Taxing the Net
Sales tax cartel
A coalition of 22 states wants Washington to help them extract cash from the purchases their residents make over the Internet. It won't be easy, thanks to a 1992 Supreme Court decision that limits local jurisdictions' ability to collect sales taxes on online and mail-order transactions. Still, as e-commerce grows and state revenue shrinks, states are finding the Internet an irresistible target.
At press time, Rep. Bill Delahunt (D-Mass.) and Sen. Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.) were preparing to introduce a bill requiring online retailers to collect taxes from customers who live in any of the 22 states participating in the Streamlined Sales Tax Project. By standardizing rates and the list of taxable goods, the participating states hope to get around the Supreme Court's concerns about the burden of forcing online merchants to follow different states' varied and complicated sales tax rules.
Why not treat online purchases like in-person sales, where the tax is determined by the state where the business is located? Because that approach provides an advantage to states with no or lower sales taxes. It also gives every state an incentive to lower tax rates, a fine outcome for buyers and sellers but not for governments looking to beef up tax revenues.
Adam Thierer of the promarket Progress and Freedom Foundation has spent years tracking such attempts toimpose state taxes on interstate commerce. Those 22 states are "proposing to abandon true federalism," he says. "State and local officials would prefer to create a cozy tax cartel instead of relying on a 'laboratories of democracy' model of competition between the states."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books.
My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp.
My only point is that if you take the Bible straight, as I'm sure many of Reasons readers do, you will see a lot of the Old Testament stuff as absolutely insane. Even some cursory knowledge of Hebrew and doing some mathematics and logic will tell you that you really won't get the full deal by just doing regular skill english reading for those books. In other words, there's more to the books of the Bible than most will ever grasp.
wrwe
is good