Skip to main content

View Diary: Senate takes up bill to close the online sales tax loophole (131 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  "Only" $600 per year (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Pariah Dog, dangnewt, crankypatriot

    That may seem like a negligible sum of money to many of us, but it may not be so to a poor person who is using a pre-paid "pay by the minute" celllphone and doesn't even have a home phone line.

    Aside from that, Internet access isn't the only barrier to online shopping.  To name one issue that should be obvious, a fair number of poor people have neither a credit card or debit card, making it awfully hard to make those online payments.  

    For anyone to seriously argue that online purchasing isn't skewed towards better off segments of society...well, it's just silly.  If you want to find an argument against extending sales taxes to a larger portion of online sales, you'll have to do better.

    Because the blunt truth is that many of us here have been taking advantage of the online sales tax loophole for years, myself included.  Heck, before there was the Internet, some of us were making use of the loophole for mail order purchases, which could add up to serious savings on high end electronics.

    But at this point in time, online shopping certainly has become mainstream enough that it's really hard to find any sort of rational argument for preserving that loophole any longer.

    Political Compass: -6.75, -3.08

    by TexasTom on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 07:58:48 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Well, TT, we'll just have to agree to disagree on (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Just Bob, Pariah Dog, George3, stevemb

      this one.

      When did a regressive sales tax become a tax 'loophole,' LOL?  That's a new one.

      Seriously, I totally disagree.  I think that another commenter, Nearly Normal, said it well:

       Yes, that quote really struck me as well (7+ / 0-)

      . . . it seemed like an attempt to spin this into some sort of "progressive" move done to better the poor.  Ha.  It may have virtues and it may be more fair for the retailers, but trying to cast it as a move to help the poor who have no access to high-speed internet seems pretty rich.
      [H/T to Nearly Normal]

      BTW, I also mentioned the Prepaid Broadband-2-Go (no credit check required to low income folks, or anybody) that gives you several G's for 30 days for $35.00.  You don't have to have a cell phone service at all.  Just the tiny wi-fi modem.  And, there's no obligation month-to-month.  It is strictly Pay-As-You-Go.  [I believe that you have to sign up for 30 days once a year, to keep your account active.  But that's it.]

      And that's $420 annually.  For a low income person who lives in my state and has to pay a sales tax of 9.75% tax on almost everything, I'd imagine that it'd be worth it to shop online.

      Clearly, sales taxes are a 'regressive tax.'  Being allowed to shop without these taxes being levied on everything you buy, 'is progressive.'  

      My university town has even enacted a local 'pet medications' tax within the past several years, so that no one's 'pet' could be exempted from paying taxes on prescription drugs.

      So now, I'm forced to pay almost 10 percent in taxes for one of my rescues' (a Springer) maintenance medications, that he'll be on for the rest of his life.  They are so expensive, as it is, that we signed up (legally--pets are allowed) for the Walgreen's "W" club to get discounted drugs, LOL!

      Hey, 'to each their own.'  

      As for me, for what good it will do, I'm going to advocate against the passage of this highly regressive bill.

      Since my Senators are Republicans, maybe I'll have some luck lobbying against it.  Now that's a strange twist. ;-)


      "Only he who can see the invisible, can do the impossible."-- Frank L. Gaines


      by musiccitymollie on Mon Apr 22, 2013 at 08:25:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (157)
  • Community (73)
  • Elections (44)
  • Environment (43)
  • Bernie Sanders (42)
  • 2016 (41)
  • Hillary Clinton (35)
  • Spam (34)
  • Culture (34)
  • Republicans (33)
  • Media (32)
  • Climate Change (32)
  • Civil Rights (28)
  • Labor (27)
  • Education (24)
  • Science (24)
  • Congress (24)
  • Law (23)
  • Barack Obama (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (22)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site