The Economist welcomes your views. Please stay on topic and be respectful of other readers. Review our comments policy.
You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in to your account.Don't have an account? Register
It is good news for the competition since it levels off-line and on-line playing field. Someone has to finance public services and a little pain for customers is worth in this decision.
There is nothing constitutionally correct about "our" de facto government, especially "our" Britannic court with a bunch of "living document" traditionalists. What "we" need is a constitutional renaissance to effect taxation for representation with justices appointed by a president that defends the Constitution.
Now, some will claim that it's a poorly written document and needs interpretation, but, the context in which it was written makes it possible to rightly divide it to agree with the intents and purposes enshrined in its preamble. The fundamental principle of "our" written Constitution is to culturally evolve democracy from a grab bag of who gets what and how much is never enough into people based republican government. Taxation for multiple layers of government and one representative for +/- 700,000 people in a so-called House of Representatives is not constitutionally correct.
This court is not consumer friendly.
It is unfortunate that the courts are being the means for achieving this reform. In any sane country, this sort of issue would be sorted out by the legislature. That 9 old people get to make this decision is not democratic. That noone seems seriously upset about this is alarming. There may be a case for the courts to rule on gerrymandering, racial segregation and breaches of constitutional or other specific legal issues. But this? WHY?
Why? It's interstate commerce.
There's a lot of stuff where the definition of "interstate commerce" is stretched to cover things that are, at best, marginally related. But this case absolutely is interstate commerce.
Good - that ends some of the free-riding. Why should it matter whether the seller has a physical shop, in a jurisdiction or anywhere? It's about the goods and services that are delivered, not about how that's done.
So, this is a step in the right direction. Now, close all those other loopholes in taxation, globally. The Panama Papers investigation has shown that much more is needed, and how contorted the thinking in banking circles has become. Reportedly, an indignant fund manager wrote to that bank: “Thanks to Mossack, customers have to pay income taxes.”
Shocking, isn't it.
Nowhere to hide but states without a sales tax.
"States do ask taxpayers to remit a “use tax” equivalent to what they would have paid in sales taxes, but compliance is low."
The states don't ask, they require.
The headline ought to read "heralds the end of online shopping that allows buyers illegally to avoid paying sales tax and get away with it."
So how do you, personally, keep track of the prices of the stuff that you buy on-line? Or do you not bother either? Just curious.
I go back through my credit card bills. It's a real pain. I'm not very sympathetic to the whining of merchants who don't want to calculate taxes themselves. Somebody will likely set up a sales tax database, by Zip codes, that will make things easier. The sensible thing, of course, would be to organize a national payment system, with a set rate, or at least one that only depends on the state into which the goods are sent, with the proceeds distributed accordingly to the states, letting them deal with local tax differences. Where I live, the use tax is set at a single rate statewide, and this system could be used generally. Ebay, Amazon (for its associated sellers) and the like could easily collect taxes along with their fees and remit them appropriately, so that the really minor retailers can be taken care of automatically.