Thread: If Congress passes the Internet sales tax bill!!!

Part of my Newsletter


BRUSHFIRE ALERT: Make no mistake: If Congress passes the Internet sales tax bill, YOU will be the one paying the taxes. Not Amazon. Not e-Bay. YOU! You’ll have to pay sales taxes to states where you not only don’t live, but have no vote in how high the sales tax is. Talk about taxation without representation!

Americans for Tax Reform is leading the charge in opposing this tax hike in the U.S. Senate. Nevada Sen. Dean Heller opposes it, as does Sens. Rand Paul, Marco Rubio, Pat Roberts, Chuck Grassley, Pat Toomey, Ted Cruz, Kelly Ayotte, Orrin Hatch, Jon Cornyn, David Vitter and Max Baucus.

Indeed, just about every conservative and conservative organization around the country, including Citizen Outreach, opposes this Internet tax. Check it out by clicking here

Sen. Harry Reid is, naturally, all for it.

Unfortunately, so are most of Nevada’s GOP state legislators (pathetic).

To voice your opposition and tell Congress “No Internet Sales Tax,” click here to sign ATR’s online petition. Do it now! The cloture vote could occur later this afternoon or tonight!


DID SOMEONE FORWARD YOU THIS EMAIL?

Sign up now to get your own copy of Citizen Outrech’s free e-newsletter, action alerts, briefings and invitations to special events. Just CLICK HERE

---

Silver State Confidential is an email newsletter on Nevada politics, policy and current events published (usually) daily by Chuck Muth, Nevada's #1 Renegade Conservative and the man voted "Most Likely to Irritate Liberals!"

Click here


http://hosted.verticalresponse.com/1...43/1eff8f0cb1/


More on this tax


April 17, 2013
REMINDER: Conservative groups oppose so-called “Marketplace Fairness Act” ²

by Andrew Moylan
After a sham vote during the debate over its budget resolution, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has apparently decided to engage ludicrous speed on the egregiously flawed legislation known as the “Marketplace Fairness Act.” The bill would allow states to tax businesses across their borders for online (and other remote) retail sales, potentially opening Pandora’s box on ever-expanding state tax collection authority. For this reason, the bill has generated significant opposition from a wide range of conservative organizations.
I wrote earlier this year that conservatives should “run, not walk, away from the Marketplace Fairness Act” because it runs counter to several important principles. That’s why the following groups sent notice to the Senate that votes on the matter would be included in their influential scorecards.

• Heritage Action for America, citing a “dangerous extension of state power into other states,” announced its opposition to the Marketplace Fairness Act and noted that it would be key-voting the aforementioned amendment.
• Americans for Prosperity, pointing to “logistical, economic, and constitutional problems,” reiterated its opposition to the bill in their own key vote alert.
• FreedomWorks, in its key vote alert, wrote that “the Marketplace Fairness Act violates [a] long-held taxpayer protection” and urged that it “be debated openly and at length in committee.”
• National Taxpayers Union, in its vote alert on the topic, stated that votes on it would be “heavily weighted” because the measure would “hinder tax competition among the states, heap heavy burdens upon small businesses, and expose taxpayers to potentially predatory state revenue administration tactics.

In addition to those groups, many others sent letters of opposition.

• Americans for Tax Reform and its President Grover Norquist oppose the bill and wrote in a letter to Congress that the Marketplace Fairness Act “can only be viewed as a tax increase” due to the fact that it allows imposition of new collection burdens on businesses.
  
• American Commitment signed on to a broad conservative coalition letter spearheaded by R Street against the bill.
• Campaign for Liberty has opposed the bill and worked to educate its activists, noting that it would “flip the original intent of the Commerce Clause on its head.”
• Center for Freedom and Prosperity signed the aforementioned coalition letter opposing the bill and, in its own writing, called it “a direct assault on tax competition, federalism and, indeed, basic fairness.”
• Center for Individual Freedom also signed the coalition letter, but has written on its own site that the legislation “undermines the concept of federalism.”
• Competitive Enterprise Institute, as part of its long campaign against the bill, wrote that the bill would be a “raw deal for taxpayers” because there’s “nothing fair about allowing brick-and-mortar stores to continue to tax at the point of sale while forcing online retailers to calculate and remit to more than 9,600 distinct taxing jurisdictions.”
• Heartland Institute analysts have long opposed the bill, noting that “consumers, who ultimately bear the burden of added costs, are the real losers in this scenario.”
• Institute for Policy Innovation has called the MFA a “mirage of false federalism,” decrying the fact that the bill would “mean the end of physical presence…as a limitation in the ability to levy tax on a person, organization, or corporation. In other words, such false federalism leads to the end of any limitation on government power.”
• Taxpayers Protection Alliance announced its opposition to the bill, saying that it “must be defeated.”

Beyond the world of conservative non-profits, many other prominent right-of-center voices have weighed in against the legislation as well.

• Jim DeMint, formerly a stalwart Republican Senator from South Carolina and new President of the Heritage Foundation, wrote that the MFA constituted “internet taxation without representation.”
• Erick Erickson, founder of RedState.com and FoxNews contributor, has opposed the bill and also written about the complex web of high-priced consultants working a multi-million dollar PR campaign to secure its passage.

The list goes on and on, but the takeaway point should be that most conservatives (and certainly those representing organizations with real expertise in tax policy) are firmly against the Marketplace Fairness Act.
photo by: Dave Dugdale





If this is passed I will no longer buy things on line...

Tuesday, 23 April 2013 14:14 Internet Sales Tax Bill Moves Forward in Senate

Written by Raven Clabough

• font size
• Print
• E-mail

Legislation that would permit states to impose state and local taxes on Internet purchases is currently making its way through Congress. On Monday, after a hearty endorsement from President Obama, a Senate procedural vote of 74 to 20 moved the bill forward. The Senate will now begin debate on amendments before a final vote on the bill, scheduled to take place later this week.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has received some backlash for bypassing the committee review process and bringing the bill to the table before it had a chance to be properly vetted. The move took place after he was compelled to shelve gun control legislation.
Senators Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.), Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), Jon Tester (D-Mont.), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Marco Rubio (R-Fla), Mike Lee (R-Utah),and Ted Cruz (R-Texas) sent Reid a letter Monday asking him to delay the legislation, which they said has the potential to “erode” states’ rights and “result in crippling compliance costs on small Internet businesses. At the very minimum," the letter continued, "we believe these concerns warrant a thorough vetting of the bill through regular order."
Senator Max Baucus (D-Mont.), chairman of the Finance Committee, also criticized Reid for bypassing his committee, which has jurisdiction over tax issues. “This bill is not ready for debate on the Senate floor," he declared. "It has not been completely thought through. It is full of unintended consequences that could seriously harm America’s small businesses."
Entitled the Marketplace Fairness Act, the bill touts itself as one that would “restore States’ sovereign rights to enforce State and local sales and use tax laws,” by granting states the authority to compel online and catalog retailers, regardless of their location, to collect sales tax at the time of the transaction. The bill requires that states be permitted that authority only after they have simplified their sales tax laws. The purpose of that single caveat is to ensure that collecting sales taxes for multiple states is not too difficult, based on Supreme Court rulings in Bellas Hess and Quill.
In the 1967 Supreme Court case National Bellas Hess v. Illinois Department of Revenue, the court ruled that “the many variations in rates of tax, in allowable exemptions, and in administrative and record-keeping requirements could entangle [the company’s] interstate business in a virtual welter of complicated obligations to local jurisdictions.”
The 1992 Quill v. North Dakota decision confirmed the Bellas Hess decision, ultimately on the basis of stare decisis, a doctrine requiring the court to respect the precedent set by prior rulings. The court explained, “Our decision is made easier by the fact that the underlying issue is not only one that Congress may be better qualified to resolve, but also one that Congress has the ultimate power to resolve.”
The states are provided two options in order to comply with the simplification mandate: They may either join the 24 other states that have already adopted the simplification measures outlined in the Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement, or simply adopt their own rules that adhere to the five simplification mandates listed in the bill. Those mandates are as follows:
• The state must provide advance notification to retailers of rate changes.
• A single state organization must be designated to handle sales tax registrations.
• A uniform sales tax base must be established for use throughout the state.
• The state must utilize destination sourcing to determine sales tax rates for out-of-state purchases.
• The state must provide the necessary software, at no cost to the retailers, for managing sales tax compliance, and subscribe to a policy of not holding retailers responsible for errors that occur as a result of relying on state-provided systems and data.
The bill includes a small business exemption for companies that earn less than $1 million annually.
The Obama administration enthusiastically voiced its support for the bill on Monday. White House Press Secretary Jay Carney stated, “We have heard overwhelmingly from governors, mayors, and the business community on the need for federal legislation to level the playing field for our business and address sales tax fairness.”
Likewise, 26 Republicans joined Senate Democrats in moving forward with the bill. A number of Republican governors have announced their support for the bill, including Chris Christie of New Jersey, Rick Snyder of Michigan, and Bob McDonnell of Virginia. The bill’s passage would certainly mean billions of dollars in increased state revenue.
According to the bill’s lead co-sponsors — Senators Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), and Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) — the bill would eliminate the “competitive disadvantage” that plagues traditional brick-and-mortar retailers when trying to compete with online sellers.
The Marketplace Fairness Act has found support amongst major retailers who assert that it would help close an unfair loophole that works in favor of online merchants. According to The Hill, "The National Retail Federation, which represents chains such as Macy’s, and the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA) … announced it would score lawmakers’ votes.”
Online giant Amazon.com has proven to be a significant supporter of the legislation, asserting that a single national framework for tax collection is better than a variety of state laws.
But the bill has acquired a number of opponents as well.
The Securities Industry and Financial Markets Association and the Financial Services Roundtable assert that the measure would lead to financial transaction taxes at the state level.
Scott Talbott, senior vice president for public policy for the Roundtable, said in a statement, “It’s important for Congress to explore all the possible outcomes and costs of the proposal, especially the impact on consumers.” He added,

A transaction tax on financial services products will hurt retail investors, retired Americans, and small businesses, effectively making it more expensive for them to invest and plan for the long-term. Without hearings, these implications and others will not be properly addressed.
Ebay CEO John Donahue has argued that the bill would “penalize small online businesses,” and e-mailed eBay users encouraging them to contact their representatives in Congress to ask them to vote against it.
Ebay is lobbying for the small-business exemption to be increased from $1 million to $10 million.
If the bill passes in the Senate, it could face some difficulties in the House, as a number of conservative groups such as Heritage Action, Americans for Prosperity, and FreedomWorks are already mobilizing campaigns against it.




http://joeforamerica.com/2013/04/reg...me-damn-thing/