To no one’s surprise, New York and California are two of the top three biggest states taxing Internet sales, according to a new report from Forbes magazine. The publication released its list of the top 10 states imposing sales taxes on ecommerce transactions. Texas, which may turn some heads for being on this list, is also in the top three.
Here is the entire top 10 list:
1. California
2. Texas
3. New York
4. Illinois
5. Pennsylvania
6. Georgia
7. North Carolina
8. New Jersey
9. Virginia
10. Massachusetts
Congress has attempted to institute an Internet sales tax to ensure a fair and equitable marketplace. There is legislation called the “Marketplace Fairness Act.” The common argument is that why should a retailer who pays rent and property taxes be taxed while online retailers can avoid such expenses and taxes.
The other common argument is that the likes of Amazon endorses the idea of an Internet sales tax. Of course it would. If a smaller retailer is mandated to pay taxes they can’t afford then they’ll have to shut down, and thus Amazon has one less competitor. Amazon, a multi-billion-dollar company, can absorb the costs. It’s akin to major corporations supporting a higher mandated minimum wage: their small business competitors down the street can’t afford higher labor costs, but the billion-dollar company can.
Small companies can choose to benefit from free sales tax automation. What’s your point? Calculating collecting and remitting sales taxes already legally due on all remote transactions is simple. Or are you trying to make an argument claiming that supporting tax evasion is Constitutional? Do you really believe that modern API protocols that already enable realtime shipping to over 10,000 different jurisdictions cannot provide real time sales tax automation? The same API protocols technologies also enable real time Credit card pocessing.
Oh, please do not respond by citing the outdated 1997 study claiming it will cost retailers thousands to comply. The year is 2015/2016 and freely available technologies easily and freely eliminate compliance burdens that were costly in 1997. That is what is commonly referred to as progress and innovation. The same innovations that enable Internet retailers to sell over four times as much product as a brick and mortar retailer with similar labor costs.
So it seems what you Mr. Moran are saying is using technogy to collect payments and streamline shipping is great, but using the same technologies to collect sales tax that will eliminate online merchants unintended prices advantages are bad. The same technologies already being utilized by tens of thousands Internet retailers of all sizes to automate sales tax processing. I welcome you to explain how free sales tax automation is so difficult. “Sorry Charlie”, pardon me Mr. Moran, you might want to try a less hypocritical position. It is not your job to choose how or when efficient technologies can benefit one business model over another. Just as it is not the job of Congress to mantain outdated inefficient tax policy that benefits one business over another.
Other than whinning about it, please provide a solution to the disparity that exists due to the current sales tax policies. As I see it States are only left with increasing Income, property and other harmful taxes and fees to compensate for the amount of unintentional and intentionally evaded sales tax dollars on Remote Internet transactions.
So are you suggesting that States should eliminate all consumption taxes and enact higher Income and property taxes instead?
My position is simple. Allow states to determine and efficiently enforce their existing tax policies. That is the job of Congress. It is not The job of Congress to dictate States’ tax policies. Congress should immediately pass Efairness legislation granting States’ rights to enforce existing tax policies.
I live in Montana, we do not have a sales tax, so if I buy something from a business in TX I should not be charged sales tax. I do not live in TX and do not benefit from taxes paid in the state. Also, I do not believe sales tax should be charged in the state of the sale, but in the state of the purchaser, that way they will benefit from the taxes collected.
No, because that places an unfair tax burden on the individual consumer by focusing taxes on purchaser, not seller.
There’s just no way to dance around the, ‘ONLY MY market share domain control’ dysfunctional real time market gridlock and saturation realities on the streets globally anymore, boss.
How does it do that. If he makes a purchases in his state at a store, he has to pay sales tax if one is levied. If he makes a purchase on line and his state taxes that purchase the revenue goes to his state.
” The other common argument is that the likes of Amazon endorses the idea of an Internet sales tax. Of course it would. If a smaller retailer is mandated to pay taxes they can’t afford then they’ll have to shut down, and thus Amazon has one less competitor.”
This argument does not hold up. The small business owner does not pay the tax, the buyer pays all sales tax on transactions at the retail level, not the business owner.