Senate sells out America to corporations by passing national sales tax

[evanrick]

The senate passed a bill that would close a loophole in the current tax code that allows consumers to buy from out of state companies without paying their local sales tax.

"Conservatives" prefer taxing consumers more than corporations because its easier to tax the poor than the rich, so they are happily going along with big business and some democrats are there voting against consumers also.

Sales taxes are the most regressive form of taxation because its a flat fee.

We should be raising taxes on corporations, not people.



http://consumerist.com/2013/05/06/se...er-to-reality/

[Benvolio]

Corporations, of course, do pay many forms of taxes, including Federal and state income taxes. Most " people" do not pay income taxes. And a majority Democrat, so they should have known their taxes would be raised.

[Rolyo85]

Corporations, of course, do pay many forms of taxes, including Federal and state income taxes. Most " people" do not pay income taxes. And a majority Democrat, so they should have known their taxes would be raised.

You got any stats to go with that "most people"? And corporations pay a laughable fraction of what they should and CAN pay.

[MisterB]

IIRC, this relates to state taxes only, no?

[palbert]

This proposal will not affect me that much, as my internet are usually small and infrequent.

IF Congress really wants to do something they should rein in the excessive, extortionate and generally inflated "shipping and handling" charges.

[White Eagle]

It shouldn't affect me as I don't buy much online, however I want to know what's going on as
Cornyn, (R-TX) Not Voting, Cruz (R-TX) Nay
If it should hurt us then they would have voted for it.

[Westatl]

Yeah, Local stores and Big Box retailers are suffering because they have to collect the taxes and online retailers don't or haven't been, except in some states that require it. All the Bill is doing is leveling the playing field in business.

[frankfrank]

For many years I thought that there was only ONE reason to have Republicans wielding a lot of power - I felt safe that they would prevent this garbage from happening to my online business. I thought, all along, that "this is a Democrat kind of thing, and the Democrats would jump at the chance to pass an interstate Sales Tax."

The Republicans have now proven that they will NOT block this, either, as I had hoped and assumed (as well as a few Democrats who would side with reason on the issue). Now, I find absolutely NO use for Republicans whatsoever.

Fortunately I understand that it will affect businesses only if they bring in more than $1 million Gross in a year, which means that it will not even come CLOSE to affecting me. I was dreading what it could be like if I had to file 44 or 45 separate sales tax returns, sometimes paying in amounts as small as 46 cents or $1.79...and, even worse, if some state like California wasn't set up to put everything on a statewide return and I may have to fill out separate returns for every COUNTY that I sold to.

Is that $1 million thing an amendment? I would also guess that the Republicans put that amendment in, if so. The Democrats would gladly tax everybody for everything, on this issue at least.

I don't even think this is Constitutional, and I think it will eventually work up to the Supreme Court, if it gets passed and signed.

Where does Obama stand on this issue?

I think the Republicans would have been much more unified against this bill, if it hadn't been for Citizens United and other laws (or, if I may, de-regulations) which allow massive amounts of money to flow into campaigns, including the type of campaigning which continues in a more subdued way when it is not yet "election/campaign season." It's hard to fight the influence of Big Box Mart. (See the JibJab cartoon about this - a lot of truth in it!)

[maxpowr9]

^The problem is in the language of the bill. It actually helps larger corporations and squishes small businesses. A $1million "tax exemption" per state is a joke and should be at least $10 million. Fuck, the hair salon I do the books for does a million a year in revenue. That is why neo-conservatives aka fascists support it. Democrats support it because there isn't a tax they didn't like.

Yes, sales tax hurts the middle and lower-classes the most which if the Democrats weren't foaming at the mouth for more money, they would overwhelmingly reject this bill.

Again, as I have said in the past, whenever both Democrats and Republicans agree on something, it is bad for hoi polloi.

[palemale]

I agree with the legislation. The brick and mortar stores have to collect state sales taxes, why shouldn't internet retailers?

[CowboyBob]

Some states already tax internet sales so this is no big deal.

[frankfrank]

Congress (usually via Republicans but, in this case, also an enabling number of Democrats as sometimes happens) *ALWAYS* sell this country out to the corporations. The United States has been **OFFICIALLY** fascist now for the past 40 months - since Citizens United was decided in the SCOTUS. Awful laws which actively benefit massive banking casino behaviour, Monsanto, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. This is no more than a high-five to the big box retailers, and sticking people with the second-most-regressive of all taxation. (I feel that the Social Security tax is indeed more regressive.)

Thankfully there is an exception for true micro-businesses which don't bring in a Million or more per year...I THINK.

Somebody made a comment that they bring in more than a million a year by operating a beauty salon (maybe in this thread, but I think instead it was in article comments) - but the salon isn't selling perms to people seven states away via the Internet, because that work cannot be outsourced. However, a salon will need to pay sales tax (or, more accurately, use tax) on things they buy from other states, which was untrue in the past.

And WHAT do you want to bet there will be *MANY* sellers who fall far below the taxation threshold, but they will still collect the tax and never remit the collected tax to the states the seller isn't located in?

It's IMPORTANT to note that this interstate sales tax HAS NOT BECOME LAW YET, because it still needs to get through the House, and be signed by Obama (AFTER any needed reconciliation which also gets voted on first), to become law. It may have a harder time in the House.

I HOPE THAT OBAMA COMES OUT **ALL FOR THIS LAW**!! That will, of course, guarantee that this awful tax WILL be defeated in the House, because no Republican can vote for something that Obama actually likes.

[cm98059]

I would have to do a lot of research before I could form a considered opinion to this new regulation, but my first reactions to this regulation is that it will not make a lot of difference in the long run.

First, someone mentioned that it would only apply to sales over a million dollars. I am guessing that we are talking about a million dollars in sales in any given state. This would mean that there are 50 states plus the District of Columbia, so we would be talking about 51 million dollars in sales.

Second, if someone lives in a state with no sales tax, they would not be charged sales tax.

Third, If you live in a state that does have a sales tax, there is no advantage to buying online, you might as well go to a local brick and mortar store. If people decide to stop shopping online, brick and mortar stores may have to hire more staff to stock shelves and assist customers. If you decided to stop shopping online, and patronize your local brick and mortar store, you would save the shipping and handling fees that online retailers charge, which would probably offset the sales tax you are paying.

Fourth, A retailer who has a business resellers tax exemption doesn't pay tax on purchases for resale, so it doesn't increase the cost of an item, so in theory, it doesn't effect the mark up or retail price of goods.

Reading the article that the op submitted, I see where this bill is a wash. At first glance, I could see where this bill might effect online retailers like Amazon if people decided that it is cost effective to patronize a local retailer as opposed to shopping online, but the flip side of that is that it might cause local brick and mortar retailers to increase staffing. But I believe in patronizing local retailers, especially locally owned and operated retailers. I try to shop with a 100 mile mindset, meaning that I try to keep my money within 100 miles of my wallet. I patronize a locally owned bank. I shop at stores that are locally owned, and although I am realistic, and I know that bananas do not grow in Washington State, I try to keep the majority of my purchases limited to items that are grown within 100 miles of where I am. So on vacations, I shop stores that are regionally operated. The small diner, instead of McD's etc... So as you can see, this doesn't effect me very much.

So Frankfrank, maybe you will find that although your online presence does show a decrease in sales, maybe your brick and mortar sales increase offsetting the difference. Maybe you will find it necessary to open a brick and mortar location in the future. We will all have to wait and see what happens.

[evanrick]

My theory is that the sales tax is unjust and therefore bad for America as a whole because they should be closing tax loopholes in corporations who can afford higher taxes, not consumers who are still struggling.

This is a tax increase no matter how you slice it, and it doesnt go after the people who should be paying the higher taxes.

[evanrick]

I agree with the legislation. The brick and mortar stores have to collect state sales taxes, why shouldn't internet retailers?

they shouldnt have to collect any taxes. replace the sales tax with higher taxes on coroprations like it should be and this bill is useless. this bill is just an example of going in the wrong direction at the worst possible time, hopefully it will stir some feelings with other liberals on how warped our tax structure is.

here in Washington we pay the highest sales taxes in the entire country, of course i am going to be opposed a tax increase based on a flawed regressive system.

[cm98059]

Evanrick, I am down the Road in Renton. I agree that the tax structure is regressive. I agree that a sales tax is not the proper tax structure. I believe that a tax on corporations will only result in corporations passing those taxes on to consumers. I would favor a flat rate income tax. Everyone pays XX percent tax on every dollar they make, corporate and individual alike, this is the only way a tax can be fair. But, here in Washington, we will not have that tax structure, because our government will not entertain the idea of eliminating the sales tax, and implementing a income tax, they always want to add an income tax, but they do not want to let go of their sales tax. I have said for years that Our former governor never met a tax she did not hike. Look at the cigarette taxes and the taxes on alcohol, these are arguably the most regressive of sales taxes, because if you look at the demographic of who buys these products, it is predominantly low income purchasers. Look at the taxes she tried to get on candy and soda.

[maxpowr9]

^I know it is true Loki but at the same token, interstate commerce is a huge mess and we know Congress can't do anything correctly. A perfect example is that my mom could basically sell me her car for $100 because it is intrastate whereas if she were to sell it to my brother in CT, should would have to sell it to him for "fair-market book value" which is about 200x what I would have to pay. That's how fucked up the interstate commerce is.

I think the best solution is to charge state sales tax on online intrastate purchases only instead of whacking everyone.

[frankfrank]

So Frankfrank, maybe you will find that although your online presence does show a decrease in sales, maybe your brick and mortar sales increase offsetting the difference. Maybe you will find it necessary to open a brick and mortar location in the future. We will all have to wait and see what happens.

thanks for the comments, man. Like you, I have a strong preference to keep my monies "local" when I can - which is easy to do with the banking thing because this town has none of the multinational banks in it. (Citibank, J. P. Morgan Chase, BoA, etc.) There are also good local eating and grocery options (which are REGIONAL rather than local), but I rarely eat out in town, I almost always cook. Other than a couple things I can't find elsewhere, I never buy groceries at Walmart.

But this falls apart when I go shopping for non-grocery stuff. Unless I am buying stuff that can be found at Farm King (which leans mostly toward hardware, gardening/landscaping, and farming supplies...but does have SOME department-store type stuff as well), I am absolutely sending some of my money to Arkansas, Michigan [K-Mart], or wherever home offices are for CVS and Walgreens.

cm...no plans or intentions, ever, to have a brick and mortar location. I would be tied down far, far too much and, at this point, it would keep me from other more important things I need to do (involving at least 5,000 remaining hours of work). A brick and mortar location for what I sell, wouldn't work in this rural flyover region; usually such locations only exist in large metropolitan areas. I could probably be getting $2 to $5 for some things I otherwise have trouble selling, but for items that should bring more than $20 or $30 I'd have to price them at 1/2 or 1/3 what I would routinely get from a catalog.

Other than back in 1984, when I considered opening a brick and mortar location for about two weeks and quickly decided not, I've never considered it. I love my traveling, etc. FAR too much to give it all up, as well.

As I offer a product which is NOT routinely available to people (and which falls under the general classification of antiques), I don't expect to lose anything with online sales. Actually, my sales are generally "analog" sales, with U. S. customers always sending me paper payments, and SOME of those from overseas as well. (Most of the overseas buying is via credit cards, which also involves the internet only indirectly, but that's not part of this sales tax thing anyway.) However, if I am required to collect sales taxes after all (under threat of being dragged into an invasive audit, as a way of "making an example," by Nebraska or Maryland for my failure to pay $22.13 that I owe or something), it's the massive extra layer of bookkeeping and administration that I fear.

I would favor a flat rate income tax. Everyone pays XX percent tax on every dollar they make, corporate and individual alike, this is the only way a tax can be fair.

I agree entirely, with THREE QUALIFICATIONS in my agreeing.

1. THERE NEEDS TO BE AN EXEMPTION (i. e. NO TAX) on the portion of income which is below an amount similar to POVERTY-LEVEL wages, and

2. UNEARNED INCOME, such as capital gains, patents, lottery/gambling winnings, interest, must also fall within the flat tax rate. Otherwise, there will be people paying absolutely nothing, who can lie by the swimming pool calculating the interest, dividends, and investments. (I CAN argue that perhaps lottery winnings shouldn't be taxed, as long as the lottery is set up in a way which financially benefits localities or states.)

3. BUSINESS EXPENSES (Schedule C, etc.) must still be deductible against income, even for sole proprietors.

[Kulindahr]

IF Congress really wants to do something they should rein in the excessive, extortionate and generally inflated "shipping and handling" charges.

Hear, hear!

I just got two "muck tubs" for use in my conservation project. The two together cost about $18; "S&H" came in at just change under $20.

[Kulindahr]

if all tax collection was effectively based on the honor system, who would really ever pay?

I always paid my self-employment tax on my handyman work.

[frankfrank]

^ I do likewise, also, including those who pay me with cash.

But, cash is ALMOST unknown anyway, because I do absolutely no "bricks and mortar" storefront business. Ironically, most of the cash comes from the farthest away from me - JAPAN. (I haven't figured out why, but mail to and from Japan seems to be absolutely 100% reliable - I am not aware of one piece of mail having ever gone lost in 38 years - but theft or loss is common to and from Europe. With the mail 100% safe between here and Japan, they can send cash without worries, though only a few do so.)

[cm98059]

I probably should have clarified, I see income as being the money you make and take home, so as a business, the money you spend on buying inventory, any value added improvements you make, and overhead would be deducted from earnings or Income for this example. I am not sure about there being an exemption for lower income brackets. I see where the person who makes 100 dollars is using the same amount of road surface as a person making 10,000 dollars. But the person who is making 100 dollars in a flat rate income tax is paying 10 dollars where the person making 10,000 is paying 1,000 dollars. I see the balance in having everyone paying according to their means. I also see where the person making 10,000 is not complaining that the person making 100 "not payin his share"


As far as hipping and handling charges are concerned, they are way too high in my opinion. Just now, I picked two random cities in the same state. These cities happened to be Seattle, and one of it's adjacent suburbs, a trip of twenty miles. My made up package was 24 inches square, and weighed 10 pounds. I put a declared value of 20 dollars in and was quoted a shipping price of 49.11 to 228.05 for overnight delivery. And handling charges should be illegal. We are paying for handling charges in the price of the merchandise. If you walk into a brick and mortar store, and you buy an item, you are paying for the staff members wages in the price of the merchandise. There is no store that stays in business for more than a few hours, that would charge a customer standing at the counter a handling fee. When you go out to buy a pizza, you do not get a bill that has the price of the pizza and then a handling charge to pay for the staff that made cooked and served your pizza.

[evanrick]

good news, there's a pretty good chance that this bill will die in the villainous Republican House.

in fairness, you are actually supposed to be paying local sales tax on everything you buy online, it's just poorly enforced. as I understand it, this bill would place the responsibility on collecting tax on the seller rather than the buyer, as it is when you would buy anything in person.

but as a frequent online shopper myself, I'm hoping the Republicans manage to kill this tax revenue increase.

edit: I'm not entirely sure why you're blaming conservatives on this when the bill was overwhelmingly supported by Senate Democrats and President Obama (Republicans, on the other hand, were split in the Senate with 22 voting in favor and 19 against)

i think your just upset that republicans have been caught raising taxes.

[HenryReardon]

And corporations pay a laughable fraction of what they should and CAN pay.

Your ignorance of basic economics is showing. Whatever taxes the corporations pay is passed along to their customers in the form of higher prices.

[Benvolio]

Almost all the states impose an income tax as well. Then, when profits distributed to shareholders as dividends they pay Federal and state income taxes all over again, so much of the corporate income is taxed four times. Meanwhile 47% of filers of returns pay no income tax and another huge portion of voters do not even file returns.

[Rolyo85]

Interesting - you post the exact same sentences in different topics...

- - - Updated - - -

Your ignorance of basic economics is showing. Whatever taxes the corporations pay is passed along to their customers in the form of higher prices.

If corporations paid the taxes they SHOULD be paying, and tried to raise prices proportionally, they'd be out of business and they know it. Your fear tactics are laughable. Are you on corporate payroll?

[HenryReardon]

Interesting - you post the exact same sentences in different topics...

If corporations paid the taxes they SHOULD be paying, and tried to raise prices proportionally, they'd be out of business and they know it. ?

Utter nonsense, as usual. All corporations would be affected by tax increases, and all prices would rise accordingly, leaving the consumer with zero alternatives.

BTW "exact same" is redundant.

[Rolyo85]

Actually no, it isn't. Learn English please.

And your scare logic yet again fails, but thanks for trying.

[HenryReardon]

Actually no, it isn't. .

Actually, it is. Granted the term is used a lot these days, but the better authorities call it bad grammar.

[Rolyo85]

Actually, it is. Granted the term is used a lot these days, but the better authorities call it bad grammar.

And so you felt it relevant to the subject? It was in no way a cheap shot to deflect from having shaky arguments?

[HenryReardon]

And so you felt it relevant to the subject? ?

You're never too old to learn something.

I've always been prone to calling a spade a spade.

[hotatlboi]

I agree with the legislation. The brick and mortar stores have to collect state sales taxes, why shouldn't internet retailers?

I tend to agree, this law was first put in place in the early days of the internet to encourage its growth as a medium for commerce.

But where we are today, internet business really do have a significant advantage in some cases because of it.

[frankfrank]

Actually, it is. Granted the term [EXACT SAME] is used a lot these days, but the better authorities call it bad grammar.

It's probably not misused quite as often and prevalently as "UNIQUE" and "LITERALLY."

Or the POSSESSIVE word "IT'S" lol

[evanrick]

Utter nonsense, as usual. All corporations would be affected by tax increases, and all prices would rise accordingly, leaving the consumer with zero alternatives.

BTW "exact same" is redundant.

Ya I have to take issue with the consumer having zero alternatives because that would require you admitting that some corporations are monopolies and could therefore be taxed into oblivion without any negative repercussions on the economy.

[HenryReardon]

Ya I have to take issue with the consumer having zero alternatives because that would require you admitting that some corporations are monopolies and could therefore be taxed into oblivion without any negative repercussions on the economy.

Other than utilities, what corporations are monopolies?

[Benvolio]

Ya I have to take issue with the consumer having zero alternatives because that would require you admitting that some corporations are monopolies and could therefore be taxed into oblivion without any negative repercussions on the economy.

Destroying a true monopoly might leave a hole in the economy, since there would be no alternative source for the specific goods or services they were selling. A patent, for instance, creates a legal monopoly in the item protected by the patent. Destroying the corporation would make the exact item unavailable, which might or not be replaceable other items.

[HenryReardon]

Destroying a true monopoly might leave a hole in the economy, since there would be no alternative source for the specific goods or services they were selling. A patent, for instance, creates a legal monopoly in the item protected by the patent. Destroying the corporation would make the exact item unavailable, which might or not be replaceable other items.

The liberal hatred of corporations is puzzling. Even they ought to realize that it would be impossible to return to being a nation of shopkeepers. And even they would balk at the high prices that would ensue were we to start buying hand-made goods rather than manufactured goods. Of course, one knows better than to expect either reason or logic from the left.

[borg69unimatrix]

Ok... so say they do add a sales tax to on line purchases...

Hypothetically, I live in Oregon, I buy something from WhatTheHellEver.com's website which is based in New York (pretend that's the comparative to a Brick and Mortar). The product is shipped to me from a warehouse in Texas.

WHICH states' sales tax do I pay? Oregon, New York, or Texas?

[chrisrobin]

We should be raising taxes on corporations, not people.

Corporations are people, my friend!

[borg69unimatrix]

same as now, you're supposed to be paying your local sales tax as a buyer.

(this law, if passed -- which it may not be -- just shifts the onus on tax collection from requiring the buyer to report his purchases and pay tax on them, onto the seller to collect taxes at the time of purchase like you would in any retail store)

Oregon doesn't have a sales tax. If I were to physically go to New York or Texas (assuming they do have a sales tax) I would have to pay it, physically being there making the purchase. I guess I was under the impression that with this new law, I'd still have to pay the New York and/or Texas sales tax - even on line. I thought the reasoning behind this new law was so they could tax those that they previously could not, from outside states purchases.

[evanrick]

Oregon doesn't have a sales tax. If I were to physically go to New York or Texas (assuming they do have a sales tax) I would have to pay it, physically being there making the purchase. I guess I was under the impression that with this new law, I'd still have to pay the New York and/or Texas sales tax - even on line. I thought the reasoning behind this new law was so they could tax those that they previously could not, from outside states purchases.

Its a very large tax increase since you will be paying a tax you didn't before if the bill passes the house and Obama doesn't veto.

What we have now is a loophole but neither the loop or the hole should even exist. You can avoid paying taxes on purchases made online, and since the sales tax hits the consumer the hardest, its a regressive tax.

Congress should be voting to end loopholes on corporations, not heaping more flat taxes on those who can least afford them.

As far as internet sales disadvantaging small local businesses, monopolies do more of that than sales taxes. There are other better ways of helping small local retailers than turning up the tax heat. But how would republicans rather raise taxes? Through the sales tax!

States can raise their own taxes, they would just prefer DC do it for them so they can escape the blame when the shakedown begins.

Sixty-one percent of U.S. residents surveyed by online postage vendor Endicia said they don't support the Marketplace Fairness Act, which would allow states with sales taxes to collect those taxes from large online retailers. The Senate voted 69-27 to approve the Marketplace Fairness Act last Monday.

Why would the senate vote to raise taxes on Americans? Because big business wants it, its supported by Wal-Mart and Amazon.

[evanrick]

This will raise taxes by at least $2.5 billion.. That is a new tax.

This bill will destroy small businesses across America and increase monopolization of retailers, why else would Wal-Mart support it?

Consumers will have less of a reason to buy online because large retailers want to remove choice from consumers and disadvantage their smaller competition who WILL have new rules to follow.

If you don't want to pay sales taxes, you move to a state that doesn't collect them.

If you live in Oregon and buy something in Washington you don't pay sales taxes. But if I live in Washington and buy something from Oregon or Hong Kong or where ever I choose to spend - will I now have to show my ID so that I am taxed appropriately?

This is why the sales taxes is so flawed, end corporate loopholes before you start dragging consumers and small business through the mud.

This bill will drive sellers out of business, as they will be tasked with collecting taxes from upto 50 different states, 10,000 different tax rates and will force business out of the country when consumers stop buying online.

Supporters say the revenues could be used for local projects like schools, but nothing is stopping states from creating other loopholes and back filling the lost tax revenue with the new internet sales tax.

Supporters also hide behind the need to protect local small businesses, sorry Wal-Mart already did them in. This wont help local retailers as much as congress says it will.

You dont fix the economy by expanding the sales tax, its just more money for the government to spend on prisons, drones and giveaways to wealthy backers.

Serial abusers: http://www.americanthinker.com/2013/...sales_tax.html