
Ask HN: Congress is Passing an Internet Sales Tax: Why Doesn't HN Care? - wikiburner
This seems like a pretty big deal for a lot of startups. The compliance requirements alone sound like a nightmare. I'm curious why none of the recent articles submitted to HN (from very legit sources like NYT and WSJ) are getting upvotes. Also, it's not like this is a hypothetical - it looks like it's going to be railroaded through very quickly.<p>EDIT: Here are some links:<p>http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/23/technology/internet-sales-tax-gains-ground-in-senate.html<p>http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB10001424127887324493704578432961601644942-lMyQjAxMTAzMDIwMTEyNDEyWj.html<p>http://thehill.com/blogs/hillicon-valley/technology/295431-internet-sales-tax-advances-after-obama-endorsement-<p>http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2013/04/22/carney_internet_sales_tax_is_simply_about_leveling_the_playing_field.html
======
DanielBMarkham
It's been a very busy news week. Reid picked just the right time to slide this
in -- the air has been sucked out of the room by other stories.

Congress had a hands-off approach to the internet for some time, and it took
off like wildfire because of it. All that's changing now, it seems.

I'm disappointed that there's so many avenues of attack for legislators that
it's effectively impossible to cover all of our bases. With big players like
WalMart and the states involved, it's a wonder common sense has held out as
long as it has.

For those of you buying into the "level the playing field" bullshit, I don't
want a level playing field. This isn't kid's soccer where nobody keeps score
and everybody gets a prize. I want goods and services delivered to me as
efficiently as possible. Used to be this was the corner store, then the big
box store, then the internet store. Might be something completely new in 20
years. Can I pay it? Sure? Will it bother me? Not a lot, really. The only
thing this is going to do is screw poor people over who were getting goods a
few percentage points below what they used to get them at. It's terribly
regressive -- the very opposite of a "level playing field"

Big players coming in and screwing over the poor? It should be a scandal.

~~~
Avshalom
> I want goods and services delivered to me as efficiently as possible.

You know what makes deliveries more efficient? State funded infrastructure.

now, how could we finance such a thing...

~~~
runjake
No national sales tax currently exists, to my knowledge. So this is a new
precedent. And to answer your question, we could finance such things by
avoiding wars, shutting down needless agencies, and so on.

People are already struggling, burdening them with a tax that will generate
revenue that is peanuts compared to what we're spending on our wars. Doesn't
make sense to me.

~~~
dragonwriter
> No national sales tax currently exists, to my knowledge. So this is a new
> precedent.

No, because, despite the media calling the Marketplace Fairness Act an
"Internet Sales Tax", the bill is not a national (or any other) tax. It is a
bill which conditionally lifts existing barriers to _states_ extending their
sales taxes to cover online retailers selling goods to people in the state.

If the bill passes, then states with sales taxes would have to choose whether
or not to meet the conditions set in order to extend those taxes to internet
retailers selling into the state. No tax is created directly by the bill, and
any tax _enabled_ by the bill would be a state tax, not a national tax.

> People are already struggling, burdening them with a tax that will generate
> revenue that is peanuts compared to what we're spending on our wars.

Most states aren't using any of the taxes they collect to fund wars, and the
central purpose of this isn't so much to raise new revenues (though it will
enable states to do some of that) as to eliminate the tax incentives that
currently exist which favor out-of-state internet-based retailers over in-
state retailers (internet-based or brick-and-mortar) due to the inability of
states to levy the same taxes on the former as the latter.

------
brd
from the NYT article: "The bill would allow states to require all Internet
sellers to collect sales taxes for the state and local governments of the
buyers. State governments would be required to provide software free to
Internet retailers to calculate sales taxes. Online retailers with out-of-
state sales of less than $1 million a year would be exempt."

Internet Sales Tax wouldn't be bad if it were uniformly imposed country wide
(what amazon has pushed for). This specific bill, on the other hand, sounds
like a nightmare.

The only saving grace being that at least states would be required to provide
"software" - I can only hope that translates to APIs - to calculate taxes.
That would make the problem significantly more manageable but it would still
drastically increase the complexity of billing solutions for a lot of SMBs.
The million dollar threshold is just too low for this to be anything but
crushing for small businesses.

~~~
wikiburner
The next two paragraphs after the one you mentioned were possibly more
relevant:

 _Opponents predict a bookkeeping nightmare. Online retailers would have to
keep track of more than 9,000 sales-tax regimes. Internet companies in states
with no sales taxes — Montana, New Hampshire, Oregon and Delaware — would have
to build a collection apparatus from scratch._

 _Senator Ron Wyden, Democrat of Oregon, called the legislation “a targeted
strike against the Internet and a targeted strike against the digital
economy.”_

~~~
virmundi
Look at this as a SaaS opportunity. Create a clearinghouse to manage all of
the "software". Fairly simple API, you give me the State of the person,
perhaps ZIP to find County level taxes and out comes a {"state":".08",
"cityX":".01"}. Leave it to the client to handle exact cost calculation.

As for the states that don't have sales tax, they can pay the clearing to
provide a {"state":"0"} for all requests.

~~~
lavezza
A little more difficult than that. I grew up in Pennsylvania. My zip code was
for the town next to the township I lived in. There were taxes for stores in
the town that weren't levied on the township (two different local gov'ts).
Also, PA doesn't tax clothing while Maryland a few miles away does. So every
item you sell would have to be categorized in some way (and maybe differently
in different areas). So, every delivery address would have to be accurately
mapped to multiple, overlapping taxing authorities (state, county, local,
school district, etc.) and every item you sell would have to be mapped to
multiple tax categories (clothes and shoes not taxed in A, clothes (but not
shoes) taxed in B, shoes (but not work boots) taxed in C, etc.)

~~~
pc86
To get the most precise taxation possible you would need to get the customer's
address and calculate their zip+4.

This is ignoring the fact that exemptions would be a nightmare.

The only thing I could think of that would be worse than needing to manage
that massive API would be if I was a business owner who had to access multiple
APIs for DC plus all the states with sales tax.

~~~
pnathan
> The only thing I could think of that would be worse than needing to manage
> that massive API would be if I was a business owner who had to access
> multiple APIs for DC plus all the states with sales tax.

So you're saying that putting together that SAAS would be a slog and its very
existence would be a moat to other people who don't want to slog through.

I.e., a great biz opportunity. :)

~~~
pc86
You're probably right on that one. There is a comment elsewhere in this thread
that mentions a SaaS company that handles sales tax automation and reporting,
so clearly there is some money to be made.

------
jacquesm
For now I don't care because (1) I'm already paying sales tax and (2) This is
a US centric thing, if anything it levels the playingfield / is an advantage
depending on where you are.

The fact that there was a time when you did not have to pay sales tax should
be seen as a gift, if there is one thing that seems to be a certainty over the
long run it is that if there is a flow of money sooner or later it will be
taxed.

~~~
seliopou
Yes, it definitely does level the playing field between brick & mortar
business and online businesses, and to a certain extent amongst states. What
would have been really interesting is if the taxes revenues went to the state
that the business was operating out of. Unfortunately, that'd probably just
mean more tax revenue for either Delaware or the existing tech hubs of
America. I think it's because of this fact that a more complex system is
necessary. It's much more fair to the states.

~~~
ohhlx
How does this level the field between brick & mortar and online business?

I manage operations for a small brand that operates both as an online business
(recent venture) and brick & mortar (2 stores, 2 different states). It seems
that this would help us by taxing us more and increasing our IT costs in terms
of implementation? If you are operating a small business (retailers,service
provider) in this day and age - it is almost a necessity to have some online
presence.

With the existence of simple ecommerce tools like shopify and bigcommerce at
the hands of traditional businesses making entry simple - added restrictions
may deter these brick & mortar businesses from entering the online space at
all.

~~~
seliopou
If goods are taxed more businesses raise their prices. Businesses aren't being
taxed. Consumers are. The only cost businesses have to pay is the cost of
implementing the system, which is a fixed cost that you'll pay off over time.

Also, you're kindof proving my point by stating that these new policies may
deter brick & mortar businesses from entering the online space. A brick &
mortar business by definition doesn't have an e-commerce presence. Ones that
do have a hybrid business model. For those, there's an interesting dynamic
that management will face that's a close reflection of what the greater market
will have to deal with, i.e., which side of the business to invest in. But
anyways, if you admit that brick & mortar businesses will be deterred from
moving to e-commerce, then you're admitting that the brick & mortal model is
more competitive under the new tax regime.

~~~
jonpeda
> If goods are taxed more businesses raise their prices. Businesses aren't
> being taxed. Consumers are.

This is entirely dependent on which part of the supply chain has the fiercest
competition. Sometimes consumers get the economic profit and pay cost
(commodities) and sometimes the producers do (monopolies, who already charge
what the market will bear)

------
gte910h
I honestly don't care if retailers have to collect income tax: But
municipalities/states SHOULD have to pick off a menu of plans from the federal
government for internet tax for their boundaries, and should have to register
their boundaries with a federal agency.

The burden of dealing with every crazy tax situation and variety in every
municipality in the country is the issue. Not the tax itself.

------
doktrin
Is the argument that there should be no sales tax, or that online businesses
should be exempt from it? Alternatively, is there some specific compliance
issue or formulation in the proposed legislation that is poorly thought out?

I'm genuinely curious, as (in principle) the fact that online businesses have
been exempt from sales tax largely strikes me as an anomaly and not some new
standard.

~~~
nateabele
Mail-order catalog businesses, which have existed for decades?

You only pay tax in jurisdictions in which you're physically based (for an
internet startup, this would be wherever you're incorporated). This axiom has
held in US tax policy for about as long as there has been US tax policy.

Kinda ties in with that whole 'no taxation without representation' thing.

 _Edit: for clarity_.

~~~
weds
Sales tax is applied to the buyer, not the seller

~~~
chrismaeda
Right. Companies with a physical presence in a state are required to collect
sales taxes from buyers for all sales in the state. Businesses are not
required to collect sales taxes for states where they have no presence (aka
nexus); this is based on the Quill v North Dakota interpretation of the
Commerce Clause of the US Constitution.

The problem with the proposed legislation is that counties, cities, and towns
can each set their own tax rates. So the compliance costs are high because of
the thousands of different rates. You cannot use something simple like state
or zip code to determine tax rate; you have to use geolocation to get the
exact jurisdiction. And governments typically levy penalties if you get your
sales tax collection wrong. So who is responsible for paying the penalties if
the third party tax collection service makes a mistake?

The way this was supposed to go down is that states were supposed to simplify
the number of different tax rates before requiring out-of-state businesses to
collect their sales taxes. You shouldn't need to subscribe to a sales tax
compliance service to do business in the United States.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Companies with a physical presence in a state are required to collect sales
> taxes from buyers for all sales in the state. Businesses are not required to
> collect sales taxes for states where they have no presence (aka nexus); this
> is based on the Quill v North Dakota interpretation of the Commerce Clause
> of the US Constitution.

Specifically, its based on a Dormant Commerce Clause interpretation, to-wit,
that States cannot require such taxation of businesses without the kind of
nexus specified in Quill _without Congress taking specific action to permit
the state to do so_.

What you see going on right now is _Congress taking specific action to permit
states, under certain conditions_ to apply the kind of taxes that they may not
be permitted to apply without Congressional permission.

> The problem with the proposed legislation is that counties, cities, and
> towns can each set their own tax rates. So the compliance costs are high
> because of the thousands of different rates.

The proposed legislation sets conditions for the states if they want to have
access to the privilege Congress is granting with regard to taxation, one of
which is that they must provide _free-of-cost_ software for internet retailers
to handle the calculations for their states.

> And governments typically levy penalties if you get your sales tax
> collection wrong. So who is responsible for paying the penalties if the
> third party tax collection service makes a mistake?

If you are the responsible party for collecting the taxes under the law, you
pay the government; if you've paid someone else to do it for you, presumably
you've made sure the terms of that contract make them responsible to you for
any errors they make, so that they pay both the penalties and any additional
costs you face as a result of the error.

> The way this was supposed to go down is that states were supposed to
> simplify the number of different tax rates before requiring out-of-state
> businesses to collect their sales taxes.

"Supposed to" based on what? Or are you just puffing up your personal
preference for government policy as the way things objectively ought to be?

~~~
gamblor956
Only commenting on the last point. He's referring to the previous proposal
from the final years of the Bush administration wherein Congress would have
passed an internet sales tax if the various states (mostly meaning Cali and
NY) would have agreed to simplify their taxation structures ahead of such
legislation. The idea was that states would set their sales tax at one of
several fixed rates (i.e., 5%, 7.5%, 10% etc) subsuming county/city sales
taxes into the state tax rate. Counties and cities would receive their
proportionate shares (though the mechanism for determining shares was never
discussed in depth).

The proposal actually received a lot of discussion among policy makers, but
then got dropped when it became clear that state legislatures wouldn't go
through the trouble of reforming their sales taxes without Congress first
passing the legislation.

------
tsuru
I'd be against this if the U.S. had a progressive tax code to begin with, but
we don't. Sure, if you look at federal income taxes only there appears to be a
progressive tax system but taxes on capital gains is pretty much "flat tax"
loop hole for the ultra rich.

Then you look at States who almost all implement regressive taxes, many
through sales taxes, and see how States' fiscal woes are self-inflicted.
Here's one such examination: [http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-
Magazine/The-312/January-2...](http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-
Magazine/The-312/January-2013/Illinois-The-Fourth-Most-Regressive-Taxes-in-
America/)

In Tennessee, where I have to endure this regressive insanity, asking for a
progressive income tax has become a third-rail issue for any local politician.
So we have zero income tax and an effective sales tax of 9.25%

Why then am I favorable to internet sales tax when I've derided sales taxes as
regressive just above? In this case I believe, mainly through intuition,
untaxed internet sales are just one more vehicle for the affluent to avoid
paying taxes. This makes regular retail sales tax that much more burdensome
for the poor who receive fewer services because overall State tax revenue
suffers.

Until the regressive tax leanings of the states is abated, which I doubt will
happen in the next decade, I see this as a necessary evil.

------
bane
1) There probably _should_ be a sales tax, more and more of the economy is
moving onto the Internet, and local state coffers are hurting for it

2) Figuring out local sales tax is hideously difficult, it opens lots of great
opportunities for new startups as payment processors who "do taxes right"

3) Other bigger stories have consumed the media

~~~
bmelton
So, it American companies are imposed sales tax burdens no matter which state
they're selling to, wouldn't that just encourage companies like Amazon to move
outside of the United States? They could avoid collecting sales taxes
altogether, coming in lower than the competition, and that would also deprive
the US of collecting revenue taxes on income, etc.

If the economy is moving to the internet, what incentive is there for these
companies to stay in the US, especially if doing business in the US becomes
disadvantageous for their gross sales?

~~~
dragonwriter
> So, it American companies are imposed sales tax burdens no matter which
> state they're selling to

They aren't even if this bill passes; this bill allows states to tax sales
_into_ the state no matter which state they are selling _from_.

> wouldn't that just encourage companies like Amazon to move outside of the
> United States?

Amazon has already reached the point where its given up trying to relocate
outside of individual states to avoid sales taxes, because the efficiency it
gets from having facilities close to customers is worth more than sales tax
avoidance.

So I doubt very much it would try to move out of the US for sales tax
avoidance reasons.

------
specialp
I think that if they do this, they should require all states and localities to
commit to updating an online clearing house of tax rates for their locality
based on location and product type. If you fail to do so, merchants are under
no obligation to collect your tax. The reason why this loophole has existed so
long is that it is very difficult to tax according to 1000s of laws
nationwide.

I do not think people should be really against this. If you are against paying
sales tax, lobby your local government to stop sales tax.

~~~
ROFISH
Because I run a physical item e-commerce store, I am against this because I do
not trust the states to come up with a reasonable solution. Handling the issue
in our home state and city requires two accountants. I shudder at the thought
of 50 state compliance.

------
vy8vWJlco
If I were to venture a guess, I'd say it's because we are mostly all too young
to remember a small government and too time-poor to do much about it.

------
tss20147
To address a couple of concerns raised here.

There is a Small Seller Exemption. If you have less than $1,000,000 in remote
sales during the preceding calendar year you are exempt from collection.

There are six certified service providers, including one free one, which can
be used to calculate the required sales tax. The states certify these
providers and agree to indemnify users against liability if the case of an
error by the service provider.

Before a state can require collection they must change their code to be in
compliance with the requirements of the Marketplace Fairness Act. Currently 24
states are compliant and could begin requiring collection if the bill passes.

For more information go to <http://www.marketplacefairness.org/>

------
krosaen
Companies like Avalara <http://www.avalara.com> must be drooling right now

~~~
PaulHoule
This kind of thing is an opportunity as much as a danger.

------
avanderveen
Because HN readers aren't idiots. We know that it is good and right for sales
tax to be charged on sales. And, that the sale occurring on the internet does
not make it an essentially different thing than any other purchase of a good
or service. I think that, for HN readers, is very important: the internet is a
different marketplace, not a different reality, and to treat it differently in
some aspects can lead to legal problems and credibility issues down the road.

In terms of the nightmare that is implementation, that is another story.

~~~
Glyptodon
I don't think we know that - I'm pretty sure more than 0 of us suspect that
sales tax shouldn't exist at all.

~~~
smacktoward
Then go ahead and make that argument, if you believe it. But it has little to
do with the status quo, which is that sales tax exists but is only collected
from offline businesses. In other words, arguing for the continuance of the
status quo isn't arguing that sales tax is immoral, it's arguing that online
businesses somehow deserve a free ride offline ones don't.

------
pnathan
Theoretically, I am OK with the government not giving a wink and a nod to
certain classes of business. I am also theoretically OK with not allowing vast
amounts of money to pass around without taxation.

Practically, of course, implementing these ideas could be very nastily done
and make no one happy but certain privileged people who attempt to squash
competition.

------
specialist
Existing players are probably fine with Internet sales tax. It's another
barrier to entry.

------
mark-r
The complexities go far beyond just knowing the rates for each jurisdiction
and arranging for payment.

Naturally there's going to be a call for some kind of compliance testing. How
are you going to catch the cheaters when you don't have access to their
financial records, as you would if the business was in your state?

Even just the rates themselves can get complicated. Minnesota for example
doesn't tax clothing or food, but the specifics of what's included aren't
clear - candy bars for example aren't considered food and are taxed. How is
somebody from another state supposed to figure this out even with software
help?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Naturally there's going to be a call for some kind of compliance testing.
> How are you going to catch the cheaters when you don't have access to their
> financial records, as you would if the business was in your state?

The law allows for an audit by the levying state (but requires that it be a
_single_ audit, even if multiple taxes from multiple jurisdictions in the
state are included in the consolidated tax collected on remote transactions.)

~~~
mark-r
So what happens when the stars align against you and 25 states decide to audit
you at once?

------
bzmwillemsen
Disclaimer: Canadian, so I don't know all the rules.

I think that a law like this is inevitable and in part fair. States like
California have tons of tech companies which are contributing a huge amount of
tax dollars to the states coffers. But they are selling goods and services to
citizens in other states. Why shouldn't these other states get a grab at the
revenue made from the citizens purchasing goods and services while in their
state? While the internet is location-independent the purchaser of any item is
not.

------
northisup
What is wrong with an internet sales tax? If you live in the US and buy
something there is a sales tax associated with that purchase.

Why is buying via the internet any different?

------
creativename
This may be a silly question, but does this sales tax also apply to SaaS
products that you might sell? Or is this only for physical products a la
Amazon?

~~~
chrismaeda
It depends on the state. Some states tax services (eg Ohio), while most states
only tax physical goods.

~~~
creativename
So it would depend on the state that your SaaS company is located in, or where
your customer is accessing it from?

~~~
chrismaeda
The latter. If you are a SaaS business in a state that taxes services, you
only have to collect sales tax for customers in your state today. Under the
new legislation, all SaaS businesses in the US would have to collect sales tax
for any jurisdiction that taxes services.

The simplest way around this would be to set up your SaaS business in Canada.

------
nooneelsebut
Does anyone have any idea how this could affect any startups selling software
online?

This could have huge ramifications, but as usual it's Congress mucking things
up.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Does anyone have any idea how this could affect any startups selling
> software online?

Directly, this law would have no effect on anyone except state policymakers if
it passes.

What effects particular state policies electing to make use of the authority
Congress is allowing states under this law would have depends on the exact
policies adopted by individual states (which would affect what goods are
covered by the states internet sales tax regime and what variables are needed
to calculate the rates, and what, within the requirements of the law, form the
free-of-charge tax calculation software supplied by the state takes.)

------
gejjaxxita
As far as I can understand this isn't a new tax, it's just a law which makes
it easier for tax which is owed anyway to be collected. Nobody likes paying
tax but governments need money to provide services. Perhaps I'm a bit blase
about this because I don't live in America so this doesn't affect me, but
unless you want to not pay tax which you legally should, I don't see the
problem.

------
utopkara
What is wrong with paying sales tax over things that we buy over the internet
again? Isn't the real problem the fact that we have to pay sales tax in
general, and/or the sales tax rate? Sales tax income goes to your state. There
are states which can sustain without a sales tax (or even income tax); they
certainly get that money from somewhere though.

------
joshuahedlund
Does anyone know if this would apply to SaaS stuff or only to physically
shipped products? Also, the $1 million threshold exemption is good, but could
it create scenarios where your product/service takes off and then all of a
sudden you gotta figure out if you need to start sticking sales tax in there?

~~~
dragonwriter
> Also, the $1 million threshold exemption is good, but could it create
> scenarios where your product/service takes off and then all of a sudden you
> gotta figure out if you need to start sticking sales tax in there?

Its based on the _preceding calendar year_ , so the only time that is remotely
possible is if you have an unexpected spike at the end of a calendar year such
that you have to little time to comply for the beginning of the next year.

Sensible planning would just set a threshold substantially lower than $1
million in projected calendar year sales at which you make it a priority to
incorporate functionality to handle sales tax collection for the next year.

------
mark-r
I noticed the $1 million exemption for small businesses. How will that work?
If you sell for 11 months without collecting taxes then find yourself going
viral around Christmastime and crossing the $1 million mark unexpectedly, are
you suddenly liable for all those prior sales?

~~~
dragonwriter
> I noticed the $1 million exemption for small businesses. How will that work?
> If you sell for 11 months without collecting taxes then find yourself going
> viral around Christmastime and crossing the $1 million mark unexpectedly,
> are you suddenly liable for all those prior sales?

No, the $1 million is for total remote sales in _the preceding calendar year_.
So up until the first year you make remote sales of $1 million, you are
exempt; once you reach that threshhold, you are not exempt in subsequent years
until the first year _after_ the first year in which you fail to make $1
million in remote sales.

------
zwieback
My senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) is vehemently against this tax. Oregon doesn't
have a sales tax so I'm not really sure why he's against this proposal so
much. Maybe he thinks we already have a "level playing field" and OR has
nothing to gain since we wouldn't collect anything?

~~~
dragonwriter
> My senator Ron Wyden (D-OR) is vehemently against this tax. Oregon doesn't
> have a sales tax so I'm not really sure why he's against this proposal so
> much.

Probably because "Oregon doesn't have a sales tax" is an incentive for
internet-based retail business to locate facilities in Oregon under the
current regime where sales tax only applies to transactions where,
approximately, (1) the state levying the sales tax is one in which you are
incorporated or have physical presence, _and_ _at the same time_ , (2) the
recipient is located in the state levying the tax.

Note that the incentive to locate in Oregon or other no-sales-tax state over a
state with a sales tax goes away under a model where the first condition is
removed and only the second condition applies.

------
apawloski
So will we see VPNs in Delaware spike from this? It's not clear to me if this
is just extending already existing state sales taxes to the Internet, or if
these are new, additional taxes.

~~~
acjohnson55
Not unless you're getting your products shipped to Delaware

~~~
apawloski
I was thinking of services I use, not necessarily physical products, but
you're right.

That was just tongue-in-cheek though. I'd still like clarification on the
second part.

~~~
saurik
Services are generally (a hedge I only add as maybe one state out there is
doing something insane) not subject to sales tax, only "goods". As an example,
it is typically the case that software will transition from an untaxed service
to a taxed property when it is no longer "custom", and instead made once and
sold to multiple people, or in hilarious cases (California) the second you
make the mistake of providing it on physical media.

------
known
the government can create all the money it needs to fund itself. It does not
need to take it from taxpayers. The entire purpose of the tax code is not to
raise money but to control the wage slaves.

[http://www.naturalnews.com/040027_financial_slavery_money_in...](http://www.naturalnews.com/040027_financial_slavery_money_investments.html)

~~~
logn
This is an insult to actual slaves.

------
ck2
Because it is inevitable?

Ebay is one of the few large entities fighting it, I think they are trying to
get a small sales exemption.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Ebay is one of the few large entities fighting it, I think they are trying
> to get a small sales exemption.

There is already small sellers exemption: "-A State is authorized to require a
remote seller to collect sales and use taxes under this Act only if the remote
seller has gross annual receipts in total remote sales in the United States in
the preceding calendar year exceeding $1,000,000. For purposes of determining
whether the threshold in this sub­section is met". From Section 2(c) of the
act: <http://www.marketplacefairness.org/bill-text/>

------
logn
Because we're already obligated to pay sales tax, and they're just attempting
to collect it better?

------
fredBuddemeyer
because participating in a hopelessly corrupted system is demoralizing.
"activism" brings at the very best a delay followed by a shady deal as soon as
your back is turned.

viva btc

------
codeulike
This is going to be great for Europe!

------
chrismaeda
I expect it to die in the House.

------
timmm
Bitcoin Anyone?

------
jonpeda
The best result that could come of this Internet/Sales Tax issue is that Sales
tax is abolished in favor of income tax.

