Disagree with you fundamentally.  Commerce exists in areas most rational people would consider beyond the pale of society and while certainly part of the motivation to organize isn't the sole factor.  Society is founded on a shared set of beliefs, mutual interests (read commerce), and in democratic societies, a explicit agreement between citizens and the government.  Citizens in these states empowered their government to act in their mutual interest.  This law simply gives teeth to an agreement that citizens have already entered into.  If they object to the law, they are free to move.  That is the nature of our civil society.  The debt you are referencing was likewise obtained through the actions of a government empowered under free and fair elections to render such decisions.  You agreement or disagreement with an individual reason for borrowing that money is irrelevant.  We borrowed it as a nation and we have an obligation to honor that debt.  

Quoting you further DR "As for the agreements made by our forefathers, government has exceeded them decades ago".  True as we have expanded a number of other rights as our society has grown and adapted but the basic premise remains and is affirmed through voting.  We have chosen to step over the original line as a society.  That's the nature of a democracy.

One last quote: "As if they were entitled to that... lol."  Actually, they are entitled to that money under the law.  That's the whole point of the bill.  They are seeking redress for money that is rightfully owed to them under the laws of the state.

I like Doc's wrong interpretation of the bill, that would actually be the sensible way to do things.

Sales taxes are collected based on the point of sale for a reason.  Your point of sale isn't the chair your ass is sitting on, it's the warehousing complex that ships you your goods.  The only thing that sees your locality is the truck it's delivered on.  Said truck is paying the same fuel taxes everyone else is to maintain the roadways it's using.  The place of business is not.  It uses the local power grid and waterways, pumps it's sewage into the local sewers, and partakes of the local emergency services when a problem arises.  It's employees that are also using said services also partake of them locally.  The costs on society are all at the location of the business, it's theft for another state to be stealing the gains from their economic activity.  It's also unconstitutional, but they've been wiping their asses with that particular document long enough that it's probably not even occurred to them that this bill violates one of the primary requirements of congress.

The idea that that would make everyone tax more is quite the farce.  What would happen is Amazon would immediately vacate it's high tax state and go somewhere sane.  Amazon can relocate just fine, millions of people can't.

Enforcing the sales tax on you even when you're shopping somewhere else is just the nature of politicians.  They're scum sucking little ass wipes that will do anything to blow more of your money buying power.  Buying somewhere else is a check on your locality's ability to screw you.  They're just upset because it's getting easy enough that they'll have to stop reaming people eventually.  They like how easy it is to get away with absurdly high sales taxes.  People piss and moan about how much the Feds are hosing them for, but the local governments are often screwing them out of just as much in sales taxes they'll bleeding vote for.

You point is logical Psychoak but i don't fully agree.  The state where the goods are being sold bears the financial burden of the enterprise but it also does gain revenue from the business to offset that cost through property taxes, income taxes on the employees who work there etc.  So no real screwing going on there that I can see as the state where the business is located has an agreed upon relationship with the business.  The person who is avoiding the state sales tax while sitting in their home is "screwing" someone though.  They have a legal obligation to report and pay taxes on that money.  They just aren't currently (in most cases) due to the complexity of tracking it or the lack of oversight.  The bill addresses both by forcing the business to assume responsibility for the collection of the tax as they do with normal sales taxes.

Quoting Psychoak: "The idea that that would make everyone tax more is quite the farce.  What would happen is Amazon would immediately vacate it's high tax state and go somewhere sane.  Amazon can relocate just fine, millions of people can't."  Disagree and agree.  Amazon is a collection of employees (some of them highly skilled) and equipment.  You can't eailyy relocate it anymore than a person can easily pick up and leave.  It is possible in both cases if the situation is intolerable (as i stated previously) but realistically, the business and the customer would likely take a different approach to object rather than physical relocation.  

Finally I agree that politicians are rarely worthy of praise, but I think that asserting that their sole purpose in office is to "screw you" or "blow more of your buying power" is a bit off base.  Government exists to serve the people.  We the people vote for these people.  If you want to affect change, vote out these corporate sycophants and push lobbyists out of the halls of power.  Let citizen money elect politicians not big oil/pharma etc or on the reverse union bosses etc.  and then hold them accountable for their actions.

From this article, 1st paragraph (thanks for the link by the way):

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2013/04/e-commerce

"if enacted, would allow states to collect taxes on sales by internet retailers based in other states."

I understand this to mean that Amazon etc would collect sales tax from the customers based on the states in which the customers are located and remit to those states accordingly.  It would not matter where Amazon is.

I agree with UTPriest that the issue is not whether or not states are "allowed" or "entitled" to collect sales tax on orders shipped in.  The issue is whether or not states are allowed to require out of state retailers to collect and remit sales taxes for and to those states (and audit accordingly).  Since this particular issue has already been addressed by the Supreme Court I would have to say that The Supreme Court's findings should stand until revisited and reversed.  In that regard I'm in agreement with the Doc - I long ago grew tired of legislatures ignoring and sidestepping the Supreme Court based upon the desires of the day, regardless of which side of the fence is doing it.  The Supreme Court is there for a reason and it's an integral part of the process.

So there's my take on it, and it's worth almost as much as the cyber-bytes it occupies.

And after that nice little speech I now absorb this from the 2nd paragraph of the same link:

"In 1992 the Supreme Court ruled that states could not force out-of-state retailers to collect tax on sales to residents unless Congress, which oversees interstate commerce, said so."

That's exactly what they're trying to do, isn't it.  I warned you that my little speech was worth almost as much as the cyber-bytes occupied.

Umm, false.  Have you even attempted to think this through?

Every state I know of that has a state sales tax will tax all purchases made in that state, no matter which state the purchaser resides in.

Public infrastructure costs -- from roads to schools and emergency services -- do not vanish when a purchase is made over the Internet, and allowing Internet sales in a state to be exempt from sales tax represents a very unfair advantage to brick and mortar stores in that state.  Why should -everyone except you- be forced to charge sales tax while you get an exemption?

Completely false and unreasonable.  The business is selling products to customers in every state.  The purchase is being made in the state the customer resides in.  The 'physical presence' standard is maintained by the seller's website and ordering information being transmitted into the infrastructure in a state.  Do you not comprehend business or the basics of internet infrastructure?

Another thoughtless rant by someone who demands all the benefits of living in American society but refuses to pay one dime to support it.  If you don't want to pay state taxes, go live somewhere that doesn't have state tax-funded infrastructure.  Libya, Iran, North Korea come to mind ...

If anybody actually wants to read it, here you go:

http://www.marketplacefairness.org/bill-text/

Just a reminder: Trolling violates the TOS... any further and your comments will be deleted.

Another liberal run at money.  All that will do is force the company to another country.

I may be way off base but to me it sounds like, without all the fancy phrase and such, that a consumer from one state goes to another state to buy something should have to pay state sales tax from the state he or she came from? That's a bit ludicrous dontcha think. I think that regardless of where you buy something you should pay the tax in the state you buy it from. Online tax is different. I live in Pa. If I buy something from California on line I should pay Pa tax not Ca tax. Did I misunderstand all of this?   

Indeed, Uvah. That would be logical... if he were physically there. He isn't, however. Therefore this really needs discussion, and it shouldn't start with the premise

"There has to be a tax". It could start with the premise, "Taxes will depress commerce and the economy. Therefore, how can we AVOID taxes." That, however seems to have escaped notice, and it's no surprise since it would mean getting efficient, stopping pork and reforming election law and funding of politicians.

The system has a bias which is in the end, self defeating.

Smells like politics.

No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

Direct from the Constitution, in plain English.  Argument finished.  It's time to reconsider who is screwing who.

Congress ignored the results of their tax policies for decades, and our manufacturing base moved over seas.  Our population has not.  Business moves much more easily than people, and internet retailers have no major stake in their current locations.  They don't even own their warehouses in many cases, renting instead.  An outfit like Amazon would save the millions they'd spend relocating in a matter of weeks, if not days, should a state levy a 10% sales tax on them.

I'm sure one of the politicians used a 'personal computer' at some point sooo ....

and the sticky does state "overtly political" and not blatant or outright political.

I'm so glad that SD has a system that keeps all plebs from starting debates on useless political crud and only allows a couple of the 'smart' ones to tell us what's worthy to discuss.

Oh wait, I'm off my meds again.

Since when did that ever stop these guys from writing laws that try to override the US constitution.

It never did, which is why I said they wipe their collective asses with it.

Not seeing anything abnormal there.

Canada has been doing Provincial Sales Tax for years. Each province sets its own tax. I drive to another province and buy something, I pay their tax. Seems simple enough.

Now, we also have a system in place where you can apply to have that tax credited back to you if the province you live in charges less provincial tax than the province you bought in. So there is no highjacking of business and economy.

System works great.