4 ms·

There's a not-insignificant chance this will pass. Republican opinion on it is split -- they can get away with saying they're not reneging on no-tax-increase pl

There's a not-insignificant chance this will pass. Republican opinion on it is split -- they can get away with saying they're not reneging on no-tax-increase pledges because it's merely enforcement of tax laws already on the books (consumers are supposed to pay use tax on their out-of-state purchases). There's strong pressure on them from brick-and-mortar businesses in every state since it makes them more competitive with online retailers.

mullingitover 14y ago
So the republicans are in favor of closing tax loopholes now? Oh right, this is for consumers. I thought I woke up in an alternate universe where congress wasn't bought and paid for.
- Turing_Machine 14y ago
  This has nothing to do with "Republicans" (or Democrats, for that matter). It's high sales tax states v. low sales tax states.
  - mullingitover 14y ago
    The money the states are losing to lost sales tax revenues pale in comparison to the money lost to esoteric corporate tax loopholes. Those loopholes were sacrosanct to the republicans in recent negotiations over the debt ceiling, tantamount to a tax increase. In this case apparently it's ok with (many of) them.
    - duck 14y ago
      The money lost to esoteric corporate tax loopholes pale in comparison to the money lost to entitlements.
      - mullingitover 13y ago
        The thing about money "lost" to entitlements is that it's not really lost. It's spent immediately and generally contributes a great deal to the economy. On the other hand, money lost to tax loopholes generally ends up enriching people who are already wealthy and are less likely to circulate the extra capital.
    - twoodfin 14y ago
      Not that it matters at this point, but "closing loopholes" was not President Obama's tax position during the debt ceiling negotiations. He cleverly made a big deal about a penny-ante change to private jet depreciation, but the meat of his proposal was a combination of higher rates and lower deductions for high earners. Neither of which could be properly described as loophole-closing.
- smackfu 14y ago
  One of the Republicans constitutencies is small business owners, and they generally like the internet sales tax proposals, since it makes them more competitive with online stores.
  - mullingitover 14y ago
    True, but another republican core constituency is people who hate paying taxes, and I argue that it's a more important constituent group than the small business lobby. This might seem like a good move for the republicans now, but I suspect they'll regret it in primary season when their challenger can paint them as "the incumbent, who brought sales taxes to the internet."
Turing_Machine 14y ago
There's also a not-insignificant chance that the Supreme Court will throw it out if it does pass. These issues aren't new; most of them were hashed out back in the heyday of the Sears Catalog and other mail-order operations. As far as I know, no state ever managed to collect taxes from out-of-state companies.
- dangrossman 14y ago
  That's because the states had no jurisdiction over entities outside their boundaries with which to enforce tax collection. There's never been a federal bill giving it to them, and the federal government definitely has authority to regulate interstate commerce. On what grounds would the Supreme Court throw this out? The SC rulings on out-of-state taxes have always specifically said that Congress is free to make changes that would enable tax collection. E.g. Quill v North Dakota: > [O]ur decision is made easier by the fact that the underlying issue is not only one that Congress may be better qualified to resolve, but also one that Congress has the ultimate power to resolve. No matter how we evaluate the burdens that use taxes impose on interstate commerce, Congress remains free to disagree with our conclusions
  - Turing_Machine 14y ago
    "the federal government definitely has authority to regulate interstate commerce" Agreed, but that's not what they're doing. They're granting authority to one state to regulate commerce in another state. They might have the authority to enact a national sales tax paid to the federal government (but then again, they might not -- note that the income tax required an actual constitutional amendment), but I don't think they can make citizens of one state subject to the tax (or other) laws of another. If they do have that power, how far does it go? Can the feds require that you abide by all the laws of (insert least favorite state) even though you've never set foot in it?
    - tzs 14y ago
      No, they were quite clear in Quill [1] that Congress can do this. ------------ This aspect of our decision is made easier by the fact that the underlying issue is not only one that Congress may be better qualified to resolve, 10 but also one that Congress has the ultimate power to resolve. No matter how we evaluate the burdens that use taxes impose on interstate commerce, Congress remains free to disagree with our conclusions. See Prudential Insurance Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U.S. 408 (1946). Indeed, in recent years, Congress has considered legislation that would "overrule" the Bellas Hess rule. 11 Its decision not to take action in this direction may, of course, have been dictated by respect for our holding in Bellas Hess that the Due Process Clause prohibits States from imposing such taxes, but today we have put that problem to rest. Accordingly, Congress is now free to decide whether, when, and to what extent the States may burden interstate mail-order concerns with a duty to collect use taxes. Indeed, even if we were convinced that Bellas Hess was inconsistent with our Commerce Clause jurisprudence, "this very fact [might] giv[e us] pause and counse[l] withholding our hand, at least for now. Congress has the power to protect interstate commerce from intolerable or even undesirable burdens." Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S., at 637 (1981) (WHITE, J., concurring). In this situation, it [504 U.S. 298, 319] may be that "the better part of both wisdom and valor is to respect the judgment of the other branches of the Government." Id., at 638. ------------ [1] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=504&invol=298 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&#3...

mullingitover 14y ago

So the republicans are in favor of closing tax loopholes now? Oh right, this is for consumers. I thought I woke up in an alternate universe where congress wasn't bought and paid for.

Turing_Machine 14y ago
This has nothing to do with "Republicans" (or Democrats, for that matter). It's high sales tax states v. low sales tax states.
- mullingitover 14y ago
  The money the states are losing to lost sales tax revenues pale in comparison to the money lost to esoteric corporate tax loopholes. Those loopholes were sacrosanct to the republicans in recent negotiations over the debt ceiling, tantamount to a tax increase. In this case apparently it's ok with (many of) them.
  - duck 14y ago
    The money lost to esoteric corporate tax loopholes pale in comparison to the money lost to entitlements.
    - mullingitover 13y ago
      The thing about money "lost" to entitlements is that it's not really lost. It's spent immediately and generally contributes a great deal to the economy. On the other hand, money lost to tax loopholes generally ends up enriching people who are already wealthy and are less likely to circulate the extra capital.
  - twoodfin 14y ago
    Not that it matters at this point, but "closing loopholes" was not President Obama's tax position during the debt ceiling negotiations. He cleverly made a big deal about a penny-ante change to private jet depreciation, but the meat of his proposal was a combination of higher rates and lower deductions for high earners. Neither of which could be properly described as loophole-closing.
smackfu 14y ago
One of the Republicans constitutencies is small business owners, and they generally like the internet sales tax proposals, since it makes them more competitive with online stores.
- mullingitover 14y ago
  True, but another republican core constituency is people who hate paying taxes, and I argue that it's a more important constituent group than the small business lobby. This might seem like a good move for the republicans now, but I suspect they'll regret it in primary season when their challenger can paint them as "the incumbent, who brought sales taxes to the internet."

Turing_Machine 14y ago

There's also a not-insignificant chance that the Supreme Court will throw it out if it does pass. These issues aren't new; most of them were hashed out back in the heyday of the Sears Catalog and other mail-order operations. As far as I know, no state ever managed to collect taxes from out-of-state companies.

dangrossman 14y ago
That's because the states had no jurisdiction over entities outside their boundaries with which to enforce tax collection. There's never been a federal bill giving it to them, and the federal government definitely has authority to regulate interstate commerce. On what grounds would the Supreme Court throw this out? The SC rulings on out-of-state taxes have always specifically said that Congress is free to make changes that would enable tax collection. E.g. Quill v North Dakota: > [O]ur decision is made easier by the fact that the underlying issue is not only one that Congress may be better qualified to resolve, but also one that Congress has the ultimate power to resolve. No matter how we evaluate the burdens that use taxes impose on interstate commerce, Congress remains free to disagree with our conclusions
- Turing_Machine 14y ago
  "the federal government definitely has authority to regulate interstate commerce" Agreed, but that's not what they're doing. They're granting authority to one state to regulate commerce in another state. They might have the authority to enact a national sales tax paid to the federal government (but then again, they might not -- note that the income tax required an actual constitutional amendment), but I don't think they can make citizens of one state subject to the tax (or other) laws of another. If they do have that power, how far does it go? Can the feds require that you abide by all the laws of (insert least favorite state) even though you've never set foot in it?
  - tzs 14y ago
    No, they were quite clear in Quill [1] that Congress can do this. ------------ This aspect of our decision is made easier by the fact that the underlying issue is not only one that Congress may be better qualified to resolve, 10 but also one that Congress has the ultimate power to resolve. No matter how we evaluate the burdens that use taxes impose on interstate commerce, Congress remains free to disagree with our conclusions. See Prudential Insurance Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U.S. 408 (1946). Indeed, in recent years, Congress has considered legislation that would "overrule" the Bellas Hess rule. 11 Its decision not to take action in this direction may, of course, have been dictated by respect for our holding in Bellas Hess that the Due Process Clause prohibits States from imposing such taxes, but today we have put that problem to rest. Accordingly, Congress is now free to decide whether, when, and to what extent the States may burden interstate mail-order concerns with a duty to collect use taxes. Indeed, even if we were convinced that Bellas Hess was inconsistent with our Commerce Clause jurisprudence, "this very fact [might] giv[e us] pause and counse[l] withholding our hand, at least for now. Congress has the power to protect interstate commerce from intolerable or even undesirable burdens." Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U.S., at 637 (1981) (WHITE, J., concurring). In this situation, it [504 U.S. 298, 319] may be that "the better part of both wisdom and valor is to respect the judgment of the other branches of the Government." Id., at 638. ------------ [1] http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=504&invol=298 http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&#3...