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

Skip to comments.

Web tax on tap - Feds look to bail out strapped state coffers
nypost.com ^ | April 17, 2011 | MARK DeCAMBRE

Posted on 04/17/2011 6:37:04 PM PDT by Free ThinkerNY

The e-tax man cometh.

As early as this week, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) told The Post he will propose sweeping legislation to tax all online purchases -- in a move aimed at closing state budget shortfalls.

Such a tax would plow more than $1 billion in tax revenues into the state coffers for the 2012 budget, according to some estimates.

William Fox, University of Tennessee economics professor, says that based on his own estimates, New York lost about $865.5 million in tax revenues in 2010 -- almost enough to close that year's $1 billion budget deficit -- based on its 4 percent tax rate. However, Fox acknowledges that a research report he helped author last year didn't appropriately factor the blistering pace of online sales growth over the past several years.

Fox estimates that the annual growth rate for online sales is actually about 14 percent from 2006 to present.

(Excerpt) Read more at nypost.com ...


TOPICS: News/Current Events; US: California; US: Illinois; US: Michigan; US: New York; US: Tennessee
KEYWORDS: illinois; michigan; newyork; tennessee; turbandurbin
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last
To: CharlesWayneCT

Tennessee has no state income tax. Their revenue sources are retail sales, and property taxes. And yes I do make purchasing decisions based on sales tax. It’s 10%.


21 posted on 04/17/2011 7:27:39 PM PDT by blackdog (The mystery of government is not how Washington works but how to make it stop)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: LostInBayport

The aptly named “Dick” Durbin.


22 posted on 04/17/2011 7:30:37 PM PDT by jospehm20
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Defiant
Won’t pass the House

Turban Durbin has no authority to propose anything!!!

United States Constitution
Article 1
Section 7. All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

23 posted on 04/17/2011 7:30:44 PM PDT by reg45
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY
Such a tax would plow more than $1 billion in tax revenues into the state coffers for the 2012 budget, according to some estimates.

We know there are a bunch of crappy (i.e Democrat, lib, etc) estimators out there. Every such estimate I've seen falls way short of reality. But legislators and reality -- you have to look no further than Kalifornia to see the disconnect.

24 posted on 04/17/2011 7:37:35 PM PDT by sionnsar (IranAzadi|5yst3m 0wn3d-it's N0t Y0ur5:SONY|http://pure-gas.org|Must be a day for changing taglines)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blackdog

Same here.
Several weeks ago I bought a dozen dress shirts from Penneys. Most are still in cellophane. It will be a `stitch in time saves nine,’ and so forth after the nice “I’m from the federal government and I’m here to help you” folks get involved. If it means we have to pay shipping AND sales tax, many of us will stop placing internet orders.
Those of us who work for a living will write our congress critters, then suck it up and buy less. Internet sales will suffer, jobs will be lost, and the responsible feds will sleep soundly having damaged this successful part of our economy.


25 posted on 04/17/2011 7:41:09 PM PDT by tumblindice
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

As soon as you milk that cow, it will be a far smaller cow, that’s the one certain thing.

Ethically one might make a case of the obligation of “use tax” after the purchase, but not many people pay it and the states are like the Three Stooges when it comes to competently going after these taxes, even after the major credit card companies agreed to roll over. And then there are categories of items and different sales tax brackets — Durbin is contemplating a logistical nightmare.


26 posted on 04/17/2011 7:46:28 PM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (Hawk)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

Drubin’s state (IL) just raised their state income tax to unprecedented levels, to the point that Caterpillar is considering moving to a more business friendly state.

News flash for Durbin: the Democrat-controlled Senate does not control taxes.


27 posted on 04/17/2011 7:52:06 PM PDT by RightWingConspirator (Impeach the Communist Kenyan Fraud and his band of Czars)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Free ThinkerNY

They should really consider taxing stupidity.


28 posted on 04/17/2011 7:56:47 PM PDT by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cementjungle
They should really consider taxing stupidity.

They already have that nailed down: the lottery.
29 posted on 04/17/2011 8:02:20 PM PDT by Colinsky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Colinsky

Good point. Weren’t those things supposed to cure all the state’s budget promlems at one time?


30 posted on 04/17/2011 8:05:01 PM PDT by Cementjungle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
If people don’t like the idea of sales taxes, they should fight to get their state to remove sales taxes. If people think the sales tax is a good way to raise revenue, then they should support collecting the sales tax fairly across all purchases, rather than letting on-line purchasers get off scot-free while the rest of the citizens of the state carry their load for them.

When online retail was in its infancy, it made sense to keep it a tax-free zone to encourage its growth. But now that it's mature, exempting (or failing to collect on) online purchases is simply bad policy. It works to the detriment of local businesses, large and small, that contribute to the tax base and employ local workers.

I like saving money as much as the next guy, but dodging taxes is a poor substitute for cutting taxes.

31 posted on 04/17/2011 8:05:52 PM PDT by ReignOfError
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: ReignOfError
I like saving money as much as the next guy, but dodging taxes is a poor substitute for cutting taxes.

When those in elected positions fail to cut taxes, yet instead increase said taxes, then dodging those taxes is a very suitable stategy.

32 posted on 04/17/2011 8:16:57 PM PDT by Sarajevo (You're jealous because the voices only talk to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: blackdog
Remember when all the states discounted their tobacco settlement money in order to gain a one time lump sum, applying that to their budgets to “balance” them without cutting spending!

Yep, I remember that. I sold all of my RJ Reyonlds and Philip Morris stock at a ridiculously high price. The consumer ended up biting the bullet for government greed on that one, to the tune of $178B.

33 posted on 04/17/2011 8:21:18 PM PDT by Sarajevo (You're jealous because the voices only talk to me.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: dhs12345
Feds taxing on behalf of States. Hmmm. Call me skeptical.

I wouldn't think the house would vote for it. This is to be a federal tax right? I think the states might get 1% OR 2% of what the fed collects.

34 posted on 04/17/2011 9:08:48 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (The heresy of heresies was common sense - Orwell)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Mike Darancette

Then the states will add their sales tax plus shipping and buying online will cost more than in a store. That’s the ticket. We pay Fed, State, County and Local income taxes, county property tax, school property tax, sales taxes on everything but food and clothes so I guess another tax won’t hurt, I can still eat and not go around naked.


35 posted on 04/17/2011 9:26:07 PM PDT by this_ol_patriot (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: this_ol_patriot

Exactly. But after 3 years I could support a flat 2% tax, now it’s just too fast and would drive small stores and affiliates out of business.


36 posted on 04/17/2011 10:07:19 PM PDT by mewykwistmas ("The last time the French asked for 'more proof,' it came marching into Paris under a German flag.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: mewykwistmas
Yes, they look at the big guys like Amazon but forget boutique computer makers, small specialty shops that sell plants, gardening supplies and the like and a lot of other businesses and private sellers that sell in low volumes on the internet.

Companies like Dell, B&H Photo, Best Buy etc. can lower their prices to compete or totally negate the taxes but this will drive the small Internet only guy out of business. Maybe that IS the point.

37 posted on 04/17/2011 11:39:11 PM PDT by this_ol_patriot (Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I'm not "anti-tax". So far as I can tell, few conservatives are actually "anti-tax". "Anti-tax" would imply that we think government should cease to exist, or should somehow be funded entirely by selling services or tricking people into playing lotteries. :-)

Most conservatives I think believe that some government functions are necessary and constitutional. For example, the military at the federal level, and police at the state and local level.

Therefore, we need some form of taxation. I would say conservatives want taxes to be fair, broadly based, and only as big as necessary to pay for necessary government functions.

In this case, I would be fine if a state decided to lower their sales taxes (Virginia sales tax is 5%, so it isn't too bad, but we also have an income tax, also not terribly high, and localities have property taxes, which pay for schools, police, fire, and other government services.

I believe that all of those taxes are OK at a limited level, and having multiple types of taxes is good because it levels out the effects of economic downturns.

In this fight, my concern is for the fairness aspect. For a tax to be fair, it should apply to every person who does the same thing, and it should apply at the same level. For example, everybody who buys a $20 copy of the Federalist Papers should pay the same sales tax.

And it is that way in every state I've checked, legally: either a store collects the sales tax, or the purchaser pays the sales tax either monthly, quarterly, or yearly (depending on what state you live in).

But practically speaking, few people follow the rules, and it costs the state too much to try to enforce the rules when people don't. So, you have three people -- one buys the book at a local store, one buys it from Barnes and Noble, and one from Amazon.

The first person pays sales tax, and the money paid for the book enriches the local economy.

The second person pays sales tax, because B&N has business in most states.

The third person pays no sales tax, because Amazon is located in very few states.

The 3rd person should pay the tax. People who believe in following the law will pay the tax, but people who break the law if they can get away with it don't pay the tax.

I don't like that. I obey the law, I pay the tax, but others don't. Just like I obey the law and don't loot stores, while other people do if they think they can get away with it.

I don't think that people who buy stuff locally, people who buy from the "wrong" online store, or people who believe their signature on their tax form is an oath, and therefore pay their "use tax", should bear the additional tax burden for people who ignore the law because they can "get away with it".

So I support limited federal action to make it possible for states to enforce their "use tax" laws -- thus convincing people to obey the law, if not because they are moral, then because they are afraid of getting caught.

I know some conservatives here at FR think states tax too much (I think most states do -- I don't feel particularly overtaxed here in Virginia, but I understand others do). But if you think taxes are too high, the answer is to rally the people, lobby the state government, and vote people in who lower the taxes. The answer is NOT to find ways to cheat on your taxes, and passing the burden of paying for government to others who won't cheat.

I'm certain each of the freepers who complain that their state already "gets enough money" and therefore think it's OK to cheat would not hesitate to call the police if their house is broken into, the fire department if their house is on fire, an ambulance if they have an emergency, or the state DOT if their roads haven't been plowed after a storm, or if there is a big pothole.

I would speak out equally against people trying to cheat on their income or property taxes. I don't think it is "conservative" (or "christian" for those who profess faith) to deliberately disobey the laws of the duly elected governments, when those laws are legal and constitutional.

38 posted on 04/18/2011 5:03:11 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: CharlesWayneCT
Let me just be crystal clear...

At this point in time..I am a Conservative..and I'm totally ANTI-TAX!

39 posted on 04/18/2011 5:07:13 PM PDT by Osage Orange (I knew what I was feeling, but what was I thinking!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: blackdog
And yes I do make purchasing decisions based on sales tax. It’s 10%.

I don't understand what you mean by "I make purchasing decisions based on the sales tax". Do they have a sales tax holiday periodically, and you wait for those times? Or do you not purchase anything right now, and are hoping they will lower the sales tax before you starve?

Or do you mean that you only buy things from places that don't collect sales tax? Are there local stores that break the law for you, and don't collect sales tax? Are they employing illegal immigrants to save on SS and unemployment tax payments as well?

Or do you do all of your purchases online, from stores that don't collect sales tax, so you can cheat on your taxes?

If the last, wouldn't it be easier for you to forge a tax-exempt letter, so you could use it at local stores -- because I'm guessing some things aren't conducive to online purchasing (although people even buy groceries online now).

Do you think Tennessee should have an all-volunteer police force? Should the roads all be privatized, so you can pay a per-mile toll instead of sales tax? Do you think your neighbor should pay more tax so you can pay less?

Anyway, here is the Tennessee law for sales and use tax. There really is no legal way for you to avoid paying the tax -- in order to get things tax-free, you pretty much have to break the law:

Tennessee Sales and Use Tax:

State sales and use tax - Sales tax is imposed on all retail sales, leases and rentals of most goods, as well as taxable services

Tennessee cities and counties have the option of imposing an additional local option sales tax.

Use Tax - The use tax is the counterpart to the sales tax. It is applied when merchandise (tangible personal property) is purchased from outside the state of Tennessee and imported into the state for use or consumption. The 45 states that impose a sales tax also levy a use tax.

Your state sometimes requires quarterly payments for your use tax:
Use Tax - Depending upon the frequency of your purchases, you may file quarterly or annually
Here is more information on the Tennessee Use Tax::
Online and catalog sales are subject to use tax. This tax has been on the law books since 1947 and is the counterpart to the sales tax. When someone buys merchandise online or through a catalog and the seller of the merchandise does not collect sales tax, the consumer who bought the item has a legal obligation to file and pay use tax on the merchandise. The use tax is the same rate as the sales tax.
So, if you are making pruchases "based on sales tax", you legally still owe the same tax. About the only choice you have is whether to buy things from a company that helps you cheat on your taxes or not.
40 posted on 04/18/2011 5:17:18 PM PDT by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-47 next last

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.

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