Illinois enacts Internet sales tax law

[Jenksismyhero]

Anyway...All I'm trying to say is that you can justly criticize the IL government here, but if you're going to do that, I think Amazon deserves a similar amount of criticism. Both of them made choices that hurt Amazon's affiliates, but they did that because the current situation is not a good one for the state of IL.

 

Does Amazon have any responsibility to those affiliates? Is that what you're arguing? Is this Obama's "the rich have the responsibility to help everyone else" line?

 

I don't fault Amazon for making a business decision. I fault the state of Illinois for making a poor decision to try and cover past poor decisions.

[Jenksismyhero]

Illinois should gut corporate taxes, gut environmental legislation, gut workplace safety rules and union rights and keep cutting public services (especially education!). Before long, we'll be right there, competing with the likes of Mississippi and Arkansas for the best businesses in the country!

 

I don't think we're all that far ahead frankly, and we have a higher cost of living too.

[southsider2k5]

I think we all know Indiana will allow pretty much anything to take business away from Illinois.

 

[StrangeSox]

Does Amazon have any responsibility to those affiliates? Is that what you're arguing? Is this Obama's "the rich have the responsibility to help everyone else" line?

 

I don't fault Amazon for making a business decision. I fault the state of Illinois for making a poor decision to try and cover past poor decisions.

 

Illinois made a poor decision by inventing the internet and having pretty much everyone avoid paying the appropriate sales taxes?

[StrangeSox]

I don't think we're all that far ahead frankly, and we have a higher cost of living too.

 

No, we are pretty f***ing far ahead of those states.

[Balta1701]

No, we are pretty f***ing far ahead of those states.

yeeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh...............

[Jenksismyhero]

Illinois made a poor decision by inventing the internet and having pretty much everyone avoid paying the appropriate sales taxes?

 

It's a tax that hasn't been an issue until now, when the state is seeking any and all available sources of money.

[StrangeSox]

It's a tax that hasn't been an issue until now, when the state is seeking any and all available sources of money.

 

Yeah, until the world economy crashed, it wasn't as big of a concern that the existence of e-commerce allowed out-of-state companies to gain a competitive advantage by not having to collect sales taxes and by virtue of the fact that no one reports them or probably even know that they're supposed to.

 

But now it is an issue and Illinois is looking to close pretty blatant tax evasion problems.

Edited March 14, 2011 by StrangeSox

[iamshack]

It's a tax that hasn't been an issue until now, when the state is seeking any and all available sources of money.

EVERY state is seeking any and all sources of money. And once enough of the initial dominos fall, the rest will really start tumbling down. Then you'll have a few states who try to become a haven for this sort of thing, ie Delaware for incorporation, the handful of states with no state income tax, etc. The problem is, it always comes from somewhere. Nevada has no state income tax, but it also costs between several thousand and several hundred dollars to register your car every year.

[Soxbadger]

And most loopholes have been closed. Incorporating in Delaware you still have to register as a foreign corp in Illinois and you still have to pay Illinois taxes for whats earned in IL.

 

In terms of the online tax, I dont like it, but I also dont purchase many things online so it wont really hurt me. I can see their reasoning behind it, and its actually something that probably should be taken care of. The loophole exists because when the tax laws were written we didnt have internet and physical presence actually meant something.

 

 

[Y2HH]

EVERY state is seeking any and all sources of money. And once enough of the initial dominos fall, the rest will really start tumbling down. Then you'll have a few states who try to become a haven for this sort of thing, ie Delaware for incorporation, the handful of states with no state income tax, etc. The problem is, it always comes from somewhere. Nevada has no state income tax, but it also costs between several thousand and several hundred dollars to register your car every year.

 

Indiana will happily take the business, and when a neighbor that close doesn't play along (I.E. charge tax to Amazon, etc.), many businesses will be welcomed there with open arms...until that house of cards falls apart, of course, and they eventually add taxes, too...but until that happens, they have an advantage. It's states competing with states in a race to the bottom, essentially.

 

Fact remains, as I stated from the start, this tax bill still doesn't help IL. If anything, for the short term, it hurts them, as businesses will go to IN now.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

Indiana will happily take the business, and when a neighbor that close doesn't play along (I.E. charge tax to Amazon, etc.), many businesses will be welcomed there with open arms...until that house of cards falls apart, of course, and they eventually add taxes, too...but until that happens, they have an advantage. It's states competing with states in a race to the bottom, essentially.

 

Fact remains, as I stated from the start, this tax bill still doesn't help IL. If anything, for the short term, it hurts them, as businesses will go to IN now.

 

[mr_genius]

I for one say yes. Governor Quinn you keep on passing and raising taxes!

 

Signed

Indiana Resident.

 

I'm sure he will.

[Y2HH]

 

That's easy to say, but it's not quite that cut and dry as you took it...so allow me to re-contextualize what I meant by that race to the bottom line I used...because it's not quite right.

 

While IN may make less money via taxes in that instance (sales of Internet goods), they will get people to move there if that's where the jobs start appearing, and those people living there will generate them more tax money than a simple sales tax on Internet purchases. See the issue?

 

Like I said, it's a bit more complex than a direct race to the bottom.

 

So, actually, I take my line back of race to the bottom, because after thinking about it, it doesn't make any sense to say it, since that's not true at all. I rephrase that to "a race to better business friendly decisions".

[Balta1701]

I rephrase that to "a race to better business friendly decisions".

I rephrase it to "a race to better corporate subsidies".

[StrangeSox]

aka, the bottom

[Y2HH]

aka, the bottom

 

Absolutely incorrect in every way. I need not go into why, because it's clear you don't get it at all.

 

Edit: Nevermind, I went into why below...and I think, after reading what I wrote, you'll understand why.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Y2HH

[Y2HH]

I rephrase it to "a race to better corporate subsidies".

 

Sometimes those subsidies are better for the state than not.

 

IE, come here and we'll give you a tax break. BUT, we get the jobs, the taxes from those jobs, people spending money here that they make from those jobs, etc...all taxable, despite the corporate break. It's taxes on top of taxes on top of taxes because of a simple subsidy. Not to mention that the states still gets SOMETHING of a tax from that company, despite the subsidy they gave them.

 

NOW, don't give that same company that "deal", and they just bring their business elsewhere...and now your state gets NOTHING. Last I checked, what I wrote above will equate to much MUCH more than nothing.

 

Yea, that sounds like a race race to the bottom...in dummy ville.

 

You guys need to think before you speak.

Edited March 14, 2011 by Y2HH

[StrangeSox]

You're not doing a lot to convince me otherwise, there. You're basically saying that we need to keep giving in to the demands of businesses more and more or they'll ship our jobs to another state (or more likely another country).

 

Like I said, the most business-friendly environment is a pretty terrible environment and that isn't what states should be trying to out-do each other to reach.

 

edit: my snarky posts don't mean I don't understand and haven't considered what you posted before you posted it.

Edited March 14, 2011 by StrangeSox

[Y2HH]

You're not doing a lot to convince me otherwise, there. You're basically saying that we need to keep giving in to the demands of businesses more and more or they'll ship our jobs to another state (or more likely another country).

 

Like I said, the most business-friendly environment is a pretty terrible environment and that isn't what states should be trying to out-do each other to reach.

 

edit: my snarky posts don't mean I don't understand and haven't considered what you posted before you posted it.

 

The problem is, my proposal is reality based. Yours is utopian based...and doesn't exist. Until the rest of the country (and world) begins to play by the same set of rules, stop pretending there is a level playing field...

 

There isn't.

 

And wishing there was won't make it happen.

 

You can choose to live in reality, where businesses live...or you can go on ignoring reality.

 

That's that.

[Balta1701]

You can't use a slippery slope argument in every case, but I think it's as clear as day there. The state gets very little, comparatively, in exchange for a $150 million a year subsidy to a company which has most of its operations out of state. Especially if you compare it to the potential value of $150 million additional spent on either education, health care, or on a more across the board tax cut.

[StrangeSox]

I can choose to live in reality but not actively participate in what I see as a self-destructive cycle of funneling ever-increasing amounts of wealth to a very small handful of people as more and more Americans struggle just to get by day-to-day.

[Balta1701]

The problem is, my proposal is reality based. Yours is utopian based...and doesn't exist. Until the rest of the country (and world) begins to play by the same set of rules, stop pretending there is a level playing field...

 

There isn't.

 

And wishing there was won't make it happen.

 

You can choose to live in reality, where businesses live...or you can go on ignoring reality.

 

That's that.

Aren't you continuing to ignore the fact that we can't magically instantaneously go from 0 states with an appropriate tax law to 50?

[Y2HH]

I can choose to live in reality but not actively participate in what I see as a self-destructive cycle of funneling ever-increasing amounts of wealth to a very small handful of people as more and more Americans struggle just to get by day-to-day.

 

It'll get worse long before it gets better.

 

This isn't even about America and Americans anymore. It's a global thing...a world economy...and there isn't much we can do about it but make do...just like our race has always done.

[StrangeSox]

Aren't you continuing to ignore the fact that we can't magically instantaneously go from 0 states with an appropriate tax law to 50?

 

Yes, but then we'll just be undercut by the Chinese! So we need to start cutting wages and working conditions to globally competitive levels to lure businesses back to this country.