Comments 1-5 of 11

  • Brett Lovett

    05/08/2013 11:09 AM

    I am disappointed by the support for the Marketplace Fairness Act in it's current (destination based) form. The problem I have with this, if I am understanding it correctly, is that through this bill, the federal government will create a conduit allowing states to place a tax reporting, collecting, and payment burden on entities outside it's own state. The burden placed on businesses shipping goods to multiple states may include tracking and collecting as many as hundreds or thousands of local tax rates, and then reporting and paying to as many as 45 state departments of revenue. I see this as an unfair burden placed on businesses that ship to multiple states, and as a threat to state sovereignty.

    I think there are two simple solutions that would still meet the goal of fairness without these issues. 1. Taxing the sales of shipped goods at the point of origin. The seller then reports and pays to only one state department of revenue and at only one tax rate. 2. Taxing the purchase of shipped goods at the point of destination, requiring the purchaser of the goods to report and pay to only one state department of revenue and at only one tax rate. I consider number 1 preferable in that it places the taxing and reporting burden on the seller rather than the purchaser.

    I don't have an issue with making sales tax more fair, but I do have an issue with states being allowed and encouraged by the federal government to place tax reporting and collection burdens on entities that only exist in other states.

  • G. H.

    05/08/2013 08:42 AM

    On Benghazi, when our embassy people had sent that email asking for help(ie. when they felt their lives endangered), they should have CC the email to ABCNews, CBSNews, NBCNews, FOXNews, and MikeHuckabee. Chances are they would have gotten a PROMPT response from the White House.

  • Frank Cook

    05/07/2013 09:48 PM

    Governor, I heard your show today explaining why you support the internet sales tax, and giving the reasons it's a good idea.

    You know Governor, I've never heard of a new tax that there wasn't some good reason for. Government always has a good reason for a tax. If you want to make taxes more fair for small business, take some taxes OFF of them.

    Markets like people cannot be both free and equal. I support more freedom and less taxes for business, not more taxes.

  • Andrew Staley

    05/07/2013 08:40 PM

    Mike,

    Here's why I completely disagree about the internet tax, and why it's unfair to online sellers.

    1) The sales cut-off is quite low and will affect a vast majority of retailers with complicated red tape

    2) It is being pushed by amazon because it will give them a further competitive advantage. Right now small business can compete via the tax discount- they can't compete on cost because of overhead and scale already.

    3) It's an unfair burden on online retailers that brick and mortar stores do not have to abide by. If this is all about fairness, then they should only have to collect taxes for their own local tax district, not anyone elses.

    Alternatively, if I go from my home city (8.8% combined taxes) to a city a mere 20 miles away (10.02% tax) they should be giving me the cheaper tax rate. Alternatively, if someone from the area with a higher tax rate comes to my town, the retailer should be forced to collect the higher rate and remit it to the customers municipality.

    It's easy for the software to charge the customer. The manpower to send out checks and forms to 9600 different tax districts on the other hand is obscenely more involved.

    But you're right. The little guy online and the little guy in brick and mortar are vastly different... oh wait, they're not. They both maintain business licenses, overhead, storage, inventory, etc. The only difference is the way they face the customer. The advantage online is that the cost is lower. The advantage in person is the ability to actually serve the customer, provide a better experience and make sure they get what they need, which is something an online store simply cannot match.

    Part of the reason many of us have gone online for purchasing is due to the crappy service in brick and mortar stores with surly employees who are high pressure and just care about making the sale. I still shop at specific retailers brick and mortar because of the level of service, and the convenience.

    This is just a poorly thought out bill, with a bad implementation that will necessitate more government employees to make sure we're getting all that money!

    Much like the way that Washington state charges B&O tax on gross receipts rather than actual net profit (did a lot to contribute to me deciding to close a business, lay off 5 people and rejoin the rat race), it's yet another way that large corporations and government are lusting after the same thing... money. Government smells a few bucks they can collect and waste, and bigger businesses know they can absorb the tiny hit to their bottom line, but the smaller guys can't.

    Frankly I'm appalled that so many "conservatives" are behind this kind of a measure. I expect this from the progressive "fairness doctrine" type crowd, but not conservatives. Then again, as a conservative and libertarian and not a Republican, that's probably why we don't see eye to eye often.

  • Clayton Hall

    05/07/2013 05:59 PM

    I listened to most of the discussion on taxing the items bought on the internet. I don't care either way because what I buy is taxed anyhow. But a few points, using the zip code in Kansas city has more than one rate per zip code. Special taxes for schools, zoo, stadiums and now the street cars. Also every time there is an elections they will have to update the software which the small businesses will have to pay for, just like with medicare when the government updates the doctors have to buy new software and it gets expensive. Big businesses can afford them. Walmart and amazon already are taxed so they want to up it for everyone else. They offer prices under cost or so low that the small business can't compete.
    It is taking money out of the consumers pocket and giving it to the government so it is an increase of tax. Just like if they get rid of a tax deduction it is an increase. You didn't have to pay it before and now you do.
    if they had a sight where all the business had to do was run it through the sight for the tax then it would not cost the business would be away to not overwhelm the small business. Also the payment to the state is also more for the business but what about the county and the city taxes. If they are not being charged yet they will be. This is a night mare for small business. They will need to hire someone to send taxes to all these places.

    Thanks for your time. I love the show.

    Clayton