15 comments

• 

  eee_eff

  1 year ago

  Today, there are plenty of ways that corporations use the internet to enclose their company, and seal it off from democratic institutions which might tax them. Of course, the anti-democratic reality of this enclosure is obscured by the language of freedom that is used to make the case for a “tax free” internet.
  
  But there is one simple question that we can ask the libertarians that exposes the bankruptcy and anti-freedom agenda of the tax free world that they are trying to create. It is a question that libertarians cannot acknowledge, let alone answer.
  
  
  The question is this: What democratically constituted assembly should have the authority to tax internet businesses?
  
  Don’t think libertarians are incapable of answering this question?
  
  Just look here:
  
  http://techliberation.com/2008/02/25/internet-s...
  
  The question, in fact, is a straight-forward corollary of the famous quote from the American Revolution : “No taxation with Representation.”
  
  For if taxation is only legitimate if it originates from representative bodies, then representative bodies are the only bodies that have the power to exact a legitimate tax. The problem, of course, is that the libertarians want to deny society the power to legitimately tax, exposing their anti-freedom and anti-social philosophy for what it is: self-contradictory and denying any value to society other than economic.
  reply
• 

  Adam Thierer

  1 year ago

  Enema_foundry... There is nothing contradictory or "anti-freedom" in anything we have said here regarding this issue. This debate comes down a question of what gives a legislative body the legitimacy and authority to levy taxes on subjects or entities and whether they should ever have the authority to impose taxes on entities OUTSIDE OF THEIR JURISDICTION.
  
  Now, in our modern economy, there are times when messy disputes develop regarding what constitutes a sufficient "nexus" between the state and the entities they are seeking to tax. You could have tried to respond to Braden's argument above by making the case for the State of New York and arguing that a sufficient nexus is present in this case such that they should be allowed to tax Amazon and other online retailers. Instead, you have engaged in a typically asinine diatribe about how libertarians are "anti-freedom" and "anti-social," which is such an utterly preposterous claim that I have to give you credit for having the chutzpah to continuously say more outlandishly stupid things with each new comment you make to the TLF.
  
  Regardless--and just so that I may clarify the point for those who are reading this and care to engage in more reasoned debate on the issue--The principle of the matter, as raised by Amazon's complaint, is sound: If sufficient physical presence is not found, then the taxing authority in question has no right to levy taxes. To do so would be the very essence of tyranny and constitutes a rather straightforward example of 'taxation without representation.' Stated differently, if you really care about representative government, then you would want to make sure that the governed are actually represented by those who are imposing taxes upon them. There isn’t anything "anti-freedom" about that principle.
  reply
• 

  eee_eff

  1 year ago

  we have said here regarding this issue. This debate comes down a question of what gives a legislative body the legitimacy and authority to levy taxes on subjects or entities and whether they should ever have the authority to impose taxes on entities OUTSIDE OF THEIR JURISDICTION.
  
  Well number one:
  I don't use profanity or name calling, so I would ask that who don't either. Civilty, please.
  
  Number two:
  
  Then just answer the question I have asked: What jurisdiction has authority? Just answer that question!
  reply
• 

  eee_eff

  1 year ago

  Obviously you folks at TLF seem to think that abusive comments are OK, well they arenot but they reflect badly on you not me.
  
  The question that raise is important, and libertaarians are trying to build an enclosure around the internet that no one, apparently has the jurisdiction to tax. that's fundamentally anti-social.
  reply
• 

  eee_eff

  1 year ago

  Instead, you have engaged in a typically asinine diatribe about how libertarians are “anti-freedom” and “anti-social,” which is such an utterly preposterous claim that I have to give you credit for having the chutzpah to continuously say more outlandishly stupid things with each new comment you make to the TLF.
  
  Well I woulod just refer you to Amartya Sen's wonderful book Development as Freedom (Amertya Sen won the Nobel prize, BTW) and he talks about libertarians limited conception of freedoms, which include only procedural freedoms, while excluding substabtive freedoms.
  
  I post here because I am concerned about human freedom and therefore oppose oppression of all kinds, whether it comes from a government or a corporation.
  reply
• 

  MikeT

  1 year ago

  
  Then just answer the question I have asked: What jurisdiction has authority? Just answer that question!
  

  
  
  The federal government, for one, but you obviously realized that and were just speaking rhetorically, right?
  
  I, for one, cannot really take someone seriously if their views on freedom include that claptrap that democracy and freedom are intertwined, since modern democratic states are frequently far more invasive into the lives of their people than anything in the ancien regime.
  reply
• 

  Ryan Radia

  1 year ago

  Great summary of Amazon's case, Braden. The Constitutional arguments against the New York Internet Sales Tax provision seem pretty compelling, but who knows what will happen considering the way the courts have been interpreting Quill.
  
  enigma, what about origin-based taxation? Assuming an online business has a physical presence somewhere, why shouldn't the jurisdiction in which the business is located be able to tax all sales? maybe that would be a better solution than letting New York tax all firms with NY-based affiliates.
  reply
• 

  eee_eff

  1 year ago

  @MikeT
  
  No I was spaeking to the author of the post. And I am quite happy that:
  
  - a libertartian has finally answered this imporrtant question and
  
  - thereby exposed the libertarian dislike for democratic institutions, as that, more than anything else belies the abject moral failure of libertarianism
  
  But note that I still don't have an answer from Tim Lee, to whom I had originally asked this very simple question.
  
  @Ryan:
  
  For interstate Commerce, I think the sales should be taxed based on the location where the good is delivered.
  
  This would:
  
  - provide a level playing field for internet and non-internet businesses, so that way a firm on the internet does not get an advantage over a non-internet one. That way the government is not playing favorites, and market forces can play out. If and only if a good is more efficiently delivered by an internet firm, will it have a cost advantage over its competitor(s).
  
  - local control over tax rates will be maintained as much as possible.
  
  One could argue that this will be complex for an on line store to administer, but in reality, we are just talking about a database of tax rates, information which could easily be made available over internet, and really shouldn't be to bad.
  
  An alternative could be a flate rate which would average out the sales tax rates across every state, and get applied to any internet purchase.
  
  Non-starter is the succession of internet businesses from the rest of society, which is what is being proposed by libertarians, apparently. Little things like that is why I make the comment that libertarians are anti-social. Apparently this truth hurts, and therefore Adam keeps losing his temper. But just because Adam's mother didn't raise him to watch his language, does not mean that I will change my views. He should provide an argument or some kind of rebuttal.
  
  Just read Karl Polanyi's The Great Transformation or Amartya Sen's Development as Freedom, and your opinion of Libertarianism (or Liberalism, meaning very much the same thing in Karl Polanyi's book) will change, I think. In particular, Amartya Sen's critique is whithering. (Sorry Adam!)
  reply
• 

  Kevin

  1 year ago

  Thanks for posting this article. It adds some sanity to this debate. A couple of comments:
  
  There's no doubt that NY needs to get revenue back from what they are losing on online sales. It's safe to say most New Yorkers aren't accurately filing their "use tax" every year. (I do, of course......)
  
  I like enigmas concept of purchase location based taxation across the board. It is, by far, the fairest of the tax models I can think of.
  
  In New York, the counties set the rate, with a certain percentage going to the county, and the rest going to the State. So merchants have to tax by zip code. So we are talking about a large database.
  
  What I haven't seen mentioned though: Are the counties going to benefit from this as well, or are we simply talking about collecting the actual State percentage?
  reply
• 

  eee_eff

  1 year ago

  In New York, the counties set the rate, with a certain percentage going to the county, and the rest going to the State. So merchants have to tax by zip code. So we are talking about a large database.
  
  Not really. even if every county in the country had its own rate, the database would just be a few k. The database should be kept by a central site, and made availabe for all.
  reply
• 

  anti-enema

  1 year ago

  Enigma foundry is full of leftist drivel. People like him are an anathema to democracy itself. The real enigma of democracy is that his voice and ideas however warped and baseless must be aired. He probably pracices Wicca too.
  reply
• 

  Thomas Barr

  1 year ago

  New York has no authority to control what its citizens buy or do in any other location. A sale is made where the sale is made. If it is made outside of NY then what sane or logical person could decide that NY had any part or parcel in the sale. Funny how when it comes to sales on sovereign Indian lands that New York takes the same approach. They have even proposed in the NY State assembly, taxing purchases made in Canada, another country. NY is a money grubbing state that especially robs its own citizens in upstate NY and snivels and whines for Federal funds. It is already a fiscal disaster of its own making.
  The NY State Assembly has no respect for the law or the courts. They have already said that if this is overturned, they will still pursue the collection of these taxes.
  On the NY State Income Tax return forms, The last part is "a requirement" to pay taxes on all your out of state purchases, including those made on the internet." Hardly legal, as they have repeatedly lost this in court, yet they still pursue it.
  reply
• 

  Enigma Foundering

  1 year ago

  Enigma Foundry is hardly a libertarian as he seems to purport. Click on his name. He is a new age wack and a socialist that Mao would be proud of.
  reply
• 

  eee_eff

  1 year ago

  Enigma Foundry is hardly a libertarian as he seems to purport. Click on his name. He is a new age wack and a socialist that Mao would be proud of.
  
  Hmmm...exactly where did I ever claim to be a libertarian?? Never did and never will.
  
  Simply put I am concerned primarily about loss of freedom of natural people, as opposed to corporations or governments. both of which are equally able to take freedom away.
  reply
• 

  williyamb

  2 months ago

  South Carolina Personal Injury Lawyers Masella Law can help with Dog Bite cases, Domestic Violence, Car Accidents, Child Custody matters and many other personal injury issues.
  reply