You can spend bitcoins anywhere. There are services out there that make it easy to spend bitcoin, and the merchant receives USD.

But it's the WORLD wide web, not the United States of America web. They don't have sufficient means to shut down the whole internet and build a new one.

Most of the things you have listed are beneficial to the customer, but a burden for the employer. So the reward of the brick-and-mortar store, for jumping through all these hoops, is that it gets put at a price disadvantage to its internet counterparts. Why is that fair?

As the playing field gets tilted, their will be fewer and fewer brick-and-mortar stores. Think how many people go to these stores to see the actual products, then purchase them online.

I don't think I'm anosognosic, so much as you are being vague. What is "foreign to D.C."? Do you mean foreign to the U.S.? I live in Massachusetts; does that make me foreign to D.C.? What territories does D.C. have? Do you mean U.S. states?

Regardless, do you think the personal impact on you is the determinant to what is fair?

I wouldn't force you to join my religion, but if you chose to join, I would expect you to follow its rules.

I think it's sad that the brick and mortar shops are petitioning to impose the online retailers with taxes rather than fight to lower their own taxes. It's like a shackled slave seeing a free man, and instead of yearning for his own shackles to come off so he can be free, he yearns for the free man to be shackled so it's "fair".

Yes, that's a fair point. But they probably understand the futility of trying to get the government to lower taxes, so as a minimum they have to fight for a fair playing field.

And you're correct. Even if the government were to be revenue neutral, the impact of taxing online sales should be to lower the existing rate. If the politicians weren't so revenue-greedy, they could propose this and it would appear as a win-win situation, as they would be able to claim a lowering of the existing rate.

I'm not so sure they do. Most people, even CEOs of major companies, not only accept having to pay taxes as the "price for society", but willingly pay them. To them, it really is that the online retailers are not paying their "fair" share.

Just as almost every credit card company operates out of Delaware state because of it's unique credit laws, this will simply encourage online retailers to move into the states that have no sales tax...Won't it?

It'll raise the question of whether you are liable for sales tax based on the state of the sale, or the state of the recipient.

Either way, it's a huge headache. I don't see why the government is entitled to anymore tax. What work have they done SPECIFICALLY to enable online retail? Online retail exists because of infrastructure we have already paid for, for OTHER purposes. Sure, online retail utilizes roads, but we already paid for those roads via tax & debt....Why should we have to pay again?

Why should the government get a fraction of every transaction? Why am I not provided with a receipt for how this money is spent?

There are too many questions with no readily apparent answers.

Ha, if it was THAT simple. You think large brick and mortars pay local tax? Ask Walmart, Cabellas etc. Before they build their shopping center, they negotiate tax abatement with local governments arguing that they will bring jobs (usually net job effect is negative, for low wage jobs they bring higher wage jobs and local merchants are gone).

They are crying wolves.

If they make it a federal law (which is what large brick-and-mortars want), it won't matter which state you are in, it'll be across the board.

Why should the government get a fraction of every transaction? And another question is : WHY should VISA/Mastercard get a 2% cut of every VISA/Mastercard transaction? For the privilege to pass bytes from one computer to the other?

Because all three parties (buyer, seller, intermediary) agreed so. Volenti fit non injuria.

well, seller has no choice in this. if you are selling online, you are paying 2-3% per transaction cut to the banksters, period.

oh, and they also make money on returns and chargebacks.

I've paid and received several cheques for online transactions. I would therefore advise an asterisk in lieu of a period.

http://www.discussworldissues.com/fo...ies/smiley.gif ok
but if merchant is a real business and not a one-man show they'd have to still record that transaction.



If you guys think that tax is small potatoes, let me give you an example:

Let's take a small one-man show, a guy makes $3000/mo on his website.

Assuming 20% profit margin, that's $15000/mo in sales.

If the feds inact the tax, assuming average 6% that would be additional $900 expense.
So this guy's take home is now $2100/mo .

He just went from $15/hour to $10.50.