Internet Sales Tax “Software solves everything” – Or Does It? #DebunkDurbin

Dick Durbin caught telling stories about magical software that will solve all of your problems.  Illinois needs to vote this guy out of office.  What other “stories” is he telling that are make believe?

Roxanne Christley is Wrong: The Marketplace Fairness Act is NOT the Conservative Solution

Today I read an article written by RoxAnne Christley (a purported conservative Republican and activist engaged in civic affairs) who expressed her support for the Marketplace Fairness Act aka Internet Sales Tax legislation.  Here is a link to the article she wrote, Christley, Taxes should be collected evenly

Here is my response to her statements:

  • Christley wrote, “That vote came shortly after the General Assembly approved a bipartisan transportation package whose funding formula includes online sales tax revenue. Also built into the package is the conditional gas tax increase. That back-up plan takes effect only if E-Fairness legislation isn’t approved.”
    My response: At the time the “General Assembly approved a bipartisan transportation package” there was NO guarantee that it would sale through Congress.  It was merely a political ploy to force an unpopular issue into the headlines.  Passing legislation contingent on laws that do not even exist is not conservative it is ignorant.
  • Christley wrote, “Since the Senate vote, the legislation has stalled in the House of Representatives. It has been bottled up in the Judiciary Committee Goodlatte chairs even though E-Fairness measures have broad support and align with conservative, free market economic principles.”
    My response: Goodlatte wants to make sure bad law is not created.  Christley what is the hurry?  There are alternatives which would be more “fair” to all businesses.  Take a few hours to read my blog.
  • Christley wrote, “Applying the sales tax equally would end the status quo of government picking tax winners and losers. That’s one reason the Roanoke County Board of Supervisors, Roanoke City Council and the Roanoke Regional Chamber of Commerce support E-Fairness. Also supportive are the Virginia Chamber of Commerce and the American Conservative Union. They realize that while this country has too many taxes, it is only proper that they are assessed evenly.”
    My response: A. Christley’s statement, “Applying sales tax equally would end the status quo of government picking the winners and losers” is a fantasy land statement.  Take a moment to read Use Tax Evasion: Encouraged by Minnesota Lawmakers. If all transactions were taxed the same there would be no reason for states to be separate or compete on tax rates.  B. Take a moment to read Marketplace Fairness Act: FAKE Conservative Opinions ARE for Sale.  I would not be proud to mention or side with anything the American Conservative Union says.  Some conservatives get paid for non-conservative opinions.
  • Christley wrote, “The truth is far simpler, and not at all frightening. The Senate-approved E-Fairness bill specifies states must provide for merchants “a single sales and use tax return . . . to be filed with the single entity responsible for tax administration.”
    My response: It is frightening.  My two person business (my wife and I no other employees) sells online, over the telephone and also receives mail orders.  About 40% of our sales are to tax exempt organizations.  A single sales and use tax return is merely the end result after we have lived the nightmare of collecting exemption certificates and refunding sales tax on tax exempt orders placed online where taxes were applied.  Also, telephone orders and mail orders do not automatically calculate the sales taxes owed themselves, it will be a paperwork nightmare.  A three minute phone order today will take 10 or more minutes tomorrow (if the current Marketplace Fairness Act passes).  My wife will have to look up each product to determine the taxability of each item based on the destination zip code.  Telephone and mail orders will become a bureaucratic nightmare.
  • Christley wrote, “A careful reading of the legislation likewise deflates the audit canard. It expressly shields merchants from liability when a tax calculation error is not their fault. It also makes figuring out what is owed simple – the legislation requires states to provide free tax software. And it specifies that the free software “calculates sales and use taxes due on each transaction” and “files sales and use tax returns” for merchants.
    My response: I operate 5 website.  Christley you obviously know very little about ecommerce.  The purportedly free software does not prove software to determine sales to tax exempt organizations.  Take a moment to read,  Internet Sales Tax Exemption Certificate Software NOT Free. It actually starts at $3,000 plus fees per transaction. Exemption certificate management is very complicated.  Today I only have to worry about collecting the certificates for orders from customers in Minnesota. It is simple for my wife and I now.  However, errors do occur when you get overwhelmed with paperwork.  Auditors will not look at the transactions where taxes were applied BUT to the ones where it was NOT.  This is where the audit risk expands exponentially.  The free software is a myth.  I will have to re-code all of my websites and spend hours installing the software (time is money).  I will also be paying additional credit card transaction fees for the additional taxes I am charging the customers.  This will be at least an additional $1,200 plus per year in fees that I would have to pay (to be an uncompensated tax collector for states my business is not physically located in).
  • Christley wrote, Bond “ignores the fact that major retail and business groups representing thousands of Virginia employers support E-Fairness because their livelihoods, and those of their workers, are at stake. E-Fairness would protect jobs for companies that invest in Virginia. It also exempts many small businesses — leading E-Fairness measures are written so they apply to businesses with more than $1 million in gross annual online sales.”
    My Response: Major retail and business groups do support the Marketplace Fairness Act.  Major retailers like Walmart, Target, Best Buy and other big box monsters that see this legislation as a way to crush the competition.  Walmart’s Congressman Stave Womack started this legislation.  Read some background on what started this legislation in motion, Wal-Mart Jilts the Consumer & Taxpayer: The Deception Behind the Internet Sales Tax. Some small businesses have been misled by big box propaganda to support the Marketplace Fairness Act.  Read Are Big Money and Retail Organizations Using Small Businesses as Sheeple: Internet Sales Tax.  This article shows how big business is manipulating the system through major propaganda campaigns targeting small businesses.  Also, $1 million in retail sales is a small number.  It will impact my 2 person company… and yes…we are a small mom and pop company.  We do not have the resources that the billion dollar companies have to deal with these issues.

Roxanne Christley is Wrong: The Marketplace Fairness Act is NOT the Solution and it is NOT Conservative

The Marketplace Fairness Act aka “Shop China Bill” Favors Foreign Business

Listen to this video.  Then call you U.S. Senator and Congressman and ask them why they gave an advantage to Chinese based businesses.  Do our lawmakers represent us, or China?  This just proves that their is no such thing as a “level playing field” it is merely a catch phrase developed by Walmart (aka #efairness) to stifle some of the domestic competition.

Marketplace Fairness Act Favors Foreign Businesses

Marketplace Fairness Act Free Software Is Expensive

The Marketplace Fairness Act is Supposed to Provide Free Software.  The Certified Software Providers (CSP) claim its free but it is merely deceptive information to get politicians to vote for their cash cow legislation.

Listen how EXPENSIVE free “really” is:

Marketplace Fairness Act Free Software is Expensive

 

The Ironic Similarities Between the Marketplace Fairness Act and the Boston Tea Party

Marketplace Fairness Act Modern Day Tea Act

The Tea Act, passed by Parliament on May 10, 1773, granted the British East India Company (THE STATES) a Tea (RETAIL) a monopoly (WALMART) on tea sales in the American colonies (REMOTE SELLERS). This was what ultimately compelled a group of Sons of Liberty (eMAINSTREET.org) members on the night of December 16, 1773 to disguise themselves as Mohawk Indians, board three ships moored in Boston Harbor, and destroy over 92,000 pounds of tea. The Tea Act (MARKETPLACE FAIRNESS ACT aka MFA) was the final straw in a series of unpopular policies and taxes imposed by Britain (STATES) on her American colonies (REMOTE SELLERS).

The policy ignited a “powder keg” (grassroots Twitter & Facebook groups) of opposition and resentment among American colonists and was the catalyst of the Boston Tea Party. The passing of the Tea Act (MFA) imposed no new taxes on the American colonies (citizens). The (USE) tax on tea (REMOTE SALES) had existed since the passing of the 1767 Townshend Revenue Act. Along with tea, the Townshend Revenue Act also taxed glass, lead, oil, paint, and paper. Due to boycotts and protests, the Townshend Revenue Act’s taxes were repealed on all commodities except tea in 1770. The tea (SALES) tax was kept in order to maintain Parliament’s right to tax the colonies.

The Tea Act (MFA) was not intended to anger American colonists, instead it was meant to be a bailout policy to get the British East India Company (STATES) out of debt. The British East India Company (STATES) were suffering from massive amounts of debts incurred primarily from annual contractual payments due to the British (US) government totaling £400,000 (400M) per year. Additionally, the British East India Company (STATES) were suffering financially as a result of unstable political and economic issues in India (China), and European markets were weak due to debts from the French and Indian War among other things. Besides the tax on tea which had been in place since 1767, what fundamentally angered the American colonists about the Tea Act was the British East India Company’s (MEGA RETAILERS) government sanctioned monopoly on tea (REMOTE SALES).

CONCLUSION:

  • Tea Act: It was the British’s governments sales tax on remote colonial business that passed the cost on to buyers. This was a tax paid to a remote government that business had no representation with the remote British government and was a remote sales tax.
  • Marketplace Fairness Act: It will allow State government sales taxes on remote businesses that can pass the cost on to buyers. The remote sellers would also have no representation with the remote State governments. 

So history repeating it’s self again will we ever learn?

Thanks to Bill Jensen for this great satirical article.