Do we support the Internet Sales Tax?

[BigBallinStalin]

Let me just say this as a small business owner I fully support an equal playing field. I have a brick a mortar store and have been there for 33 years. Let me break it down for you.

Imposing the internet sales tax is not egalitarian because it places a disproportionate burden on online sellers' who use significantly less government-provided resources--relative to the brick-and-mortar stores.

Why do you support such an inegalitarian policy?

[rdsrds2120]

Let me just say this as a small business owner I fully support an equal playing field. I have a brick a mortar store and have been there for 33 years. Let me break it down for you.

Imposing the internet sales tax is not egalitarian because it places a disproportionate burden on online sellers' who use significantly less government-provided resources--relative to the brick-and-mortar stores.

Why do you support such an inegalitarian policy?

Which burden(s), specifically, are disproportionate?

BMO

[BigBallinStalin]

Because they obviously use less state-provided resources.

What economic distortions? Customers save more money? The internet market creates a demand for the delivery of such goods--and those delivery companies buy stuff, which is taxed? Looks like a self-correcting 'distortion'.

Seems to me(using your TGD example) things being automatically 10% cheaper online would cause more people to buy things online, for no other reason than the tax loophole. Maybe I'm misusing the term "economic distortion" but the situation seems to be distorting the market in favour of online. In other words without the tax loophole online stores wouldn't be as competitive versus brick and mortar.
I'm no economist but that seems to make sense to me.

Yeah, no one's arguing against that, except maybe TGD.

Online retailers do actually exist somewhere. They use roads, are protected by police/fire departments, they take advantage of information networks which may be publicly funded, they use electricity often publicly funded/subsidized, their children go to school, their customers possibly use state assistance. However as the tax is charged to the consumer that's all irrelevant, as the consumer is without a doubt using state resources.

Sure dude, that's why they pay taxes on other items, or on their income--e.g. corporate tax, or income tax.

When considering the minimal amount of government-provided/controlled resources that these people use, your kind of justification is grasping at straws. For infrastructure, the proportion of taxes justified is less than 5% of total tax revenue of the US. The overwhelming amount of taxes doesn't go to the more useful things (cuz without free prices, there's no rational planning), and most of it doesn't go to anything relevant to purchasing books on the internet.

The argument in support of additional taxes is based on imagined 'strain' of government-provided resources. They get enough money as is for the services people actually used.

So your argument seems to be more against sales taxes period/ against taxes in general. "the state provides very few services therefore there should be no new taxes".

I don't buy the argument that they don't use/benefit from state resources and therefore should not be taxed. Again though that is irrelevant as the tax is on the consumer not the business.

1. "I don't buy the argument that they don't use/benefit from state resources and therefore should not be taxed."
That's not my argument. If place X uses 99% less of government-provided crap in area B, then they shouldn't pay as much--if anything. That's my argument.

2. This is relevant because even if the consumer pays the tax, it still affects the online businesses--relative to brick-and-mortar places.


I'm looking for a justification for the tax, and so far people say, "Oh they should be taxed cuz they use state stuff," but that's spurious thinking for reasons already explained. I'm not sure what's going with people's brains about the internet tax and their feeling that it's "equal" or " fair" or "is necessary."

[BigBallinStalin]

Let me just say this as a small business owner I fully support an equal playing field. I have a brick a mortar store and have been there for 33 years. Let me break it down for you.

Imposing the internet sales tax is not egalitarian because it places a disproportionate burden on online sellers' who use significantly less government-provided resources--relative to the brick-and-mortar stores.

Why do you support such an inegalitarian policy?

Which burden(s), specifically, are disproportionate?

BMO

The tax itself.

Supposedly, a tax represents the "price" people are "willing" to pay for a service (even if they do not even want it). So how is this related to disportionate burdens and the online tax?

An illustrative example:
Business X uses 1% of government A's resources.
Business Y uses 100% of government A's resources.

X = online seller
Y = brick-and-mortar seller

Both will be taxed at the same rate,* yet X uses less government resources than Y. And not only that, but the online seller already pays taxes (income tax), and some portion of that money, which goes to the federal government, goes back to the State.

*TGD, you know what I mean.

[rdsrds2120]

The tax isn't given by the business, though(?) If it's paid by the consumer who does use those government resources (the same amount of tax that they'd pay at a brick/mortar), how does the venue in which that tax money goes to that respective government matter? It sounds like the same ends with different means.

BMO

[Phatscotty]

Bottom line: Support things that allow you to keep more of your own money in your own pocket.

[BigBallinStalin]

The tax isn't given by the business, though(?) If it's paid by the consumer who does use those government resources (the same amount of tax that they'd pay at a brick/mortar),

So, to be clear: yeah, the sales tax is imposed on the customer while the business serves as the tax collector. The purpose of taxation is to provide for government goods. The justification for taxation is basically: since you use these government-provided services, you must pay for them.

Question: As an online consumer, what government-provided services did I use--but did not pay for?

how does the venue in which that tax money goes to that respective government matter? It sounds like the same ends with different means.

BMO

I don't find the sales tax on online businesses to be justifiable.

The venue through which the taxes are funneled matters because the customers of X (online sellers) do not use nearly as many government goods as the customers of Y (brick-and-mortar). So, it's disproportionate taxation. It's nonsensical--other than the motive of restricting competition (hence Amazon fully supporting this tax).

It's another way of government taking your money, which as always I'm against, but even from a "government must provide goods A, B, and C" stance, this tax is unnecessary and unfair.

[rdsrds2120]

That makes ostensible sense. I'm fine with taxes myself, but I understand your reasoning -> conclusion chain now.

All of these taxes have me hot and bothered. Let's party. Money party.



BMO

The tax isn't given by the business, though(?) If it's paid by the consumer who does use those government resources (the same amount of tax that they'd pay at a brick/mortar),

So, to be clear: yeah, the sales tax is imposed on the customer while the business serves as the tax collector. The purpose of taxation is to provide for government goods. The justification for taxation is basically: since you use these government-provided services, you must pay for them.

Question: As an online consumer, what government-provided services did I use--but did not pay for?

how does the venue in which that tax money goes to that respective government matter? It sounds like the same ends with different means.

BMO

I don't find the sales tax on online businesses to be justifiable.

The venue through which the taxes are funneled matters because the customers of X (online sellers) do not use nearly as many government goods as the customers of Y (brick-and-mortar). So, it's disproportionate taxation. It's nonsensical--other than the motive of restricting competition (hence Amazon fully supporting this tax).

It's another way of government taking your money, which as always I'm against, but even from a "government must provide goods A, B, and C" stance, this tax is unnecessary and unfair.

[Bruceswar]

The tax isn't given by the business, though(?) If it's paid by the consumer who does use those government resources (the same amount of tax that they'd pay at a brick/mortar), how does the venue in which that tax money goes to that respective government matter? It sounds like the same ends with different means.

BMO

Me and rds to not always agree but this is one area we agree on. I mean I am not a big fan of being taxed to death, but why should where you buy an item determine if you pay taxes or not.

[Phatscotty]

This is the beginning of the government exerting power over the internet. There will be more and more regulations as time goes on, more and more restrictions. That is kind of how it works in America when a new sector of the economy is created. People get to make a bunch of money off it, and the market is free for a while, and there is tons of competition and you will see 2 competitors with stores right across from each other and tons of jobs. Then over time it will be consolidated by the sector player who is the most in bed with the government, and use the gov't to get to the top, and then after the founders of the new technology have passed on and the families are rich beyond rich, the government ends up controlling the whole sector by including it as the newest basic human right.

Cell phones are further along than the internet, and high speed cable is further along than cell phones (Comcast/Msnbc Universal/GE)

[Bruceswar]

Let me just say this as a small business owner I fully support an equal playing field. I have a brick a mortar store and have been there for 33 years. Let me break it down for you.

Imposing the internet sales tax is not egalitarian because it places a disproportionate burden on online sellers' who use significantly less government-provided resources--relative to the brick-and-mortar stores.

Why do you support such an inegalitarian policy?

These same sellers use most all the same resources as the small business would. Besides how do you think it is fair for any state to lose money on taxable items by someone buying it online vs in a store. If you buy a TV or a computer online you are missing out on the Taxes that you would pay in a store. Why should it be different between the two?

[Bruceswar]

This is the beginning of the government exerting power over the internet. There will be more and more regulations as time goes on, more and more restrictions. That is kind of how it works in America when a new sector of the economy is created. People get to make a bunch of money off it, and the market is free for a while, and there is tons of competition and you will see 2 competitors with stores right across from each other and tons of jobs. Then over time it will be consolidated by the sector player who is the most in bed with the government, and use the gov't to get to the top, and then after the founders of the new technology have passed on and the families are rich beyond rich, the government ends up controlling the whole sector by including it as the newest basic human right.

Cell phones are further along than the internet, and high speed cable is further along than cell phones (Comcast/Msnbc Universal/GE)

These items are already taxable.. Why should buying them online make them not taxable all of a sudden?

[BigBallinStalin]

The tax isn't given by the business, though(?) If it's paid by the consumer who does use those government resources (the same amount of tax that they'd pay at a brick/mortar), how does the venue in which that tax money goes to that respective government matter? It sounds like the same ends with different means.

BMO

Me and rds to not always agree but this is one area we agree on. I mean I am not a big fan of being taxed to death, but why should where you buy an item determine if you pay taxes or not.

What you like to pay Saudi Arabian taxes?

[Night Strike]

The tax isn't given by the business, though(?) If it's paid by the consumer who does use those government resources (the same amount of tax that they'd pay at a brick/mortar), how does the venue in which that tax money goes to that respective government matter? It sounds like the same ends with different means.

BMO

Me and rds to not always agree but this is one area we agree on. I mean I am not a big fan of being taxed to death, but why should where you buy an item determine if you pay taxes or not.

Because there's no justification for a business in Virginia to collect and remit taxes for California. If that business is only located in Virginia, then why is it their job to find out the exact sales tax where the customer resides and then send that amount to California? If that same Californian had gone to Virginia to buy the product in person, the business would not be required to collect and remit California taxes, so why must it do so on an internet transaction? It doesn't make any sense.

[DoomYoshi]

I read to page 2. Too much repetition. I can drive to Buffalo, pay New York sales tax and then get refunded that tax when I cross back into Canada.

Now, if I order something online from Buffalo, I would have to pay Ontario sales tax.

Night Strike is right, this system is so different from anything that it replaces or updates.

There is no system. Something needs to be done to even the playing field. It should not matter if you buy a guitar online or in a store. Tax should still apply.

What do you mean? I don't have to pay taxes if I do all my shopping in Missouri by driving there and then returning home.

When I am on Vacation in Ecuador I don't pay any taxes on the Cocaine I buy. Why should I all of a sudden have to pay taxes on stuff that I never had to before?

[Bruceswar]

The tax isn't given by the business, though(?) If it's paid by the consumer who does use those government resources (the same amount of tax that they'd pay at a brick/mortar), how does the venue in which that tax money goes to that respective government matter? It sounds like the same ends with different means.

BMO

Me and rds to not always agree but this is one area we agree on. I mean I am not a big fan of being taxed to death, but why should where you buy an item determine if you pay taxes or not.

Because there's no justification for a business in Virginia to collect and remit taxes for California. If that business is only located in Virginia, then why is it their job to find out the exact sales tax where the customer resides and then send that amount to California? If that same Californian had gone to Virginia to buy the product in person, the business would not be required to collect and remit California taxes, so why must it do so on an internet transaction? It doesn't make any sense.

I am not saying I agree with the law how it is written. I would rather see where the store is located or the site is located should be the tax rate as a customer pay. If some company wants to move to Montana to evade taxes I say let them. Montana does not have a sales tax. As I said it does not matter where you buy an item, if it is a taxable item then taxes should be apply weather you buy it online or in a store.

[Bruceswar]

The tax isn't given by the business, though(?) If it's paid by the consumer who does use those government resources (the same amount of tax that they'd pay at a brick/mortar), how does the venue in which that tax money goes to that respective government matter? It sounds like the same ends with different means.

BMO

Me and rds to not always agree but this is one area we agree on. I mean I am not a big fan of being taxed to death, but why should where you buy an item determine if you pay taxes or not.

What you like to pay Saudi Arabian taxes?

I am not saying I like paying taxes, but I am saying why should it be different if you go to a store or buy a TV online. Tax should apply the same to both places.

On another note... We also need an import tax on goods like most every other nation.

[Bruceswar]

I read to page 2. Too much repetition. I can drive to Buffalo, pay New York sales tax and then get refunded that tax when I cross back into Canada.

Now, if I order something online from Buffalo, I would have to pay Ontario sales tax.

Night Strike is right, this system is so different from anything that it replaces or updates.

There is no system. Something needs to be done to even the playing field. It should not matter if you buy a guitar online or in a store. Tax should still apply.

What do you mean? I don't have to pay taxes if I do all my shopping in Missouri by driving there and then returning home.

When I am on Vacation in Ecuador I don't pay any taxes on the Cocaine I buy. Why should I all of a sudden have to pay taxes on stuff that I never had to before?

How many times do you drive to Missouri? Likely not many. Also Canadian law is different, but that does not mean you should not pay tax on the item. Also if you are buying cocaine, you have bigger issues than tax on it. Just saying..

[Woodruff]

Also if you are buying cocaine, you have bigger issues than tax on it. Just saying..

Absolutely. For instance, where are you going to store all your hookers?

[thegreekdog]

Pre-internet tax world:

The prices of goods provided by brick-and-mortar companies is 10% higher due to the 10% sales tax.
The prices of goods provided by internet companies is 10% lower due to the 0% sales tax.

By raising the prices of goods provided by internet companies (by imposing a 10% tax), then you reduce their competitiveness--relative to the brick-and-mortar companies.

That's what I'm talking about. Therein is the motive to restricting the competitiveness of internet companies.

Consder the following:

Pre-internet tax world:

The prices of goods provided by brick-and-mortar companies are 10% higher due to the 10% sales tax.
The prices of goods provided by internet companies are 10% lower due to the 0% sales tax.

By raising the price of goods provided by internet companies (by imposing a 10% tax), then you increase the competitveness of brick and mortar stores relative to internet companies.

The motive could be to level the playing field, or to use your words, increase the competitiveness of brick-and-mortar stores.

It didn't work out that way, and that wasn't the motive, so why are you making stuff up?

It will work out that way (or, rather, it would work out that way if there was in any way in Hades the House would pass this bill).

It was the stated motive.

I'm not making anything up.

Oh okay, but I'll believe rhetoric too. Raising taxes doesn't increase competitiveness. They already have the threat of competition inducing that behavior of cutting costs/increasing profit.

The red type above is rhetoric. What I typed is not.

Raising taxes does actually increase competitiveness and will increase the competitiveness of brick-and-mortar stores (who are, incidentally, also subject to this new law).

[thegreekdog]

Because they obviously use less state-provided resources.

What economic distortions? Customers save more money? The internet market creates a demand for the delivery of such goods--and those delivery companies buy stuff, which is taxed? Looks like a self-correcting 'distortion'.

Seems to me(using your TGD example) things being automatically 10% cheaper online would cause more people to buy things online, for no other reason than the tax loophole. Maybe I'm misusing the term "economic distortion" but the situation seems to be distorting the market in favour of online. In other words without the tax loophole online stores wouldn't be as competitive versus brick and mortar.
I'm no economist but that seems to make sense to me.

Online retailers do actually exist somewhere. They use roads, are protected by police/fire departments, they take advantage of information networks which may be publicly funded, they use electricity often publicly funded/subsidized, their children go to school, their customers possibly use state assistance. However as the tax is charged to the consumer that's all irrelevant, as the consumer is without a doubt using state resources.

The other problem with BBS's example is that the products are not actually cheaper online. The purchaser is REQUIRED to pay use tax on the purchase if sales tax is not paid. Consider the following pre-Internet sales tax scenario:

Bob purchases a book from Sally's Bookstore in Pennsylvania. Bob pays $10 for the book and 60 cents sales tax which Sally's Bookstore pays to the state of Pennsylvania. Cost of the transaction - $10.60

The next day, Bob purchases a book from Amazon online. Bob pays $10 for the book and does not pay any sales tax. Bob is required, by law, to pay use tax to Pennsylvania in the amount of 60 cents. Cost of the transaction - $10.60

Hey, lemme make up prices in my counter-example, and I can 'prove' you wrong too.

Wait, what? I'm just telling you the tax is the same if the item is priced the same (pre-tax). This is not an arguable point. It is and remains fact. But Cthullu forbid I prove you, Odin amongst men, wrong. I urgently look forward to your more than one sentence reply (preferably with links to books that I will never read... related aside - I actually thought about linking to Walter Hellerstein's continuously updated works on state taxation, just to troll you a little).

Okay, let's say I want to buy item X. I have two options: (1) online and untaxed, or (2) brick-and-mortar store. The pretax price of X is the same. After tax, the price is not the same because (2) enforces the tax while (1) does not.

Are you still saying that an untaxed item sold online is not actually cheaper online?*

*I'm talking about reality--not requirements by law that aren't enforced.

The laws are enforced, but I'll pretend their not.

The untaxed item sold online is actually cheaper online if the use tax laws are not enforced.

[DoomYoshi]

I read to page 2. Too much repetition. I can drive to Buffalo, pay New York sales tax and then get refunded that tax when I cross back into Canada.

Now, if I order something online from Buffalo, I would have to pay Ontario sales tax.

Night Strike is right, this system is so different from anything that it replaces or updates.

There is no system. Something needs to be done to even the playing field. It should not matter if you buy a guitar online or in a store. Tax should still apply.

What do you mean? I don't have to pay taxes if I do all my shopping in Missouri by driving there and then returning home.

When I am on Vacation in Ecuador I don't pay any taxes on the Cocaine I buy. Why should I all of a sudden have to pay taxes on stuff that I never had to before?

How many times do you drive to Missouri? Likely not many. Also Canadian law is different, but that does not mean you should not pay tax on the item. Also if you are buying cocaine, you have bigger issues than tax on it. Just saying..

I am 5 minutes away from the United States. 90% of the Canadian population is within 100 kilometres of the United States. I don't have a passport, so I don't go to the States but I do know many people who do 90% of their shopping in the States and only buy stuff in Canada if they run out of something.

Maybe I don't go to Missouri ever, but New York is close and you are making an anthill out of a huge issue, especially to Canadian businesses.

[BigBallinStalin]

Oh okay, but I'll believe rhetoric too. Raising taxes doesn't increase competitiveness. They already have the threat of competition inducing that behavior of cutting costs/increasing profit.

The red type above is rhetoric. What I typed is not.

Raising taxes does actually increase competitiveness and will increase the competitiveness of brick-and-mortar stores (who are, incidentally, also subject to this new law).

Oh, I see our misunderstanding. I was talking about online retailers; you're talking about b-and-m.

[BigBallinStalin]

The tax isn't given by the business, though(?) If it's paid by the consumer who does use those government resources (the same amount of tax that they'd pay at a brick/mortar), how does the venue in which that tax money goes to that respective government matter? It sounds like the same ends with different means.

BMO

Me and rds to not always agree but this is one area we agree on. I mean I am not a big fan of being taxed to death, but why should where you buy an item determine if you pay taxes or not.

What you like to pay Saudi Arabian taxes?

I am not saying I like paying taxes, but I am saying why should it be different if you go to a store or buy a TV online. Tax should apply the same to both places.

On another note... We also need an import tax on goods like most every other nation.

"but why should where you buy an item determine if you pay taxes or not"

Because wherever you go, you use that government's resources. If you're on the internet, you're not. So, it doesn't make sense to be taxed on such items (unless of course the goal of taxation is to enrich the government itself, or particular groups it favors).

[Bruceswar]

I read to page 2. Too much repetition. I can drive to Buffalo, pay New York sales tax and then get refunded that tax when I cross back into Canada.

Now, if I order something online from Buffalo, I would have to pay Ontario sales tax.

Night Strike is right, this system is so different from anything that it replaces or updates.

There is no system. Something needs to be done to even the playing field. It should not matter if you buy a guitar online or in a store. Tax should still apply.

What do you mean? I don't have to pay taxes if I do all my shopping in Missouri by driving there and then returning home.

When I am on Vacation in Ecuador I don't pay any taxes on the Cocaine I buy. Why should I all of a sudden have to pay taxes on stuff that I never had to before?

How many times do you drive to Missouri? Likely not many. Also Canadian law is different, but that does not mean you should not pay tax on the item. Also if you are buying cocaine, you have bigger issues than tax on it. Just saying..

I am 5 minutes away from the United States. 90% of the Canadian population is within 100 kilometres of the United States. I don't have a passport, so I don't go to the States but I do know many people who do 90% of their shopping in the States and only buy stuff in Canada if they run out of something.

Maybe I don't go to Missouri ever, but New York is close and you are making an anthill out of a huge issue, especially to Canadian businesses.

Well that sounds like a Canadian Issue to me that the gov of Canada needs to work out. Why does Canada give you back those taxes when you cross back over?