Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013

[MachineGhost]

A bipartisan group of 53 Senators and Representatives today introduced a bill that resolves the differences between bills introduced in the Senate and the House of Representatives last Congress that would allow local brick-and-mortar retailers to compete more effectively against out-of-state internet sellers.  The Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 would give states the option to require the collection of sales and use taxes already owed under State law by out-of-state businesses, rather than rely on consumers to remit those taxes to the States—the method of tax collection to which they are now restricted.

http://www.welch.house.gov/index.php?op ... &Itemid=14

The countdown to an eventual national sales tax begins!  The Orwellian Newspeak makes me sick.

[Pointedstick]

Has it been introduced yet? I couldn't find anything.

Regardless, use https://www.popvox.com/ to contact your senators and reps. It's ridiculously easy and quite effective; I always get a response.

[dragoncar]

However you feel about taxes themselves, I think it's silly that Internet/mail-order businesses have been allowed to skirt the sales tax laws for so long.  The big argument against this has been that it's "complicated" to determine the appropriate tax rate.  This is, of course, total BS due to the magic of computers.

I do not personally welcome having to pay CA sales tax on my Internet purchases.  But I think it's fair.

[MachineGhost]

It's not a loophole.  If a business has no physical nexus in any given state, why should that business collect sales taxes for that state?  Where is the venue or jurisdiction?

The state governments are just looking for a new revenue source because their use tax enforcement is about as practical as enforcing Prohibition was.  All the talk about "fairness" is just Newspeak.  Internet businesses have lower overhead costs and the price a customer pays for delivery by waiting several days is the cost of avoiding the sales tax.  No one loses out, all the Newspeak to the contrary.

If this legislation passes, I predict it will be the death of brick and mortar because Amazon and similar competitors will offer same-day delivery by setting up warehouses in every single state.  Be careful what you wish for, you dumbass, uncompetitive businesses!

[WildAboutHarry]

I expect we will soon see passage of the Anti-Dog-Eat-Dog Rule and the Equalization of Opportunity Bill.

LOL

[dragoncar]

MG you can't possibly be serious.  "Fairness" is Newspeak?  Fairness is an ancient concept (not sure how old the word is, but I didn't just make it up).  If you want to do business in a state, you should be bound by it's rules.  To me, that's fair.

[Tyler]

The state governments are just looking for a new revenue source

This.

The states just want money.  California will be able to collect sales tax from a mom & pop hardware store in Iowa if they add an online cart, even if those taxes don't benefit the company in any way (roads, infrasturcture, etc).  And the business owner will have no recourse -- they can' t vote in California for how that tax money is spent or against new tax hikes.  Great for California, bad for anyone starting a new business.

The big online retailers will play along because I imagine maintaining a national database of individual state and local sales taxes for every single zip code in the US that they ship to is complex and expensive to do -- which will drive smaller online competition (like above Iowa mom & pop store) off the internet.

So competition will drop, prices will rise, governments become less accountable for their tax policies, and consumers & small businesses get screwed.  Great deal!

[Pointedstick]

MG you can't possibly be serious.  "Fairness" is Newspeak?  Fairness is an ancient concept (not sure how old the word is, but I didn't just make it up).  If you want to do business in a state, you should be bound by it's rules.  To me, that's fair.

The problem with "fairness" is that it can mean whatever you want it to mean. I think it's fairer for citizens of a state to pay taxes on internet sales by businesses within their state. You think it's fairer for everybody to pay taxes on every internet sale. Who's right? What's fair? It's all in the eye of the beholder. Now it's basically just a codeword for whatever political goal you want.

Out of curiosity, do you run an internet business? I do, and I would be happy to answer any and all questions regarding the feasibility and effect of any of the aspects of the proposed law.

[MachineGhost]

MG you can't possibly be serious.  "Fairness" is Newspeak?  Fairness is an ancient concept (not sure how old the word is, but I didn't just make it up).  If you want to do business in a state, you should be bound by it's rules.  To me, that's fair.

The "fairness" spoken of by politicians or uncompetitive businesses is not the ancient concept of "fairness".  Your referrant for "fairness" is not the same referrant that politicians and uncompetitive businesses have in mind.  Its not what they say, its what they mean.

I'll tell you what I deem to be "fairness".  Eliminate all sales taxes so everyone is on a true level playing field and no one profits at the expense or suppression of another.  Now, why do you suppose these politicians and uncompetitive businesses don't go for my definition of "fairness"?  In the first case it doesn't benefit their own further self-aggrandization of power; in the second case it doesn't bolster any support for their uncompetitive position and forestall the inevitable.  Mix the two together ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend") and tada, you got crony capitalism.

[dragoncar]

The problem with "fairness" is that it can mean whatever you want it to mean. I think it's fairer for citizens of a state to pay taxes on internet sales by businesses within their state. You think it's fairer for everybody to pay taxes on every internet sale. Who's right? What's fair? It's all in the eye of the beholder. Now it's basically just a codeword for whatever political goal you want.

What?  You think it's fair for me to pay sales tax on a purchase you make out of state, because I live in the same state as the seller?  Am I misunderstanding you?

Out of curiosity, do you run an internet business? I do, and I would be happy to answer any and all questions regarding the feasibility and effect of any of the aspects of the proposed law.

Nope, but I do have knowledge of legal and computer code.  I'm very interested to know how hard it really is to collect this tax.  I expect that states will make it very easy to determine that rates (e.g., http://dor.wa.gov/content/findtaxesandr ... pataxrate/).  This whole affair should be only slightly more onerous than collecting sales tax for intra-state sales. 

Now, I understand people don't like to pay taxes.  Once you are on equal footing with other in-state retailers, then you will have more competition.  You will have more accounting to do.  But anyone who went into an online business expecting to skirt sales tax laws, and truly believing that the legal landscape would never change, was incredibly naive.

The moratorium on Internet tax was always clearly a temporary thing to encourage development of the Internet and online businesses.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_ ... nation_Act)

The "fairness" spoken of by politicians or uncompetitive businesses is not the ancient concept of "fairness".  Your referrant for "fairness" is not the same referrant that politicians and uncompetitive businesses have in mind.  Its not what they say, its what they mean.

I'll tell you what I deem to be "fairness".  Eliminate all sales taxes so everyone is on a true level playing field and no one profits at the expense or suppression of another.  Now, why do you suppose these politicians and uncompetitive businesses don't go for my definition of "fairness"?  In the first case it doesn't benefit their own further self-aggrandization of power; in the second case it doesn't bolster any support for their uncompetitive position and forestall the inevitable.  Mix the two together ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend") and tada, you got crony capitalism.

I don't know who "they" are... "they" reeks of Newspeak, evoking fear of the "other".  In reality, they is us.  We are a society.

Moreover, "they" did not say it was fair.  I did.  Having just heard about this whole thing based on your post, I guarantee that "they" didn't have time to brainwash me.  My belief in what is fair comes from my own independent analysis.

Eliminate sales tax for fairness?  Where should the government get revenue?  Income tax?  Property tax?  No tax, no government?  Assuming you believe there should be some government, why is sales tax more unfair?  Typically, sales value is the easiest proxy for utilization of communal resources.

[Pointedstick]

The problem with "fairness" is that it can mean whatever you want it to mean. I think it's fairer for citizens of a state to pay taxes on internet sales by businesses within their state. You think it's fairer for everybody to pay taxes on every internet sale. Who's right? What's fair? It's all in the eye of the beholder. Now it's basically just a codeword for whatever political goal you want.

What?  You think it's fair for me to pay sales tax on a purchase you make out of state, because I live in the same state as the seller?  Am I misunderstanding you?

Perhaps… All I'm saying is that I think the status quo is fairer than forcing all consumers to pay sales tax on out-of-state-originated internet transactions.

Out of curiosity, do you run an internet business? I do, and I would be happy to answer any and all questions regarding the feasibility and effect of any of the aspects of the proposed law.

Nope, but I do have knowledge of legal and computer code.  I'm very interested to know how hard it really is to collect this tax.  I expect that states will make it very easy to determine that rates (e.g., http://dor.wa.gov/content/findtaxesandr ... pataxrate/).  This whole affair should be only slightly more onerous than collecting sales tax for intra-state sales. 

Now, I understand people don't like to pay taxes.  Once you are on equal footing with other in-state retailers, then you will have more competition.  You will have more accounting to do.  But anyone who went into an online business expecting to skirt sales tax laws, and truly believing that the legal landscape would never change, was incredibly naive.

The moratorium on Internet tax was always clearly a temporary thing to encourage development of the Internet and online businesses.  (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_ ... nation_Act)

There are a variety of reasons why I believe the proposal is unfair:

1. I believe all taxes are unfair, therefore imposing more always increases the amount of unfairness.
2. The reason why sales taxes exist is to make merchants compensate the state government for the use of its services that are not otherwise paid for with user fees (such as electricity and roads). If, for example, a merchant in Ohio doesn't use the services in the state of Florida, why should a Floridian making the purchase be compelled to pay Florida sale staxes? Perhaps from this perspective it would be more fair for the Florida purchaser to in fact pay sales taxes to Ohio, but that creates the unfairness of taxation without representation.
3. From a complication perspective, dealing with the government is always trickier than it looks. Each of those states have higher tax rates within many counties, and within those counties, many towns and cities impose additional tax rates on top of that. This proposal would force online retailers to know all of that. This will be easier for large firms with accounting departments than small one-man shops, which seems very (wait for it) unfair to me.

The "fairness" spoken of by politicians or uncompetitive businesses is not the ancient concept of "fairness".  Your referrant for "fairness" is not the same referrant that politicians and uncompetitive businesses have in mind.  Its not what they say, its what they mean.

I'll tell you what I deem to be "fairness".  Eliminate all sales taxes so everyone is on a true level playing field and no one profits at the expense or suppression of another.  Now, why do you suppose these politicians and uncompetitive businesses don't go for my definition of "fairness"?  In the first case it doesn't benefit their own further self-aggrandization of power; in the second case it doesn't bolster any support for their uncompetitive position and forestall the inevitable.  Mix the two together ("the enemy of my enemy is my friend") and tada, you got crony capitalism.

I don't know who "they" are... "they" reeks of Newspeak, evoking fear of the "other".  In reality, they is us.  We are a society.

Moreover, "they" did not say it was fair.  I did.  Having just heard about this whole thing based on your post, I guarantee that "they" didn't have time to brainwash me.  My belief in what is fair comes from my own independent analysis.

Eliminate sales tax for fairness?  Where should the government get revenue?  Income tax?  Property tax?  No tax, no government?  Assuming you believe there should be some government, why is sales tax more unfair?  Typically, sales value is the easiest proxy for utilization of communal resources.

I believe that there should be no government, and while I won't presume to speak for MG, I know he's closer to my position than yours.

This whole discussion of which tax is more fair strikes me as akin to a doctor asking a healthy person which limb it would be better to amputate. It's a totally futile exercise because all taxes are inherently unfair; that's their nature, and you can't get around it.

[dualstow]

I recently had to start paying tax on purchases from Amazon and drugstore dot com. As a result, I have spent more dollars at the CVS in my neighborhood and the Barnes & Noble a few blocks away. Granted, those are big box stores themselves, not mom 'n pops, but if this is the effect they wanted to have, it's working. I feel so violated. ;-)

[moda0306]

Taxes may be unfair, but I certainly think arbitrary preferences in the tax code are almost worse, especially when some people have a very difficult time making pivots to take advantage the advantage that others find it very easy to.  I think this sales tax issue highlights how truly complex interstate commerce has become (I spent several months with state taxes and they're far worse than federal in my opinion).

This is why I think smart federal tax & regulation is actually much more effective than 50 different states w/ 50 different regs/tax-codes.

Combine that with the fact that "states rights" has been more of a tool against individual freedom than for it, and I'm just fed up with the obsession with this aspect of our experimet.

The internet fuzzies all the economics up of this stuff.  It's obvious Amazon is gaming the system, as is google on the international front. Nothing wrong with that... though states are now left trying to procure funds to run their governments, and protectionism is essentally ensuing at this point.

[Benko]

Combine that with the fact that "states rights" has been more of a tool against individual freedom than for it,

As someone who across the board would rather most things be decided at the local rather than than national level, can you help me understand what you are referring to?

[Pointedstick]

I think transportation innovations and the internet are breaking down the concept of territorial governments. When borders can be easily crossed physically and effortlessly crossed electronically, the whole concept of a government having jurisdiction within its borders becomes a problematic concept. If a Texan uses a server in Canada to steal money from a victim in Belarus, which government has jurisdiction? Whose laws were violated? If a German sells a product to an American using a Chinese transit service, whose government should collect taxes on it? And what would those taxes even be paying for if the entire transportation infrastructure used in the transactions are privately-owned? If state governments are obsolete, I would posit that even national governments are increasingly becoming obsolete as well. They're a relic of a bygone era when movement and communication was difficult.

[dragoncar]

Ok, there's definitely a Wheaton eco scale thing going on when I'm talking with someone who doesn't believe there should be any government.  It's like talking to someone who doesn't believe they should have a face.  There's not much that can be accomplished in discussion.

[moda0306]

Benko,

The division of power of the Constitution was not just within the federal government itself, but between the federal and states.  The separation of powers within the federal government I find to be beautiful firewalls to prevent tyranny of the majority (or simply manipulation of the "democratic" process by those in power to serve their interests).  However, one could argue, further separations of power were necessary to ensure personal liberty, and that state governments were the tools to accomplish that. 

To test whether that has worked, I look at all the bad things the states have done and encouraged, and I look at all the most confiscatory and coercive behaviors out of the US government, I see the draft and foreign wars, the expansion of US land westward, possibly the income tax, Lincoln's disallowing of states to secede, confiscation/regulation done by FDR, as well as the creation of the federal reserve.  I'm not saying all these are 100% bad, or even mostly bad, but they're confiscatory and/or coercive.

Where have states tried to combat these expansions of the federal government?  Well, mainly only when the US government tried to deny the right of secession... but this leads me right into all the awful things states have done.  States of the South were essentially slavery-facilitating police states until 1865, and not that much better afterwards.  These state and local governments were simply tools of the plutocracy to steal massive amounts of life, liberty and property (intangible the latter might be) from 40% of the population to give it to a plutocratic superiority, as well as giving the rest of the whites a preferable social status, even if they didn't directly benefit.

So I see states as entities that complicate modern commerce, have never really done much to help limit the most agregious expansions of federal power (in different peoples' eyes... I think I used pretty fair examples of different peoples' opinions on what our federal gov't did wrong), and have done horrible things towards individual liberty and sovereignty (the only truly pure sovereignty IMO) in the name of "states rights" when convenient.

I'm not saying it doesn't scare me to think of what our federal gov't doing all the things our state gov'ts do would actually entail.  I'm just saying that this automatic assumption that "power divided is power checked," and faith in the sovereignty of state and local governments but not the federal just bothers me.  I hear all this business about how "the federal gov't should regulate/tax/safety-net/etc... it should be the states" and I really think they just mean NO level of government should do it.  Because confiscation at the federal level is confiscation at the local level.  Further, I've seen what it looks like when a company tries to comply with maybe-similar-but-not-quite-the-same state regulations vs complying with federal.  If we really want to make business owners lives easier, I'm not sure the answer is to hand a lot of the regulatory authority the federal government currently holds down to the state level.

I really think we should start with ultimate individual sovereignty, and after the realization that we're not nebulous entities floating through space, but a bunch of physical entities that have to share a physical space and natural resources, create the unfortunate entity of government as the exception, realizing that doing it a certain way will promote fairness and prosperity, while still keeping most of our rights (social contract).  Disconnected layers of government power are only one tool to accomplish that preservation of individual sovereignty, and I think certain aspects of the structure of those layers have been utter failures.  Certain aspects.

[Pointedstick]

Ok, there's definitely a Wheaton eco scale thing going on when I'm talking with someone who doesn't believe there should be any government.  It's like talking to someone who doesn't believe they should have a face.  There's not much that can be accomplished in discussion.

That's just my end goal. In the present time, I'm more than willing to discuss the actions of government… just be aware that all of my beliefs on what it should do are going to be orientated toward minimizing its effect on those it rules. For example, I would support a law that makes 100 people who currently pay taxes into only 50 people who pay taxes. That will probably seem "unfair" to many because now some are not paying while others are. But to me, that's moving toward more fairness, which I define as nobody paying any taxes.

So when, for example, Republicans grouse about 47% of people not paying income tax, I cheer with delight and wonder how to make that closer to 100%.

[moda0306]

PS,

What about something that shifts the tax load, but lowers the actual revenue collected?

[Pointedstick]

PS,

What about something that shifts the tax load, but lowers the actual revenue collected?

It depends. If the government replaced the income tax with a 100% tax on business profits, for example, that would certainly lower collected revenues, but it would destroy the domestic economy as businesspeople fled to foreign countries.

So I would have to balance the effects to make sure that, in my mind, the reductions in government oppression weren't outweighed by new or increased burdens on others.

[moda0306]

PS,

Also, how do you see land ownership taking form in your Utopia?  Even if we can establish that everyone would keep what they currently have, how would you think federal/state/local land would get divied up?  Who would get all the roads?  Would we even still use them?  Would they install tolls?  And they could "purchase" them, but from whom?  And with what currency, or do we even have one?  Do we worry about monopolies controlling too much of or road system if they CAN in fact engage in the purchase? Or do you believe monopolies can't occur without government?

I hope these don't sound snarky or condescending.  I may think the idea of no government is tremendously ill-thought-out and uninticing, but I'm legitimately and respectfully curious of your thoughts on all that.

I'd love to see a rough outline of your suggested transition to an anarchistic utopia... hypothetical "king for a day" stuff of course.

[Pointedstick]

Those are great questions, and I'd be happy to lay it all out, if only to clarify my own thinking, because it's not like this is something I've written a PhD thesis on or anything. I'll probably start another thread later today about it.

[dragoncar]

PS,

Also, how do you see land ownership taking form in your Utopia?  Even if we can establish that everyone would keep what they currently have, how would you think federal/state/local land would get divied up?  Who would get all the roads?  Would we even still use them?  Would they install tolls?  And they could "purchase" them, but from whom?  And with what currency, or do we even have one?  Do we worry about monopolies controlling too much of or road system if they CAN in fact engage in the purchase? Or do you believe monopolies can't occur without government?

I hope these don't sound snarky or condescending.  I may think the idea of no government is tremendously ill-thought-out and uninticing, but I'm legitimately and respectfully curious of your thoughts on all that.

I'd love to see a rough outline of your suggested transition to an anarchistic utopia... hypothetical "king for a day" stuff of course.

Don't worry about any of that -- worry about the nukes.

[Pointedstick]

PS,

Also, how do you see land ownership taking form in your Utopia?  Even if we can establish that everyone would keep what they currently have, how would you think federal/state/local land would get divied up?  Who would get all the roads?  Would we even still use them?  Would they install tolls?  And they could "purchase" them, but from whom?  And with what currency, or do we even have one?  Do we worry about monopolies controlling too much of or road system if they CAN in fact engage in the purchase? Or do you believe monopolies can't occur without government?

I hope these don't sound snarky or condescending.  I may think the idea of no government is tremendously ill-thought-out and uninticing, but I'm legitimately and respectfully curious of your thoughts on all that.

I'd love to see a rough outline of your suggested transition to an anarchistic utopia... hypothetical "king for a day" stuff of course.

Don't worry about any of that -- worry about the nukes.

I already do! I mean, have you seen the countries that have them? North Korea, Pakistan, The United States?? Who the heck trusts us with nuclear weapons?

[MachineGhost]

What?  You think it's fair for me to pay sales tax on a purchase you make out of state, because I live in the same state as the seller?  Am I misunderstanding you?
I don't know who "they" are... "they" reeks of Newspeak, evoking fear of the "other".  In reality, they is us.  We are a society.

Now, who's engaging in Newspeak by using "We are a society"?  Need I point out that as a "society" I am against this legislation so those that are pushing it "for my own good" do not speak for me and I did not authorize them to introduce such legislation?  But, I digress.

If you read the quotes by the co-sponsors of the legislation, they're all spouting off about "fairness" left and right.  In other words, they're capturing your mind by exploiting your concept of "fairness" and appropriating it for their own purposes.  I won't go so far as to say they are intentionally two-faced (most are too plumb dumb, honestly), but they will use any opportunity to further their own self-importance and power.  That is their job, after all.

Moreover, "they" did not say it was fair.  I did.  Having just heard about this whole thing based on your post, I guarantee that "they" didn't have time to brainwash me.  My belief in what is fair comes from my own independent analysis.

"They" don't have to brainwash you, only exploit the good of your character and the good of your pre-existing beliefs, to subjugate you.  That is what politicians excel at, after all.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in a rather scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less."  "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."  "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master -- that's all." [emphasis added]  -- Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass