http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/white-house-endorses-internet-sales…
So I have been following this and I think that it might pass. One thing you can always bet on is the government looking for more ways to suck money out of your wallets.
I am hoping that with the White House blessing this Republicans will rally against it.
Government theft knows no bounds.
| +22 | Funny Things to Say to Interns | 6 | 2d |
| +18 | SpaceX IPO - what are your thoughts | 2 | 4m |
| +18 | Should I use Claude or chatgpt? | 6 | 6h |
| +17 | London's future as a financial centre | 18 | 28m |
| +16 | How did you meet your significant other/partner? | 12 | 11h |
| +7 | Ferrari Luce | 7 | 1d |
| +7 | E ink/electronic notepads | 3 | 2d |
| +5 | get a model before you model | 3 | 10h |
| The Great Debate | 1 | 6h | |
| 0 | Anyone else here work out an extra hour everyday at the gym non-stop after putting in 100+ hours at the office? | 4 | 4d |
Career Resources
Get instant access to lessons taught by experienced private equity pros and bulge bracket investment bankers including financial statement modeling, DCF, M&A, LBO, Comps and Excel Modeling.
Seeing as I'm pretty conservative, taxes are usually something that I tote the party line for 99% of the time (low rates, broad base, few/no exemptions/exceptions). That being said, in this instance I think this is actually something I would be okay with.
First off, it's not "new" tax or a tax increase, it's collecting tax on the sale of items that, all things being equal, would have been taxed if they were bought in a state with sales tax. I think this does give an unfair advantage over brick and mortar shops selling the same product. I think it's funny that us Republicans preach about the greatness of small businesses, then be against something that would, at the very least, lessen the incentive to shop online versus going to the local mom & pop store. Plus whatever extra revenue the states get on those seems like a no brainer.
As much as you think this will not get Republican support, there are enough Republicans from states with sales taxes hurting for revenue that I think many will sign on to it and get it passed.
Big business is supporting this because it will make small business less competitive. Brick and morter likes to piss and moan, but they never complain about the benefit the get from having a physical location.
Forcing retailers to collect taxes for states where they have no physical nexus is bullshit. I'll tell you what. This is a tax that will be felt by all, not something I would want my name on.
You really should restate your first sentence as being directed towards "online" businesses, not businesses in general. While I won't argue that collecting sales tax for a state your not in can be burdensome for a business selling a majority of their products online, most accounting software these days people use can automatically add in the sales tax just based on the mailing zip code of the recipient. Besides, the capitalist in me says that if a small business cannot adapt to this change and survive, it probably shouldn't be in business in the first place. Those that do and survive this change will be stronger for it. And while you think brick and mortar stores have some kind of a advantage having a physical location, having a thousand store locations (like Wal-Mart) is going to be 10 times as expensive to operate as compared to a gigantic decentralized warehouse that online retailers such as Amazon can use.
If you are located in Oregon (a no sales tax state), and do 90% of your business online with residents of states with sales tax, you're saying you have zero responsibility to contribute to the states where you derive almost all of your economic activity? That doesn't sound like bullshit to me.
.
1) Wal-mart and the like have an online and in person presence. Is it more expensive? Yes. Does it provide benefit that an Amazon wouldn't have? Yes. If it had no benefit Wal-mart would simply close physical locations and replicate an Amazon model.
2) This hurts small business. Small businesses can't compete with Wal-mart physically and now that they are burdened with having to collect taxes for states where they have no nexus in they will be disadvantaged online.
If you are located in a state that doesn't charge sales tax you have no duty to charge tax for other states. It is the individuals responsibility to pay, which most avoid as their income is fundamentally theirs and not the governments.
State governments should worry less about sales tax being lost through online sales and more about the benefits and jobs created by companies taking advantage of e-commerce.
The argument here is really not comparable. First, Wal-Mart's business model is not identically replicable to Amazon's model because they don't sell close to the same stuff. Certainly, both Amazon and Wal-Mart sell things like books, movies, games, ect., but I don't imagine Amazon's revenues are made up in large part of clothing, food, large-home supplies, and other necessities like someone can find at a Wal-Mart (cause who's really ordered toilet paper or toothpaste via Amazon?). A better comparison would probably be Best Buy. Best Buy has both a physical location and an online presence, but it's been getting clobbered in sales compared to Amazon. Add in the fact that I have to 1) go to a Best Buy (if there is one in range), 2) risk the item I want not being in stock, 3) get ripped off compared to Amazon's pricing, and 4) pay sales tax (which can be up to 9-10% in some cases), I'm better off waiting to get my package shipped to me (most of the time for free). Now, the argument is not over business models, but the idea that a more physical-based business (like Best Buy) would get a (somewhat) more equal playing field to Amazon with the bill. Best Buy is still screwed IMO, but it shouldn't be because I can avoid .50 cents in tax on my purchase.
If I understand you right, it's okay to burden a small business that has a physical presence in a state selling goods in that state by force them to collect sales tax from their customers, but it's not fair to burden another small business, selling the exact same goods to the exact same customers in the same state, if they don't have a physical presence? That seems pretty counter-intuitive if your goal is to promote small business growth in general. By that logic you would support never taxing a company that does 100% of it's business in the US if it based solely in Mexico (and ships 100% of it's products to the US)? I can almost guarantee you that most states will move towards an economic-based nexus tax structure from physical-based nexus structure for this exact reason.
It seems like you have very strong feelings in regards to the role of government and taxes in people's lives, so there's probably no point in arguing over that. I feel government can play an important role in promoting things like promoting e-commerce to create jobs. Yet I don't understand how you think a government can promote job creation through e-commerce if all those businesses are avoiding contributing to the support of that state government. I suppose it's just an irreconcilable difference of opinion
Voluptates adipisci dolorum sapiente quo nemo qui. Quisquam dolor voluptates facere amet. Sint consequatur labore minus perferendis illum eius. Aut molestiae harum perferendis voluptatum. Voluptates possimus quia veniam. Autem maxime dolor nulla eveniet minus.
Itaque aut fugiat molestiae fugiat sequi unde. Possimus et quo sequi voluptas et debitis velit fuga.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...