No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.

Direct from the Constitution, in plain English.  Argument finished.  It's time to reconsider who is screwing who.

Congress ignored the results of their tax policies for decades, and our manufacturing base moved over seas.  Our population has not.  Business moves much more easily than people, and internet retailers have no major stake in their current locations.  They don't even own their warehouses in many cases, renting instead.  An outfit like Amazon would save the millions they'd spend relocating in a matter of weeks, if not days, should a state levy a 10% sales tax on them.

It never did, which is why I said they wipe their collective asses with it.

Seems eminently more logical, however taxes are (no matter what) a negative influence on an economy. I can understand how the monies are needed, but less how they're used. I think supported programs need to be truly (and objectively) examined and the PAC influences eliminated as they will inflate taxes for programs pushing their agenda to increase political power.

To be clear, I'm only trying to explain, not defend.

Sales taxes are fundamentally designed as a method for a state to collect revenues from its residents.  Keep that basic principle in mind.  Again, these tax laws are already in place in most states and have been for quite some time.

The reason you can go out of state, walk into a store, and pay the sales tax for that state is a matter of convenience or common sense, not principle.  The alternative would be that every store everywhere would have to look a every customer's drivers license for every transaction, collect sales tax based on the indicated state, track it all, and remit to the appropriate state.  I should point out that exceptions to this arrangement already exist in many states for out of state purchase of things such as cars, luxury items, alcohol and tobacco.  (Make no mistake, those are only sales taxes in different dresses and makeup.)  Also, the state has no right generally to perform sales tax audits on businesses not located within that state.

The obvious problem with using that arrangement with the Amazons of the country is that the state in which Amazon resides would clearly get tax-fat.  They would in effect be milking off the sales taxes that your state in which you reside should already be receiving to fund services for you.

The bill wants the Amazons to collect sales taxes from its customer based on the states in which they reside and remit those sales taxes to that state.  It does not want to "charge" Amazon a new tax.  The real financial impact on Amazon would be the administrative overhead of collecting and remitting those taxes and enduring the inevitable audits.  Keep in mind that catalog and online retailers already collect your information during the sale.

It surprises me that Amazon appears to support the bill, I'd think they wouldn't want the headache, but none the less see "Business Support" (right column) #5 here:

http://www.marketplacefairness.org/support/

While you look at that page I would also encourage you to go to the bottom of the list and view the 29 governors listed in support of the bill and note the 11 "D"s, 17 "R"s, and one "I".  It would seem that party affiliation isn't such an issue when it comes to collecting taxes which have already been passed by the state legislatures quite some time ago.  I also encourage you to take a moment to click on the "Questions" tab to the left of it and read the 6 item Q&A which is written very plainly.

I hope that helps people at least understand the situation.

Sales taxes are fundamentally designed to collect revenue period.  It has nothing to do with residency, it has everything to do with the sale....who makes the sale is irrelevant, all that matters is that the sale was made in your state (or city)....it is a tax on commerce, not a person, and that dissociation needs to be very clear...

We pay sales taxes where the sales occur....

It does not matter where I live, or where the business is headquartered...all that matters is where the sale occurs....

If I buy something online, from my computer at home, then the sale occurred in the same state as my home...the tax is paid to my home state not because it is my home state, but because that is where the sale was made...

I'm not seeing the problem here....

Also supporting the bill is Internet giant Amazon, which coincidentally now sells its own tax compliance service to other merchants.

That's why Amazon is on board this. To make more money from other retailers. To deal with the headache for other retailers, we will sell you "peace of mind" dealing with tax collection for you...

Now what did I do with my State Senator's number and representative too...?

Brick and mortar stores say Amazon and other companies enjoy a advantage because they can undercut stores such as Wal-Mart.

Other states see this a loss revenue sells because the buyer is in one state and the merchandise is in another. But because the merchandise in that state is not getting the tax because the buyer is in another. I maybe paying sales tax in New Jersey, but California gets nothing...

States see a loss of revenue and they want their cut and Wal-Mart's see it as balancing the competition....

Not correct.

The slaughter house pays no sales tax when buying cattle, the breeder doesn't either.  The scrapyard pays no sales tax when paying for scrap.  I pay no sales tax if I go to a yard sale either.  Sales tax is not collected for a myriad of cash transactions because they are not retail sales, not because people are cheating.

Sales tax is a vague and inaccurate manner of saying Retail Sales Tax.  Amazon is the retailer.  The retailer has a physical location.  It is not the company headquarters, true.  Nor is it the chair my ass currently resides in.  It's the distribution center where the physical item resides and is transferred into your ownership.

A Retail Sales Tax is not a Value Added Tax.  VAT applies to all goods at every step, foreign and domestic.  It applies to retail, imports, freight, manufacturing.  If we had a VAT, you would be correct.

When I purchase a good from another state and have it delivered to me, I have made no retail purchase in my state.  I have imported a good from another state, an action they are constitutionally barred from taxing in any way.

Exactly. A bill won't show what will or may happen. It is a indirect or direct cause for this to happen. Example, when Tennessee, Alabama did not have a lottery. People would drive to Kentucky for a shot at that Power Ball gold. TN/AL will lose that money going to that state. Now Tn has a lottery, TN gets to keep its money's going to KY and now get a boost from AL...

Now apply that scenario to online sales tax and then you see how states will react... 

I am aware of this, as I imagine others are...if for simplicity we can just assume anytime someone uses the word "sale" they are referring to a retail sale, not a resale, that may make things clearer...

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/salestax.asp

The definition of a sales tax, according to investopedia, is "A tax imposed by the government at the point of sale on retail goods and services. It is collected by the retailer and passed on to the state."

I looked at a variety of definitions, though I felt this one was best...almost all the definitions mention that the tax is collected by the seller or retailer...about half the definitions mention a phrase similar to "at the point of sale", though none seem to be more detailed than that...

So, I looked up "point of sale", or POS...

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/p/point-of-sale.asp

The definition of POS, again according to investopedia, is "The place where sales are made. On a macro level, a point of sale may be a mall, market or city. On a micro-level, retailers consider a point of sale to be the area surrounding the counter where customers pay."

I looked at some other definitions...most are not as detailed, but all make it very clear that the point of sale is physical location of the sale...not just location, physical location...

That makes things rather tricky for online purchases...if you look up "online point of sale" or "virtual point of sale", the "point of sale" almost always refers to the program, application, or terminal that does the transaction...I will combine this observation with the general accounting practice of considering a merchandise sale as complete when the title for the merchandise exchanges hands from seller to buyer...these two observations suggest that the actual electronic device used in making the purchase would be the "point of sale", for it is that device where the transaction occurs, the purchase is confirmed, and the buyer is given their proof of purchase (exchange of the "title")...

As far as I'm concerned, if I purchase something online, then that physical location is the device or terminal I use to make that purchase, wherever that location is...the distribution center should not be the point of sale because the buyer does not partake in any exchange of "title" or receive a proof of purchase at that location....

Hilarious, really.  Use a dictionary to argue a legal matter and miss basic facts.

When does Amazon, and any other honest retailer, charge your credit card for the purchase?  When they ship it and the good becomes yours.  Placing an order is not making a purchase.  Where you pay is at whatever workstation someone working there enters the shipment into, triggering the exchange of property.

By your logic, this is all true.

By simply traveling a few miles to cross the border, I can change where the sale occurs and do all my online shopping in Texas.  My phone is quite capable of placing orders from the border.

I don't live in the city limits, so when I phone in an order to Pizza Hut, I wouldn't have to pay the city's sales tax.  The order was placed at home.

I could have all my goods delivered, bypassing the local taxes while doing my commerce from home.

The legal definitions are, and have been for decades, the exact opposite of what you're claiming.  You'll end up with this bastardized idiocy as a result, having it both ways.  They will simply apply whichever collects a tax.

Unfortunately indeed.....