Congress should let states collect online sales taxes

  • Article by: Seattle Times Editorial
  • Updated: April 2, 2013 - 5:18 PM

Congress has taken an overdue but encouraging step toward harmonizing sales-tax enforcement between online and brick-and-mortar retail sales.

  • 24
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
jd55604Apr. 2, 1312:19 PM

Online sales taxes for out of state purchases is taxation without representation and is also a clear violation of the 10th amendment to the constitution.

6
14
hinjonApr. 2, 1312:25 PM

jd55604 posted "Online sales taxes for out of state purchases is taxation without representation and is also a clear violation of the 10th amendment to the constitution." Probably one of the least educated comments I've seen in a while. Anytime you buy a product in another state, you are subject to their sales tax. Is that also taxation without representation?

12
5
supervon2Apr. 2, 1312:41 PM

So, move offshore and you're back in business. Face it-it's the last way we can buy things without having the State follow us around. Long live the State.

6
10
reader2580Apr. 2, 1312:46 PM

All states that have sales tax also have use tax. You owe use tax when you buy an item and don't pay sales tax on it. Sales tax collection by Internet retailers isn't taxation without reprsentation because the sales tax money they collect goes back to your state.

12
3
awshucksApr. 2, 13 1:30 PM

Legally, we're obligated to pay the use tax on items we buy online - but most of us don't, I know I sure don't. Time to bring a bit of fairness back to the marketplace. Heck, I'll still buy a good bit online for the better prices, better selection, and convenience.

7
1
gandalf48Apr. 2, 13 1:39 PM

hinjon - [Probably one of the least educated comments I've seen in a while. Anytime you buy a product in another state, you are subject to their sales tax. Is that also taxation without representation?] *** Not true, ordering over the phone or through a magazine/catalogue has always been tax free, it's just now that internet sales have increased a massive amount that states want a piece of the pie. BTW, Minnesota will have to change its own laws to accommodate this change...they currently allow you to purchase up to $770 worth of products tax free from other states/countries. <--- Seriously, this comment was rejected twice, I'm going to report you to your boss for constant rejection of my comments...pettiness is not a virtue.

4
8
furrynutcupApr. 2, 13 1:44 PM

Sounds like a revenue generating device for State Governments but which state gets to keep the revenue? And who will actually transfer that money to that state?

3
7
jd55604Apr. 2, 13 1:45 PM

hinjon posted "Anytime you buy a product in another state, you are subject to their sales tax."....In cases where a person physically travels to the store of an out of state merchant you are correct but why is the out of state merchant subject to another states taxation? Why should an online Montana merchant have a MN sales tax applied to the sale of his/her goods? The transaction didn't occur in MN, adds to the cost of his products and provides him with no state services or representation in return. A clear case of taxation without representation.

3
8
furrynutcupApr. 2, 13 1:45 PM

Si I'm gonna do all my big purchaing in South Dakota on my summer trips.

3
7
herby2013Apr. 2, 13 1:51 PM

First off, putting online retailers on a level playing field with bricks and mortar retailers is a fine idea. However, why is it up to the online retailer who may have no physical presence in a state to collect and remit sales taxes? The online retailer would have to know the tax rate in every state, county, and any other taxing district based on address as tax rates can vary within a state depending on location. What a nightmare. The states should require that consumers remit their own sales taxes. What? People wouldn't want to pay their sales taxes? Gee, who would have thought... In years past, the state of Minnesota sent letters to consumers who purchased tobacco products online demanding they pay the state tax. All this idea is trying to do is push the burden of tax collection onto businesses that do not have operations inside a state instead of the burden being on the state that levies the tax. The state levies the tax, the burden (and expense) should be on the state to collect the tax, not on businesses located outside the state.

2
7

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

  • about opinion

  • The Opinion section is produced by the Editorial Department to foster discussion about key issues. The Editorial Board represents the institutional voice of the Star Tribune and operates independently of the newsroom.

  • Submit a letter or commentary
Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT