The bullshit part is trying to apply a geographic model of governance and taxation onto a technology that is location-independent. It has nothing to do with treating businesses one way or the other.
Politicians want to view economic data as somehow being "owned" by a county, state, or country. So they make policies that are supposed to manage (for lack of a better word) commerce inside those boundaries.
But we don't live in that world any more. The problem here isn't a lack of taxes for some businesses. The problem is an attitude that somehow you can sit above it all and pick and chose who to favor and who not to. It's 20th-century thinking applied to a 21st-century world. The only thing this will accomplish is 1) hurting the poor, and 2) creating a bunch of nonsense paperwork. Commerce will still happen without taxes; it's just the disadvantaged and new businesses that will have extra inertia to deal with.
Yes, if you frame it in terms of "what's fair to business" then sure, the argument works in favor of taxation. My problem is that the argument itself is stated in outdated terms.
The beauty of Congress leaving the net alone wasn't that it was laissez faire. It was that nobody understood exactly what the net meant to the future. Seems like this is still the case, but politicians have decided they've waited around long enough. It's time for their piece of the action.
"The bullshit part is trying to apply a geographic model of governance and taxation onto a technology that is location-independent."
What kind of government is not "location based"? People who live in a place are bound by the laws of that place. That hasn't somehow changed in the 21st century.
You argue that Internet sales tax hurts the poor. That's true because it's a sales tax (a consumption tax), but it has nothing to do with the Internet part. If you think that sales tax is a bad idea that's one thing, but it looks here like you're arguing that taxing face-to-face transactions is fine but taxing transactions over the Internet is unfair. I don't get how the technology justifies the tax exemption.
And over half of the US states have Use Taxes as part of their body of law, where if you make a purchase from another state, you're required to pay the sales tax yourself.
Where this gets interesting is the impact on/by the 10th Amendment to the US Constitution, which gets to the heart of federalism by reserving non-delegated powers to the states and to the people, and how that intersects with the Commerce Clause, which says Congress has the ability to regulate commerce between the states, foreign nations, and Indian tribes.
Which brings up an interesting point - will there be an exemption for foreign sales?
I strongly disagree with your argument that internet sales taxes fall disproportionately on the poor. I suspect that it's inaccurate, and even if it is accurate, it seems fair to impose the same sales taxes on the same goods, without regard to how they are sold.
However, you do make several valid and important points here, which you neglected to make in your original post.
HN is a well-trafficked website. It is not out of the question that legislators, or at least business owners in their district, read the commentary here. Imagine that a legislator read your top comment that "I don't care about a level playing field", dismissing the idea as if it were obviously stupid. Would this legislator conclude that we are rational and sensible people, who understand the issues involved and are proposing something reasonable and fair for all parties?
He or she would probably conclude that we are just another selfish special interest group, defending our unfair special treatment because... because... um, I guess, because taking it away is "bullshit"?
...The bullshit part is trying to apply a geographic model of governance...
You could use a VAT, but that won't appease the state constituencies looking for more revenues. Taxes are hard, full of unintended consequences and conflicting stakeholders.
Politicians want to view economic data as somehow being "owned" by a county, state, or country. So they make policies that are supposed to manage (for lack of a better word) commerce inside those boundaries.
But we don't live in that world any more. The problem here isn't a lack of taxes for some businesses. The problem is an attitude that somehow you can sit above it all and pick and chose who to favor and who not to. It's 20th-century thinking applied to a 21st-century world. The only thing this will accomplish is 1) hurting the poor, and 2) creating a bunch of nonsense paperwork. Commerce will still happen without taxes; it's just the disadvantaged and new businesses that will have extra inertia to deal with.
Yes, if you frame it in terms of "what's fair to business" then sure, the argument works in favor of taxation. My problem is that the argument itself is stated in outdated terms.
The beauty of Congress leaving the net alone wasn't that it was laissez faire. It was that nobody understood exactly what the net meant to the future. Seems like this is still the case, but politicians have decided they've waited around long enough. It's time for their piece of the action.