More idiocy from the democratian: Balance Field for Sales Taxes. Like a sales tax on newspapers, you mean?

The fundamental flaw in the taxing of internet sales as opposed to what brick and mortar establishments have to pay is this: nothing is stopping the brick and mortar establishments from developing their own internet presence.  Those who decide NOT to do that (thus deciding not to take advantage of this exemption) are making a conscious decision to do so.

And I am sick of paying for the decisions that others make.

We already know the slime running the democratian advocated a decrease in their B&O tax while ours was increased to help make up for that.  And now, they advocate a "balanced field" for sales taxes... so if we buy something from, say, California, over the internet (a federal transaction because it crosses state lines) then we should have to pay Washington Sales tax, even though the transaction didn't take place here.

Really?

Then, does that mean the democratian wants to get rid of their sales tax exemption as well?

After all, balance SHOULD require ALL retailers to pay the sales tax... shouldn't they?  And we all knew that the democratian doesn't have to PAY sales tax... didn't we?

Hypocrites.

In Our View: Balance Field for Sales Taxes

Marketplace Fairness Act makes mild progress in Senate

Thursday, April 25, 2013

digg submit

Members of Congress love to affix euphemistic titles to their bills. Any day now we expect the "Survival of the Human Species Act" to be brought before lawmakers. But in contrast to that trend, the Marketplace Fairness Act is as accurate as it is succinct.This business-friendly bill would level the playing field by allowing states to require online retailers to collect state and local sales taxes. Currently, brick-and-mortar businesses must do so, but their Internet competitors enjoy an unfair advantage. On Monday, the Senate voted 74 to 20 to take up the bill and could take a formal vote soon. That's good news not only for Washington state businesses, but for the state government.

One of the supporters of House Bill 684 is U.S. Rep. Suzan DelBene, who happens to be a former director of the state Department of Revenue. That department estimates passage of the Marketplace Fairness Act would bring in about $284 million to the state in 2013-15 and about $845 million in 2015-2017. If that increase looks overly optimistic, keep in mind that online sales soared last year to $226 billion nationally (almost 16 percent higher than 2011). Included in the 2015-2017 revenue would be an estimated $278 million for cities and counties.

To be clear, this is not a new tax. It's a tax that goes largely uncollected because of the unfair loophole. One of the great ironies in this issue is that many states with both state sales taxes and state income taxes require residents to pay the former when they file returns for the latter. That's pretty much a joke, though. "I do know about three people that comply with that," Sen. Mike Enzi, R-Wyo., said in a recent Associated Press story.

Enzi is among 11 Senate Republicans who joined 22 Democrats to sponsor the Senate bill. A similar House bill lists 24 Republican sponsors and 39 Democratic sponsors. We urge U.S. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler, R-Camas, to join the list of sponsors. Contacted Wednesday, Herrera Beutler said she was undecided: "The argument of fairness made by brick-and-mortar retailers resonates with me, but I can also understand the difficulty for Internet retailers in complying with so many different sales tax jurisdictions. I would very much like to hear more from the people of Southwest Washington. My vote would be based on whether this is best for the families in my district, so receiving different points of view from the region will be valuable."

More: