While Texas Politicians Claim $600 Million 'Lost' In Uncollected Online Sales Tax... It Means $600 Million Texans Saved
from the that-money-doesn't-disappear dept
We've already covered the ongoing dispute between Amazon and the state of Texas over uncollected sales tax for residents there. Apparently, a state politician complained about how the state loses $600 million a year because out-of-state online retailers don't have to collect sales tax. However, as Jim Harper correctly points out, shouldn't people be pointing out that this actually means that Texans saved $600 million per year because of the government's inability to tax them on it?What happens with the $600 million depends on what you mean by "Texas." If you mean the government of the state of Texas in Austin, why, yes, the government appears not to collect that amount, which it wants to. If by "Texas" you mean the people who live, work, and raise their families throughout the state--Texans--they actually save $600 million a year. They get to do what they want with it. After all, it's their money.A good thing to remember in these discussions.
The Texas tax collector is complaining because the last thing state taxing agents want to do is collect money on in the form of use taxes, which means something like going door to door to collect money from voters based on what they bought from out-of-state. Revenuers intensely prefer to hide the process, collecting their residents' money from out-of-state companies.
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
Yes, the 600 million saved would be spent in other ways, but there is no way to know if it would stay in Texas. 600 Million of state taxes means 600 million getting spent back in the state, which again would have a sales tax on it, would go in the pockets of Texas companies and Texans themselves, and get spent again in the economy.
It's all about cycling the money.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That 4 dollars i saved on a purchase did not magically disappear. It went into food from the locally-texan-owned (and taxed) bakery at the corner. It went into my rent. It went into a any number of things, moving around the state economy and being taxed as appropriate.
I Am cycling the money. If there is a short gap on when Rick Perry and his friends get to play with it, too bad for them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Stretch much?
Most likely, that $600MM will feed back into Texas companies, small and large, thus growing the economy.
Saying that giving $600MM instead to the Texas government will grow the economy more is such a liberal attitude, I don't even want to dignify it with a response.
Of course, I must, so why not give everything we make to the government and let THEM figure out what best to do with it?
Why not just let the government provide us with food, clothing, shelter, vehicles, and such? After all, that would grow the economy more than letting the citizens of Texas decide what to do with their own money, right? They would just use it to buy cheap stuff from other countries.
OH, you're thinking that everything the state of Texas would do would involve products made in Texas! I see how that works, keep ALL the money in-state. Yes, that makes perfect sense. That would DEFINITELY grow the state economy if they went completely isolationist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The money may feed into Texas companies, and it may not. When the money is collected as taxes, it almost certainly goes back into Texas (and employs Texans, who earn money and pay taxes, and so on).
The rest of your post is an amusing right wing rant that makes O'Reilly look middle of the road.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> almost certainly goes back into Texas
Not necessarily. The state contracts with companies for goods and services all over the nation (and even some foreign countries). That $600 million could just as easily be spent on fleet vehicles (from Detroit) as Dell computers (from Austin).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My, my, what an active imagination you have TAM!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
BTW, why are all the loonies Anonymous Cowards? I guess I would be ashamed to own up to an opinion that the government can spend more efficiently than anyone who has honestly earned a dollar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Yes..... but...
The point is, money to the people tends to work out better. People bail out companies every day, except only the good ones, the ones that serve them well and operate well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Yes..... but...
Remember Voodoo economics? Trickle down economy? The Reagan revolition? What did it lead to? Massive deficits in government, and in the end tax increases by Bush Sr which torpedoed his Presidency.
There is a balance. Just saying "leaving the money in the people's hand is best" is misleading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes..... but...
No no no! Trickle down was used to justify tax cuts to the rich. The idea is that the rich would spend money and it would trickle down to the poor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Yes..... but...
Governments don't know how to downsize themeselves, it will be a kicking and screaming proposition for them and in reality nobody really knows if it is necessary to do so, because after all their problems is that they along with companies killed the middle-class, no jobs no cycling anything, less money people make less wealth is created and the f'cking solution from the dimwits is to create a circle of trust with IP so that little group will retain all control over everything supposedly and force the rest of the world to pay money to them. Right that will happen LoL
Without the secondary and tertiary industries there will not be quaternary business and this crap called taxes will be reduced anyways, why don't they tax the 1% of the population that have 80% of the money?
Because that 1% is free to live anywhere in the world they don't need to comply with no stinky rules.
end of rant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The state will get its money, if they have to, they just raise taxes (property or income or additional services tax.)
It isn't that Texas consumers are actually saving anything, because it will just force Texas to raise taxes elsewhere.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2) Not taxing online transactions doesn't force Texas to do a damn thing. If they raise taxes elsewhere, which is completely incidental, then complaining that nothing was saved is like saying a free lunch is worth nothing because you'll just use the money on dinner instead.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The simple solution is this. We should pay taxes from whatever state our purchase is shipped from.
If I leave Michigan and go to California to buy something. I have to pay California's sales tax. I do not have to pay Michigan's use tax.
If I pay my brother to go to California to buy something, it's the same thing. I have to pay California's tax but not Michigan's.
If I pay some dude to do it, it's the same thing.
But for some reason, if I pay UPS or FedEX to ship what I buy from Newegg/Amazon/Etc. suddenly I do not have to pay California's tax and have to pay Michigan's tax. It makes no sense.
Newegg/Amazon/etc. should simple collect taxes and whatever we buy based upon where it is shipped from.
That way Newegg/Amazon/etc. can work out deals with the states or set up in states with low sales taxes. States could compete for the employment and taxes and customers could keep more of their money. It'd be win/win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Seems to me that in either case, the smart on-line retailers will relocate those functions to states with no sales tax (Hello Delaware and Oregon) to avoid the hassle altogether.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Under your plan, Amazon/New Egg/etc could just set up a small "shipping office" in Delaware and charge the local sales tax from there -- which is nothing.
According to the story, that's how much the State of Texas is getting paid already. If this is the problem, I don't think you've solved it.
Texas doesn't get the $600M it thinks it's owed, and Delaware doesn't really gain anything either, except for whatever small, indirect boost there might be from having that single, skeleton-staffed shipping office operate in the state.
As the story points out, no tax can be charged the retailer for moving its own merchandise from state to state, so Amazon/New Egg/etc can claim to ship from anyplace they have a brick-and-mortar office, can't they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Yes, it's is known as tax competition.
According to the story, that's how much the State of Texas is getting paid already. If this is the problem, I don't think you've solved it.
The problem is that the tax code is so complicated that the is a dispute over what is owed by whom.
Texas doesn't get the $600M it thinks it's owed, and Delaware doesn't really gain anything either, except for whatever small, indirect boost there might be from having that single, skeleton-staffed shipping office operate in the state.
Lots of the indirect boosts off lots of shipping offices. Texans get to pay less tax and (shock-horror) spend that money on what they think is important. Delaware gets a lot of shipping offices, lots of tuckers travelling through, more use out of its airfields etc etc. Focusing only on a shipping office is short sighted - those indirect benefits soon add up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Taxing where it's bought
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Who actually pays tax on online purchases?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Who actually pays tax on online purchases?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Who actually pays tax on online purchases?
> > online that they didn't pay tax on?
> I do.
So far, a chorus of one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amazon Jobs
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
*That* is the problem.
Which state will have most of the retailers then and net all the sales tax?
Will Ohio grease palms or will Utah? What if Iowa has a few retailers and then Illinois pays for the to relocate to Illinois using taxpayer dollars to buy the corporation land, buildings, whatever. It opens up a huge can of worms and makes a very ripe ground for abuse and corruption.
No matter which one gets the most - the other 49 will whine about it and likely sue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I'm guessing the number is pretty close to zero.
But, by taking a portion of my money & your money, the bad old government provides us with services that we all want.
So - please - quit acting like a spoiled child & start acting like a responsible member of society.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Spoiled children expect someone else to pay the bill. Responsible members of society hold government accountable for overspending.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Saving taxes...
Of course, they've kind of got some overdrafts to take care of so it makes sense that they'd blame everyone else for their fiscal problems.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It goes both ways
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The money spent on the product goes to another state which eventually gets cycled back into Texas. Not only that, the paychecks and money made by the company that sold the item and the company that shipped the item gets a federal tax.
So, the money "lost" by Texas, goes into the rest of the nation. The money saved by the customer in Texas can feed back into the local economy without having to be efficiently wasted by the local government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
If Texas wants to tax its people on sales, then it needs to find a way to keep the cost of living down so it can be competitive with sales tax.
If it's cheaper to purchase out of state, then they need to tax more on income, but if they tax on income, they'd better provide benefits that are worth the taxing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It costs money to run a government -- even a "government of the people."
If you think your tax money is being poorly spent, the honorable, patriotic option is to vote for the politicians you think will spend it better.
There is nothing noble about not paying the taxes you owe under current laws, just because you can get away with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Modernize the Tax Laws
When the Supreme Court ruled on this matter in 1967 and 1992 it was too difficult for a remote seller to keep track of the thousands of jurisdictions - which is why they were exempted from the obligation to collect. Moving forward to today, large internet retailers (such as eBay or Amazon) easily manage millions of items for sale at any given moment, and even the smallest internet retailer can calculate accurate shipping rates to every corner of the country in a blink of an eye - it is no longer too difficult to keep track of a few thousand local jurisdictions. There are companies that provide these services - and at least one of those services is completely free to the retailer.
I understand the desire of individuals to avoid paying a tax, but I think it is important to remember that sales and use taxes are voted on by local residents. The intent of these laws is to raise funding for services such as fire protection, police presence, roads, sidewalks, parks etc. Local budgets have plummeted as internet shopping has increased.
To suggest that it is a good thing for Texas that consumers have avoided paying the tax that is already due, and that states should not modernize the law (through Streamlined) to require that out-of-state sellers collect this tax efficiently, is, in my opinion, just plain wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Modernize the Tax Laws
> the law...
It's not up to the states. As you yourself pointed out in your post, the Supreme Court ruled that retailers with no physical presence in a state are not required to collect sales tax in that state.
States can pass all the laws they like but they can't overrule the Supreme Court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Modernize the Tax Laws
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Modernize the Tax Laws
> means you have to be able to actually walk into the store
> to buy something?
No, but that's apparently what the governor of Texas thinks and since he's in charge of law enforcement...
Besides, Amazon has made it clear that if having a distribution facility counts as a physical presence, then they're going to shut it down and leave. Either way, Amazon won't have to collect Texas state sales tax.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I'd personally rather have a sales tax than a state income tax.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]