Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Republicans for Bigger Government
On today’s Coffee & Markets podcast, Francis Cianfrocca and I discussed the dreams of more tax revenue to fuel bigger government in the form of the Amazon tax. The latest, from the Wall Street Journal:
“The newfound support among Republicans is a dramatic change from just a few months ago. In February, at the Republican Governors Association meeting in Washington, one agenda item was online sales taxes. The reaction was decidedly cool, with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal worried that the effort sounded like a new tax, according to two attendees…”
“Seizing on the recent political shift, Sen. Lamar Alexander, a Tennessee Republican, and co-sponsors from both parties are attempting to speed up action on a bill they wrote to give states authority to compel online companies to collect sales taxes… “Mr. Alexander fine-tuned the arguments for a federal solution to his fellow Republican lawmakers. “Conservatives don’t want to pick winners and losers” in business, said the former Tennessee governor… “The handwriting is on the wall that states will collect sales taxes on online purchases,” Mr. Alexander said. “This is going to happen—if not this year, then definitely by next year.”
And while most online retailers oppose it, Amazon is willing to cut a deal to get the same day delivery opportunity which is their Holy Grail (plus, they get to charge affiliates for calculating the tax).
“Republicans’ general opposition to new taxes, particularly broad-based ones, led GOP governors to avoid considering the sales tax, even as its potential value to state coffers grew. In most cases, the no-new-taxes sentiment trumped pleas from in-state retailers that they would have to lay off employees or close their doors if their online competitors kept undercutting their pricing… “But the current economic environment made states start looking harder at this for new revenue that costs them nothing,” said Sandy Kennedy, president of the Retail Industry Leaders Association… “What we saw here was a rapidly growing bipartisan coalition of business groups, labor, Republicans and Democrats coming together because money and jobs were more important than political gamesmanship,” said New Jersey Assemblyman Troy Singleton, a Democrat and union official who strategized over beer with an official from the state Chamber of Commerce on supporting the Amazon package.”
Republican governors who claim they need these sales tax revenues to keep other taxes from going up are describing something that, in practice, has never happened. As I noted last week, the revenue has gone straight back into state coffers… when there’s been revenue at all. The vast numbers NCSL quotes in the WSJ have never materialized for states which attempted to collect, because in practice it’s just a shift: local retailers lose out on income, lowering their income tax burden and mitigating the increased sales tax revenue.
But that’s not what this push is about – instead, it’s about future Democratic administrations which will have, in effect, the ability to create a vast new revenue stream to continue the grow of the size of government.
Most Republicans think of this as a one for one inequity – you buy a bag of widgets from Amazon instead of from Home Depot. But by opening this door, Republicans will allow the creation of a vast new tax on digital product lines and downloadable content. This legislation will inevitably make an iTunes Tax like the one Democratic Governors Association head Martin O’Malley has proposed a reality.
This represents nothing less than Republicans accepting their role as tax collectors for the pension/entitlement state, unwilling to take political penalties from cutting government employment or Medicaid, and willing instead to cave to create a higher tax burden on their citizens. If they were really interested in shrinking government, they’d be closing avenues to taxation, not opening up new ones.
Published in General
I certainly don’t like the monitoring infrastructure that will grow out of this, but as a tax, it’s at least targeted at consumption and not income. And, targeted at consumption with people’s disposable income for the most part. You’re probably not going to buy your groceries across state lines.
BUT, any bill that establishes this tax better have bigger budget cuts (than new revenue,) or, it won’t be the solution to anything. It will just add to the problem.
Amazon will go along with this, because it effectively regulates the little guy out of business,. mom and Pop shops cannot possibly comply with the 5000 different jurisdictions that levy sales taxes. Amazon has the resources and will increase its market domination, thanks to the government.
Crony capitalism in action.
I don’t understand the contradiction. You’re saying on the one hand that there is no vast increase in revenues as claimed [The vast numbers NCSL quotes in the WSJ have never materialized for states which attempted to collect, because in practice it’s just a shift: local retailers lose out on income, lowering their income tax burden and mitigating the increased sales tax revenue. ], yet you’re also saying this is a ploy to have a vastly increased revenue stream [But that’s not what this push is about – instead, it’s about future Democratic administrations which will have, in effect, the ability to create a vast new revenue stream to continue the grow of the size of government.]. Huh?
This disgusts me. Much like the disgust I feel when someone on the right, thinking that they’re doing the correct thing, justifies tax cuts by saying that it increases economic activity which, in turn, increases tax revenue. They would do the cause a huge favor by just staying silent after the word ‘activity’.
At some point, we’re going to have to look at the federal debt and recognize that “starve the beast” is a complete failure. At least such a tax would be consumption based, wouldn’t entail burden-shifting based on income, and would make average citizens have to recognize the prices entailed by the largesse they vote to support.
You will not see a real reduction in the size of government so long as “tax the rich more” remains a politically viable answer to the challenge (and N.B., I do not mean to suggest it’s an economically or fiscally viable answer; it’s a matter of leaving quarter available to blame).
Shifting control to the states is a good thing in general, and any coordinating efforts by the federal government would at least be a proper application of the commerce clause.
Hang On, it’s about Republicans acquiescing to the camel’s nose under the tent, (an internet tax that is targeted narrowly), that then blossoms into a predictable monstrosity, once the Big Government types hop on that camel.
So I own a small business that sells products. When I sell one of those products I must charge my customer approximately 8% sales tax. My business is within a few miles of a state line. I deliver merchandise across that line and must charge those customers sales tax as well. That state is a point of receipt sales tax state. That means I must track the specific municipality to which I delivered and send in the tax receipts based on whether that municipality charges .075, .081, .085, etc. sales tax. I must deal with way more than 50 sales tax authorities. My customers currently can go onto the internet and buy the same products with zero sales tax. Someone mentioned crony capitalsim. I say when the fed government makes it illegal for states to demand internet companies collect sales taxes, that is crony capitalism. Let each state set its rules and collect the taxes based on those rules for businesses engaged in mercantilism with their residents. That would at least level the playing field. The next time an increase in sales tax comes up for a vote maybe people will turn it down.
Bottom line, this is the GOP borrowing the lefty’s line of “if the other guy pays more tax, that’s better for you.” All they’re doing is substituting “internet store customers” for “rich people.”
It’s nothing but classic class warfare, and it makes me sick to see RINOs — yes, I said RINOs, and people here should be familiar enough with me to know I don’t toss that term around willy-nilly — adopting a favorite tactic of the left.
Because no state that has passed an Amazon tax thus far has done the next step – the iTunes Tax. At that point, the revenue flows.
I find the hand-wringing over introducing a new type of tax and the “camel’s nose” metaphors somewhat ludicrous.
The problem is spending. Any dollar the government gives out now will have to be paid at some point. And starve the beast is nothing more than an empty wish – neither party has hesitated to spend money they don’t have during the last ten years. It doesn’t matter if we tax income, bricks-and-mortar purchases, or online purchases – a bill is coming due, and the citizens will have to pay it. By this point, which avenue does not matter.
And to the “camel’s nose” argument – the camel is already in the tent. We already have so many types of taxes, and are so willing to vary their rates willy-nilly, that politicans will find ways of sticking it to their desired group with or without online sales taxes.
Taxes are irrelevant and a dangerous diversion. Who cares if we have an online tax? If we don’t stop the bloodletting, we’re dead either way.
Because no state that has passed an Amazon tax thus far has done the next step – the iTunes Tax. At that point, the revenue flows. ·0 minutes ago
OK. Understand.
So what is the volume of business of iTunes relative to everything else? My guess it’s pretty small and it’s not going to be the kind of revenue stream you’re/the DGA is talking about.
The other question is: What’s so special about iTunes that it should not be taxed the way other goods and services are?
I very much favor broadening the base, lowering the rates, and more important than anything else controlling the spending. GOP govs have done a good job for the most part in the latter.
Also, when consumers use tax arbitrage to make purchasing decisions, the economy becomes less efficient, not more.
As a general platform, why not allow state sales taxes on online purchases, but only coupled to a decrease in each state’s general sales tax to make the entire entreprise revenue neutral?
Is the premise of the article/post that republicans actually believe in less government and taxation? If so, let’s dispense with that foolishness. Republicans may believe in less government and taxation than democrats, but that doesn’t exactly set a very high bar to cross. Republicans support growing the government slower than democrats, but at the end of any republican administration or republican majority Congress there is more federal government than there was at the beginning of those terms.
Don’t worry about the iTunes tax, it is already here. If Apple has a retail store in your state you are most likely paying sales tax on your iTunes purchases.
That’s an interesting choice of phraseology. What, exactly, would the “political penalties from cutting government employment or Medicaid” be? Presumably, “being voted out of office.” But the clear implication is that voters would be, in fact, voting for larger government.
This begs a question: what if we economic conservatives are wrong? What if a clear majority of the electorate doesn’t want limited government, wants higher taxes and whatever benefits they believe accrue from them, and wants the U.S. to more closely resemble, say, Sweden (as opposed to the more realistic target of, say, Cuba)?
When we’re at this stage—with Obama’s cribbing of Elizabeth Warren’s sickening “no man is an island” ripoff, federal loan guarantees to failed solar companies, Government Motors, economic stagnation, 12%+ official unemployment, etc.—and Obama and Romney are neck and neck, it calls some pretty fundamental conservative beliefs into question, if you ask me.
The internet has been spectacularly successful at creating new start-ups and innovative products and services. One of the reasons for this is that the government has kept its paws off it to a large extent.
An internet sales tax will mean tax registration for every web site that makes money. Bloggers will have to charge and report sales taxes for membership fees, basement web sites will have to register and collect sales taxes, etc. This is the thin wedge that will allow the government to justify ever-more scrutiny of the online economy.
Eventually, we’ll wind up turning the internet into yet another over-regulated environment micro-managed by the government. Once your web site is in the government’s cross-hairs, expect to be audited for compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act. Be prepared to show that your database of users adheres to the government’s security audit protocols. Better not have any kids writing web pages for you – that’s child labor.
Frankly, I’m amazed that the internet has remained as laissez-faire as it has, but this was bound to end sometime. Let’s not have it end on the Republican’s watch.
… Presumably, “being voted out of office.” But the clear implication is that voters would be, in fact, voting for larger government.
This begs a question: what if we economic conservatives are wrong? What if a clear majority of the electorate doesn’twantlimited government,wantshigher taxes and whatever benefits they believe accrue from them, andwantsthe U.S. to more closely resemble, say, Sweden (as opposed to the more realistic target of, say, Cuba)?
When we’re at this stage—with Obama’s cribbing of Elizabeth Warren’s sickening “no man is an island” ripoff, federal loan guarantees to failed solar companies, Government Motors, economic stagnation, 12%+ officialunemployment, etc.—and Obama and Romney are neck and neck, it calls some pretty fundamental conservative beliefs into question, if you ask me. ·1 minute ago
Outstanding analysis. I don’t think fundamental conservative belief in a Constitutionally limited government are called into question, but you are correct to question the premise of the outcome.
~Half of eligible voters do not participate in elections and to date we have not presented a credible presidential candidate that supports limited gov’t, so it is hard to know.
The heart of the matter is that no one in office — Republican or Democrat — is willing to say to public-sector employees: “Folks, tax revenues are down. We are going to have to lay some of you off.” The answer is always a tax increase.
Michigan is a good example. The Republicans control the governorship and both houses; the population has dropped by more than 10% since 2000; the number of civil servants has increased in the last decade dramatically. The last Democratic governor raised taxes. Her answer to unemployment was to raise taxes and hire in the public sector. So what do the Republicans do after 2010. They raise taxes!
What if a clear majority of the electorate doesn’t want limited government, wants higher taxes and whatever benefits they believe accrue from them, and wants the U.S. to more closely resemble, say, Sweden (as opposed to the more realistic target of, say, Cuba)?
~Half of eligible voters do not participate in elections and to date we have not presented a credible presidential candidate that supports limited gov’t, so it is hard to know.
If a clear majority wanted to be like Sweden, Obama would be walking away in the polls right now. It seems that somewhere near half the electorate is scared stiff by Obama’s vision of Stockholm on the Potomac.
Roughly half of eligible voters do not vote and roughly half of income earners do not pay federal income taxes. Start taxing the latter and you’ll diminish the former very quickly.
Please draw me the word picture that goes from Obama has more tax revenue to Obama spends less money and decreases deficits and debt. Or, if you prefer, not Obama … any politician from the Incumbency Party, either the Republican or Democrat wing. We’ve never starved the beast. Not yet.
Michigan is a good example. The Republicans control the governorship and both houses; the population has dropped by more than 10% since 2000; the number of civil servants has increased in the last decade dramatically. The last Democratic governor raised taxes. Her answer to unemployment was to raise taxes and hire in the public sector. So what do the Republicans do after 2010. They raise taxes!
Professor, your trenchant analysis is depressing me! But I’m holding on to the hope that Wisconsin is at least a deviation from your undoubtedly sound thesis. Go ahead … withdraw my will to live if you must!
You’ve not addressed the well-made point (by Conservative Wanderer) that traditional retail space draws on local govt services and thus ‘should’ collect taxes from local customers to cover those costs. A web site in Timbuktu does not impact local govt-provided services. This internet tax is just protectionism by another name. It protects traditional retailers from competition–from a better, more efficient way of providing goods & services.
I always thought conservatives were for limited government, not against all government. Some taxes are necessary.
Red herring alert. There are no anarchists here. No one is saying all govt should be eliminated or that some taxes aren’t necessary. ·2 hours ago
Amen.
It shocks me — truly — that so many conservatives are picking up the concepts of the left… “tax fairness” chief among them.
Republicans have gotten away from the idea of fiscal responsibility. The emphasis should be on reducing deficits, which requires a multi pronged approach. Financing the government by borrowing more and taxing less is less preferable than financing the government by borrowing less and taxing more.
So, if I sell off my extra junk via the web– as an antique store– sales taxes should not apply.
If I open my front door and give someone a cup of coffee in my living room while they pick through my stuff, and then process the order on the same software, sales taxes should apply.
Clear as mud.
Equal protection under the law, people. We can– and should– debate about what that equal protection should be. But having different taxation regimes for different storefront facades is the very definition of crony capitalism.
I can see that point… but I can see the other side too. If Local Retailer A has to charge sales tax and Internet Retailer B doesn’t, isn’t the government giving an artificial advantage to B, and isn’t that a problem?
Of course, rather than simply raising taxes on B, the government should theoretically do what conservatives are urging on the federal level: get rid of the loopholes (i.e. do start taxing B) but lower the rates for everyone across the board.
Michigan is a good example. The Republicans control the governorship and both houses; the population has dropped by more than 10% since 2000; the number of civil servants has increased in the last decade dramatically. The last Democratic governor raised taxes. Her answer to unemployment was to raise taxes and hire in the public sector. So what do the Republicans do after 2010. They raise taxes! ·13 hours ago
It may be so in Michigan, but is not so in North Carolina, so you’re statement is too broad brush. The Republican legislature let a “temporary” sales tax increase expire as part of the 2012 budget. Gov. Perdue (a Democrat) vetoed the budget, but it was overridden. There were state government workers laid off as a result of the expiration of the sales tax. Perdue has vetoed budgets in 2011 & 2012 wanting to spend and tax more.
If I open my front door and give someone a cup of coffee in my living room while they pick through my stuff, and then process the orderon the same software, sales taxes should apply.
Clear as mud.
Equal protection under the law, people. We can– and should– debate about what that equalprotection should be. But having different taxation regimes for different storefront facades is the very definition of crony capitalism. ·38 minutes ago
Edited 37 minutes ago
Could not agree more.
You are wrong, the statement is only true at the federal level right now. This works at the state and local level.
Over the long-term it might actually work at the federal leval. Would the tea-party of come about if we kept our debt lower but had higher taxes?
If you are going to tax, tax fairly/ Don’t tax me unless you are willing to tax thee. I hope that none protesting here has ever voted for a local sales tax to improve the sewer or water system in your neighborhood and then gone out and bought products, available locally, over the internet tax free. Sales taxes are the only taxes voted on directly by each citizen. Everyone pays them equally according to how much they purchase. I do not want a bigger government and I sure don’t want one that taxes me, but not my neighbor.
Republicans should not be completely against taxes. They should recognize them as a necessary evil, aim to keep them minimal and unobtrusive, but also be willing to try and find the way to tax that is most beneficial/least harmful. As such, I don’t mind them kicking the tires on internet taxes, but they should be made up for with cuts elsewhere
The thing is, the internet has essentially been a big ‘enterprise zone’, with low barriers to entry and low transaction costs. The result as been an explosion of innovation and wealth creation, and the one economic bright spot of the last 20 years.
Let’s not turn it into another over-regulated economy where only the big, connected companies survive and innovation is squashed under red tape and political muscle. It’s too bad that the brick-and-mortar economy has to deal with all this crap, but the answer is not to put the internet under the same thumb.
Let’s look at the other side.
Let’s say I am a small business owner, and I put some of my wares up on the internet. I do not have a shop nor home in your town, so I had no opportunity to vote on your taxes.
Yet you’re demanding that I do the extra labor of collecting your taxes and remitting them to you, for absolutely no benefit to myself. In short, I am working for your town for nothing.
This is fair?