by: Diane Benjamin
First, from my perspective:
I have a company that writes Custom Software. No 2 customers have the same program, so in Illinois the software is tax exempt since it is considered labor. I sell the program in many states, and I have no idea if custom software is exempt in them too. This bill would require me to research every state and collect applicable tax and submit it to their state. It is difficult enough to comply with existing laws, but what happens when tax rates change? What about local taxes? All this bill does is create more bureaucrats.
According to the Heritage Foundation:
As the Wall Street Journal points out, “Some of our conservative friends are backing this Internet tax raid as a way to raise revenue to avoid more state income-tax increases.” The Marketplace Fairness Act is not conservative, nor is it fair. Ask your Representative, who is a co-sponsor of the bill, to reconsider.
- The Internet sales tax discriminates against Internet-based companies by forcing them to become tax collectors for out-of-state governments.
- There is nothing “fair” about exposing small, online businesses to audits from 46 (or more) different states.
- Lawmakers should leave competition to the free market under the existing rules of 21 years and not add a new tax collection burden to the Internet companies that form an important part of our economic future.
6 thoughts on “Aaron Schock is a co-sponser of Internet Tax Law”
Schock is a shill. Always has been, still is. No surprise here.
Call, Call, Call. At least 12 have called so far.
I called. Government is always looking for new ways to generate revenues…this is what they do best. If only we could get our elected officials to stop spending…then maybe…just maybe they would stop digging up ways to get more money out of the people and businessess.
The use tax in most states (like Illinois) has been on the books for many years. It is just that it is difficult for the states to collect it. What this law does is transfer the responsibility of collecting it from the buyer to the seller. The liability remains the same, the collection burden transfers.
Technically, it is more efficient for the sellers to collect the tax. The overall burden would decrease if this law were to go into effect. Theoretically, the overall tax (tax plus cost of collection) is less with this new law. In addition, the states will have a much higher likelihood of collecting the tax and significantly increase use tax revenues. Remember, the use tax is already in place, so we are not talking about the legality of the tax, just who is to assume the burden of collection.
I think an exemption for businesses with less than 50 employees and less than $10 million in sales (as advocated by eBay) might be a realistic compromise point. It’s an ugly solution, but better than the current state of affairs where most Americans are essentially tax evaders!
Please explain your assumption that most Americans are tax evaders. Anyone who purchases anything in this country including but not limited their mere survival such as food, water, clothing, shelter, and energy are paying taxes on these items. Therefore I do believe that your use of “most” Americans is an exaggeration.