Hit ‘send’ on e-tail sales tax
Goodlatte should use his committee chairmanship to help push through legislation allowing states to collect taxes due on out-of-state sales.
As new chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Bob Goodlatte will be at the center of debate on some of the biggest, most contentious issues likely to come before Congress this year — immigration reform and gun control, to name two.
Before he goes there, Goodlatte should resolve a far more mundane issue: e-tail sales tax equity.
Allow states to require that online businesses collect whatever sales taxes are due them, just as brick-and-mortar businesses must. As the law stands, Internet retailers don’t have to unless they have a physical presence in a state.
March 3, 2013 - 8:05 AM
Stop it with the taxing! I am surprised this is not presented as exploitation of the poor because the poor have limited access to the internet and thus cannot take advantage of internet buying. A perfect opportunity to push for nationwide broadband and computers for all…after all it would be seen as a right.
STOP IT WITH THE TAXING!
#1 Al, if the sales tax were applied to e-commerce, the overall sales tax rate could be lowered and the change could be revenue-neutral. It’s about fairness. You’re probably right that the current setup affects people in lower socioeconomic classes unfavorably. Maybe you’re becoming a progressive!
#2 NW….beside the obvious inconsistency of your post, when is the last time you saw a tax….a sales tax….go down?
“Of the 459 changes, 211 were tax increases, 167 were new taxes and 81 were decreases.”
–
This is from something called a “Vertex report”. Certainly increases were much more common but decreases are not rare. This data includes local sales taxes obviously. CA decreased theirs in 2011, there was talk of MA decreasing theirs this year. Obviously revenue losses would be recovered elsewhere. The point is that including sales tax on e-commerce CAN be part of reform.
The last time sales tax went down? Well the city of Roanoke just recently lowered the prepared food tax, which by definition is a sales tax, by 2%. I believe the drop in taxation went into effect in July 2012. So relatively recently Jim.
probably splitting hairs here but the 2% increase in the food tax was allowed to expire.
Are we talking about the removal of the temporary tax?
Exactly, Jim. It was put into place explicitly with an expiration date.
And we all know that taxes “put into place explicitly with an expiration date” always expire. Good point… Except of course when they don’t.
–
I am happy to see that you now admit that the Obama payroll tax holiday was just a tax holiday expiring and not a tax increase. Thanks.
#7 and #8, Jim and George, lots of tax laws have expiration dates but then when the expiration date approaches the matter is reconsidered. It was true of the Bush tax cuts as well as Roanoke’s prepared foods tax. Don’t you guys remember any of that?
And if I “remember” correctly, a majority of council had to be drug in to honor the “temporary” condition.
#10 I remember….I remember a tax decrease that was extended…..the exact opposite of what we are discussing here & thus my point.
And what part of any proposed (or advocated) “e-tail” tax is as such temporary?
Jim, you are not remembering correctly. The majority of council and school board felt it was important to honor the expiration. The push to keep it came from taxpayers. It did expire on time.
#12 You can talk circles around and around, but the basic fairness issue is still there. Why should someone have to pay sales tax on a book that they buy from one e-business and not another, just because one has a store in your state? I’d be in favor of just getting rid of the sales tax entirely and increasing the income tax to recover the revenue.
“The push to keep it came from taxpayers.”
Please provide statistically provable evidence. This is often what is reported out rather than the standard “it was decided that…”
#15 My money’s on Luanne remembering this better than either you or Jim.
I have no idea what you mean by “statistically provable evidence.” It was an issue during last year’s council races. Members of the public spoke during comment periods and wrote letters to the editor.
Editorially, we wrote that it should expire. A position also expressed by members of both the school board and city council.
For example, here is a snippet from a candidate forum news story:
“Forum moderator John Carlin asked all four council candidates what they thought about extending the two-cent-per-dollar “Eat For Education” meals tax increase that, after two years, is scheduled to sunset this summer.
“Bushnell has made a call for extending that increase permanently into the centerpiece of his campaign. He noted the candidates forum was being held in the building that had been home to Raleigh Court Elementary School until 2009, when it was closed because of budget shortfalls. The meals tax increase passed a year later helped buffer public schools from state cuts, he said, and did not hurt the bottom line for city restaurants.
“‘I am a huge proponent of the meals tax,” Bushnell said. “I think we have been able to adequately fund our school system, but my vision for what we can do with our school system is to take it beyond adequacy, beyond good enough.”
” Price said the council had promised to sunset the meals tax increase.
“‘A promise is a promise,” she said. However, she didn’t quite shut the door on the question of extending that increase, saying the decision ultimately was in the hands of “the citizens.”
“Rosen, who initially proposed the temporary increase back in 2010, said the schools have banked proceeds from the meals tax, along with money saved from finding more efficient ways to operate, and now have banked $12.5million. With that, he said, there’s no need to extend the increase.
“‘You don’t tax people just because you have the ability to and you can,” Rosen said. “You tax people because you need to. ? It’s important that we keep that commitment to our restaurants and our citizens.”
“Lea said the increase will sunset as scheduled and challenged Bushnell’s assertion that city schools are merely “adequate.”
“‘This council supports our school system better than any other urban locality in the state of Virginia,’ Lea said. ‘Forty percent of our tax revenue goes to our schools. We changed the formula for our schools. Our record on supporting our schools and our children, I think, should go without question.’ “
The point of the thread was the sales taxes not being collected and in the state coffers from purchases coming into the state. That should be fixed. It is unfair to the local “brick and mortar” stores and it is unfair for the states that have a retail presence who get the tax versus those that don’t have a retail presence and don’t get the taxes that should be collected. I daresay the honor system on our Virginia tax form is not working.
–
This could lead to higher taxes on those in state retail purchases or fewer people buying from in state retail stores. Neither is good. I do not see Goodlatte doing the “man up” thing here, but he should.
The point I am trying to make is to avoid phrases like “The push to keep it came from taxpayers.” It is true that “some of the push to keep it came from some of the taxpayers.” **or** there was A push to keep it that came from some taxpayers.
I am sure that the sampling of taxpayers speaking or writing in no where near enough to form any sort of sample of statistical significance. Was there a vote taken? Did the vote include all eligible taxpayers in the given populace?
Phrases like the above need to be used with caution, because they can easily be disproved.
Another famous one used by news outlets and advertisers is, for example:
“One of the best movies of 2013!”
Well of course it is, considering the set of movies to be considered is all those movies released for public consumption in 2013. UNLESS the movie in question is dead last (THE WORST), it is by definition “one of the best movies of 2013.
See how that works?
Luanne et al…..perhaps I did not word it well. The point is the tax was passed with an expiration date. Later this promised expiration date became a serious point of contention. This is bait & switch.
The fact that there was serious consideration, that could have gone either way, as to whether to honor the original passed bill is IMO the point here….at least the one I’m trying to make.
And, honestly, don’t think, “had to be drug in” within this context is any more hyperbolic than, “the push to keep it came from taxpayers”. Really? How many? Please quote any beyond the anecdotal LTE. Thanks.
Jim, I hesitate to weigh into any of the exchanges between all of you. I did so to point out that council did not at any point entertain a motion to continue the tax. The discussion was one that arose from members of the public who were concerned whether the schools would still be adequately funded.
Council and the school board did not consider a “bait and switch,” and desired to not be perceived as engaging in one. There was not serious consideration given by any member who actually could vote to keep the tax in place, so it could not have gone either way, as you allege.
You may have a point as to the expiration on other tax increases or cuts. (I recall writing when the Bush tax cuts had a 10-year expiration date, that, too, would not be lifted.) However, you are incorrect re: the Eat for Education tax.
Luanne…..the nuance between not letting expire & continuing…..illudes me. Thanks again.
It was considered. It was discussed. It was decided. It could have gone the other way.
Regardless…..back to the original point, it certainly was not a tax decrease.
Done. Last thanks.
#20 Jim I bet y’all were okay with “bait and switch” back when people were talking about extending the Bush tax cuts. As for quoting “beyond the anecdotal LTE” (whatever that means), I just re-read Luanne’s post #17 and it looks like the quotes all came from council candidates.
#23 You’re saying Bush didn’t cut taxes after all, because his tax cuts had an expiry date? Gee, I guess we have to remove that from his peerless legacy.
#24 There may be some small distinction between a ten year cut, limited by federal law (the Byrd law) and a one year “temporary” increase…..but such as it may or not be…..no, or when Obama extended.
LTE means, letter to editor….which Luanne cited as example of “the push to keep it came from taxpayers”.
As to the quotes coming from council members….that, sir, is my point.
#25 See above. Hope this helps.
I said council .candidates.
#27 NW….understood, sorry. In all honesty & no animosity think enforces point. The honoring of the expiration did indeed become a focal point not only in council elections….but mayoral. As reported extensively in the RT.
It’s easy for anyone to say in hindsight that the issue was pre-determined.