Make Internet Sales Fair Act [On the President's Desk]

[Bacon King]

I accept Senator Badger's amendment as friendly.

[Badger]

I accept Senator Badger's amendment as friendly.

[Marokai Backbeat]

It'd be a step forward regardless, just more of a babystep than I'd hoped.

[Franzl]

I'll support this either way, although I didn't see anything wrong with Marokai's version.

[Badger]

I accept Senator Badger's amendment as friendly.

Hold on here. Bullmoose, Libertas---would this amendment actually change either of your positions on the bill?

[bullmoose88]

I accept Senator Badger's amendment as friendly.

Hold on here. Bullmoose, Libertas---would this amendment actually change either of your positions on the bill?

It certainly makes the bill more palatable from my perspective.  Of course, I'd obviously prefer in most situations to repeal taxes to even the playing field--especially when the economy isn't doing so well--but if that fantasyland isn't possible the amendment seems to instill some reality into the bill.

At the very least, even if I'm still not on the aye side of the measure (how I'll exactly vote depends on the final text, the original gets a nay from me), I'm a lot more comfortable with its passage as amended.

[Bacon King]

With no objections, the bill has been friendlily amended. The current text of the bill is below.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Unless anyone has anything else to add this can proceed to a final vote soon.

[Bacon King]

Just realized something here. Do we want to apply this bill to non-internet business that sell across state lines as well, such as mail order catalogs? Because currently they're exempt from sales taxes just like internet business are.

[bgwah]

Why are the first $5 million exempt? Is this the case for offline sales?

How do you determine where they pay the sales tax? Where they are actually purchased? So could someone just go from their higher sales tax city to a library in a neighboring lower sales tax city to avoid paying taxes? I suppose this is the case in real life, but this could make a large difference in tax revenue for large purchases. I think the purchaser should pay the sales tax of their residency...

[Bacon King]

Why are the first $5 million exempt? Is this the case for offline sales?

How do you determine where they pay the sales tax? Where they are actually purchased? So could someone just go from their higher sales tax city to a library in a neighboring lower sales tax city to avoid paying taxes? I suppose this is the case in real life, but this could make a large difference in tax revenue for large purchases. I think the purchaser should pay the sales tax of their residency...

If someone going to a computer at a library the next town over would be an issue, surely someone spending ten dollars to open a PO Box the next town over would be just as big of an issue, no?

[Badger]

Why are the first $5 million exempt? Is this the case for offline sales?

How do you determine where they pay the sales tax? Where they are actually purchased? So could someone just go from their higher sales tax city to a library in a neighboring lower sales tax city to avoid paying taxes? I suppose this is the case in real life, but this could make a large difference in tax revenue for large purchases. I think the purchaser should pay the sales tax of their residency...

First off, BK's right. The US Supreme Court decision governing here actually dealt with mail order sales. If we're going to expand the ability to impose sales tax on internet sales than we might as well change that for mail order sales while we're at it.

Regarding the point of imposing tax at state of residency, if "residency" means "delivery" than yes. It's the only way such taxes could be enforced, otherwise anyone could enter a no tax city and state as their "residency" when ordering, while having the item delivered to where they actually live. Other methods of trying to "prove" residency on line probably aren't technically doable or feasible.

If someone gets something sent to friends or family in a no tax state to deliver the next time they visit, then by all means let them. If someone is willing to go through that much trouble to avoid a few bucks sales tax than God bless their conniving little hearts. Its no different than people on the NH border driving from Mass to make purchases so they can spend $10 gas to save $20 in taxes. State of delivery is good enough.

Regarding the $5 million exemption, as I explained that a very small on line business has much higher headaches calculating and submitting paperwork for sales tax for countless states and municipalities where they operate, as opposed to regular merchants who know exactly what their state and local sales taxes are. You add the cost of shipping as Svensson pointed out and it creates a competitive disadvantage to internet sales.

That said, I admit I was thinking about this last night (because I apparently have no life ) and have to admit that the $5 million figure is a rather high threshhold. Any business even approaching half that amount of gross sales has long passed the mom and pop operation level and should be expected to deal with the complexities of multistate transactions taxes.

Lets do this. I'm open to any figure between 5 million and half a million. Bgwah, you, Bullmoose and Libertas talk among yourselves and whatever figure in that range that 2 f you agree to I'll gladly accept as a friendly amendment to my amendment of Marokai Blue's amendment. BK, it's your bill so I invite you to make whatever changes you want to (quite sensably) extend this measure to mail order sales as well.

Everyone got it? Go Team Senate!  Break!

[bgwah]

You mention shipping as a disadvantage, but what about the advantages they have, such as providing products customers may not be able to find in person? Besides, don't the customers generally pay the shipping fee themselves anyway? I cannot help but wonder if this will cause more of a disadvantage for brick and mortar retailers.

[Bacon King]

Amendment offered and accepted as friendly; Senators have 24 hours to object.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I think this covers everything. I'd be sympathetic to removing section three entirely (most jurisdictions don't tax food anyway) but I'm fearful of providing too much of a shock to smaller internet businesses that aren't accustomed to a tax.

[Bacon King]

Without objection the bill has been modified as above. Also, due to the complete lack of debate, I'll go ahead and move this to a final vote. Senators, please vote aye, nay, or abstain.

[Bacon King]

AYE

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

Nay, this bill hath vexed me, and as such, I do beleive it is a cursed bill.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Nay

[Franzl]

Aye

[Hans-im-Glück]

NAY

I see no advantage in this Act. It would only mean more bureaucracy.

[Badger]

AYE.

[Franzl]

NAY

I see no advantage in this Act. It would only mean more bureaucracy.

You don't see how small businesses are being put at a disadvantage without taxing Internet sales?

[Hans-im-Glück]

NAY

I see no advantage in this Act. It would only mean more bureaucracy.

You don't see how small businesses are being put at a disadvantage without taxing Internet sales?

I'm not the biggest fan of capitalism, but want this bill wants is socialism for small business owners. I see it more with the view of the consumer. The internet bring us the chance for lower prices and this is good for all of us.

When small businesses want to have a chance in the "new Internet world" then they need to develop new ideas to survive.

I find it funny that you want to protect business owners, but I'm 100% sure you would say no to an extended protection of employee rights.

[Bacon King]

This is just a notice; the vote is still ongoing...

Senators voting aye: Bacon King, Franzl, Badger (3)
Senators voting nay: NCYankee, Libertas, Hans-im-Glück (3)
Senators yet to vote: The other four

[Franzl]

I'm not the biggest fan of capitalism, but want this bill wants is socialism for small business owners. I see it more with the view of the consumer. The internet bring us the chance for lower prices and this is good for all of us.

When small businesses want to have a chance in the "new Internet world" then they need to develop new ideas to survive.

I find it funny that you want to protect business owners, but I'm 100% sure you would say no to an extended protection of employee rights.

I would dispute that I'm "protecting" small business owners here....I'm only advocating a level playing field where there is not a clear advantage for one type of business.

Not to mention that "helping" business owners isn't ONLY in their interest. Think about the many jobs that depend on the small business owners that you want to unfairly punish here.

[Hans-im-Glück]

@Franzl

How many Internet business jobs do you destroy with this law?

The modern times are sales over the internet.

I like "Tante-Emma-Läden", but I buy my things at Aldi or othe super markets. You cannot turn back the time.