The Internet sales tax is back.
Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) has introduced a bill to require Internet-based businesses to charge state sales taxes on out-of-state purchases.
The bill, introduced May 22, would allow states which harmonize their sales tax laws under the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement to force out-of-state businesses to charge sales tax to customers in their states.
A press release from Enzi’s Senate office said that the bill would “level the playing field” by preventing consumers in high-sales-tax states from buying products out-of-state and avoiding paying sales taxes.
Enzi is concerned because states are missing out on billions of dollars of taxes because they buy products in interstate commerce, and he wants to bring the bacon back home.
“If Congress continues to allow remote sales taxes to go uncollected and electronic commerce continues to grow as predicted, other taxes, such as income or property taxes, will have to be increased to offset the lost revenue to state and local governments,” Enzi said.
“It is now time for Congress to provide states that enact the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement with the authority to require remote retailers to collect sales tax just as Main Street retailers do today.”
Enzi’s arguments about leveling the playing field have several fundamental flaws. To begin, nothing prevents brick-and-mortar shops from maintaining online presences — where generally no sales taxes would apply. An alternate solution, available to the states, is to follow the lead of Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon by eliminating the sales tax for brick-and-mortar operations. Instead, Enzi wishes to stifle a hundred billion dollar a year and rapidly growing sector of the American economy. The most obvious flaw is that government, at all levels, could concentrate on reducing spending as opposed to increasing taxes.
“This is yet another GOP tax increase to help pay for the Republican addiction to massive government spending,” said Libertarian Party Political Director Stephen Gordon, whose efforts helped kill a major Republican tax increase proposal in Alabama. “One would think that the Republicans, following the 2006 election results, would have learned to keep big government programs off the table.” — SmallGovTimes.com
So much for Wyoming being a bastion of limited government if tax-and-spenders like Mike Enzi represent the state’s Republican Party.
Keeping government spending in check and government out of people’s lives, historically conservative, Republican positions, seem to have fallen by the wayside. Unless, of course, you’re Ron Paul.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...
Karl Marx would love the popular moves among politicians in various state governments and the federal government to ban so-called "junk" food in schools, and to "put healthy food in" convenience stores and on the tables of those they define as poor. It's a very elitist and arrogant mindset that promotes this ideology, and it needs to be addressed.
Ultimately, the war supporters in Congress prevailed in the vote on the resolution. Still, the vote was significant because it places every member of Congress on the record as supporting or not supporting the unconstitutional, costly, violent occupation of a country that never attacked us. This vote should serve as an important reminder to the American people of where their representatives really stand when it comes to policing the world, empire building, and war.
Except where otherwise noted, content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works license.
Video published by this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Sampling+ license.
Facebook
Digg
del.icio.us
reddit.com
Newsvine
lordmetroid
May 29, 2007
I thought one of the federal government’s purposes was to ensure that the various states did not impose taxes on sales of goods between each others.
Jerry A. Pipes
May 29, 2007
No one is really surprised by this, are they? If the federal government can find a way to tax something, it will.
Anonymous
May 29, 2007
@Pipes
And continue to tax even after the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it is Unconstitutional.
Verbos
May 29, 2007
@Pipes
And continue to tax even after the Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that it is Unconstitutional.
Thunderbird
May 29, 2007
if it moves, they touch it
Jeff Hoyt
May 29, 2007
With thanks to Mr. Mencken, I offer the following definition of modern D.C. thinking: The haunting fear that somewhere, something isn’t being taxed…
I don’t agree with much that he said, but I give a thumbs up to H.L. when he said, “The only honest politician is one with a gun to his head.”
Fraud Guy
May 29, 2007
Actually, the Supreme Court did not rule it unconstitutional, but stated that requiring collection of such taxes was an undue burden on businesses, because they would have to take into account the changes and vagaries of more than 3000 tax jurisidictions within the US (not to mention rates on items that may vary depending on each jurisdictions classification). The plan pushed for approval has some 30 states approving the streamlining of sales taxes for interstate purchases (which was a benchmark from the SC).
Now, this does not include use taxes, which are already present in almost all states. The use tax is what you are required to pay your state and locality when the sales tax of where you purchased an item (out of the local jurisdiction) that you brought back home was lower than the current sales tax rate you would have paid if you bought it at home. They can track this easily on large items (cars, boats, etc.) that you have to register for use, but it goes down to smaller items. I.e., if you buy a computer on eBay for $500, and the seller does not collect sales tax (because he does not have a physical location in your state), you are still required to pay use tax to your state (with the handy forms you can find on their web site) equal to the amount of the sales tax you thought you saved–say $35 on average.
Welcome to the wonderful world of invasive taxation.
Taxes
May 29, 2007
If the taxes go to your community to help you and your relatives than it should not be a problem. What you put in, you will get back!!!
Jeff Hoyt
May 29, 2007
Perhaps, but only in amounts far too small to be justify the oppressive rates most localities impose on everything from real estate to yard sales. Starting wih the premise that all involuntary taxation is theft, taxation even at the local level is often confiscatory, as the citizn typically has no power to determine what he will and will not pay for with regard to government services. As an example, for what purpose is a private individual taxed to support public transportation if he or she never uses it? The fancy fountains downtown are very pretty, but they never saked me if I was interested in contributing.
The economic tension between individual interests and the commonweal is never fully resolvable in any society, but in my opinion, the less that government thinks up to do, the better. After all, what has all of our experience taught us about government? As my brother is fond of quoting: “(They)can do it, but they suck at it.”
Jeff Hoyt
May 29, 2007
My apologies…I don’t think “saked” is word. Perhaps I should have used “asked” instead. And let’s try this again – “(They) can do it, but (they) suck at it.”
Jeff Hoyt
May 29, 2007
Or “wih” or “citizn”. This is ridiculous; I’m going bed…
nick
May 29, 2007
errr wouldn’t that be against the sherman antitrust act? oh, wait, i forgot about sovereign immunity, my bad.
lordmetroid
May 30, 2007
Maybe one should not pay ones taxes and when the collector comes for your house, you stand ready with a rocket launcher blowing up the to be confiscated property. Muahahaha…
Q
May 30, 2007
legalize pot, prostitution and casinos, and tax them, and while we’re at it we can apply tax on churches with maybe a 60% discount.
and we’ll have a HUGE new source of completely untapped income for the city/state
DUHH what’s wrong with these people.
geri
May 30, 2007
This is what gets me:
“A press release from Enzi’s Senate office said that the bill would ‘level the playing field’ by preventing consumers in high-sales-tax states from buying products out-of-state and avoiding paying sales taxes.”
So, I…a single working mother…would be prevented from finding a better bargain, saving money I could spend on…oh, let’s say food…and would be forced to pay a higher price for items I need and, in the process, be forced to not buy as much because my dollar won’t streatch that much.
And, since I can’t afford that extra food with money I earn I’m going to have to stay on Food Stamps and other welfare programs because my state is too busy spending MY money on other things that they think they need…like pay raises for themselves so they can afford to live in this state with higher taxes.
And, apparently, I’m not grown up enough yet to decided where I want to spend my money. The government has to stop and tell me that too.
Oh, yeah. That just makes sooo much sense. Why didn’t I see it before?
Fraud Guy
May 31, 2007
I just thought of something, especially with regards to sales and use taxes.
New York City has had, in the past, periodic “sales tax holidays” in order to attract tourist business to the city’s retail centers.
The problem with this is that when these consumers return to their home state, they will be required to pay use taxes equal to their home states tax rates.
Some holiday–go to NYC–pay your taxes at home.
Ron Holland
Jun 01, 2007
Will Ron Paul & Rudy Giuliani Debate Foreign Policy at Freedomfest?
The annual FreedomFest conference, has issued a debate invitation to GOP Presidential candidates Rudy Giuliani and Ron Paul to use FreedomFest ‘07 as a debate venue to further explore their fundamental differences in foreign policy and the war in Iraq that were highlighted in the Columbia, SC debate. To review the debate invitation -
For more information on the July 2007 FreedomFest Conference in Las Vegas, go to
wtfk
Jun 02, 2007
Oh, that pesky constitution!
The Levelers
Jun 02, 2007
Those “levelers” really need to get their asses moving to get rid of all those unfair and unequal sales taxes.
panthercat
Jul 05, 2007
Keep the government out of the internet. They foul up everyting they touch and it only gets worse from then on. Hands Off The Internet
sally
Jul 07, 2007
I think taxing the online businesses is stupidty! After all the internet is global,and to try to stop people from buying out side own state is is socialitic
realityseeker
Jul 28, 2007
Most Americans, including many posters, are short-sighted on this issue. If you own no property, current bans on e-tailers enforcing the collection of taxes on internet sales is a benefit. The average apartment dweller browsing on his/her computer to buy the newest Apple gadget on an already maxed-out credit card loathes the thought of actually paying taxes on the transaction (…which they are legally required to do, although it’s not enforced. If you aren’t paying the tax, you ARE currently breaking the law). But, that individual pays no property taxes. Americans who pay property taxes make up for the BILLIONS in lost tax revenue. Meanwhile, local business go under and Amazon carries a valuation = 70X that of Walmart. The money for local parks, schools, roads, police etc. comes from somewhere. Lets spread the burden out instead of continuosly placing in on the middle class. You buy the crap…you pay the tax.
patriot45
Aug 19, 2007
Our country’s infrastructure is falling apart. We are 45th in enducation, 45th in health care, 45th in how long we live, 45th in infant mortality, and our pensions are going down the drain. It goes on and on. In some statistics we are worse off than former communist countries. There is no decent, civilized country in the world that does not collect major taxes. People who complain about “Tax and Spend” are not only unpatriotic but also are trying to con the rest of us. It is necessary and patriotic to pay taxes and the good news is it means you made some money. The simplest idea would be to tax internet sales at one national rate and distribute the money to the states that participate. It could be a lower rate to start with.
Jeff Hoyt
Aug 20, 2007
patriot45,
You’re kidding, right?
We are 45th in all the things you list – which I don’t dispute at the moment, because I just heard that figure for infant mortality from a well-informed friend – and your suggestion is that the citizenry should encourage the United States government to work on this problem? Hmmmmm….
I’m tempted to offer an explanation as to why your suggestion is naive to a point somewhere beyond egregious, but there are occasions where having to explain something in the first place means it won’t do any good to explain it. I think this is one of those occasions.
“There is no decent, civilized country in the world that does not collect major taxes.” Except maybe Costa Rica, Monaco, Cayman Islands, St. Kitts, Nevis, and a dozen others or so.
“People who complain about “Tax and Spend” are not only unpatriotic but also are trying to con the rest of us.” This statement is beyond belief. Challenge: Find a specific case in which an individual who has gone on record as being against the “Tax and Spend” philosophy of Congress has done so with the express purpose of harming the U.S.A. Conning the rest of us? How? By telling the truth that confiscatory taxation levels cause a decline in personal wealth and liberty? Where in the world do you get your ideas?
Let me give you a simple example that will help you understand how proper and moral taxation works. Let us suppose that you have $10.00 in your pocket. There are only two ways by which I can properly get that $10.00 from you: earn it, or receive it as a gift. Any other means constitute theft, no exceptions. If I get together with two or three other people and gain their agreement and support to use any other method, it is still theft. If I get the agreement and support of 96% of my community to use any other method, it is still theft. If I get the support and agreement of everybody in all 50 states to use any other method…well, you should be getting the point by now. Legitimate, moral taxation exists only when an individual voluntarily exchanges property in return for services from a government agency, such as he does when he agrees to buy electricity. For the government, at any level, to force an indivdual to pay taxes in exchange for service he does not want, or to pay more for them than he thinks thay are worth, is the equivalent of the phone company forcing you to use their services while deducting their fees from your paycheck before you even get it, and giving you no choice as to whether or not the service is worth the price.
Bottom line: All taxation that is not voluntary is theft.
“It could be a lower rate to start with.” Un-hunh. At what rate do you think it should top out?
Undisputable fact: the greater the involvement of government, the worse the matter becomes. And greater involvement by government always means higher taxation. Therefore, the higher the taxation, the poorer the result.
I’ll close with an offer from a fellow you have heard of…
A wise and frugal government which shall restrain men from injuring one another, which shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government. – Thomas Jefferson (1801)
sheryl
Dec 04, 2007
Jeff Hoyt, I don’t pay electricity tax voluntarily any more than I pay sales and use tax. Unless of course you actually think that we buy electricity from the government which it sounds like you think. In which case your logic is flawed and there is no point in giving anything you say any credence.
Jeff Hoyt
Dec 12, 2007
sheryl,
One could get the impression that your actual desire is to find flaws in my logic specifically so that you can avoid giving anything I say credence. Are my arguments really that inconvenient for you? The metaphorical reference to the purchase of electricity is illustrative of the principal of voluntary exchange. I do not think people buy electricity from the government, so I guess you’re stuck with giving what I say credence… Oh, and by the way, if I believed people bought electricity from the government, the flaw would be my premise, not my logic.
At the risk of presumption, I suggest an epexegetical “voluntarily” placed between the “I” and “pay” of your opening statement would more clearly express your meaning. Having assumed that, I will point out that unless your local or state government requires you to buy electricity, you are indeed paying utility taxes on your electricity consumption voluntarily, as your agreement with the power company is a voluntary one. If you decide not to buy electricity from the power company – something that you are completely free to do, however inconvenient it may be – you will owe no taxes on electricity. Should you decide to convert to solar- or wind-generated power, and your municipality forced you to continue to pay taxes based on a public utility service, that would be involuntary taxation.
But forget anything I may have said; what do you think of Mr. Jefferson’s opinion?
Paige
Jan 16, 2008
Jeff- I think I love you. Or at least your views.
Jeff Hoyt
Jan 16, 2008
Many thanks, Paige. But you’d probably love my views more than me…