Boehner kills internet sales tax bill

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

The biggest problem with the current law is if you order from retailers that do both online and in store sales, like Best Buy, you still have to pay sales taxes. So it's not even an even playing field in terms of e-retailers only.

I don't see any problem with requiring such taxes to be paid in either type of sale. If you oppose sales taxes in general, then you should get your state to abolish them, like some don't have any. But having sales taxes apply to only some businesses is completely unfair.

[Cory]

This is fantastic news.

[Mister Mets]

Lower taxes are always preferable to higher taxes, but tax loopholes distort the market in counterproductive ways. E-commerce has been exempt from taxation because no one can decide how to tax such complicated transactions, but rules need to be established for the good of businesses and consumers.

Personally, I think all of the sales tax revenue should go to the buyer's state (billing address). Buyer residence is much easier to trace, and the seller state and processor state are already collecting industrial property taxes and income taxes from the workers (in many instances).

I agree that the lack of an internet sales tax is problematic.

It penalizes brick and mortar stores.

I'd just put all the internet tax revenue into infrastructure spending.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Only dumbs who enjoy having mom and pop brick and mortar stores go out of business would oppose this.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I'm not against state sales taxes having to be paid for online purchases, but a national sales tax should be off the table unless a big income tax cut comes with it.

[Free Bird]

Glorious news! For once orange man isn't useless.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I wouldn't worry too much, Lief.  Americans are dumb, selfish bastards, and in lieu of tax-free Internet shopping would probably continue to destroy small businesses by just waddling their large asses over to muh Wal-Mart anyway. 

On a serious note, since the web is mostly used for larger purchases (and by that I mean things that are not $4-5 disposable or food items) what could be so bad about paying a little sales tax if you are make large purchases anyway?  In NJ it's .07 cents.  You buy a $100 part for your surround sound system and it's $7 extra in taxes.  Big deal.  Small price to pay for market fairness, which you conservatives always seem to love so much. 

[Slander and/or Libel]

Facilitating evasion of taxes that brick and mortar shops have to pay isn't a good thing.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Facilitating evasion of taxes that brick and mortar shops have to pay isn't a good thing.

Don't I incur extra costs via shipping and waiting time when I buy online vs. brick and mortar? 

[Simfan34]

Do small businesses conduct more trade online? One would think this would help them at the expense of, say, Amazon.

[ElectionsGuy]

This is fantastic news.

[free my dawg]

This is fantastic news.

[free my dawg]

Only dumbs who enjoy having mom and pop brick and mortar stores go out of business would oppose this.

I also don't support small Internet businesses going out of business either. Requiring Internet businesses to comply with every single state's tax laws stifles innovation - especially in no-sales-tax states like mine.

For example, my friend's family owns a hot sauce company in NH, and he's about ten minutes away from the Maine border. Most of his business is done online. If someone in, say, Lewiston, wants to buy some of the company's hot sauce, he has to charge for Maine's Internet sales tax, even though Lewiston is an hour and a half away, and his state doesn't require him to pay a sales tax for face-to-face sales. That's not fair at all.

[pbrower2a]

Facilitating evasion of taxes that brick and mortar shops have to pay isn't a good thing.

Don't I incur extra costs via shipping and waiting time when I buy online vs. brick and mortar? 

Not by much. Brick-and-mortar stores depend heavily upon impulse purchases.

[Deus Naturae]

I wouldn't worry too much, Lief.  Americans are dumb, selfish bastards, and in lieu of tax-free Internet shopping would probably continue to destroy small businesses by just waddling their large asses over to muh Wal-Mart anyway. 

Yeah, not wasting money by buying stuff online is evil and selfish. What arrogant, moralistic nonsense.

[MurrayBannerman]

This is fantastic news.

Do you guys have an argument why this is a good idea besides "muh taxes"?

What is the argument for this idea?

1) Unfair competition: online retailers like Amazon get to sell products at a 5-10% discount compared to local small businesses.

2) States are losing out on a considerable amount of sales tax revenue.

So? And so?

Taxing physical sales but not internet sales amounts to the government promoting online retailers like amazon over small business.  If that's what you want, go ahead...

Apparently, the internet and small businesses are mutually exclusive. What about small, internet businesses?

[Maxwell]

Sales taxes are awful in general and should be abolished.

[traininthedistance]

If the point of the law is "fairness," it fails, because sellers in cities and counties with higher rates will remain at a disadvantage. And if states must settle on a single tax rate for online sales only, it's frightening to contemplate how high that rate might be.

Even if we can't get to perfectly fair, we should still work for more fair- and I'm not aware of any solid evidence that any hypothetical single rate would be frighteningly high. I find this bit particularly unpersuasive.

I do appreciate the rest of your points here- I'm pretty sure I still disagree, and side with the small local brick-and-mortars who have been at the forefront of this fairness push, but it's been food for thought and I'm actively mulling it over.

As for the objection to sales taxes in general on equity grounds, I agree with BRTD that this is a Real Bad way to advance that cause:

I don't see any problem with requiring such taxes to be paid in either type of sale. If you oppose sales taxes in general, then you should get your state to abolish them, like some don't have any. But having sales taxes apply to only some businesses is completely unfair.

I'm also tempted to get all Slatepichy contrarian, cite the actual Nordic model, and point out that the most egalitarian advanced societies we've seen all don't shy away from taxing consumption at all income levels, because a broad-based tax that funds generous social programs tends to go along with a flatter wealth curve than a smaller but more strictly progressive taxation regime.  That's kind of a tangent, and I'd need more time than I have at the moment to really defend it (and even then I doubt I'd want to go full VAT like they do in Europe)... but I do think the point needs to be entered into the record as a check on the impulse to RAAR SMASH ALL SALES TAXES.

[Deus Naturae]

I do appreciate the rest of your points here- I'm pretty sure I still disagree, and side with the small local brick-and-mortars who have been at the forefront of this fairness push, but it's been food for thought and I'm actively mulling it over.

What makes you think the retailers who are pushing this are "small and local?" A quick look at the groups that have lobbied in favor of this shows that clearly isn't the case. And as Nix pointed out previously, Amazon is hardly a "local brick-and-mortar."

[traininthedistance]

If the point of the law is "fairness," it fails, because sellers in cities and counties with higher rates will remain at a disadvantage. And if states must settle on a single tax rate for online sales only, it's frightening to contemplate how high that rate might be.

Even if we can't get to perfectly fair, we should still work for more fair- and I'm not aware of any solid evidence that any hypothetical single rate would be frighteningly high. I find this bit particularly unpersuasive.

...
I do appreciate the rest of your points here- I'm pretty sure I still disagree, and side with the small local brick-and-mortars who have been at the forefront of this fairness push, but it's been food for thought and I'm actively mulling it over.

What makes you think the retailers who are pushing this are "small and local?" A quick look at the groups that have lobbied in favor of this shows that clearly isn't the case. And as Nix point out previously, Amazon is hardly a "local brick-and-mortar."

Well, this has been an issue since well before Amazon did their PR-motivated about face- and while it sucks that it required the support of big boxes to get moving, I can guarantee you that all the actual mom-and-pops that I had noticed taking a stand (and, being the kind of person who shops at independent bookstores, I can guarantee you I noticed it) were in favor of something like this.  That Wiki focuses exclusively on other, bigger supporters is unfortunate.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

What makes you think the retailers who are pushing this are "small and local?" A quick look at the groups that have lobbied in favor of this shows that clearly isn't the case. And as Nix point out previously, Amazon is hardly a "local brick-and-mortar."

Because of its localized distribution centers Amazon has reached the point where it has, or soon will have, to collect State sales taxes in most states. (In some cases Amazon negotiated a temporary moratorium as a condition of locating a distribution center in a particular State.) When it comes to the big e-commerce sites, they're in the same boat as brick-and-mortar in that they have to collect sales taxes.  Changing the rules would mainly affect smaller e-commerce sites with few if any physical sites beyond their HQ.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I wouldn't worry too much, Lief.  Americans are dumb, selfish bastards, and in lieu of tax-free Internet shopping would probably continue to destroy small businesses by just waddling their large asses over to muh Wal-Mart anyway. 

Yeah, not wasting money by buying stuff online is evil and selfish. What arrogant, moralistic nonsense.

Yes, a typical American would look at a couple extra bucks to support small business as "waste".  Thank you for proving my point. 

[Deus Naturae]

Well, this has been an issue since well before Amazon did their PR-motivated about face- and while it sucks that it required the support of big boxes to get moving, I can guarantee you that all the actual mom-and-pops that I had noticed taking a stand (and, being the kind of person who shops at independent bookstores, I can guarantee you I noticed it) were in favor of something like this. That Wiki focuses exclusively on other, bigger supporters is unfortunate.

The Wiki entry focuses on them because they're the ones pouring cash into this effort. I'm sure there are plenty of small businesses who support this too, but those who are leading the charge at the forefront of this are corporate lobbyist fronts attempting to maximize their profits at the expense of consumers and their competitors. This bill really represents the worst of all worlds: Corporate rent-seeking, higher costs for consumers, more hassle for businesses, and concern trolling about "protecting small businesses" (I'm referring to politicians, not you) when this bill is backed by moneyed interests whose clear intent in supporting it is to crack down on small online businesses (see: Amazon).

[traininthedistance]

Well, this has been an issue since well before Amazon did their PR-motivated about face- and while it sucks that it required the support of big boxes to get moving, I can guarantee you that all the actual mom-and-pops that I had noticed taking a stand (and, being the kind of person who shops at independent bookstores, I can guarantee you I noticed it) were in favor of something like this. That Wiki focuses exclusively on other, bigger supporters is unfortunate.

The Wiki entry focuses on them because they're the ones pouring cash into this effort. I'm sure there are plenty of small businesses who support this too, but those who are leading the charge at the forefront of this are corporate lobbyist fronts attempting to maximize their profits at the expense of consumers and their competitors. This bill really represents the worst of all worlds: Corporate rent-seeking, higher costs for consumers, more hassle for businesses, and concern trolling about "protecting small businesses" (I'm referring to politicians, not you) when this bill is backed by moneyed interests whose clear intent in supporting it is to crack down on small online businesses (see: Amazon).

Y'know, I might actually agree more than I disagree with this.  But the proper solution to the problems you raise is to a) enact serious campaign finance reform/contribution limits, so that the next time the minnows can get heard when it's still just the minnows, before the big folks opportunistically jump in, and b) find ways to streamline regulation and/or increase investment into the sorts of offices and services that would let small proprietors navigate the system better.  I mean, yeah, I actually agree that large piles of regulations often tend to hurt smaller enterprises disproportionately, since they can shell out less time and money to navigate those thickets.  I have more empathy for that POV than I perhaps let on sometimes (perhaps you get an inkling whenever I rail against restrictive zoning as I sometimes do).  I just don't think that looking the other way while unintended and unfair loopholes get reamed is at all a productive way to fix that issue.

What makes you think the retailers who are pushing this are "small and local?" A quick look at the groups that have lobbied in favor of this shows that clearly isn't the case. And as Nix point out previously, Amazon is hardly a "local brick-and-mortar."

Because of its localized distribution centers Amazon has reached the point where it has, or soon will have, to collect State sales taxes in most states. (In some cases Amazon negotiated a temporary moratorium as a condition of locating a distribution center in a particular State.) When it comes to the big e-commerce sites, they're in the same boat as brick-and-mortar in that they have to collect sales taxes.  Changing the rules would mainly affect smaller e-commerce sites with few if any physical sites beyond their HQ.

True; it's probably fairer to say that Amazon's shift on this issue is not simply PR but also coincided with their decision to pursue this strategy (which conveniently can also claim to be pursued in the pursuit of faster shipping times).

...

ETA: I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the practice of showrooming yet.

[Blue3]

Some good from the GOP for once.