Contact FreedomWorks

400 North Capitol Street, NW
Suite 765
Washington, DC 20001

  • Toll Free 1.888.564.6273
  • Local 202.783.3870

Blog

    Internet Taxes Don't Make Markets Fairer

    The issue of how to handle sales conducted remotely over the internet has been a thorny one for lawmakers, as they struggle to adapt policies to rapidly advancing technologies. Nine states currently collect sales tax on out-of-state, online transactions, but a new bill dubbed the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 would expand this to a national mandate. The argument behind such legislation is that local retailers are placed at an unfair disadvantage, because their prices must include sales tax whereas out-of-state vendors are under no such compulsion.

    The whole situation has the whiff of the famous Luddites, infuriated by the march of technology and unwilling to adapt themselves or their businesses to new methods of production. The claim that online retailers have an “unfair” advantage rests on a very peculiar definition of the word. How is it unfair to innovate, to discover a better business model? Fairness in this instance seems to mean penalizing innovators to protect industry dinosaurs.

    A principal problem with the Marketplace Fairness Act is that it effectively eliminates the ability of states to compete for business. A fundamental principle of the federalist system is the states’ autonomy to manage their own economies, and competition ensures that state governments acting badly will see a corresponding loss in tax revenue as businesses and citizens relocate. This is the idea of “voting with your feet,” and it is a vital part of a free economy.

    For online retailers, this act would offer no reason to physically locate in one state over another, and reduce the incentives for states to keep sales tax rates low. If business are not free to relocate to avoid rising tax rates, there will be very little reason for states to restrain their urge to tax, and the consumers will pay the price.

    While it’s true that the act requires states to simplify their tax rates to reduce the administrative burden on companies, there is still no getting around the fact that an online retailer who wants to service the entire country will have to keep track of dozens of different tax policies, whereas local retailers only have to deal with one. So much for leveling the competitive playing field.

    The fair competition argument also overlooks the fact that online retailers face other expenses from which brick and mortar stores are exempt, the most obvious example being shipping costs. Whereas the customer of a physical store can simply carry his purchase home with him, an online seller must either bear the cost of delivery or pass it on to the consumer. This is usually far more expensive than any sales tax rate currently on the books. Additionally, physical stores offer an immediacy that is impossible for mail order companies, where even the fastest shipping takes a considerable amount of time. These cost differentials are rarely mentioned in discussions of “fair” competition, and the notion that local stores need protection from their web-based competitors is questionable at best.

    Finally, the benefit to consumers must be considered. It is undeniable that the economy has benefitted from the rise of the online retail trade, with a vastly expanded range of consumer options and a general lowering of prices that encourages commerce. A broader application of the sales tax would slow consumer spending and hurt businesses which form an important part of the American economy, at a time when we should be doing our best to encourage them.

    If states absolutely must tax internet businesses, it would be far better to do so based on the origin of the company, rather than on the location of the consumer. Let a California based business collect California taxes. This simplifies the administrative problem while also preserving competition among the states. The destination based approach currently being proposed makes no sense, in that state governments collect revenue from businesses  who have chosen to locate elsewhere.

    The issue of how to handle sales conducted remotely over the internet has been a thorny one for lawmakers, as they struggle to adapt policies to rapidly advancing technologies. Nine states currently collect sales tax on out-of-state, online transactions, but a new bill dubbed the Marketplace Fairness Act of 2013 would expand this to a national mandate. The argument behind such legislation is that local retailers are placed at an unfair disadvantage, because their prices must include sales tax whereas out-of-state vendors are under no such compulsion.

    The whole situation has the whiff of the famous Luddites, infuriated by the march of technology and unwilling to adapt themselves or their businesses to new methods of production. The claim that online retailers have an “unfair” advantage rests on a very peculiar definition of the word. How is it unfair to innovate, to discover a better business model? Fairness in this instance seems to mean penalizing innovators to protect industry dinosaurs.

    A principal problem with the Marketplace Fairness Act is that it effectively eliminates the ability of states to compete for business. A fundamental principle of the federalist system is the states’ autonomy to manage their own economies, and competition ensures that state governments acting badly will see a corresponding loss in tax revenue as businesses and citizens relocate. This is the idea of “voting with your feet,” and it is a vital part of a free economy.

    For online retailers, this act would offer no reason to physically locate in one state over another, and reduce the incentives for states to keep sales tax rates low. If business are not free to relocate to avoid rising tax rates, there will be very little reason for states to restrain their urge to tax, and the consumers will pay the price.

    While it’s true that the act requires states to simplify their tax rates to reduce the administrative burden on companies, there is still no getting around the fact that an online retailer who wants to service the entire country will have to keep track of dozens of different tax policies, whereas local retailers only have to deal with one. So much for leveling the competitive playing field.

    The fair competition argument also overlooks the fact that online retailers face other expenses from which brick and mortar stores are exempt, the most obvious example being shipping costs. Whereas the customer of a physical store can simply carry his purchase home with him, an online seller must either bear the cost of delivery or pass it on to the consumer. This is usually far more expensive than any sales tax rate currently on the books. Additionally, physical stores offer an immediacy that is impossible for mail order companies, where even the fastest shipping takes a considerable amount of time. These cost differentials are rarely mentioned in discussions of “fair” competition, and the notion that local stores need protection from their web-based competitors is questionable at best.

    Finally, the benefit to consumers must be considered. It is undeniable that the economy has benefitted from the rise of the online retail trade, with a vastly expanded range of consumer options and a general lowering of prices that encourages commerce. A broader application of the sales tax would slow consumer spending and hurt businesses which form an important part of the American economy, at a time when we should be doing our best to encourage them.

    If states absolutely must tax internet businesses, it would be far better to do so based on the origin of the company, rather than on the location of the consumer. Let a California based business collect California taxes. This simplifies the administrative problem while also preserving competition among the states. The destination based approach currently being proposed makes no sense, in that state governments collect revenue from businesses  who have chosen to locate elsewhere.

    2 comments
    R David L Campbell
    02/24/2013

    Totally disagree. Freedomworks clearly is not an online retailer, and is not being confronted with the state-by-state efforts already affecting online retailers.

    The fact is, absent action by Congress, online retailers (large and small) are already being ensnared by states trying to do this on their own.

    The proposed legislation is a step in the right direction! It says that if a state wants to require an online (remote) retailer to collect their sales tax (such tax being legitimately approved by their voters 50+ years ago in most states), then those states should be required to simplify their laws, make it very easy (free) for us to comply, and indemnify us from errors.

    I would have expected freedomworks to support efforts to make government more efficient, allow states to be more autonomous.

    The proposed legislation does NOT create new taxes. Better still, it could reduce a significant tax evasion problem which is distorting local retail markets accross the country in favor of online retailers.

    While I don't like taxes, I get more frustrated when the sales tax I approved (to fund my schools and fire departments) is not collected by an online retailer, and the my property taxes go up to compensate for the unexpected shortfall in sales tax revenue.

    Freedomworks was supportive of making government more efficient and minimizing tax burdens in the past. What has changed?

    R David L Campbell
    02/24/2013

    Also - your suggestion to male a New York citizen pay sales tax to California simply because the store is located in California is both offensive and unconstitutional. As a New York resident, I cannot vote on California's local tax initiatives, and should not be asked to pay taxes to California. The proposed legislation handles this correctly - the California retailer will collect my New York state and local sales tax from me, and send it to my state, but will only be expected to do this if my state makes it very easy (free) for the California retailer to do this. If New York doesnt modernize and simplify, the the California retailer wont have to do anything, and I will still be expected to self report and remit the sales tax due on my own. I would rather New York makes it easy for California retailers to collect my tax, so I am not expected to self report my purchases - just like all local stores have operated for 50+ years.

    Pages