Senators Pushing To Tax E-Commerce
from the lost-revenue? dept
This issue comes up every few months or so and has for years, but it looks like some Senators are seriously looking at forcing online retailers to collect sales tax, even in states where they don't have a presence. In most cases, people are supposed to be honest about things and 'fess up in their tax returns, but almost no one does. One of the arguments against such taxes is that it would hinder e-commerce adoption, but that seems unlikely at this point. However, the annoying thing about supporters of adding an online sales tax is they talk about how it's need to make up for "lost revenue." Lost revenue isn't a very good reason for a tax. The purpose of a sales tax is generally to support the local infrastructure needed for commerce -- but that reasoning becomes trickier to support with e-commerce. Perhaps you could argue that all those FedEx and UPS trucks require more investment in roads, but it seems like a stretch -- especially for digital goods. Of course, last year it was shown that the huge "tax revenue loss" numbers that the states kept trotting out were not at all accurate. The researchers who had done the studies admitted they were wrong, and that the actual "losses" were much smaller. So, any states thinking that any new law will somehow help their cash crunch may be in for a surprise.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Tax Shmax!
I find it rather a bit odd that they would try to tax something as intangible as e-commerce, seeing as it's very easy to move the business out of the jurisdiction of this tax.
(Or am I missing something here?)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Tax Shmax!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Overseas taxation
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Questions Raised
When they say taxation, would that apply to businesses based outside the usa that target customers inside the usa?
When they say taxation, would that apply to businesses based in one state but target customers from out of state?
How exactly would it work?
How much would the tax be?
In each of the above scenarios, which state would collect the tax?
Would it be a state tax or would it be a federal tax?
Isn't it already covered on income tax?
Wouldn't it be better to push harder on people to pay their income tax than to worry about a e-commerce tax?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Questions Raised
Yes it is. In fact, as long as the income tax exists, every other tax is an illegal double tax.
Lets just the rid of the income tax and go about this a better way?
www.fairtax.org
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Questions Raised
[ link to this | view in thread ]
UPS and FedEx
We spend all this time talking about greedy corporations. But what about the government? At least if you don't like something about a corporation, you can just refuse to do business with them. If you did the same with the government, you would be tossed into jail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Mobility of Enterprise
The same thing has happened with naval registration - practicaly no-one flies U.S. flags on their ships anymore because of the ridiculous fees and requirements.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Questions Raised
The 'Fair' Tax calls itself fair based on the false assumption that consumption increase proportionatly to wealth. All it would end up doing is allowing the wealthy to import all their goods and forcing everyone else to pay most of the taxes, as well as creating massive black markets for everything, which would further allow the sale of any and all illegal materials, including child pornography.
A straight income tax system is more enforcable, and scales more accurately to all income brackets. The idea that a millionare or billionare would have incentive to work harder and create jobs if they had to pay less taxes is simply idiotic, and it's failed every time.
Sorry this got off topic, but I'm tired of the stupid naming schemes like 'Fair' Tax and Patriot Act. They just make people worry more about supporting the name without thinking about the contents.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Look at the bright side!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
eTax
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Questions Raised
Wait a minute, Muggle, did you really just suggest that getting rid of the absurd, regressive, and wasteful income tax would lead to a proliferation of child porn?
You have to be bloody kidding me.
I would like to see the way THAT connection is made.
You HONESTLY think that the only thing preventing people from being sexually attracted to children is income tax? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
Me thinks you might be engaging in some sort of absurd propaganda of your own. Maybe try invoking Hitler next time?
You are just trying to make “people worry more about supporting the name without thinking about the contents.”
Oh – and for the record – there is nothing fair or wise about an income tax, except that that it allows congress hide the true amount of tax that they are forcing upon the American people – and when you think about it – that is not very fair either.
Me thinks what is far more likely is that you work for the IRS and fear for your job. That is fine, it is about time IRS agents learn what fear is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Questions Raised
Sales taxes, on the other hand, are currently only applied to goods bought in brick-and-mortar stores. People with more money are more likely to buy things online, due to greater access to the Internet (and more spending on the sorts of things that are bought online, as opposed to groceries and other necessities that are rarely bought online), so they are more likely to avoid sales tax. Hence, the lack of Internet sales tax makes sales taxes regressive.
"Regressive" is a term for a particular type of taxation, not a generic pejorative (which is how you seem to be using it). You, sir, need to be more careful with your language. "Worry more about supporting the name without thinking about the contents," indeed.
I don't know whether Moogle (whose handle you, unsurprisingly, misspelled) works for the IRS, but, for what it's worth, I don't. (I just wanted to make that clear in case you accuse me of being an IRS agent too.) However, I know exactly what I pay in taxes, no matter how much the oh-so-wicked, wicked IRS and Congress may try to pull the wool over my eyes; I have the rudimentary mathematical knowledge (and the W-2 forms) to be able to figure that out. If you don't, I'm sorry about that.
The U.S., by the way, has a considerably LOWER tax burden than that of many other countries. My German aunt would love to be paying IRS tax rates instead. And, by the way, in case you accuse me of being - gasp! - a foreigner, I am an American (as someone more astute may be able to tell from my mention of my W-2 forms).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Enjoy the criticism while you can...
Enjoy your ability to openly comment on and criticize the FairTax while it lasts...AFFT wants to take that right away from you...
The Americans For Fair Taxation (fairtax.org) are on a mission to squash out any public criticism of the FairTax plan and are attempting to exploit the federal trademark system for the ADMITTED purpose of being able to shut down anti-FairTax websites during the upcoming elections. They have an open application to obtain a service mark for the word "FairTax." Genie Hayes, the communications director for AFFT, openly admitted that the goal of AFFT is to get this service mark and be able to yank any anti-FairTax websites as well as to have total control over any shirts, bumper stickers, or anything of that nature that is printed with the word FairTax. They are attempting to get the strong arm of the federal government to back them up in hindering free speech and open/honest debate.
The FairTax is promising to become a rather prominent issue in the upcoming Congressional elections--and if AFFT succeeds in obtaining this service mark, they are going to be in an excellent position to keep people from criticizing the FairTax Act.
The time for opposition to their application is fast approaching. I know that an application for a service mark can't be opposed just because the applicant's motive is unethical. However, I do believe that there is a very STRONG case that AFFT doesn't meet the legal requirements for obtaining a service mark. The strongest argument is all around us--the phrase "Fairtax" is SYNONYMOUS with H.R. 25 and the Fair Tax Plan.
Unfortunately, as it stands right now, I think they'll win their service mark and they'll be on the road to having the power to tell people that they cannot participate in public debate regarding H.R. 25. Perhaps, at least, the public will be informed of this attempt to filter open and honest critiques.
[ link to this | view in thread ]