If the state loses, say, $30 million in revenues from lost sales tax revenues,
it will raise taxes elsewhere to make up th difference.If I shop at
the local store and my neighbor buys all his merchandise on line (and does not
voluntarily pay the Utah use tax), state revenues are reduced. The state then
raises other taxes that I pay, so my overall taxes go up because online sales
are not taxed.To keep the tax burden on all of us more evenly
distributed, I'm all for taxing on-line purchases.
I would agree to tax on-line sales, but with increased revenue perhaps
government could offset the taxes by lowering taxes for businesses that have
been paying them all along.
Lost in DC:Do you really think that if the state gains $30 million in
revenue they would reduce taxes? No, They would find something else to spend it
on. Our problems is not from not enough taxes...It is from too much spending.
This bill is being pushed by WalMart and believe it or not Amazon (they are
selling the software for businesses to be able to put this tax plan
together).This is just another grab at how to tax us more. It is
going to cost businesses money to administer this complicated plan which by the
way we pay for in increased prices.
Good.Right now, people are technically supposed to be paying sales
taxes on these transactions. The out-of-state store doesn't collect the
tax- you're supposed to account for all your out-of-state purchases
yourself and submit it with your personal yearly state taxes. Nobody does.
That's a nightmarish paperwork burden for individual consumers and a
tremendously inefficient way to collect taxes, so the remote sales tax is simply
ignored.The current situation is a historical anachronism. Maybe it
was workable back around the WWI era when remote sales were mostly through the
Sears, Roebuck & Co. catalog. Not today.It puts businesses with
a local presence at an artificial disadvantage. It reduces states' ability
to raise revenue efficiently, to the tune of about $60 billion in lost sales tax
per year. States make up part of that by finding other ways of raising revenue
that are more onerous and burdensome for taxpayers. To some extent states may
not make that up, and when the states can't provide services due to reduced
revenue, that contributes to the concentration of power in the federal
government and to the federal deficit.This change is fifty years
Evets,No, you misunderstood.if the state is no longer losing
that money, it will not have to raise it somewhere else.
Once some thing is taxed it will always be taxed and will be tax increased for
ever. Your value of your house went down in UT. your taxes went up.
Since Woodrow Wilson and the IRS system started, the federal government has
looked at ways to get more and more money, from wherever they could get it.
They charge fees, surcharges, and taxes and even made agreements with states to
be partners and give the states, counties and cities a fraction of the extra
taxes they charged in the 1970s. They want to make it appear as we are getting
something in return from the omnipotent government in Washington, D.C., no
matter which party is in control due to an ever growing bureaucracy. If we
didn't have a bureaucracy to spend that extra money we made a reason to
form another agency, department and such to pay high salaries and give people
jobs to manage and justify the expenditures. Government jobs build
potential votes depending on the time and season. With the furloughs happening
and the inconvenience and lack of salary coming in, that builds a political
campaign for the parties way prior to the next election at who is at fault.
Elections are about campaigning and building a necessity. Money speaks and
especially when it is a lack of money. Banks, auto manufacturers spoke - got