redblueamerica.com

To put it simply, government is a service. Sales tax on brick-n-morter stores makes sense as this local resource is using significant public resources. Internet stores get stuck in this limbo. Sure, sales tax from stuff their employees buy will fund various governmental services, but in general the warehouses that use as much or more of the public resources as large brick-n-morter stores don't give much back to the community they are in. So in essence, what New York wants is all of the money without providing much if any of the services that they must provide for other retailers and at the same time not reimbursing the communities that are actually affected by the higher public resource utilization.

I should go back a second. When I'm referring to public resources, I'm referring to roads, sidewalks, signal lights, law enforcement, street lighting, snow removal... etc etc etc. These are the basic services that the government provides that allow brick-n-morter business operate. You could say that the delivery services such as FedEx and UPS are making up for the resource under-utilization by internet business, but you can't completely state that.

This really goes back to the age old problem. Large centralized conglomerations are more efficient, but they detract from local businessmen. This was the case with farmers, with grocery stores, with small electronics stores and appliance stores. In general, the true "mom-and-pop" businesses have been destroyed by large conglomerations. Now the large conglomerations that destroyed most small businesses are complaining that they can't compete with Amazon and other internet retailers after they undercut local competition by being more efficient or in some cases just taking a loss which the smaller stores couldn't do.

So now we get back to one more fundamental question that Amazon asked as to the constitutionality of the tax. Our government is based on the concept of taxing with representation. Thus the only government that has the right to regulate interstate traffic is the federal government. This sounds an awful lot like a really good constitutional question that might be struck down my New York's own court system if the federal court system doesn't get to it first.

Why are we U.S. citizens have to pay taxes for online purchases. I myself work for big box mart. The income is basically going on utilities. Why not charge taxes on utilities. Wait. We pay taxes on utilities. What about the pork barrel projects such as Federal Government wasting taxpayers money on war, foolish projects that mounts to hill of beans which will eventually decay. We have companies who are trying to struggle. I am talking about companies that get started in infancy. Like Computer shops along with others like them. I have seen them go in and out of business. Matter of fact, The oil companies needs to pay their share of taxes on their windfall profits they have made. That is being unfair to the poor people like myself and others who are struggling.

The government should work *for* and *with* the people, not against them. The government can't act like a separate entity with its own desires trumping those of the citizens. If a citizen wants to find a way to legally circumvent certain taxes, then the government should stand back and let it happen. Yes, this may result in lost revenues, but that can't be a deciding factor. Forcing internet sales to include sales taxes is like forcing Hybrid buyers to pay an added registration fee, due to the smaller amount of gas taxes they pay.

Because the online folks are getting an unfair competitive advantage. That might be a great way to encourage online retailing, but it's a lousy way to treat established businesses.

As I understand it: Colorado. Why: I'm not sure why the sales tax would be charged in the purchaser's home state as opposed to the seller's. But that doesn't just happen online. In some states -- Kansas being one -- the taxes you pay to buy a big-ticket item in one county (a car, say) gets collected in the county where you live.