[Valpal1]

I read elsewhere about this strong bi-partisan support amounts to 53 co-sponsors.

Well that is less than 10% of congress. I think the media is carrying water for the democrats, again because I don’t think they have the votes to pass it.

[CutePuppy]

I read elsewhere about this strong bi-partisan support amounts to 53 co-sponsors. Well that is less than 10% of congress.

Actually, 10% is a huge number, there are very few bills that have this many co-sponsors. Most of them are Democrats, but too many Republicans signed on to this.

From Lawmakers claim momentum in push for Internet sales tax - The Hill, by Brendan Sasso, 2013 February 13

A bipartisan group of 35 House members and 18 senators introduced legislation on Thursday that would allow states to tax online purchases.

This is gaining momentum, and this is the year to do it, Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), the lead Senate sponsor, said during a Capitol Hill press conference.

Rep. Steve Womack (R-Ark.), the bill's top author in the House, said he is confident the measure will become law this year.

I have talked to [Senate Majority Leader] Harry Reid [(D-Nev.)]. Harry Reid wants to bring this to the floor, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) said.

Many of the same lawmakers pushed similar legislation last year, but the measures never made it to the floor for a vote. The latest version of the bill, called the Marketplace Fairness Act, combines several proposals from the last Congress and includes revisions aimed at winning over skeptics.

Under current law, states can only collect sales taxes from retailers that have a physical presence in their state [nexus]. People who order items online from another state are supposed to declare the purchases on their tax forms, but few do. ..... < snip >

..... The Marketplace Fairness Act would empower states to tax online purchases. The bill would exempt small businesses that earn less than $1 million annually from out-of-state sales — an increase from the $500,000 threshold proposed last year. ..... < snip >

..... The National Retail Federation is lobbying aggressively for the legislation. ..... < snip >

..... Online giant Amazon also backs the tax. The company reportedly has plans to expand its network of physical distribution centers, which would make it subject to state sales taxes under current law.

Critics of the bill say it would create a complicated new tax system and would stifle Internet commerce.

"Congress should reject any Internet sales tax legislation that throws a new tax barrier in front of small businesses, Tod Cohen, eBay's deputy general counsel, said in a statement.

Americans for Tax Reform President Grover Norquist warned the legislation would be a nightmare to enforce.

At the end of the year if there are any disputes over sales tax collection, the Virginia business would be subject to the New York Department of Revenue and New York Courts, he said in a statement. ..... < snip >

..... Durbin said he is trying to convince Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to take up the legislation.

He has some concerns. We are trying to address them, Durbin acknowledged. It is important that we bring this matter up sooner rather than later. ..... < snip >

..... The bill will head to the Judiciary Committee in the House, but committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) has shown little enthusiasm for the proposal in the past. ..... < snip >

..... Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.), one of the new co-sponsors of the legislation and the former tax commissioner of North Dakota, was the losing party in the 1992 Supreme Court decision that ruled that, unless Congress changed the law, states cannot tax out-of-state retailers.

$1M exclusion doesn't really help much for most single-store b-a-m retailers who are mistakenly so gung-ho for it (because they think it will help their sales, instead of just killing some business who they think are their direct online "competitors") so how long after this bill passes, whatever exclusion that is "fair" now will be considered a "loophole" because, you know, "the states need money" and the "loophole" is "unfair"? Or maybe just to "simplify" things, why not have the IRS collect the new "national average states' sales tax" and then distribute to the "states that really need them"?

"Camel's nose" - that's why Dick Durbin et al are rushing it to pass "sooner rather than later"... ya'll can deal with [un]intended consequences after "you find out what's in it."