As things stand now, we're basically subsidizing UPS.
Tim Lee
· 1 year ago
That's true, I suppose. I would bet that UPS consumes a lot fewer government services per dollar of merchandise delivered than your average brick-and-mortar store, though.
(Tim, the "post" button on your preview page seems to be messed up -- it didn't post my comment.)
eee_eff
· 1 year ago
Well, because these businesses use state services. Customers get to brick-and-mortar businesses on state and local roads.
But Tim, then you should believe that if I buy something from Amazon, I should have to pay sales taxes in Washington state, right?
The internet should not be a giant loop hole for corporations or individuals to escape paying taxes, it just transfers power from civic agencies (your local police station, library, or Art Museum) to private capital aggregations, i.e., corporations. We all lose when society is made poorer.
Tim Lee
· 1 year ago
EF, if Washington state wanted to tax Amazon's sales to out-of-state individuals, it could.
And this "loophole" wasn't created for the Internet. Mail order companies have never been subject to the sales taxes of the jurisdictions they shipped to.
eee_eff
· 1 year ago
Yes, Tim I am perfectly aware of the mail order exception, which existed prior to the internet.
So, your line of thinking would put all local business a structural disadvantage to those that are out of the area, and would eventually lead to a decline in tax revenues as internet sales increased. To me that is a bug, but to those who want to do away with civic structures, it is a feature.
Just be honest--you would like to make it difficult for governments to tax, as a way of subverting democracy.
Tim Lee
· 1 year ago
I will happily admit to being in favor of lower taxes.
eee_eff
· 1 year ago
I will happily admit to being in favor of lower taxes.
I am in favor of reasonable taxes, and better spending, but I doubt that US tax burden is too high.
But in any case, my preference is to mediate taxes straightforwardly, through democratic and transparent processes. So, with that preface, which democratic body should be able to levy taxes on the internet?
All Comments
But Tim, then you should believe that if I buy something from Amazon, I should have to pay sales taxes in Washington state, right?
The internet should not be a giant loop hole for corporations or individuals to escape paying taxes, it just transfers power from civic agencies (your local police station, library, or Art Museum) to private capital aggregations, i.e., corporations. We all lose when society is made poorer.
And this "loophole" wasn't created for the Internet. Mail order companies have never been subject to the sales taxes of the jurisdictions they shipped to.
So, your line of thinking would put all local business a structural disadvantage to those that are out of the area, and would eventually lead to a decline in tax revenues as internet sales increased. To me that is a bug, but to those who want to do away with civic structures, it is a feature.
Just be honest--you would like to make it difficult for governments to tax, as a way of subverting democracy.
I am in favor of reasonable taxes, and better spending, but I doubt that US tax burden is too high.
But in any case, my preference is to mediate taxes straightforwardly, through democratic and transparent processes. So, with that preface, which democratic body should be able to levy taxes on the internet?