjoy tax-free shopping at Amazon if you use a package forwarding service from Oregon (where there is no sales tax). In fact, many in California already use this strategy to avoid sales tax when shopping online. You can order with an Oregon address, then forward your packages to your state, tax-free. See http://bit.ly/mRILaE




IDEA: Lower State Sales Taxes!
By enlil242 on 6/4/2011 12:47:43 AM , Rating: 2
How's that for a concept, Mr. Durbin. Right now, it costs me over 10% in Sales taxes to go to Best Buy in some parts of Illinois! Instead of taxing Amazon, why not lower the sales tax here in Illinois so I wouldn't be so down on going to MicroCenter to pick up my gadgetry.

5-6% would be enought to satisfy my instant gratification. See how that works? Make it attractive for people to spend the money at a local store, and they will spend their money at a local store, and you get the tax revenue.




Taxes...
By croc on 6/4/2011 2:21:19 AM , Rating: 2
Here, in AUS., the store-front owners are up in arms over on-line purchasing as well. They want GST added to EVERY purchase, no matter the cost to the gov't of that proposition. Guess that the wealthy Gerry Harvey and Frank Lowy don't have enough money yet, despite raping we Aussies for years to the tune off 100 to 1000% markups...

Oh well, I'll happily pay what the law requires. Speaking of which, don't the tax departments of the various states that are whinging about this have any enforcement capability? As I see it, it is not the retailer's responsibility to collect the taxes, it is the various states' responsibilities to see that their citizens pay up.

We Aussies came from a penal colony, once upon a time, and are just a bit proud of that. But we pay our taxes, when we have to, and don't whinge too much about it.

Seems that over in the good ol' US of A, land of the 'throw 'em in the butt-hurting slammer' right wing haters, getting away with tax-avoidance is a crime to be proud of... E-tailers in the US should send records of purchases to the purchaser's state revenue collection authority and let the states deal with the crimes.




Sales Tax
By Hollif50 on 6/5/2011 9:21:17 AM , Rating: 2
Can anyone say tax evasion? Sure, the consumer may save a few bucks, and should always try to, but I don't think any Company should base their business model on helping people evade taxes to the Company's benefit. The trouble with a lot of Americans these days is they want something for nothing. They want low crime, better schools, a great infrastructure, etc.; but the powers that be had better damn well charge someone else for it. The Counties and States are tapped out of cash, as is the Federal Government. Now I'm all for reduced spending by governments, but you've got to pay for what you want. We are after all a great nation of 300 Million people, not some third world country with no running water and streets of dirt.If we don't own up to paying what is owed, we will become that third world country...




Hey Democrats
By wewter on 6/6/2011 4:34:39 PM , Rating: 2
STOP looking for additional sources of revenue to feed your pet projects around the state. In CA we are so f****d ... a look at our deficit, then debt, is (for lack of a stronger word) depressing.

The problem is not revenue (of which we have plenty) .. it is politicans' idea that adding a little red ink to the budget is a small payoff to get what they need to done. They don't work within their means, and are delusional in thinking that additional taxing on a successful business won't somehow reach the consumer at the end of the day.

I hate our gd politicans - we need new blood imho, and not tp fanatics, but rational, pragmatic, problem-solvers.




By Lerianis on 6/7/2011 3:32:51 AM , Rating: 2
That replaces all state sales taxes. Letting states have their own sales taxes was fine when companies were only in one or two states. Now that some of them do business across the ENTIRE United States, the state by state approach doesn't work anymore.




A small problem
By KeithP on 6/3/2011 5:16:04 PM , Rating: 1
How do they plan to enforce this? I am guessing it will be easy to live in a state with sales tax but acquire whatever documentation would be needed to indicate that you live in a state with no sales tax.

And just like that, you can buy from a B&M store with no tax as easy as you bought from Amazon with no tax.

Bring it on!

-KeithP




Main Street? Really?
By The Raven on 6/4/2011 3:31:00 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
Senator Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) plans to introduce a bill called the Main Street Fairness Act

I would vote against this bill based solely on the fact that Durbin used "Main Street" in the name. You can tell by this that it is in reality not good for "Main Street."

They always name the bills in a way that describes the opposite of what actually happens as a result of its passing.




"Nowadays you can buy a CPU cheaper than the CPU fan." -- Unnamed AMD executive














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