Internet Sales Tax: Good or Bad?

which proves my point about buds stupid statement ..

spending bills originate in the House and are required to pass in the House before the potus can sign them


D'OOOOOOOOOH ! Originally Posted by CJ7

You conveniently left out the part where an appropriations bill usually passes the Senate as well, before going to the President for signature or veto.

According to the United States Constitution (Article I, Section 7, clause 1), all bills relating to revenue, generally tax bills, must originate in the House of Representatives, consistent with the Westminster system requiring all money bills to originate in the lower house which is why the appropriations bills that are enacted begin with "H.R.", indicating a bill that originated in the House.

The Constitution also states that the "Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills," so in practice, the Senate and House each drafts and considers its own bill. The Senate then "cuts-and-pastes", substituting the language of its bill of a particular appropriations bill for the language of House bill, then agrees to the bill as amended.

While we're at it why don't they put a tax on every post on eccie?

In fact let's just regulate it only the stupid posts...like this one...and a government assigned moderator decides who pays.

Where does it stop?

Designating everybody who doesn't pay taxes as "freeloaders" isn't really fair. Here is an excellent explanation of how it is that 46% of the "tax units" in the US end up not paying federal income tax.

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/Uploa...Income-Tax.pdf

Why are conservatives and republicans so ready to defend millionaires and mega-corporations who pay little or no taxes as a result of loopholes, but when the elderly, the working poor with children, and others take advantage of tax exemptions in the tax code, they are "freeloaders?" Originally Posted by timpage

I'm not in favor of millionaires and big corps paying little or no taxes. I do believe in zeroing out all loopholes and keeping the tax rate moderate. The tax code could and should fit on about 10-50 sheets of paper. But politicians LIVE to provide exemptions and loopholes. That is how they get elected. And that is why the tax code is 10s of thousands of pages long.

And I think EVERYONE from top to bottom needs to be taxed. No one should be able to vote themselves benefits they aren't helping to pay for. If a person's income is too low, then government stipends can close the gap.

They already have this type of system in Europe with a VAT tax. Everybody, including the poor, has to pay the VAT. If they can do it there, why can't we do it here?

You want your beer? Your video games? Your free cellphones? Pay the federal sales tax.

The problem in Europe is that in addition to the VAT, they also have 50+% income tax rates. A pure disincentive to work.

You conveniently left out the part where an appropriations bill usually passes the Senate as well, before going to the President for signature or veto. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

nope, like I said, just proving how stupid Buds comment was

I dunno....why should Amazon (or whatever internet retailer) have the advantage of not being required to charge sales tax when the brick and mortar mom and pop stores do have to charge it? Seems like it is at least an attempt to level the playing field between the online mega-retailers and small business. With the added benefit of generating revenue for state coffers.

But, it was nice while it lasted. Originally Posted by timpage

I dunno either....I buy things through Amazon. The have 3 huge warehouses right down the road, I drive by them all the time. And I pay state sales tax every time I buy anything from them.

Its not that difficult for mom and pop to set up a website and start selling whatever they sell, across the internet. If they do well, they might just be the next Amazon. Free markets at work.

While we're at it why don't they put a tax on every post on eccie?

In fact let's just regulate it only the stupid posts...like this one...and a government assigned moderator decides who pays.

Where does it stop? Originally Posted by TheDaliLama

You can't tax only the stupid posts. Whirly and JD wouldn't be able to afford their internet connections.

I'm not in favor of millionaires and big corps paying little or no taxes. I do believe in zeroing out all loopholes and keeping the tax rate moderate. The tax code could and should fit on about 10-50 sheets of paper. But politicians LIVE to provide exemptions and loopholes. That is how they get elected. And that is why the tax code is 10s of thousands of pages long.

And I think EVERYONE from top to bottom needs to be taxed. No one should be able to vote themselves benefits they aren't helping to pay for. If a person's income is too low, then government stipends can close the gap.

They already have this type of system in Europe with a VAT tax. Everybody, including the poor, has to pay the VAT. If they can do it there, why can't we do it here?

You want your beer? Your video games? Your free cellphones? Pay the federal sales tax.

The problem in Europe is that in addition to the VAT, they also have 50+% income tax rates. A pure disincentive to work. Originally Posted by ExNYer

I agree, there should be no subsidies for particular businesses. They can either make it work in the marketplace or they close shop and go do something else.

We are right back to the FairTax proposal with this whole thing. Charge 28-30% tax for almost all purchases and along with that, eliminate the federal income tax, all of it. Throw in the prebate provision for the poor poor pitiful poor, get the federal government out of the way and watch the US economy boom.

I like the current Texas approach; if the vendor doesn't have a bricks and mortar location in the state, then no sales tax can be collected !

Simple....

And likewise, California can't charge a Texas resident for purchasing a product without visiting the state..... Originally Posted by Whirlaway

You realize that Texas already goes after online retailers for sales tax, right? A famous case of this is last year Amazon.com had to start charging Texas residents for sales tax because Texas went after them about it.

I agree, there should be no subsidies for particular businesses. They can either make it work in the marketplace or they close shop and go do something else.

We are right back to the FairTax proposal with this whole thing. Charge 28-30% tax for almost all purchases and along with that, eliminate the federal income tax, all of it. Throw in the prebate provision for the poor poor pitiful poor, get the federal government out of the way and watch the US economy boom. Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

I don't have a crystal ball and the old "get rid of, or cut, taxes and watch the economy boom" argument has been ringing hollow for decades now.

Just better make sure you get rid of that pesky 16th Amendment before you get behind the Fairtax.....or we'll end up with both.

You realize that Texas already goes after online retailers for sales tax, right? A famous case of this is last year Amazon.com had to start charging Texas residents for sales tax because Texas went after them about it. Originally Posted by jbravo_123

don't tell me, it was the dem majority in Texas legislation that raised the tax wasn't it?

I don't have a crystal ball and the old "get rid of, or cut, income tax and watch the economy boom" argument has been ringing hollow for years now.

Just better make sure you get rid of that pesky 16th Amendment before you get behind the Fairtax.....or we'll end up with both. Originally Posted by timpage

Its already in there

Is there any provision in the FairTax bill to prevent both an income tax and a sales tax?

The short answer is that there is no provision in the FairTax bill (HR 25) that would prevent having a national sales tax and the income tax. However, the FairTax legislation does three things that effectively dismantle the income tax: (1) it abolishes the IRS, (2) it repeals all statutory language having to do with taxing income and payroll (i.e., the Internal Revenue Code), and (3) it eliminates the filing of annual income tax returns to the federal government for over 140 million Americans. The 16th Amendment does not “require” an income tax, it only “allows” one, and the FairTax will have broken that egg in a million pieces. It would be extremely difficult to put that egg “back together again.” Once the FairTax is enacted it would be an extremely daunting task for Congress to make people start filing income tax returns again. There would be a public uproar. Once the American public has experienced the freedom from filing income tax returns it’s hard to imagine them tolerating going back.

Furthermore, the sponsors of the FairTax are totally dedicated to the permanent repeal of the income tax. No current supporter of the FairTax would support the FairTax unless the entire income tax is repealed. There is a separate bill, HJR 16, which repeals the 16th Amendment to the Constitution but it must go through a different adoption process than HR 25. HJR 16 has to be passed by a two-thirds vote of members of both the House and the Senate and be approved (or ratified) by three-fourths of state legislatures (38). We are currently laying the organizational groundwork for this push and have already started the educational process at the state level.

http://www.fairtax.org/site/PageServer?pagename=FAQs

Its already in there Originally Posted by Chica Chaser

Anybody that thinks that Congress won't use the 16th Amendment to eventually propagate some sort of federal taxation system, even if the FairTax proposal becomes law, doesn't understand Congress.

They will never give up the power they wield currently. Unless and until there is the old grassroots movement with the people demanding a change to the income tax system, nothing changes and only gets worse and more and more tax regulations are piled on every year, as they always are.

Like everyone else, I enjoy a little tax break wherever possible. And I buy a lot of merchandise from Amazon, so for many years I was able to avoid paying sales taxes on some of the stuff I receive. But not anymore. At least in Texas, you now have to pay tax on goods bought through their site.

But my take on this issue can be boiled down to this very simple question: Why should one type of merchant receive a de facto subsidy which advantages it relative to other types of merchants?

In another thread on this issue, here's what I posted a week ago:

http://www.eccie.net/showpost.php?p=...7&postcount=26

Thread (27 posts) located at:

http://www.eccie.net/showthread.php?t=722851

Key excerpt which makes the gist of my argument:

The "internet tax bill" is called the Marketplace Fairness Act. Perhaps that's an unfortunate name, given congress's record. It's easy to see why many people might take a look at the word "fairness" in the bill's title and reflexively assume that it has nothing to do with "fairness."

But actually, it does.

Either you are OK with state sales taxes, or you are not. If you are, then why would you argue that one class of merchants (online retailers) should enjoy a large competitive advantage over another, simply by dint of the fact that its members do not have to collect state sales tax?

Some opponents of the bill express concerns that reporting requirements would place an onerous burden on small businesses and seriously impact their prospects for success. That's another bogus argument. For one thing, many small online merchants sell thru Amazon, which will quite happily handle tax collection matters for them, as well as give them maximum exposure in the marketplace. Many others utilize eBay, which will certainly respond to the challenge in similar ways. Sellers who choose to go it alone will easily be able to implement newly developed tax-reporting software.

This should not be considered a partisan "conservative vs. liberal" issue.

It's simply a matter of equity.

Anybody that thinks that Congress won't use the 16th Amendment to eventually propagate some sort of federal taxation system, even if the FairTax proposal becomes law, doesn't understand Congress. Originally Posted by timpage

Have to admit it. Timmy's right on this one. Unless the 16th Amendment is repealed, we ought not consider any form of national sales tax.