Face it - the Govt is broke and taxes are only going to get worse since they've kicked the deficit issue down the road over and over again. Rising interest rates will further exacerbate the issue!
"My friends who see my collection sometimes ask what something costs. I tell them and they are in awe at my stupidity." (Baccaruda, 12/03).I find it hard to believe that he (Trump) rushed to some hotel to meet girls of loose morals, although ours are undoubtedly the best in the world. (Putin 1/17) Gone but not forgotten. IGWT, Speedy, Bear, BigE, HokieFore, John Burns, Russ, TahoeDale, Dahlonega, Astrorat, Stewart Blay, Oldhoopster, Broadstruck, Ricko, Big Moose, Cardinal.
A primary concern of the Framers of the Constitution was ending the interstate commercial depredations that had occurred during the Confederation period. Thus, the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate interstate, foreign, and Indian commerce. The Framers also took care to place restrictions on state power under the new government. Often, the restrictions in Article I, Section 10, mirror the powers granted to Congress. Evidence from the Constitutional Convention and the ratification debates suggest that the Framers intended the Import-Export Clause to complement congressional power to raise revenue and regulate interstate commerce by restricting the states' ability to tax commerce entering and leaving their borders.
Indeed, the clause was likely understood originally to encompass domestic, as well as foreign, imports and exports. During the Convention, James Madison opposed allowing states to tax imports to protect native industries. Such protections would "[require] duties not only on imports directly from foreign Countries, but from the other States in the Union, which would revive all the mischiefs experienced from the want of a Gen[era]l Government over commerce." Opponents of ratification often complained of the restrictions placed on states by the new constitution and proposed that only their powers to tax and regulate foreign commerce be restricted.
The Supreme Court's early interpretations of the clause confirmed this interpretation. In Brown v. Maryland (1827), Chief Justice John Marshall assumed that the clause applied "equally to importations from a sister State" as well as to foreign imports. In Almy v. California (1861), the Court held that the clause prohibited California from taxing gold exported to New York. In Woodruff v. Parham (1869), however, the Court concluded that the "Imports or Exports" referred to in the clause referred only to foreign imports and exports. In reaching that conclusion, however, the Court made no analysis of the original understanding, and declared that Chief Justice John Marshall was in error in Brown v. Maryland (1827). In fact, the Woodruff opinion recharacterized Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's Almy opinion as a "dormant" Commerce Clause opinion, though it clearly was not.
Subsequent cases addressed when domestic goods became "Exports" or when foreign goods ceased being "Imports" and thus subject to state taxation. See, e.g., Kosydar v. National Cash Register (1974) (discussing when goods become "exports"); Low v. Austin (1872) (holding that goods cease to be "Imports" when no longer in "original package"). In Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages (1976), the Supreme Court adopted a new analysis of the Import-Export Clause. A nondiscriminatory state tax would be invalidated only if it (1) prevented the federal government from regulating foreign commerce uniformly; (2) diverted import revenue from the federal government to the states; or (3) risked interstate disharmony like that seen under the Confederation. See also Itel Containers Int'l Corp. v. Huddleston (1993) (applying Michelin Tire).
More recently, Woodruff v. Parham has been questioned. In 1997, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that case was wrongly decided, that the historical evidence plainly showed that the Import-Export Clause did apply domestically, and that the clause should be substituted for the Court's dormant Commerce Clause doctrine, which infers limits on a state's ability to regulate interstate commerce from the Commerce Clause. Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison (1997) (Thomas, J., dissenting). In addition, Justice Thomas noted that since the Supreme Court's narrowing of the Import-Export Clause in Michelin Tire, the fear expressed in Woodruff that applying the clause to domestic imports would unfairly exempt out-of-state goods from taxation was no longer credible.
This has been argued both ways. However in my view it's crystal clear that our Founding Fathers meant this to also mean imports and exports between the states. Our Founding Fathers believed in states rights, but not at the expense of free trade and commerce between the states.
@ms70 said:
It's simple. Those who love paying taxes don't sign the petition.
Those who are sick and tired of paying taxes sign the petition.
My point is that you owe the tax either way. This has nothing to do with whether or not you owe the tax. This has to do with our whole tax system being based on the honor system. And since we the people can’t be trusted to pay the tax we owe on our online purchases the government is going to force sellers to collect it.
It’s the same reason employers and banks have to submit w2s and 1099s to the IRS. So they can verify you are being honest and paying your tax.
A primary concern of the Framers of the Constitution was ending the interstate commercial depredations that had occurred during the Confederation period. Thus, the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate interstate, foreign, and Indian commerce. The Framers also took care to place restrictions on state power under the new government. Often, the restrictions in Article I, Section 10, mirror the powers granted to Congress. Evidence from the Constitutional Convention and the ratification debates suggest that the Framers intended the Import-Export Clause to complement congressional power to raise revenue and regulate interstate commerce by restricting the states' ability to tax commerce entering and leaving their borders.
Indeed, the clause was likely understood originally to encompass domestic, as well as foreign, imports and exports. During the Convention, James Madison opposed allowing states to tax imports to protect native industries. Such protections would "[require] duties not only on imports directly from foreign Countries, but from the other States in the Union, which would revive all the mischiefs experienced from the want of a Gen[era]l Government over commerce." Opponents of ratification often complained of the restrictions placed on states by the new constitution and proposed that only their powers to tax and regulate foreign commerce be restricted.
The Supreme Court's early interpretations of the clause confirmed this interpretation. In Brown v. Maryland (1827), Chief Justice John Marshall assumed that the clause applied "equally to importations from a sister State" as well as to foreign imports. In Almy v. California (1861), the Court held that the clause prohibited California from taxing gold exported to New York. In Woodruff v. Parham (1869), however, the Court concluded that the "Imports or Exports" referred to in the clause referred only to foreign imports and exports. In reaching that conclusion, however, the Court made no analysis of the original understanding, and declared that Chief Justice John Marshall was in error in Brown v. Maryland (1827). In fact, the Woodruff opinion recharacterized Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's Almy opinion as a "dormant" Commerce Clause opinion, though it clearly was not.
Subsequent cases addressed when domestic goods became "Exports" or when foreign goods ceased being "Imports" and thus subject to state taxation. See, e.g., Kosydar v. National Cash Register (1974) (discussing when goods become "exports"); Low v. Austin (1872) (holding that goods cease to be "Imports" when no longer in "original package"). In Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages (1976), the Supreme Court adopted a new analysis of the Import-Export Clause. A nondiscriminatory state tax would be invalidated only if it (1) prevented the federal government from regulating foreign commerce uniformly; (2) diverted import revenue from the federal government to the states; or (3) risked interstate disharmony like that seen under the Confederation. See also Itel Containers Int'l Corp. v. Huddleston (1993) (applying Michelin Tire).
More recently, Woodruff v. Parham has been questioned. In 1997, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that case was wrongly decided, that the historical evidence plainly showed that the Import-Export Clause did apply domestically, and that the clause should be substituted for the Court's dormant Commerce Clause doctrine, which infers limits on a state's ability to regulate interstate commerce from the Commerce Clause. Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison (1997) (Thomas, J., dissenting). In addition, Justice Thomas noted that since the Supreme Court's narrowing of the Import-Export Clause in Michelin Tire, the fear expressed in Woodruff that applying the clause to domestic imports would unfairly exempt out-of-state goods from taxation was no longer credible.
This has been argued both ways. However in my view it's crystal clear that our Founding Fathers meant this to also mean imports and exports between the states. Our Founding Fathers believed in states rights, but not at the expense of free trade and commerce between the states.
We can speculate whether or not our founding fathers wanted us to pay sales tax on out of state online purchases but it seems pretty clear how the states feel about it now.
Right now there is a Use tax that many states impose on residents and because virtually nobody reports and pays it they are going after who they can force to collect and pay it.
Its easier for the government to regulate merchants than it would be to create some new form of online tax that the states would have to fight for their “fair share”.
Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.
Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me.
Comments
Signed. As a seller, this would be a nightmare.
As a buyer, would just factor it in my bids.
Face it - the Govt is broke and taxes are only going to get worse since they've kicked the deficit issue down the road over and over again. Rising interest rates will further exacerbate the issue!
I'll sign anything that might result in me paying less taxes. Now I'm on that "tax rebel" Fatherland Security data base.
What's one more list?
No Way Out: Stimulus and Money Printing Are the Only Path Left
<<< Import and export laws apply to international trade, not something that crosses the city limits or the state lines. >>>
(looks like you edited your post while I was responding. No problem, but I'm going to keep this response up anyway for clarity about this topic)
Pasted:
https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/74/import-export-clause
A primary concern of the Framers of the Constitution was ending the interstate commercial depredations that had occurred during the Confederation period. Thus, the Constitution gave Congress the power to regulate interstate, foreign, and Indian commerce. The Framers also took care to place restrictions on state power under the new government. Often, the restrictions in Article I, Section 10, mirror the powers granted to Congress. Evidence from the Constitutional Convention and the ratification debates suggest that the Framers intended the Import-Export Clause to complement congressional power to raise revenue and regulate interstate commerce by restricting the states' ability to tax commerce entering and leaving their borders.
Indeed, the clause was likely understood originally to encompass domestic, as well as foreign, imports and exports. During the Convention, James Madison opposed allowing states to tax imports to protect native industries. Such protections would "[require] duties not only on imports directly from foreign Countries, but from the other States in the Union, which would revive all the mischiefs experienced from the want of a Gen[era]l Government over commerce." Opponents of ratification often complained of the restrictions placed on states by the new constitution and proposed that only their powers to tax and regulate foreign commerce be restricted.
The Supreme Court's early interpretations of the clause confirmed this interpretation. In Brown v. Maryland (1827), Chief Justice John Marshall assumed that the clause applied "equally to importations from a sister State" as well as to foreign imports. In Almy v. California (1861), the Court held that the clause prohibited California from taxing gold exported to New York. In Woodruff v. Parham (1869), however, the Court concluded that the "Imports or Exports" referred to in the clause referred only to foreign imports and exports. In reaching that conclusion, however, the Court made no analysis of the original understanding, and declared that Chief Justice John Marshall was in error in Brown v. Maryland (1827). In fact, the Woodruff opinion recharacterized Chief Justice Roger B. Taney's Almy opinion as a "dormant" Commerce Clause opinion, though it clearly was not.
Subsequent cases addressed when domestic goods became "Exports" or when foreign goods ceased being "Imports" and thus subject to state taxation. See, e.g., Kosydar v. National Cash Register (1974) (discussing when goods become "exports"); Low v. Austin (1872) (holding that goods cease to be "Imports" when no longer in "original package"). In Michelin Tire Corp. v. Wages (1976), the Supreme Court adopted a new analysis of the Import-Export Clause. A nondiscriminatory state tax would be invalidated only if it (1) prevented the federal government from regulating foreign commerce uniformly; (2) diverted import revenue from the federal government to the states; or (3) risked interstate disharmony like that seen under the Confederation. See also Itel Containers Int'l Corp. v. Huddleston (1993) (applying Michelin Tire).
More recently, Woodruff v. Parham has been questioned. In 1997, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that case was wrongly decided, that the historical evidence plainly showed that the Import-Export Clause did apply domestically, and that the clause should be substituted for the Court's dormant Commerce Clause doctrine, which infers limits on a state's ability to regulate interstate commerce from the Commerce Clause. Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison (1997) (Thomas, J., dissenting). In addition, Justice Thomas noted that since the Supreme Court's narrowing of the Import-Export Clause in Michelin Tire, the fear expressed in Woodruff that applying the clause to domestic imports would unfairly exempt out-of-state goods from taxation was no longer credible.
This has been argued both ways. However in my view it's crystal clear that our Founding Fathers meant this to also mean imports and exports between the states. Our Founding Fathers believed in states rights, but not at the expense of free trade and commerce between the states.
My point is that you owe the tax either way. This has nothing to do with whether or not you owe the tax. This has to do with our whole tax system being based on the honor system. And since we the people can’t be trusted to pay the tax we owe on our online purchases the government is going to force sellers to collect it.
It’s the same reason employers and banks have to submit w2s and 1099s to the IRS. So they can verify you are being honest and paying your tax.
My Ebay Store
We can speculate whether or not our founding fathers wanted us to pay sales tax on out of state online purchases but it seems pretty clear how the states feel about it now.
Right now there is a Use tax that many states impose on residents and because virtually nobody reports and pays it they are going after who they can force to collect and pay it.
Its easier for the government to regulate merchants than it would be to create some new form of online tax that the states would have to fight for their “fair share”.
My Ebay Store
The Beatles - Taxman
Songwriter: George Harrison
Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman
If you drive a car, I'll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.
Don't ask me what I want it for
If you don't want to pay some more
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
Now my advice for those who die
Declare the pennies on your eyes
'Cause I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman
And you're working for no one but me.