TeaBaggers Will Vote To Raise Taxes !!!!!

Originally posted by normbenign
"The company in a state with no sales taxes that sells to consumers in a State with sales taxes doesn't have to "collect" sales taxes from customers in that State. All they have to do is forward to the State imposing those sales taxes, the sales tax that that State requires for sales into that State."

Yes they could do that, if they are so profitable t and which is negating a competitive advantage they gained for locating where they did.

Their "competitive advantage" is based on making a sale in a State with a sales tax where they don't have to collect the sales tax, but businesses in the State that sell to the exact same customer do. That is an unfair advantage.

Originally posted by normbenign
Oh that is a great deal. They can avoid doing unpaid work by just quitting.

It's the exact same deal that any other business selling to a customer in State A gets.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Their "competitive advantage" is based on making a sale in a State with a sales tax where they don't have to collect the sales tax, but businesses in the State that sell to the exact same customer do. That is an unfair advantage.

The business model is based on this reality regardless of how it originated. Changing the circumstance ex post facto, doesn't appear to be good policy. As things turn out, the sales tax advantage is usually counterbalanced by shipping and handling charges, but the competition of additional providers, brick and mortar locals and internet seems to be an overall good for consumers which may go away. And please it is insulting to portray this as a move to "fairness". It is transparently an attempt to grab more $ for government entities.

Originally posted by no1marauder
It's the exact same deal that any other business selling to a customer in State A gets.

Not quite true, as border area vendors can still, for now, gain the advantage of not dealing with sales tax, and attracting consumers from the taxing State.

http://www.simon.com/mall/the-mall-at-rockingham-park

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pheasant_Lane_Mall

The locations are no accident. They account for a huge portion of New Hampshire retail, much of it coming from Greater Boston area consumers, who pay a 6.25% sales tax.

There are a number of border state situations besides this one that I happen to be familiar with having lived in Lowell, Mass.

Originally posted by normbenign
The business model is based on this reality regardless of how it originated. Changing the circumstance ex post facto, doesn't appear to be good policy. As things turn out, the sales tax advantage is usually counterbalanced by shipping and handling charges, but the competition of additional providers, brick and mortar locals and internet seems to be an o ...[text shortened]... a move to "fairness". It is transparently an attempt to grab more $ for government entities.

That their business model was based on an unfair loophole which is about to be closed is too bad. The taxes are already legally owed but the present measures to collect them are grossly inefficient. Sorry to insult you, but this is a fairness issue whether you want to cry a river or not. Sure States will actually collect the proper amount of sales taxes but that does not mean ending the present unfair situation isn't desirable and beneficial to small retailers.

Originally posted by normbenign
Not quite true, as border area vendors can still, for now, gain the advantage of not dealing with sales tax, and attracting consumers from the taxing State.

http://www.simon.com/mall/the-mall-at-rockingham-park

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pheasant_Lane_Mall

The locations are no accident. They account for a huge portion of New Hampshire retail, ...[text shortened]... tate situations besides this one that I happen to be familiar with having lived in Lowell, Mass.

I suggest you re-read my sentence; your examples do not refute it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
That their business model was based on an unfair loophole which is about to be closed is too bad. The taxes are already legally owed but the present measures to collect them are grossly inefficient. Sorry to insult you, but this is a fairness issue whether you want to cry a river or not. Sure States will actually collect the proper amount of sales taxes ...[text shortened]... not mean ending the present unfair situation isn't desirable and beneficial to small retailers.

"Sorry to insult you, but this is a fairness issue whether you want to cry a river or not. Sure States will actually collect the proper amount of sales taxes but that does not mean ending the present unfair situation isn't desirable and beneficial to small retailers."

No insult taken, but as usual "fairness" is directed at one group, by being unfair to another. The growth of e-trade is a huge part of American consumerism now, and I suspect that any move in Congress comes not from the TEA party, but from the administration which favors breaking down the private sector, and consolidation by all means.

Americans are employed in all of the various sectors, e-trade, brick and mortal big retail, and small local competitors. Each offer distinct advantages and disadvantages to consumers, but it is typical of big government not to look at the overall consequences of their actions.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I suggest you re-read my sentence; your examples do not refute it.

These are examples of where the consumer can avoid both taxation and shipping charges. How do you go about making them do work, or close shop, to collect sales tax?

The only way I can see is border check points. Your papers please! Do you have merchandise to declare? We in Detroit are all too familiar with this, as until 9/11 crossing into Canada for shopping was pretty common, and for most of my life the premium on the American dollar made the trip worthwhile.

Originally posted by normbenign
"Sorry to insult you, but this is a fairness issue whether you want to cry a river or not. Sure States will actually collect the proper amount of sales taxes but that does not mean ending the present unfair situation isn't desirable and beneficial to small retailers."

No insult taken, but as usual "fairness" is directed at one group, by being unfair to ...[text shortened]... t it is typical of big government not to look at the overall consequences of their actions.

Of course the move doesn't come from the Tea Party. Nor does it come from the Obama administration. It comes from A) Retailers and B) State governments.

If one group has received unwarranted preferential treatment in the past they always complain that it is "unfair" when such unwarranted preferential treatment is ended. But fairness in this case is based on treating similarly situated businesses the same.

Originally posted by normbenign
These are examples of where the consumer can avoid both taxation and shipping charges. How do you go about making them do work, or close shop, to collect sales tax?

The only way I can see is border check points. Your papers please! Do you have merchandise to declare? We in Detroit are all too familiar with this, as until 9/11 crossing into Canada fo ...[text shortened]... tty common, and for most of my life the premium on the American dollar made the trip worthwhile.

No one is saying they should so this is a Strawman argument.

Originally posted by no1marauder
No one is saying they should so this is a Strawman argument.

Not so! The argument is always made by Democratic State legislators everywhere that they lose sales tax to travelers, and to e-trade. That you don't know about it is just ignorance.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Of course the move doesn't come from the Tea Party. Nor does it come from the Obama administration. It comes from A) Retailers and B) State governments.

Who is pushing the effort in Congress?

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-07-08/business/35487298_1_traditional-retailers-sales-tax-online-retailers

This says bipartisan support.

The article also fails to note any advantages enjoyed by brick and mortar retailers. Such as: ease of exchange or return, see feel and try the product, have the product immediately. The only advantage of on line buying is cost, and small at that, due to shipping charges.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2013/04/26/online-sales-tax-senate-delays/2114667/

A bit more balance perspective which lists some of the opponents, but not the sponsors of the bill.

Originally posted by normbenign
Who is pushing the effort in Congress?

The two groups I indicated. The prime sponsor is a Wyoming Republican. From the link sh76 gave on page 1:

The bill's main sponsor is Sen. Mike Enzi, a conservative Republican from Wyoming. He is working closely with Sen. Dick Durbin, a liberal Democrat from Illinois. Both senators say the bill is about fairness for local businesses that already collect sales taxes, and lost revenue for states.

Originally posted by normbenign
Not so! The argument is always made by Democratic State legislators everywhere that they lose sales tax to travelers, and to e-trade. That you don't know about it is just ignorance.

🙄

Yeah I didn't know people in State A sometimes go to State B-Z to shop!

You really are an idiot.

Originally posted by no1marauder
🙄

Yeah I didn't know people in State A sometimes go to State B-Z to shop!

You really are an idiot.

Your usual response to a losing argument, " You really are an idiot."