Democratic senator wants Internet sales taxes (& Republican Enzi-WY also!)

Cnet ^ | 4/12/11 | Declan McCullagh

[GreaterSwiss]

Update 10:30 a.m. PT: I've heard back from Sen. Mike Enzi's office. It sent me e-mail this morning saying: "Senator Enzi plans to co-sponsor the Main Street Fairness bill with Senator Durbin. As far as a timeline or drafts, you'll have to check with Senator Durbin's office."

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20052999-281.html#ixzz1JL8wTRdz A Democratic senator is preparing to introduce legislation that aims to end the golden era of tax-free Internet shopping.

The proposal--expected to be made public soon after Tax Day--would rewrite the ground rules for Internet and mail order sales by eliminating the ability of Americans to shop at Web sites like Amazon.com and Overstock.com without paying state sales taxes.

Dick Durbin of Illinois, the second most senior Senate Democrat, will introduce the bill after the Easter recess, a Democratic aide told CNET.

"Why should out-of-state companies that sell their products online have an unfair advantage over Main Street bricks-and-mortar businesses?" Durbin said in a speech in Collinsville, Ill., in February. "Out-of-state companies that aren't paying their fair share of taxes are sticking Illinois residents and businesses with the tab."

At the moment, Americans who shop over the Internet from out-of-state vendors aren't always required to pay sales taxes at the time of purchase. Californians buying books from Amazon.com or cameras from Manhattan's B&H Photo, for example, won't pay the sales taxes at checkout time that they would if shopping at a local mall--which is what Durbin means by giving online retailers an "unfair advantage."

On the other hand, there are some 7,500 different taxing jurisdictions in the United States, each with a set of very precise rules describing what can and can't be taxed and at what rate. That makes it challenging terrain for retailers to navigate.

Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20052999-281.html#ixzz1JL903e1g

[paratrooper82]

April 18th this year? I believe.

[Flavious_Maximus]

Since when does the Senate create tax law? This has to originate in the house. Do you think they will get 218 votes for this? They would need 40 Republicans to side with the Rats. It would be the end of their careers, starting with Boehner for bringing it up for a vote.

[Blood of Tyrants]

BWAHAHAHA! Never!

[redgolum]

Friend, there are many here who scream about tax breaks to various industries. Not having a sales tax on the internet is a big tax break.

And I shop a lot online for the same reason. It is easier to get what I want than hoping a local vendor has it. But in the end, the tax free set up won't last. To much money rolling around.

[Red in Blue PA]

With physical stores, they have shipping costs x 1. With the internet, they have shipping costs x2 (product shipped to internet merchant, then to customer)

[KTM rider]

congress needs to mandate that a Breath Meter be worn by every citizen in the USA so that a fair consumption tax can be levied upon the amount of its air that is breathed in

[plain talk]

I am not the least bit worried. This is going nowhere. But what we need is to suck Obama into this and use that against him in 2012.

[ReformedBeckite]

In My Honest Opinion this is not going to help main street much, because most of what I buy over the Internet is not available in my local main street stores

or most of the time the price over the Internet is a whole lot d%&n cheaper then main street

, if the main street business wants to stay in business they better lower their profit margin and start thinking about moving more stock. I'm not into phony bull S#%t 50%off sales that has been jacked up to double the price, or buy 2 get one free stuff that has been jack up in price, or send in this or that rebate for stuff that has been jack up in price, I don't have time to send in for those rebates. Every body knows they double or triple these prices before offering these deals, and the irony is they are still too d$%n expense then online stuff.

Case in point is the brick and mortar book stores, take Borders and a bunch of the other brick and mortar book store, they stick there own bar code stickers over the bar code because they don't want people with there fancy cell phone taking pictures of the original bar code, using their fancy aps and finding out they can buy the book new through Amazon through a third party cheaper then they can at the store and a lot of times for half the price or more then the book store wants.

My gut feeling is that once people realized the couldn't scan the original bar code they stopped shopping at Borders and started shopping at other book stores that didn't hide the original bar code, my gut feeling is that is a major reason while borders had to file bankruptcy recently, and had to shut down a bunch of their stores. I sell used books on line, and I scout for them with a scanner so I kind of know what is going on. Another little secret is you can peal those Border stickers off pretty easily and put them back in place pretty easily, not that I shop at borders, but I've got to pull them off at garage sales and thrift stores when I scouting for resellable books, I end up doing it alot for their former books, even some thrift stores have gotten into putting their stickers over the bar codes because their prices are too high, irony a thrift store doing that.

The only bitch I've got through buying off the Internet is most of the stuff gets shipped out of the Ware Houses in those commie liberal socialist States like Californian or New Jersey, I do occasional look for stuff on the Internet from the Red States, takes a little bit more time but it is well worth it to me.

Ok I've done my ranting and raveing at least once today on FR, I feel like I can go to bed now, I'm tired also.

[TheRealDBear]

I woulda thought that a senator from the least populous state in the country would be all for free internet sales, since Wyoming doesn’t have the population density to support many brick-n-mortar stores.

[headstamp 2]

By all means lets have yet another tax.

Durbin and the other idiots don’t give a rat’s a** about fairness that’s only a sound bite for the masses. A class warfare play adapted to this issue.

This is all about the federal government getting their hands on sales tax money through a central authority.

This is the foot in the door to a national sales tax and a vat tax.

[rmlew]

The alternative to no tax is 50 state taxes and multiple local taxes, which will make overhead unreasonable for online sales? If I have a company in NYC and sell to a customer California, which sale's tax do I charge? That of NY State and NYC, Californias, both? If it is to be based on the loication of the buyer, there is no way small companies can comply without losing a lot of money.

There only logical outcome is one of two methods of determining sales taxes :
1) A national sales tax
2) Basing sales tax on the location of the seller.

[RayChuang88]

In my opinion, it's a terrible idea for one reason: over 40,000 sales tax jurisdictions for the USA. As such, the highly complex process of trying to remit the sales tax revenue to the right jurisdiction will end costing more than the money generated by the sales tax.

If each state and US territory had a single sales tax rate, then the idea could actually work; but with 40,000-plus different rates, it becomes a logistical nightmare.

[meyer]

"Why should out-of-state companies that sell their products online have an unfair advantage over Main Street bricks-and-mortar businesses?" Durbin said in a speech in Collinsville, Ill., in February. "Out-of-state companies that aren't paying their fair share of taxes are sticking Illinois residents and businesses with the tab."

To eliminate the "unfair" advantage, Dickiepoo, perhaps the solution would be to eliminate sales taxes on Main Street "bricks-and-mortar" businesses. Two wrongs don't make a right, and adding a tax isn't a solution to unfair taxation.

[ScottinVA]

“Main Street Fairness bill “

Already, it stinks out loud.

[hoosierham]

Governments simply want to tax EVERYTHING;it is in their nature.Which is why we must return to a limited government .

[rwfromkansas]

While I am against the feds pushing such a bill, most states now require this already.

I can’t go to Amazon.com and not pay taxes anymore.

[rwfromkansas]

Plenty of products you can only get online, and the convenience factor will outweigh the tax issue.

I still buy plenty despite having to pay tax.

Besides, if you get enough, sites like Amazon.com will even give you free shipping, making you only pay for the tax.

[rwfromkansas]

Then they should enforce it.

I and 99 percent of other Americans have not heard of such a tax.

[CA Conservative]

Not taxing internet sales hurts local businesses, but there are plenty of people who think that’s a good thing, while at the same time pissing and moaning about “new world order”, “crony capitalism”, the Jews, and other incoherent paranoid crap.

Wait a minute. Let's think about what those local sales taxes are SUPPOSED to do - pay for fire, police, roads and other infrastructure that the brick and mortar store and its customers utilize. The out-of-state internet vendor uses none of those services, and the customers don't use them to make their purchases. So why should taxes be collected on those sales by a state that is providing no services associated with that sale?

[whershey]

Yep. The main reason I buy online is that even with shipping it’s often cheaper then going out and buying local.