Radio Smart Talk for Wednesday, June 8:
The state of California is facing a budget deficit of over $25 billion. Lawmakers there have been trying in vain to find new revenue sources. Against that backdrop, the House of Representatives approved a bill last week to tax on-line purchases made by Californians. Pennsylvania may not have a budget deficit that large but a similar proposal has been duiscussed here.
By law, if a Pennsylvanian makes a purchase from an out-of-state retailer, they are required to claim it and pay the 6% sales tax (higher in Philadelphia and Allegheny County). However, if the consumer doesn't admit to the sales tax and most don't, there really is no way to enforce the obligation to pay the tax. Retail businesses located in Pennsylvania say that's unfair and it gives big retailers like Amazon.com a price advantage. Those out of state retailers say it would be impossible to collect and remit sales taxes to all the taxing jurisdictions across the country.
We'll discuss a possible e-commerce tax on Wednesday's program.
Also, as part of witf's Facing Cancer Together initiative, we'll look at whether cell phone usage can cause cancer. A World Health Organization report released last week said it could but it doesn't seem to have stopped many people from using their phones.
LISTEN TO PROGRAM:
comments
If the state of PA really wants to start somewhere, let them END subsidies to brick and mortar stores like WALMART. Such stores have long been allowed to keep their tax collection revenues as incentives to build, maintain and update their properties (usually for the first 3 years or less). Still, regardless of how long, delete these subsidies first before looking to the internet for extra revenue!!!
Please remember - IT is OUR money first.
He still has NOT addressed the topic of WHY WALMART (and other B&M shops) are allowed to KEEP (albeit temporarily) the tax revenues they collect.
Amazon sells many used goods. i sell a few used books each month.
thank you.
Anthony
This would:
Level the playing field for online vs offline stores
Tax the purchaser based on the “ship to” address and divert the sales tax to that state
We could capture tax from online retailers such as EBay and so on..
With all due respect, I don't think the professor addressed the So. Carolina story below. It's a perfect scenario of moving tax burden from a regressive nature to a progressive nature.
Then a long history of non-compliance was built up over the years because the amount of lost revenue was, perhaps, thought not to be significant. Now it will be difficult to put that genie back in the bottle.
As to the people who argue that they pay shipping fees for their online purchases, I can only say that is not a defensible argument. The fact is brick and mortar establishments pay the shipping fees in advance to have the goods locally available to their customers.
Your guest - you needed another guest to balance his extremist opinions - used the lowest form of cujolery whenever he could not directly counter another viewpoint - that it's the law and we owe the taxes. But when I see a system filled with self-serving liars, thieves, and con artists, I have to take exception. As one caller opined: when Harrisburg cleans up its act, maybe we won't feel so bad about issues like this. It has been a system of deeply rooted gov't corruption that has brought this economy to its knees, costing taxpayers bundles. The most moral action any of us can take against the political hooligans and hacks in office is to avoid paying any tax we can. Your guest's holier-than-thou moral obligation to pay taxes doesn't hold water; it merely supports the black hole of political corruption.
And good luck with self-reporting of the use tax! Self-reporting of use tax will work just about as well as self-reporting of tips by service workers. The state might get a fraction (20% if lucky), but nowhere near what the real number is.
RSS feed for comments to this post