South Dakota newspapers have been making a mediocre case for an internet sales tax apparently as a way of pandering to their advertisers as they poke a stick in their reader's eyes. A tax increase is a tax increase just as a skunk by another names stinks the same.
My argument against the endrun around the US Constitution commerce clause is that it is a huge intrusion into privacy with all kinds of data bases being required to make the baling wire mess work. If it passes be prepared to pay taxes you don't owe and let every state in the country know what you buy.
Newspapers whine that the poor brick and mortar stores are disadvantaged by having to collect sales taxes from their customers while distant catalog or internet sales don't require such collection. Judges twist their corrupt minds into knots by justifiying a "use" tax which only applies to purchases from an out-of-state seller.
Justification for distant transaction taxes by states and local governments is a perversion of good sense, good taxaction, and an insult to the US Constitution the wingnut right regularly claim to worship as if it it the 10 commandments on the lips of God...well at least as far as it concerns guns and ammunition.
I don't care if I have to pay taxes on internet purchases or distant transactions because the few percent taxes is not why I or anybody else buys from a distant seller. We buy because the product is not available locally or even in state. We buy because local or instate marketers rip us off with prices two or three times the national price. A sales tax is not the reason for not buying from your friendly local smiling ripoff artist.
Very frankly, the arguments for further extension of state and local sales taxes to internet or other distant taxes are pure, unadulterated, stagnant bullshit.
If there is to be a tax on distant transactions, it should apply to all such trnasactions and it should be a federal tax 90% refunded to states on the basis of population rather than sales. It should apply to stocks and bonds as well as chastity belts, Viagra, tampons, or whatever else the states are eager to get into a data base relating you to sales.
A Forbes writer has a kind of weak-knee criticism of the internet tax: Forbes: The Internet Sales Tax reveals its Foolish head Again.
A federal tax will not require data be kept on sellers location, buyers location, or even what is purchased. If this is to be a national tax, it should be administered by the federal government which can just add a line to the 1040.
There is no need for tremendous growth of state Revenue department staffs or databases and so-called "tax fairness" is a smokescreen for simple tax increase.
Let your legislators know you are not impressed with the state's incredibly stupid, privacy intruding sales tax consortia mechanisms too similar to Rube Goldberg contraptions.. and let your newspapers and Governor Daugaard know you are not impressed with their BS.
*** Stay tuned. You will not be taxed for reading this YET, but give the bastards some time and they might find taxable value in the information here.--- Doug Wiken