Replies

I could easily foresee a day when the flea market is either shut down or patrolled with agents looking for "new" merchandise.

That could happen. But, let;s look at the worst case scenario.

It would be responsible state officials (plural) who would be making that decision, not a single irresponsible IRS bureaucrat, with no oversight.
It would be state police who would be responsible for enforcement, not the abusive IRS Gestapo, with no oversight.
A few vendors in an insignificant portion of our economy (flea markets), would be forced to raise their prices a little.
Those price increases would be more than offset, since the incremental taxes and compliance costs would have been previously removed from the wholesale prices of the vendor's products. The end result would be lower prices to the flea market consumer, even if they should be required to pay sales tax on a few items.

That's worst case.

Then consider that although there are some moderately priced items occasionally sold at flea markets, the vast majority of flea market sales are low dollar items. As a result, the total dollar value of all flea market sales in the US is insignificant. One WalMart store probably generates more in taxable sales on a Saturday than 10 giant flea markets. Then consider that WalMart usually has several stores open 7 days a week in the same area. Add to that, K-Mart, Sears, JC Penny, etc. and you will see that enforcement in this very tiny segment of the economy will probably only be very sparse, where it exists at all. It just doesn't make sense to concentrate enforcement where there is so little financial gain potential. The additional tax collected would probably not pay the salary of the people required to process the few offenses that might be written up. The IRS uses the same logic uses when they concentrate 80% of their enforcement effort on the top 5% of income earners. I think you are swatting at gnats.

But, the important thing to remember is that enforcement will be a state issue. No more massive, unwarranted confiscation of private property by the IRS, where the burden of proof is on the individual or company. At least, at the state level, you can fight it.

* Those price increases would be more than offset, since the incremental taxes and compliance costs would have been previously removed from the wholesale prices of the vendor's products. The end result would be lower prices to the flea market consumer, even if they should be required to pay sales tax on a few items.

That would be less likely at flea markets because typically they have very low overhead companies or individuals who aren't paying any incremental taxes now. The people who go there are looking for the very lowest possible prices so the sales tax increase will matter more to them than to higher end shoppers.

Like I said to Zon, the flea market is fertile ground for sales tax avoidance so I brought it up as an example of what will happen if sales taxes are raised without new mechanisms to enforce compliance. It doesn't matter if flea markets a zillionth of a percent of current sales, what matters is their relative advantage once sales taxes are increased. They will certainly attract more shoppers if those shoppers get a 20 or 30% discount there. Once they grow above a certain amount the government will get a lot more interested which could lead to a great loss in purchasing privacy if we are not careful.