“Amazon tax” takes Texas in the wrong direction.


I am pleased to bring to you this commentary by the Texas Public Policy Foundation’s own VP for Research, Bill Peacock, on the need to defeat the Texas “Amazon tax” that will be considered by the Texas House of Representatives on Thursday morning. RedState’s Erick Erickson was on the case of the “Amazon tax” back in mid-May, and since then, Neil Stevens has done yeoman’s work in sounding the alarm. Our Lone Star State may be America’s top job creator, but even our politicians need some reminding which way is right.

Texas has made a name for itself lately by luring businesses from other states, like California, looking to get away from heavy regulation and taxes. For instance, Site Selection Magazine recently named Texas the top state in the nation for the most new business projects and expansions.

However, if the Texas Legislature follows through with its current plan to adopt an “Amazon tax” on Thursday, Califonia’s VigLink, a Google Ventures-backed online marketing company, is one company that likely won’t be heading our way.

Viglink’s founder and CEO Oliver Roup has already moved his company’s operations out of Illinois into neighboring Indiana in response to the Amazon tax passed this spring by the Illinois Legislature. Now he faces a tougher challenge with a similar law being considered in California, where his company is headquartered.

“We stand to take an immediate hit to our revenue,” said Roup. “We have contingency plans in place, we’ll survive, but we think it’s bad for business, it’s bad for California, and it’s bad for tax revenue.”

Such a tax would be bad for Texas as well.

The skirmish in Texas began last year when the Comptroller issued an assessment to Amazon of $269 million for uncollected sales taxes, interest, and penalties, apparently claiming the company must collect sales taxes on goods sold to Texans because it has a presence in the state.

However, whether Amazon has a presence in the state that would trigger its responsibility to collect the state’s sales tax is questionable under both state and federal law.

To be on the safe side, the Texas Legislature recently joined with tax and spend states like California and Illinois by passing our own version of the Amazon tax. Gov. Rick Perry vetoed the bill, but the tax is back again, included as a provision in SB 1, the fiscal matters bill, which will be considered by the Texas House on Thursday.

The Amazon tax is best understood in the context of government’s unending search for new revenues. For instance, while state and local governments are currently targeting Internet sales as a source of revenue, this simply builds on previous efforts to use out-of-state mail order sellers to collect the tax. However, those efforts ran afoul of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1992 decision, Quill v. North Dakota.

In addition to enacting Amazon tax laws, states have been trying to work around Quill though a Streamlined Sales and Use Tax Agreement that “encourages” the collection of the sales tax. Now, Congress is weighing in with the “Main Street Fairness Act,” which would give a state explicit authority to force retailers to collect a sales tax on goods sold to residents of that state.

One of the problems government has is that it moves very slowly in comparison to the marketplace. As a result, government is always trying to “catch up” by imposing new taxes or regulations on activities that it never conceived of but that have become a way of life for most people.

So when proponents of the Amazon tax bill call it a “clarification” of existing law, don’t believe them. It is easy to see that the Texas Legislature had no intent of taxing Internet sales when the current definitions were initially enacted back in 1981. Instead, the bill makes a significant change to current law in an attempt to boost sales tax revenue.

Most people would call this a tax increase. Such realistic terminology helps us see the true problem, which is that governments focus more on increasing revenue than on reducing spending.

Witness the Texas Legislature, which spent a lot more effort during the regular session coming up with budget gimmicks and “non-tax” revenue sources to balance the budget than looking for ways to reduce the size and cost of government.

The problem Texas must deal with isn’t too little revenue, it is too much spending. A focus on revenue will cost Texas jobs as employers like Amazon and Mr. Roup take their companies and employees elsewhere.

Gov. Perry was right to veto the Amazon tax bill, and he’d be right if he did it again. Staying focused on downsizing Texas government is the only way to keep Texas as the top job producing state in the nation.

Bill Peacock is vice president of research and planning and director of the Center for Economic Freedom at the Texas Public Policy Foundation. He may be reached at bpeacock@texaspolicy.com.


Category: , , , , , , , ,

RSS feed

36 Comments Leave a comment

Absolutely

mboyle1988 (Diary) Wednesday, June 8th at 11:53PM EST (link)

I will be moving to Texas in August. I will be leaving as soon as my job contract is up in two years if they pass this tax. Cut cut cut. Don’t spend more money than you take in. Don’t add new sources of revenue. Don’t add new programs. It’s really simple. Government shouldn’t cost much money.

Not so unfair as it seems in all cases

kjkj Thursday, June 9th at 1:32PM EST (link)

During a search for a new large flat screen TV, I found that the retail price on Amazon with next day delivery was the same as Best Buy. How could Amazon next day ship me a TV for less money than the Texas sales tax? Turns out Amazon had stored the TVs in a local warehouse and had contracted with someone locally for delivery. I wondered how it could have a physical presence in the State and legally avoid adding sales tax. I bought the TV at Best Buy and paid the sales tax.

Just to fill my personal order, Amazon was not going to ship the new TV across state lines. It was going to undercut brick and mortar retailers using a questionable operating procedure.

Texas depends on state sales tax instead of an income tax for revenue. Do I want the State to institute a new tax to compensate for a decline in sales tax revenues? Doesn’t the State have a right to call Amazon’s hand and demand sales tax on sales of items held in local warehouses?

 
 

They are trying to change the rules

Adjoran (Diary) Thursday, June 9th at 2:37AM EST (link)

Internet sellers based in a state already have to collect the sales tax from that state’s residents who purchase from them. Amazon isn’t creating a retail base in Texas, though, they want to build warehouse and administrative facilities.

This is a gambit backed by money-hungry legislators and in-state competitors. Wal-Mart is one of the main ones, usually, behind these moves, since because they do have retail presences in these states they must collect the tax on their own internet sales. Taxing their out-of-state competitors would even give them the advantage, since they offer free shipping on their “ship to store” internet sales.

Follow the money.

eeewww

Goldwater_Conservative (Diary) Thursday, June 9th at 9:05AM EST (link)

the boogy man Walmart is behind it. Go back to your Alex Jones conspiracy forum.

Ah, the angry cry of the statist

Neil Stevens (Diary) Thursday, June 9th at 9:28AM EST (link)

Why are you so offended by the concept of a transaction that is not taxed by Big Government?

Those of us who favor small, constitutional government can’t figure your types out.

RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules

Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.

“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder

I guess I'm like Pawlenty

Goldwater_Conservative (Diary) Thursday, June 9th at 9:42AM EST (link)

I would actually like to see the tax rates reduced but I’m tired of seing all these companies avoid paying taxes by moving their headquarters overseas (and for that reason only). I see this one in the same vein.

This benefits the market

plwinteregg Thursday, June 9th at 9:59AM EST (link)

The only benefit ‘corporations’ get from this is increased business. They still pay all their proper taxes for their state/locality as well as federal taxes. It is the consumer who is not paying a sales tax, something that is not even universal for every state or locale.

The comparison to large corporations moving overseas is a bogus one. The only connection to the two situations is that taxing something always has a punitive effect on business, so business will always move to where it is taxed less.

If you want to argue

Goldwater_Conservative (Diary) Thursday, June 9th at 10:03AM EST (link)

reducing or eliminating sales taxes then I’m all on board with you. But if we are going to have the stupid thing in place, it must apply to everyone, thats all I’m saying.

This is why competition is good

plwinteregg Thursday, June 9th at 10:22AM EST (link)

By allowing the differences between the states, we’re seeing in real time what works and what doesn’t. California is collapsing, Texas is thriving.

If I’m a local business owner who has to compete with an out-of-state merchant, then I will be forced to find ways to be better than them, including overcoming any perceived tax advantage. It forces me to be better. Adversity is good. The consumer always wins in the long run.

 

No, it must not apply to everyone

Neil Stevens (Diary) Thursday, June 9th at 1:39PM EST (link)

The Constitution says so.

RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules

Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.

“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder

 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Ya the internet has really got states in a fever pitch

jaykali (Diary) Thursday, June 9th at 9:02AM EST (link)

Now there is so much interstate commerce that it represents kind of a tax limbo. As a purchaser I love it, I buy a ton via amazon or ebay bc why should I pay tax if I don’t have to + it is discounted anyway.

 

Its a loophole

Goldwater_Conservative (Diary) Thursday, June 9th at 9:03AM EST (link)

and its as simple as that. This loophole induces stores to exit their actual storefront and instead go only online so they can get an advantage over their competitors with this loophole. If anything we should be rewarding those that actually have storefronts since they participate in the real estate, construction, insurance, and service indusry while the those that go hide in their basements to play the online game participate in none of that. If you care about true stimulation of the economy (and I mean the goold ole private sector kind) you will go after all these unfair and unjust loopholes.

The Constitution is not a loophole

Neil Stevens (Diary) Thursday, June 9th at 9:26AM EST (link)

It is a designed document.

RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules

Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.

“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder

I'm talking about using

Goldwater_Conservative (Diary) Thursday, June 9th at 9:28AM EST (link)

the ICC clause to avoid paying taxes. The item was searched, sought, and bought all in one state (this is outside of the ICC intent). Just because it was shipped from another state is a technicality hiding behind the ICC.

Cool story bro

Neil Stevens (Diary) Thursday, June 9th at 9:55AM EST (link)

I guess you’re one of those Living Constitution types.

My copy is inanimate.

RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules

Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.

“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder

I guess you will have

Goldwater_Conservative (Diary) Thursday, June 9th at 10:00AM EST (link)

to throw all the conservatives in the texas house that voted for this under the RINO bus too? Or maybe, we are getting a little to out there in rhetoric?

 
 
 

Just like I know

Goldwater_Conservative (Diary) Thursday, June 9th at 9:36AM EST (link)

the founding fathers never meant for the “public purpose” in the emminent domain clause to mean what Kelo vs New London ruling said. The Consitution is not a living and breathing document, but we must constantly go back to the original intent and apply that to who today uses it.

Then look at the original intent in this case, too

plwinteregg Thursday, June 9th at 9:51AM EST (link)

The change in the way we do business over these centuries doesn’t change why the Founders wanted no restrictions on interstate commerce. As you claim to be a Goldwater Conservative, I’m surprised you’d be so willing to run counter to the very clear intent of the Founders. They did this very specifically based on their deep study and understanding of human history–and based on the failures of the original Confederation.

See below

Goldwater_Conservative (Diary) Thursday, June 9th at 9:57AM EST (link)

a “restriction” or penalty would be something in addition to what every business in that state must pay. Having them subject to the same laws that everyone else in that state is, is certianly not a restriction.

 
 
 
 

Gotta business to run---

plwinteregg Thursday, June 9th at 10:50AM EST (link)

and competitors to out do. Thanks for the lively discussion!

 
 

Competition is a good thing

plwinteregg Thursday, June 9th at 9:22AM EST (link)

As Quill demonstrates, we have a pesky thing called the Constitution, so no matter how you try to dress this pig, it is still a pig–you simply cannot tax interstate sales this way.

Most politicians and bureaucrats simply haven’t caught on that the paradigm has changed. Even many folks like ‘Goldwater’ above don’t get it. This is not a “loophole”, this is our Constitution.

Although our Founders could never have foreseen the advent of mail-order and internet sales, they did understand that our country would flourish if free-enterprise and competition were encouraged. Trying to suppress interstate competition through taxation is not the solution. The effect is similar to putting duty on imports to protect local industry–it rarely works, if at all.

Our free markets have given birth to creative new concepts and methods, and we have all benefited from the increased efficiencies that have resulted. No other country on this planet can get goods so cheaply and across great distances as quickly as we can.

So instead of trying to fit old rules on a new game, our states should instead embrace this brave new world fully.

As an internet business owner, I’ve had conversations with folks in my state and told them they have it all wrong. The way to tackle this is to make sure your state is more attractive than any others to be the home base (and/or warehouse and shipping center) for interstate retailers. This will create a situation where you have a net influx of money into the state which will in turn create jobs, wealth, and tax revenue.

We need to stop looking at this through the lens of the past as lost revenue, but instead as a new opportunity for economic prosperity for your states.

You said it

Goldwater_Conservative (Diary) Thursday, June 9th at 9:26AM EST (link)

“Although our Founders could never have foreseen the advent of mail-order and internet sales,”

Just like I dont think they could have forseen your average citizen owning weapons of mass destruction. At some point you must use discretion and think about what the intent of the original law was and how its now being exploited with technological advances

Strong foundations hold in any time

plwinteregg Thursday, June 9th at 9:47AM EST (link)

You’re missing the point entirely. The founders understood clearly that for our country to thrive, there could not be any hindrance to the flow of goods, people, or funds between the states. Part of the failure of the original Confederation was that the states had the ability to constrict interstate commerce.

Now that the method is not sailing ship or horse and buggy, but instead by internet and UPS, Fedex, or USPS, we need to realize that the foundational purpose behind what they did still applies.

This is not exploitation. This is competition, something our Founders understood clearly even 200+ years ago.

I would say

Goldwater_Conservative (Diary) Thursday, June 9th at 9:55AM EST (link)

disruption of the flow of goods between the states would be an additional penalty that goods inside that state dont have to pay. Like a state to state tarrif, which is certianly something that would have evolved. Having to pay the same thing that every other business in that state is certianly not the “disruption of the flow of goods”. True compitition arises when everyone in that retail segment must play by the same rules and tax regulations that their compititors must.

Goldwater must be twisting in his grave

plwinteregg Thursday, June 9th at 10:10AM EST (link)

to hear you use such a twisted argument. The true meaning of competition is that there will be differences. By allowing not only individuals and business, but also states to go their own path creates a vibrant, competitive field. Our federal system is at its best when the states are free to experiment and discover what works, and what doesn’t. We already have an uneven playing field, as different states and locales have different tax structures, including some without a sales tax. This is a good thing. To use your argument we would have to say that the success of Texas in recent years was due to it playing unfairly. Poppycock. They have flourished because they found ways to make their state more attractive to business.

Ahh, yes

Goldwater_Conservative (Diary) Thursday, June 9th at 10:21AM EST (link)

competition will bring differences but they should be between the competitors. In this case the difference is created by the state. Business inside the state must pay a 7-10% mark up penaty that the out-of state business dont have to (even if they are only out of state by one mile). I live for and love free market competition, but I despise government created compittion such as this sales tax loophole.

But the founders WANTED states to compete

plwinteregg Thursday, June 9th at 10:24AM EST (link)

They viewed the states much in the same way as individuals and businesses. If they are forced to compete, then better ways come of it and we all are better for it.

But the states will compete

Goldwater_Conservative (Diary) Thursday, June 9th at 10:35AM EST (link)

either way. Lets say texas were to implement this, they are still going to be crushing california in new job growth. Rigth now, both Lousiana and Oklahoma are sucking billions of dollars out of Texas by setting up indian reservation casinos (oklahoma) on the boarder and riverfront casinos (lousinana) on the tex-la boarder. Neither one has really gone all out and passed gambling legislation but they are profiting off the indian reservation and riverfront loopholes that were in place. With those loopholes, government, not the free market, is picking the winners and losers, and I despise that.

I repeat, this is what the founders wanted--

plwinteregg Thursday, June 9th at 10:43AM EST (link)

competition between the states. Either we figure out how to use what we have to be better than the other states, or we suffer. This in turn makes us all stronger as we learn from each states’ successes and failures.

Don’t like your money going to Texas? Then figure out how to use the resources and abilities in your state to out do them and attract in inflow of money back to your state.

One additional note that I don’t think is often discussed. Allowing states to collect sales tax on interstate commerce is the proverbial ‘camels nose under the tent’. If you can force a collection of a sales tax by an out-of-state business, what is there to stop you from collecting income tax on the profit from the sales they have in your state? This whole concept is entirely unconstitutional, and would set a very dangerous precedent, indeed.

maybe

Goldwater_Conservative (Diary) Thursday, June 9th at 11:04AM EST (link)

but the one difference is in the case of income taxes you are only subjected to the state which you reside and file with. In the case of sales taxes, its transactional and would be based on the transaction and the fact that your transaction did business in the other state. I’m not a tax attorney but I think thats how they would argue the difference.

And going back to your states competing arguement, this is exactly what Texas is doing. The state of texas derives no economic benefit (other than its consumers saving a little bit) from allowing, and therefore encouraging, busniess to go out of state to sell their items to texas residents. So what texas is doing is trying to better compete state to state, and if they can pull it off, more power to them right?

 
 
 
 
 
 

Amend the Constitution then

Neil Stevens (Diary) Thursday, June 9th at 10:10AM EST (link)

Until you can, suck it up.

RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules

Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.

“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder

One good loophole

Goldwater_Conservative (Diary) Thursday, June 9th at 11:08AM EST (link)

deserves anther, thats all texas is trying to do. I’d like to see them all done away with in the first place, but if we are going to play the loophole game whats wrong with Texas figuring out a loophole around the ICC loophole?

How disrepectful

Neil Stevens (Diary) Thursday, June 9th at 11:30AM EST (link)

Again, the Constitution is not a loophole. Have you no respect for the rule of law?

RS contributing editor, technical administrator, and “a hardy variety of crabgrass.”
Read the RedState Posting Rules

Unlikely Voter: Poll Analysis, Election Projection.

“I rejoice that America has resisted.” – William Pitt, the Elder

Being able to

Goldwater_Conservative (Diary) Thursday, June 9th at 12:23PM EST (link)

Avoid paying a tax because you mailed something a s little as a mile a way is a loophole period. You say this violates the constitution but I say it’s a technicality created by technology the founders could not have anticipated and is now being exploited against their original intent.

I figured out what the underline in your name means.

gekster (Diary) Thursday, June 9th at 12:33PM EST (link)

goldwater(i am never wrong) conservative.

They say Republicans are for the rich, Democrats are for the poor.
If they need more voters,
then they have to make more of who they are for.

We are there in the various Tea Party groups, leaderless, but not rudderless.
We steer always toward the Constitutional principles this nation was founded upon.
Erick Brockway

Ok folks, 2012 is here. Get involved

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Wow - so the states will eventually...

anotherindyfilmguy (Diary) Thursday, June 9th at 1:04PM EST (link)

Drive a successful internet business to moving offshore if this trend continues… or out of their markets so their citizens cannot use it?

What gets me a bit is three things:
1. That no ones yelling about the unfairness of it in that other mail order catalog retailers generally get away with only collecting taxes for the state they operate out of… I know “Amazons big” etc… so is/was Sears and LL Bean etc…

2. Amazon itself, with it’s own long term interests in mind doesn’t just setup a collection function based on the shipping address and pay off the states without a law being passed to make them do so – I know it “saves them money for now” but in the long run it beats shutting down operations/moving/losing access to markets etc.

3. That if the law specifically targets Amazon it may be unconstitutional under the guise of equal protection under the law. If the legislation is targeting one company but not others similarly engaged then it could be thrown out later in court…

Santorum? Well, at least he’s not Romney…
http://www.zazzle.com/enemy_of_the_statist_tshirt-235977043035297478