Online Sales Tax - the Most Wrongheaded, Socialist Editorial --- Ever.

A good portion of our business is done by online buyers from other states and countries, this is just a red herring to grab more money. We do not want to be tax collectors for any more states than the one we have to deal with now.
Doesn't BullMoose sell online, who ate they taking business away from?

The phenomenon isn't new. It was encountered at the turn of the century when the Sears Roebuck catalog started encroaching on sales from the local dry-goods store.

I agree with editorial - while we have a republican Legislature.

The Governor can use the new sales tax revenue to buy down the income tax - or the Legislature can lower the sales tax as a result of the new revenue.

This is money that is already legally owed. - Let's use it to lower other taxes.

Maine has a use tax we are supposed to pay when we do our taxes.
Don't we all have that in mind every time we contemplate an online order from an out of state business?

Tardus, it is an assumption that there will be an increase in tax revenue. Call me skeptical.

Islander--it is actually well researched. (Go easy on me Economike) In Maine - it ranges from 35 - 60 million a year on online sales TAXES---and it is growing significantly.

You know - another way to look at this - by looking the other way on the sales tax--the state is in essence subsidizing Amazon and companies like it.

That is certainly - ok---but I guess I would prefer to use tax revenues differently - either lower the sales tax rates for everyone with that money or lower another tax.

The report I read is here: http://www.hudson.org/files/publications/112911HannsFutureMarketplaceRel...

Maine is not subsidizing Amazon.
It's not amazon's fault that Maine can't enforce its use-tax, and it's not amazon's obligation to help the state with that.
The numbers you report amount to about $2.5 million at 5% tax. Really? this is worth putting a new federal mandate in place?

Well, it is a subsidy--regardless of the motives.

And the 35-60 million number is the TAX--not the sales---sorry for the confusion.

These are not federal mandates---the federal mandate is now in place---this lifts the mandates and let's States decide.

Maine could decide to exempt the tax if they would like to.

Part of this is not mentioned in that larger retailers LL,Sears,others who are in OL sales if they have a store inMaine you pay use tax when you order.
Rockler a wood working catalogue has a store in Maine if I order from them I pay tax!

Example:Other than that,when i look for a screen protector for a device and they are $ 10 to $30 dollars here locally and can go online and get three for 6 dollars guess where my money gets spent!
In this economy that so many complain about it is every penny counts leave this alone,stop punishing success!

The lower 45% not paying any federal income tax is a subsidy then, I suppose.

Mel - agreed---of course you would also need to add in food stamps, section 8 housing, MaineCare, TANF, Earned Income Tax Credit, etc....

All the socialists and liberals look at raising taxes to cure every ill. What is wrong with lowering our expectations of being handed everything with the government taking a large chunk of it for their share. It would be much better to stop these excessive giveaways and have people think and act for themselves as our founding fathers envisioned. Why do we need welfare for those to lazy to work? Why do we need Mainecare for those who can afford their own health insurance? Why do we need costly fire departments to run to every smoke alarm and CO2 alarm. It is all waste that lazy, inconsiderate,worthless people need to survive. I say let them die if they can't fend for themselves. The nation would be better off with out that kind.

There now I feel better!

Gaffer---it is not a new tax - it is an existing sales tax that state's are not allowed to collect. I'm just saying why not let Maine decide what it wants to do with the tax--not the feds. I really believe that Governor would use the revenue to lower taxes even more. This change is coming, I would rather see it when Governor Lepage is on office.

Tardus, seems to me that if they KNOW how much tax revenue is not being collected then they would be enforcing the use tax a little harder.

Gaffer:
It's not wrong to feel that way but they,( whoever they is ) say it's wrong to say it.
But thanks for saying so. Have another coffee.

While it's easy to buy online, no tax, and it comes to my door; I have to wait for it, and I have to pay freight.
Locally there's tax, I have to go get it, but I can do all that today. Walmart on sale is just as cheap as Marden's after the 35 mile drive.
Why shouldn't we have to pay the state tax wherever the product comes from? I mean, if you order it from a website in Ohio and it's shipped fron Idaho, then pay the Idaho tax. Just the same as if you walked in off the street and bought it in person.

Calvin, that is to easy and way to much common sense. What they want is for you and I to pay the tax in our home state no matter where you bought the product.

Rep Stacey Fitts has a letter to the Editor in todays Bangor Daily News (sorry I don't have a link at the moment) in which he says the state "deserves" this tax money.

Rep Fitts, "I" decide who "deserves" my money, thank you!

WC

No more involuntary extortion, thank you very much. No more forced redistribution of wealth.

Americans shouldn't be subject to any further forced taxation . . . .

Unless, of course, we're talking about non-profits!

What irks me is those people who think they are entitled to a transaction between me and someone else. Whose right is it to force me to pay a portion of my goods to a third party who squanders it aimlessly on other people.

If I buy something from Amazon, then keep your nose out of my business, since it is none of your business what I am buying or for what reason.

If you really want to help, get the deadbeats off the public dole and make better use of public money, of which my private transaction should not be part.

If I buy something from Amazon, then keep your nose out of my business, since it is none of your business what I am buying or for what reason.

Well, thats not entirely true.

The credit card company sells your purchasing history, amazon sells your purchasing history, your isp sells what websites you visit, etc. There are people willing to pay for this info and people willing to sell it.

Tardus - I know this idea isn't new. That doesn't make it right.

if you read the editorial, these people want to dictate where you spend your own money. They make it clear they feel "entitled" to direct the location of the sales, and to collect the tax.

The entire premise is about depriving us of liberties, in order to fund their preference on how the money is then spent.

They call it a solution to "unfair competition." I call it an un-American power and money-grab.

I wonder what the average OL purchase amount is.

Well, it is a subsidy--regardless of the motives.

...it is an existing sales tax that state's are not allowed to collect.

Suppose, just for supposing, that Maine imposed a "use tax" on food and entertainment consumed by Maine residents while absent from Maine. For example, when you returned from your Carribean cruise, you'd owe 7% of the cost of your vacation to Maine Revenue Services. If one accepts that such a tax is legally possible, doesn't it follow that Maine is subsidizing Carnival Cruises - and harming in-state restaurants and hotels - by not imposing such a tax?

My point is that the subsidy argument is a slippery one. In reality, tax policy is a matter of practicality and convention. A government can collect taxes on only transactions (1) within its purview and (2) which aren't so burdensome that most taxpayers will seek to avoid them. Effective tax policy requires compliance. To the degree taxpayers enjoy mobility from burdensome taxes, they will avoid those taxes.

A far more important consideration underlying the internet sales tax question involves the balance-of-power between the state and the individual. If Maine is to impose a sales tax on a resident who shops online, Maine must enlist the enforcement powers of the federal government or, at least, must conspire with other states to collect the tax. I think this is the crux of the matter: an internet sales tax requires an expansion of government power. There are political and economic reasons to oppose such an increase in the state's authority.

I wrote that "to the degree taxpayers enjoy mobility from burdensome taxes, they will avoid those taxes." I would add that to the degree that government can impose burdensome taxes, it will. The fact that shopppers can go elsewhere - either physically or online - to find lower tax costs for their purchases fosters a healthy competition among tax jurisdictions and keeps tax costs lower for consumers everywhere. To the degree that jurisdictions can cooperate to collect taxes, individual freedom and prosperity suffer. Of course, those who believe that government takes priority over the individual will disagree.

Here's a quote from Gene Sperling, an official of the Obama administration:

“.... we need a global minimum tax so that people have the assurance that nobody is escaping doing their fair share as part of a race to the bottom or having our tax code actually subsidized and facilitate people moving their funds to tax havens," Sperling said.

Does everyone see that the "fair share" argument for a global minimum tax is the same argument for an internet sales tax?

Economike - bravo --- so well said. Thank you!

***********

I suspect the amount if growing, Bruce, because companies like Amazon make it very easy to get free shipping. Their threshold is $25. It's very fast, too.

As Mainemom pointed out, we already have the Usury Tax line on our annual returns. Maine citizens are supposed to pay the sales tax from their online purchases at that time.

As opposed to the editorial's claims, the Socialist online proposal would create new taxes, because many online companies do not collect such a tax now.

TRADUS - "it ranges from 35 - 60 million a year on online sales TAXES"

So you're saying that $1.2 Billion in internet sales goes unreported in Maine every year?

GOP Maine governor urges Snowe and Collins to support online sales tax
By Brendan Sasso - 03/20/12 10:43 AM ET

In a letter released Tuesday, Maine Gov. Paul LePage (R) urged his state's two senators, Olympia Snowe (R) and Susan Collins (R), to support legislation to allow states to tax online purchases.

"I have pledged to lower Maine income taxes and stop wasteful government spending," LePage wrote. "One powerful tool in achieving these goals would be to have the ability to collect taxes that are due."

http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/216945-gop-maine-gov...

And that about wraps it up...it's amazing to see just how abruptly this thread came to a screeching halt.

I would think most people buy online for the convienvce of being able to get things not available locally, not to avoid sales tax.

Buying online is most convenient for the choice of what is available at what price. Both shipping charges and taxes are consideration in the price.

Well run local stores can have their own advantages, but to the extent that the off-line businesses can't compete with those using modern technology, taxing their competitors is not going to help them and is a diversion with scapegoating, it will only further punish the rest of us and drag everyone down as the less competitive linger too long.

The massive unpopularity and resistance to online sales taxes ought to be sending politicians a message to lower sales taxes, not go after internet users for more taxes. They are disingenuous: government drooling over internet taxes is their own drooling over more of a tax take; if they were motivated to not be unfair to local businesses they would be concerned with removing existing taxes and controls.

I bet they don;t waste time on this new Hampshire. I wonder how they manage to have roads, police, schools and fire protection there without all of these onerous taxes. Maybe there are no Violettes or McCormicks throwing away tax/toll money there.