Re: "Implementing online sales tax would protect Utah jobs, support local
business"And force higher prices and less competition on
Utahns.Proposals for more and higher taxes are NEVER about
protecting or benefitting real people.
The states that have implemented taxing online sales taxes have realized
significantly lower-than-projected revenue from these taxes. It caused serious
budget problems, because they budgeted such a large amount of dollars that did
not materialize.Also, on the second to the last page of the bill,
there is a question as to if the bill is Constitutional (the Quill case). Maybe
the House needs to wait to pass such legislation until the constitutionality of
such a law is decided in the courts.
If anybody has filed their Utah state income tax forms, they should know there
is a provision requiring consumers who make purchases from out of state sources,
including internet and catalogs, to pay tax on those purchases.It's called the Utah use tax. If they haven't noticed,
they have failed to pay their taxes properly.
Didn't expect to read this anti-free market protectionist tripe in the
That is a nice idea, but doesn't work well.For example,
Washington State has a high sales tax on non-food items. As a result, the
people that live near Oregon drive their cars across the state line to make big
purchases. The result is that the Washington state sales taxes are lower than
they would be if Oregon charged sales taxes.The other problem is
mandating people in New York to comply with Utah law, when they don't
reside in Utah. Since when have states had the power to regulate interstate
commerce?That is why Utah has the question on your tax forms for the
amount that you have purchased out of state for use in state.
The Utah Use tax is the answer. Its enforcement may need to be beefed up.
Re: "The Utah Use tax is the answer. Its enforcement may need to be beefed
up."The answer to what?Hunger pangs of a bloated,
unaccountable government, hungry to flush more revenues down that government
toilet, even though not a single service or benefit would be provided in return
for payment of a clearly unneeded tax?Cries for unfair protectionism
by venal, selfish merchants anxious to have the government they've bought
and paid for lay a heavy thumb on the scale in their behalf, against the
interest of voters?Again, answer to what?Beefed-up
enforcement of an unfair, unneeded, illegal, and counterproductive tax is never
a good idea.
The words “taxation without representation” keep ringing in my head
when people talk about taxing foreign bought goods and services. I
don’t mind paying for my government, federal, state or local. The many
services and protections are well worth the price. But I don’t think we
should allow our government to tax us for not performing any services. The case
of the state government applying a tax on goods and services that they provide
absolutely no services, help or protection is wrong.It is to our
gross discredit that we allow unscrupulous business interests to take our
government into this improper action. Even the republicans in their “fair
tax” scheme exempts foreign purchases from their sales tax.
states that have insituted a tax may have over-estimated the reveunes they would
receive, but the problem is their estimate, not the tax.Actually,
it's the use tax that may have problems with the commerce clause of the
Here we go again -- I thought Republicans built their entire party
platform and campaigned everything on reducing or eliminating taxes, and letting
the Free markets decide?I guess their built their house upon the
Special interest lobbyists win again. When will the people have their voice
heard? This is protectionist garbage and will only lead to higher prices with
minimal revenue generation. Furthermore, it's flatly unconstitutional for
state governments to legislate interstate commerce. Waste of time.