Seems eminently more logical, however taxes are (no matter what) a negative influence on an economy. I can understand how the monies are needed, but less how they're used. I think supported programs need to be truly (and objectively) examined and the PAC influences eliminated as they will inflate taxes for programs pushing their agenda to increase political power.

Seems to me I remember something about one on our Founding Fathers associated with the two words, 'Common Sense'.  Doesn't seem to much of it showing up lately in our day to day activities. 

Oh well, those among us who fail to study history are destined to repeat it.  

To be clear, I'm only trying to explain, not defend.

Sales taxes are fundamentally designed as a method for a state to collect revenues from its residents.  Keep that basic principle in mind.  Again, these tax laws are already in place in most states and have been for quite some time.

The reason you can go out of state, walk into a store, and pay the sales tax for that state is a matter of convenience or common sense, not principle.  The alternative would be that every store everywhere would have to look a every customer's drivers license for every transaction, collect sales tax based on the indicated state, track it all, and remit to the appropriate state.  I should point out that exceptions to this arrangement already exist in many states for out of state purchase of things such as cars, luxury items, alcohol and tobacco.  (Make no mistake, those are only sales taxes in different dresses and makeup.)  Also, the state has no right generally to perform sales tax audits on businesses not located within that state.

The obvious problem with using that arrangement with the Amazons of the country is that the state in which Amazon resides would clearly get tax-fat.  They would in effect be milking off the sales taxes that your state in which you reside should already be receiving to fund services for you.

The bill wants the Amazons to collect sales taxes from its customer based on the states in which they reside and remit those sales taxes to that state.  It does not want to "charge" Amazon a new tax.  The real financial impact on Amazon would be the administrative overhead of collecting and remitting those taxes and enduring the inevitable audits.  Keep in mind that catalog and online retailers already collect your information during the sale.

It surprises me that Amazon appears to support the bill, I'd think they wouldn't want the headache, but none the less see "Business Support" (right column) #5 here:

http://www.marketplacefairness.org/support/

While you look at that page I would also encourage you to go to the bottom of the list and view the 29 governors listed in support of the bill and note the 11 "D"s, 17 "R"s, and one "I".  It would seem that party affiliation isn't such an issue when it comes to collecting taxes which have already been passed by the state legislatures quite some time ago.  I also encourage you to take a moment to click on the "Questions" tab to the left of it and read the 6 item Q&A which is written very plainly.

I hope that helps people at least understand the situation.

The state is not entitled to a cut of everything I spend simply because they pass a retail sales tax.  They are entitled to a cut of everything I spend at retail, in the state.  They have no claim on my money simply because I reside here.  They already collect an income tax and property taxes.

You say it's to provide services for me, but this is simply not the case.  The services I partake in are paid for by other taxes, as they are in nearly every state.  Property taxes fund emergency services, schools, necessary government infrastructure.  Fuel taxes fund transportation costs.

My county takes 10% of everything I spend here because the morons that live here are too fucking stupid to stop deciding elections in the Democrat primary, it's as corrupt as you'll find.  The only time they ever see consequences for the rampant graft and bribery that goes on here is when the Feds end up getting harassed because something particularly disturbing has happened.  The roads are shit, the utilities are shit, they do little besides employ their own relatives in lucrative, and utterly worthless jobs.  They steal millions every year and there aren't even 20k people living in the county.  I have no representation, so I vote with my wallet as I am in no position to leave.

Amazon, along with most of the major online retailers, are trying to avoid getting hit with a separate online tax, also a violation of the Constitution.  Their support is obligatory.  They will get both in the long run if they don't.  They have no recourse, SCOTUS has made it quite clear they've abdicated their duty at this point.  Politicians being in support of something that gets them more money without raising taxes is to be expected, and surprisingly small.

Sales taxes are fundamentally designed to collect revenue period.  It has nothing to do with residency, it has everything to do with the sale....who makes the sale is irrelevant, all that matters is that the sale was made in your state (or city)....it is a tax on commerce, not a person, and that dissociation needs to be very clear...

We pay sales taxes where the sales occur....

It does not matter where I live, or where the business is headquartered...all that matters is where the sale occurs....

If I buy something online, from my computer at home, then the sale occurred in the same state as my home...the tax is paid to my home state not because it is my home state, but because that is where the sale was made...

I'm not seeing the problem here....

Psychoak, I have no interest in debating the propriety of the sales tax laws various states have put in place.  I really don't.  I was hoping to get people on track to what this bill is about.

You again have referred to Amazon and additional taxes.  I can only refer you to the bill itself so that you can read it, and the list of supporters which (again, somewhat surprisingly to me, includes Amazon).  I've already provided the links.

Also supporting the bill is Internet giant Amazon, which coincidentally now sells its own tax compliance service to other merchants.

That's why Amazon is on board this. To make more money from other retailers. To deal with the headache for other retailers, we will sell you "peace of mind" dealing with tax collection for you...

Now what did I do with my State Senator's number and representative too...?

Seleuceia thank you for correcting me, that is a distinction I'm very comfortable with.  If that gets this back on track, great.

Brick and mortar stores say Amazon and other companies enjoy a advantage because they can undercut stores such as Wal-Mart.

Other states see this a loss revenue sells because the buyer is in one state and the merchandise is in another. But because the merchandise in that state is not getting the tax because the buyer is in another. I maybe paying sales tax in New Jersey, but California gets nothing...

States see a loss of revenue and they want their cut and Wal-Mart's see it as balancing the competition....

Exactly, G_Bison.

Not correct.

The slaughter house pays no sales tax when buying cattle, the breeder doesn't either.  The scrapyard pays no sales tax when paying for scrap.  I pay no sales tax if I go to a yard sale either.  Sales tax is not collected for a myriad of cash transactions because they are not retail sales, not because people are cheating.

Sales tax is a vague and inaccurate manner of saying Retail Sales Tax.  Amazon is the retailer.  The retailer has a physical location.  It is not the company headquarters, true.  Nor is it the chair my ass currently resides in.  It's the distribution center where the physical item resides and is transferred into your ownership.

A Retail Sales Tax is not a Value Added Tax.  VAT applies to all goods at every step, foreign and domestic.  It applies to retail, imports, freight, manufacturing.  If we had a VAT, you would be correct.

When I purchase a good from another state and have it delivered to me, I have made no retail purchase in my state.  I have imported a good from another state, an action they are constitutionally barred from taxing in any way.

I don't see anything in this bill that opens the door for that.  Please show me.

Exactly. A bill won't show what will or may happen. It is a indirect or direct cause for this to happen. Example, when Tennessee, Alabama did not have a lottery. People would drive to Kentucky for a shot at that Power Ball gold. TN/AL will lose that money going to that state. Now Tn has a lottery, TN gets to keep its money's going to KY and now get a boost from AL...

Now apply that scenario to online sales tax and then you see how states will react... 

I suppose I see it differently.  Each state has already made decisions about how they want to tax catalog and internet sales.  It would appear they can do so just like they can make decisions regarding any other state sales, auto, luxury, tobacco, liquor, etc taxes.  If they want to raise their taxes now, I really don't see this bill affecting that.

The issue is collection and remittance.  Related to that, I see issues that yes, it would be somewhat inflationary to the retailers due to administrative overhead.  I see potential issues regarding the transmission of data between the states and the retailers.  Otherwise I'm afraid I see it as the states receiving the taxes we have already let them impose.

Truth is, perhaps we should do a better job of paying attention to the tax laws our states create.

I am aware of this, as I imagine others are...if for simplicity we can just assume anytime someone uses the word "sale" they are referring to a retail sale, not a resale, that may make things clearer...

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/salestax.asp

The definition of a sales tax, according to investopedia, is "A tax imposed by the government at the point of sale on retail goods and services. It is collected by the retailer and passed on to the state."

I looked at a variety of definitions, though I felt this one was best...almost all the definitions mention that the tax is collected by the seller or retailer...about half the definitions mention a phrase similar to "at the point of sale", though none seem to be more detailed than that...

So, I looked up "point of sale", or POS...

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/point-of-sale.asp

The definition of POS, again according to investopedia, is "The place where sales are made. On a macro level, a point of sale may be a mall, market or city. On a micro-level, retailers consider a point of sale to be the area surrounding the counter where customers pay."

I looked at some other definitions...most are not as detailed, but all make it very clear that the point of sale is physical location of the sale...not just location, physical location...

That makes things rather tricky for online purchases...if you look up "online point of sale" or "virtual point of sale", the "point of sale" almost always refers to the program, application, or terminal that does the transaction...I will combine this observation with the general accounting practice of considering a merchandise sale as complete when the title for the merchandise exchanges hands from seller to buyer...these two observations suggest that the actual electronic device used in making the purchase would be the "point of sale", for it is that device where the transaction occurs, the purchase is confirmed, and the buyer is given their proof of purchase (exchange of the "title")...

As far as I'm concerned, if I purchase something online, then that physical location is the device or terminal I use to make that purchase, wherever that location is...the distribution center should not be the point of sale because the buyer does not partake in any exchange of "title" or receive a proof of purchase at that location....