Why an Internet sales tax is such an incomprehensibly bad idea
Summary: If the economy is to get stronger, charging consumers more when they're already struggling to afford goods and services is not a wise move. Even brick and mortars won't win. Here's why.
It never fails. The only time both parties are willing to work together in Congress is when they're cooking up really bad ideas. If they've found a new way to cause trouble, reduce freedom, or generally damage the health of the nation, they work together just fine.
The representative system would work so much better if our representatives weren't such schmucks.
This time, the brilliant idea is taxing Internet sales. Oh, I know we've been down this road before, but this time there appears to be some traction.
CBS News: Senate moves closer to backing online sales taxes
Before I explore why an Internet sales tax is such a bad idea for our current times, I'll quickly summarize the reasons some factions are arguing in favor of an Internet sales tax.
Here goes: "Waaaaah! It's not fair!"
Okay, perhaps that's an over-simplification. There are two vectors to this discussion. The first is that traditional retailers have to charge sales tax, so they are effectively at a price disadvantage to online retailers. In order to level the playing field and give moribund brick and mortar stores a chance to live, we need to tax the upstarts.
The second vector is the actual truth though: Congress has so mismanaged America's finances that the states are going broke. The states desperately need a new source of revenue and Congress doesn't want it to come from the federal budget. So let the states add a new Internet sales tax, and voila! More money for the states and nothing out of the federal budget.
Congress gets to appear as if it's standing up for their local constituent interests, for brick and mortar traditional values, and for the states, all in one screw-the-public-and-the-economy blast of bipartisanship.
Brick and mortars are hurting. States are hurting. Why shouldn't Internet companies do their part to help out?
The answer is pretty simple: "It's the economy, stupid."
This is not a time to add a 4% to almost 12% price increase to the purchasing of goods. A tremendous number of people buy online, and by increasing their costs across the board, tax revenue won't go up nearly as much as sales will go down.
Here's how the economists look at it: Sales tax revenue is just one component of the overall economy; everything is interconnected. If sales tax income goes up, but overall tax income goes down because (a) people are spending less, (b) companies go out of business, (c) fewer companies start up, and (d) people lose their jobs, the net tax income will actually be less.
And that's just what will happen if we get an Internet sales tax. It will result in further damaging our economy while also causing the loss of jobs while also causing states and the federal government to collect less revenue, not more.
It's not just that consumers will buy less online if their purchases are taxed. It's that operating an online store that deals with sales tax accounting is a very non-trivial task.
There are 50 states, almost all of which have individual sales tax rates. Worse, there are hundreds (possibly thousands) of local tax rates across the country. For an online retailer to sell in an America with an Internet tax rate, sales taxes will suddenly have to be collected for all of these jurisdictions.
Even that's not so bad. Good shopping cart software can track rates based on ZIP code.
Where it gets bad is reporting. Filing sales tax reports for hundreds or thousands of jurisdictions, each with their own different forms and filing rules, can become incomprehensibly complex. Small online retailers won't be able to keep up.
Of course, the large online retailers, like Amazon, will have the IT resources to build out tax management into their systems. As a result, Amazon will get stronger at the expense of small online retailers.
Now, here's the biggest irony: Who are the small online retailers? In many cases, they're stores that have also set up shop on the Internet. They showcase their inventory, not only in their brick and mortar storefront, but in their online store as well. With complex, convoluted Internet-based sales tax in place, these local brick and mortars will have to close their online stores and concentrate only on local sales.
Amazon will once again be strengthened at the expense of local brick and mortars.
Now, don't get me wrong — I like Amazon. I probably buy more from Amazon than from any other retailer. But Amazon is not the U.S. economy.
If the economy is to get stronger, charging consumers more when they're already struggling to afford goods and services is not a wise move.
Well, I guess nobody has ever accused Congress of wisdom.
It's just so sad. It will be much harder for small online retailers to start, set up shop, and keep up with the paperwork demands. The one really strong growing sector of our economy will be nerfed and, really, no one will benefit.
Amazon won't really win because overall purchasing will still go down when an Internet tax is charged, consumers won't win because they'll be asked yet again to spend more, new startups won't win because the paperwork will be much worse, brick and mortar won't win because their online shops will be much harder to run, and even the states won't win because, ultimately, damaging the economy does not create more tax revenue.
Sadly, even Congress won't win because consumers will be more annoyed than they are now, and when consumers are annoyed, they tend to vote against the incumbent.
Talk about shooting yourself in the foot. Congress would do well to back away from this issue quickly and quietly.
Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.
Talkback
I thought certain states DO have an internet sales tax?
Is my memory wrong on this point?
I believe it's point-of-presence
No new taxes
Currently, if a business, such as Best Buy, has a brick and mortar store in the state of residence of the customer, then the appropriate amount of sales tax is added to the customer's online purchase.
The tax payer is supposed to list online purchases, made over the past tax year, when they file their taxes so that the taxes on those purchases can be added to the their tax bill. I can't imagine even 1% of online customers doing this.
The bill forces the online retailers to add the tax regardless of a brick and mortar presence in the customer's state.
So there are no new taxes created. This bill just enforces current law.
*edit
"So there are no new taxes created. This bill just enforces current law"
Current law is Quill v. North Dakota (1992) where the Supreme Court said retailers aren't required to collect.
But greed and artifice by our tax addicted politicians seek to overturn this.
I can tell you this, it's not going to prompt me to shop at local brick and mortar stores if the price is substantially more. Far from it.
You are partially correct
Which is what I just said
Which was why the Supreme Court case was brought about to begin with. Having the seller collect the tax for a state he doesn't even live in, let alone have a presence in.
DOH
As I said, greed & artifice rule...
This is not the same law
And just because a state is ineffective in collecting an unpopular tax does not mean they should get the federal government to allow them to collect an interstate tax the Supreme Court has ruled is not allowed.
Finally, although I believe many governments are strapped for income, the percentage of their citizens' income has generally increased over the years. Note just the amount, but the percentage. So they have found ever increasing things to spend our money on.
you are mistaken...
no i'm not mistaken
This bill is not about customers being required to pay. This bill is about retailers being required to collect. In effect overturning the Supreme Court decision.
Are you having a brain dysfunction here or what...
different level
The reason that was a problem? Interstate commerce is controlled by *federal* law.
So, in essence, the current status is:
-- a state tried enforcing a state law on an out-of-state vendor;
-- the Supreme Court said that that violated the US Constitution *because there was no federal law allowing it*
-- the US Congress is considering passing a *federal* law that would *legally* use their powers over interstate commerce to allow states to enforce *existing* state laws.
As for use tax, it's not new either. In my state, use tax predates not only the Internet
Since when..
I can see this being challenged again. Many small vendors aren't going to go down without a fight.
Not Exactly
If a company has "presence" within a state then they must collect sales tax. Amazon doesn't have any brick and mortor stores but they do have many wharehouses in other states.
To contend that this isn't a new tax might be technically correct but the impacts are that all online retailers will be impacted by taxes they didn't previously collect. The majority of online retailers are small one-man businesses (think ebay) and they will be forced out of the market for the reasons mentioned in the article.
Regulation and complexity add costs to doing business
Didn't you research before writing?
It is also my belief.
Oops...
"I believe it's point-of-presence"
PoP
If the store has a local retailer, supplier, or warehouse co-located in that state, they charge you online sales tax. A few exceptions to this are the PC makers such as Dell, who charge you a "fee" when you purchase a warranty plan or the like for one of their products either over the phone or online. I like reading your posts, because you actually make valid points and you seem to do a better job of not having gramatical errors in your writing...:D
Still not totally accurate
Technically, all "sales" require tax unless exempt (vary by state). If you buy from Amazon in Michigan or other location without a physical location, you are required by law to submit the appropriate taxes to the state. The issue is it isn't enforced. What the law would do is enforce it by having the companies liable for paying the tax and not the customer. It needs to be done as it is a massive loophole. I'm glad to see conservatives agree to closing a loophole, although it will affect tons and not just the wealthiest-probably why they agree.