Internet Sales Tax, good or bad?

reply to post by SaturnFX


The consumer always pays the tax. Period. If it's the business, he just passes it along to the retail price as an expense of doing business.

At least the business's property tax defrays the local taxes that the property owners would have to pay to cover local services.

No matter how you cut it WE pay the taxes. Not the corporations.

At least, using local business allows more local employment, less unemployment cheques and welfare monies wasted locally.

Sure, it's robbing Peter to pay Paul.

We will pay the "tax" whether the net is taxed or not. Higher local levees or directly through the net.

Again, a close call.

Internet Sales Tax, good or bad?

I think this (internet sales tax) was unavoidable and that we were really lucky that it was avoided to begin with. This allowed for unprecedented growth of the digital business-scape.

But, all good things must and do end. Internet sales now encompass nearly every good, every single item one can find in the real world environment. These sales have also taken a bite out of those physical purchases so... taxation was, again, unavoidable.

By the way, nobody likes taxes but they are, in my opinion, a necessary evil. These revenues pay for many critical services we take for granted. So long as the funds are not misused and are applied correctly, I think we can live with it.

Just a tuppence.

Well, I think it is completely unfair that the post office is losing out because of the internet - you used to have to pay to send letters, stamps cost money, but now we get to send emails for free and post on forums for free. Think of the poor post office, all that lost money forcing them to become impoverished...

we should pay an email tax and pay a forum tax. it's only fair and all good things must come to an end. We've had it too good for too long.

so, who is with me??? it's the honest thing to do......

*jumps off bridge*

reply to post by nwtrucker


I don't know one person who wants to pay taxes. Most of the people I know pay taxes if they have to though. It is the unnecessary spending that causes all the problems. Communities saying they need a new sidewalk when there is no real need, putting in expensive roundabouts in rural areas when all they have to do is reduce the speed ten miles per hour with a sign around the intersections. People nowadays can't fathom that someone has to pay for all that wasteful spending. If people want flowers in town, get together and grow them from seeds and transplant them. The city can haul a little dirt, make it a community project of volunteers. Some construction companies will gladly give an hour with a backhoe to help people on a weekend. It's good advertising. Word of mouth is the cheapest and best advertising there is.

It is this community waste with government match that raises taxes. We don't need government to make communities nicer, we can have a social function with some homemade goodies at the site on a weekend. The Amish do this all the time. Why can't we, they don't patent their ways, we can adopt this without adopting all their culture. I promise you, they won't sue us.

reply to post by rickymouse


Hey, great idea! I'm all for it. Uh, "I'll be out right after the football game is over." "I gotta help my kids with their homework". "My hangnail is acting up...".

We get the gov't we deserve....

reply to post by nwtrucker


Hmmm.....It's summer, the kids don't have homework.

Communities can take care of themselves, but everyone has to work together. You have to make events so that they are enjoyable, if each person works an hour that is all that is needed. I see it all over in society today, the ratrace. People are so busy doing expensive things created by consumerism that they can't go out and help each other. People take advantage of this all the time though, there needs to be community voting on these things. No use building a community park if only ten people are going to use it.

I cut the tip of my thumb off two weeks ago, I can't work either. I can bring some hotdogs and the grill though and cook for everyone. I'll grab a couple of grandkids, they can help. You can bring the coffee. We don't really need to do anything to have a community picnic every week do we

reply to post by rickymouse


Works for me...

reply to post by nwtrucker

All taxes are bad. New taxes are even worse.

EVERY government, federal, state and local have TOO much money. These spend happy politicians need to cut spending. But then of-course its not their money, so what do they care?

While a person may save on taxes, they still have to pay shipping so its not a valid argument.

reply to post by gladtobehere


I agree in general, I was looking at a specific tax, being internet, and also agree with the poster who stated that local sale taxes aren't "new". Rather lost revenue due to internet sales to outside sales.

Also, I don't get your last line, re shipping expense. Both internet and local have shipping expenses and both recover it via the sale price.

reply to post by gladtobehere


Just an afterthought, actually the shipping expense is lower for the local merchant as the fee is less in bulk than a single item sent by "brown" or the like

reply to post by nwtrucker


Why should I pay an additional tax on goods sales? Things are taxed enough at point of origin anyway.

I'm not an American but this will cause an avalanche of governments wanting a "me too" slice of the pie and will make everything more costly.

Most internet business performs poorly compared with bricks and mortar storefronts. This will be the death knell for Internet business.

If you want a conspiracy, then this will break the popularity of international business via the Internet and individual countries will then be able to control information when people are less likely to check things out on the Internet. It has civil rights implications.

reply to post by chr0naut


That's an interesting take. I kind of doubt internet sales are that fragile. I do suspect a slight drop in net sales, pun intended, but not damaging overall.

Judging by the posts, there's many who flat out prefer internet purchasing. They aren't going to go away just because they pay a 6-7% sales tax that they would have had to pay by going to the local store anyways.

The other part re killing the web internationally, deliberately...well if to goes that far the old ball game was over anyways. Shortwave radio anybody.

It's bad. Here's why.

Article 1 para. 10 sec. 2.
No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.

Do you see the problem????

Let me lay it out for you then.
Imports which probably makeup 90% plus of internet commerce have an immunity to state taxes. They aren't supposed to keep it.

WHY HAS EVERYBODY FORGOTTEN THAT THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO STATE TAX-FREE IMPORTED GOODS???

Now look at the reasoning behind this clause in the Constitution.

Federalist Papers Article 42

To the proofs and remarks which former papers have brought into view on this subject, it may be added that without this supplemental provision, the great and essential power of regulating foreign commerce would have been incomplete and ineffectual. A very material object of this power was the relief of the States which import and export through other States, from the improper contributions levied on them by the latter. Were these at liberty to regulate the trade between State and State, it must be foreseen that ways would be found out to load the articles of import and export, during the passage through their jurisdiction, with duties which would fall on the makers of the latter and the consumers of the former. We may be assured by past experience, that such a practice would be introduced by future contrivances; and both by that and a common knowledge of human affairs, that it would nourish unceasing animosities, and not improbably terminate in serious interruptions of the public tranquillity.

To those who do not view the question through the medium of passion or of interest, the desire of the commercial States to collect, in any form, an indirect revenue from their uncommercial neighbors, must appear not less impolitic than it is unfair; since it would stimulate the injured party, by resentment as well as interest, to resort to less convenient channels for their foreign trade. But the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest, is but too often drowned, before public bodies as well as individuals, by the clamors of an impatient avidity for immediate and immoderate gain. The necessity of a superintending authority over the reciprocal trade of confederated States, has been illustrated by other examples as well as our own. In Switzerland, where the Union is so very slight, each canton is obliged to allow to merchandises a passage through its jurisdiction into other cantons, without an augmentation of the tolls. In Germany it is a law of the empire, that the princes and states shall not lay tolls or customs on bridges, rivers, or passages, without the consent of the emperor and the diet; though it appears from a quotation in an antecedent paper, that the practice in this, as in many other instances in that confederacy, has not followed the law, and has produced there the mischiefs which have been foreseen here. Among the restraints imposed by the Union of the Netherlands on its members, one is, that they shall not establish imposts disadvantageous to their neighbors, without the general permission.

The regulation of commerce with the Indian tribes is very properly unfettered from two limitations in the articles of Confederation, which render the provision obscure and contradictory. The power is there restrained to Indians, not members of any of the States, and is not to violate or infringe the legislative right of any State within its own limits. What description of Indians are to be deemed members of a State, is not yet settled, and has been a question of frequent perplexity and contention in the federal councils. And how the trade with Indians, though not members of a State, yet residing within its legislative jurisdiction, can be regulated by an external authority, without so far intruding on the internal rights of legislation, is absolutely incomprehensible. This is not the only case in which the articles of Confederation have inconsiderately endeavored to accomplish impossibilities; to reconcile a partial sovereignty in the Union, with complete sovereignty in the States; to subvert a mathematical axiom, by taking away a part, and letting the whole remain.


To make this simple the compromise on the state powers of import/export taxation was to simply let them have the power to tax but the Federal Government gets the revenue. So a internet tax is unconstitutional. THE STATES CANNOT KEEP IT.

reply to post by ntech


Well, thank you! I wasn't aware of this.

However, it does say without the consent of congress. Is there any reason to doubt that congress has given consent to the "state taxes" either by precedent or implied?

reply to post by nwtrucker


They still wern't supposed to keep the money though.

Considering like 70% of my income goes to taxes already, I am going to have to say no thank you.

reply to post by ntech


OK, devil's advocate, most "imports" are brought in by a wholesaler/importer who doesn't pay a "sales tax". If manufactured, I believe, an excise tax of 4%.

If it's a car that's imported, then it's sold to a local dealer who then charges the "sales tax". Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it now no longer considered a "import" if it's already "in-country"?

At the least, that's what a county/state would argue, one would think.

reply to post by nwtrucker


Interesting thing I went through. I bought my vehicles in the US, had to pay taxes of course. When I moved to Canada, I had to pay taxes to the Canadian government based on bluebook value, as if I bought them there
I had to pay taxes on everything else too, but nothing was checked, we got to put our own value on it.

I think it is the same if you move from canada to the US.

I too have mixed feelings, I dont think that an internet sales tax would be such a bad thing IF they use the money from that to improve the internet infrastructure in the countries where its collected. Kinda how tolls are used to maintain the roads

reply to post by TKDRL


This is a subject I know a little about, living in Blaine, Wa., right on the Canadian border. If you were purchasing the vehicle with the intent to export the car to Canada, then you got snookered! There is no state that charges a sales tax when that item is destined out of state.( That would kill their own state businesses that depend on out of state sales, be it manufactured goods or even services.)

When you register the vehicle, wherever that may be, then you pay a sales tax.

Also, including Canada, if you can prove you have already paid the sales tax elsewhere, then you don't have to pay it again in the registering state/province. Snookered twice, by the sounds of it.

You can probable apply for a refund, either in Canada or the state you purchased it in if you have the documentation to back it up.