Help End The Obama Era In 2012
Your Monthly and Quarterly Donations
Help Keep FR In the Battle!
Sponsoring FReepers are contributing
$10 Each time a New Monthly Donor signs up!
Get more bang for your FR buck!
Click Here To Sign Up Now!
Posted on 11/12/2011 7:39:16 AM PST by Perdogg
The days of skirting around having to pay retail sales tax by shopping online may be coming to a close—and Amazon, of all companies, is supporting the effort.
Online retailer Amazon.com has a long history of fighting requirements for shoppers to pay their local state sales tax whenever a purchase is made via the Internet. Most recently, Amazon has been battling it out with California, which has been trying to force Amazon and other online retailers with ties to the state to collect sales tax on purchases.
(Excerpt) Read more at moneyland.time.com ...
That is what they were hoping for. Which wouldn’t have worked very well, but IL is putting a lot of pressure on people for “bootlegging” gas.
Not at all, if anything just the opposite should occur. I was pointing out that the brick and mortar guys have higher costs, nothing more.
“small business owners were at a disadvantage” I see, so
instead of getting rid of the tax to level the playing
field we should violate the constitution and make everyone
pay taxes across state lines. Which state tax do we pay? The state of purchase or the state of sales or both. Soon there will be a “State of Manufacture sales Tax” along with a tax from every state the product was shipped over. Foot in the
door. Who said small business owners couldn’t sell their
goods too someone in another state? I think Amazon should
fight this straight up to the USSP. By the way, your right.
Ping me when you have the list.
Read my previous post. I advocate getting rid of taxes for everyone, not making everyone pay. I criticized amazon for their sleazy lobbying to put themselves at an advantage by getting the government to tax others.
I understand the concern for small business. However, any artificial device that raises consumer prices simply to level the playing field flies in the face of basic capitalism. Small business pays local taxes because it consumes services—roads, water, sewer, fire and police.
No company is to big to fail and no business plan should ever be deemed untouchable simply for old time’s sake.
The Kindle is putting book stores, and possibly libraries, out of business. Perhaps it should be taxed to the extent it cannot compete with them. Does that make sense?
You start going down that road and it facilitates the same dopey reasoning that says a company once unionized can’t move to a right to work state without taking the union with it. In most cases it is the union that’s killing the company. I give you the Charleston, SC, Boeing plant.
I’m thinking this will prompt a backlash.
You are completely wrong. I am a small business owner and not only can I sell on the internet via my own website, I can also sell on Amazon, eBay, Overstock, Etsy, Craigslist, Google shopping, etc.
I have both a brick and mortar store and an online presence on multiple venues. The playing field is already level.
You are quite wrong. Quill vs North Dakota. USSC decision made it quite clear that states have no authority to tax and regulate the businesses located in other states and that they would have to have the permission of the FedGov to enact some provision authorized under the commerce clause.
Horrible bill for small companies and consumers. Tax payment should be made at the place of sale (ie the company) according to state and municipal laws.
The commerce clause cannot be stretched to permit congress to authorize the states to collect taxes on interstate commerce. Congress itself doesn’t have authority to tax interstate commerce.
The founders wanted interstate commerce to be free; that is the primary reason for the IC clause.
This aspect of our decision is made easier by the fact that the underlying issue is not only one that Congress may be better qualified to resolve,10 but also one that Congress has the ultimate power to resolve. No matter how we evaluate the burdens that use taxes impose on interstate commerce, Congress remains free to disagree with our conclusions. See Prudential Insurance Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U. S. 408 (1946).
Indeed, in recent years Congress has considered legislation that would “overrule” the Bellas Hess rule.11 Its decision not to take action in this direction may, of course,have been dictated by respect for our holding in Bellas Hess that the Due Process Clause prohibits States from imposing such taxes, but today we have put that problem to rest. Accordingly, Congress is now free to decide whether, when, and to what extent the States may burden interstate mail-order concerns with a duty to collect use taxes.
You’re a confused follower.
Read the constitution.
Taxation of interstate commerce is not permitted by anybody.
Who is going to collect these new sales taxes, and what will the rate be? I oppose putting onerous regulations on small businesses if they have to start filing extra forms or file taxes in new jurisdictions without some offset. Even if you only have to pay your home state sales tax, states like California with 9.5% rate are doubly screwed compared to other states with half that rate - though I agree only Calfornians are to blame for it.
I’ve read it. There is no prohibition on taxing interstate commerce. I do notice that congress is however granted authority to both lay and collect taxes and to regulate interstate commerce.
The USSC has interpreted this to mean than only congress can tax or grant the authority to tax interstate commerce under their regulatory power.
Parse it anyway you want, the USSC will parse it the way they always have.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.