Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: IbJensen
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.

12 posted on 04/19/2013 9:51:42 AM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: CharlesWayneCT

Why not oppose sales taxes of any kind in all states?

Allowing states to collect more taxes, as this proposal definitely would, just gives them more money to spend on enlarging their domain.


16 posted on 04/19/2013 1:26:19 PM PDT by IbJensen (Liberals are like Slinkies, good for nothing, but you smile as you push them down the stairs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson