In the Opinion..Theirs (sic), the RC Journal, gave space to Governor Daugaard to parrot the incompetent competitors' shtick about online sales taxes being fair for all.
The problem is not that the taxes are fair or unfair for all. The problem is that SD and other states support an unwieldy intrusive database system required by state online sales taxes. The problem is the US Constitution and court cases. Businesses that charge too much don't want to know what prices are available on the internet. I buy locally as long as it makes something close to sense, but when I run into local pricing that has a $22 price tag on a Pur water filter which are available from Amazon 6 for $48 or so, I am not buying the Amazon product because of the 4% tax difference.
The argument that online sales are driven by not paying sales tax is all smoke and mirrors. Shipping charges often greatly exceed the sales tax difference. But, local merchants have taken to charging absurd shipping charges on merchandise they special order too. Some internet sites charge $10 to mail a gasket for 49 cents. Most of us would not buy that if the same product were even available locally. South Dakota is not an Eden for buyers of much of anything. Slightly out of the ordinary, and the usual response here is , "Why would you ever want that? What they neglect mentioning is that they have a 10 year old similar product they have never been able to sell at their asking price.
Dufus Daugaard puts in some irrelevancy about Black Friday sales and Cyber Money and then goes into how it makes no sense for whether or not businesses have to charge sales tax depending on whether or not they have "a nexus" in South Dakota or not. What Daugaard neglects mentioning is that that apparent unfairness is the result of a law suit by the state of South Dakota against catalog merchants Sears or Wards back in those days.
He then says we should be striving to add new taxpayers instead of increasing taxes. That is kind of six of one and a half dozen of the other since he is likely referring to the same people in both cases. Daugaard could slap on a delivery tax on new borns. That would add some taxpayers.
He concludes we need Congress to act. Well yes, but we don't need Congress to act on anything like what Dufus Daugaard and his Revenuers want. What Congress needs to do is to institute a distant transaction tax that is 90% refunded to states on the basis of population. Add a line to the federal income tax form for Distant Taxes Collected by sellers. Make the tax rate the average of all the state sales taxes. Let the federal tax apply to instate distant transactions. I don't like an incompetent database or a newspaper charging me the rate for the seller's city or the city rate even though we live in the rural area with the 4% rather than the 6% or 8% rate....which gets us back to the immense intrusive expensive database necessary on buyers and sellers exact addresses and tax rates that the SD and other states plan would require if they cared about fairness.
The federal distant sales tax should also apply to purchase of stocks and bonds, insurance, etc. If it isn't face to face, it is subject to the distant tax federal rate. No need for incredible data bases if the money is refunded to states on the basis of population rather than on location of buyer or seller.
Daugaard also makes one other nonsense statement. He is not in favor of raising tax rates. Well, bullshit. He wants to raise the tax on online sales from 0% to 4% or more. If it walks like a duck, squawks like a duck................
Daugaard and incompetent merchants online sales tax is probably unconstitutional or at the least anti-constitutional.
*** Stay tuned, but don't hold your breath waiting for any commonsense or rationaltiy from our legislators...state, local, or federal---Doug Wiken
Comments