Replies

States, although on a scale much less than the central socialist government, have over spent and overextended themselves and hope to make it up by their continuous creation of new taxation. The problem with any new taxation by a governmental body is that as the additional monies roll in it's spent on increasing the size and scope of government and the search and confiscation begins anew.

Deny ALL government any new sources of revenue. In fact we should be insisting upon the rollback of each and every form of taxation as it all is merely confiscation in the name of socialism!

States should (hateful phrase:) 'level the playing field' for brick and mortar sales outlets by elimination of ALL sales taxes!

I’d hazard to guess that many states have people in place to track down information that will allow them to coerce buyers into paying.

Years ago, I bought a van from my Brother In Law. He had it titled under his plumbing company because he bought it for personal use, but paid for it with a company check.

6 months after the sale, I got a bill from the Department of Revenue for $600+ tax. Private sales are exempt, but apparently they didn’t consider my buying it from the plumbing company a private sale. I had no choice but to pay lest they hold any tax return, lottery winnings, or issue liens.

It will happen, just how and when is the question. They have to get the information first, and the first company that releases the data to an out of state government is the first company I blackball.

RE :”As Heritage President Jim DeMint has said, this violates the classic American principle of “no taxation without representation.” Retailers would be forced to act as tax collectors for states in which they have no voice.
Under current law, retailers are required to collect sales taxes only in states where they have a physical presence. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is pushing for a vote on a new Internet sales tax that would hit all online businesses—no matter where they’re located.
DeMint says: Consider the absurdity of such a law. When a customer buys a product in a store, does the cashier ask for the customer’s home address? Of course not. The store simply charges the state and local sales taxes applicable for its physical location, no questions asked.
“Brick-and-mortar” stores like Wal-Mart are in favor of the Internet sales tax, because they see these online retailers as competitors. But the other big proponents of the tax are state governments, which would be able to reach into other states for revenue. “

I cant wait to see what treasonous Republicans in congress support this. Mccain??

All I need is the Federal government to collect sales taxes for lib governor O Malley here in this single (Dem) party state.

Tell you what, when states like Maryland and CA increase their state sales taxes they should be doing something that ads value to the products sold in the state (By being nice to local employers) vs on the internet with no taxes.

“As Heritage President Jim DeMint has said, this violates the classic American principle of “no taxation without representation.” Retailers would be forced to act as tax collectors for states in which they have no voice.”

The socialist can dance around the Constitution all they want but this is “taxation without representation” and there is no way around that.

Should it be allowed and we do nothing, like we always do, then we have proven we are not worthy of what the Founders risked life and fortune for future generations.

As Heritage President Jim DeMint has said, this violates the classic American principle of “no taxation without representation.” Retailers would be forced to act as tax collectors for states in which they have no voice.

It does not. The businesses in other states are not paying taxes, they are simply collecting them. They are being "forced", but only if they CHOOSE to sell to people in those states. That is not taxation. It is a cost of doing business, and one they have control over.

Given the simplicity of programming to properly collect taxes, this is hardly even a burden. The law could be set up to allow out-of-state companies to collect additional fees to cover the collection and reimbursement of the taxes, or the law could allow business to deduct that cost from the taxes collected before remittance, if that is a real issue.

Note that many businesses already do this, including Amazon for some purchases (those made by partners which have business in states). Target, WalMart, Barnes and Noble, Lillian Vernon, Reebok, Sports Authority -- all these companies have online sales and manage to collect sales tax for states.

AS to this suggestion: States should (hateful phrase:) 'level the playing field' for brick and mortar sales outlets by elimination of ALL sales taxes!

First, there is nothing hateful about "leveling the playing field". In fact, it should be a core value of conservatism that any taxes that are applied are done so equally, fairly, and as broadly as possible across the widest range of people, so as to equally burden ALL citizens, rather than using the tax policy to punish a few for the benefit of the connected.

Second, given that states and localities do need to collect taxes to pay for essential government services, a sales tax is one of the better taxes for that purpose, precisely because it meets many conservative principles. The tax applies to virtually all residents of a state, it applies equally to all transactions, not picking winners and losers, it is somewhat under control of the individual, who can choose to not buy something if they don't want to pay a tax, and it tends to tax only money someone would have, since if they were broke, they wouldn't be buying things (I am ambivalent about whether a sales tax code that excludes BASE items like food violates conservative principles -- it does some, but enhances others like not forcing people who can't afford it to pay a tax).

A well-written national law could be a great benefit. It could require simplified tax codes for participation, to minimize the burden on out-of-state businesses. It could limit the requirements to businesses that do less than some minimum amount of out-of-state sales, so as to not burden micro-businesses that would be driven out of business by this. It could allow for fees to reimburse the businesses for collection.

I'm guessing once they have a bill in place, I will oppose it because it will be written badly. But I support the principle of collecting sales tax from individuals for items purchased out-of-state.