Online Retailers Have Different Takes on 'Marketplace Fairness Act'

November 10, 2011 -

Major online retailers are divided over a new legislation called The Marketplace Fairness Act that seeks to tackle the issue of charging sales tax for purchases made online. Right now states only require customers to pay a sales tax on purchases made online if the online retailer has a physical store address in the state. The problem for states that want to collect those revenues is that most online retailers like Amazon only have shipping or service centers in-state. Traditional brick and mortar retailers have long complained that online have an unfair advantage because of this fact.

The Marketplace Fairness Act hopes to change that. It was introduced Wednesday by U.S. Senators Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Michael Enzi (R-Wyo.). If the bill passes it would give state governments several ways to collect sales taxes from online purchases. The first method would require states to sign a multi-state legal agreement that would bring each of their sales tax codes into conformity. States would then have the power to compel online retailers to charge or remit a sales tax. States that don’t sign the legal agreement can still make online retailers collect sales tax on purchased goods if they adopt minimum standards to simplify their collection process. All sellers with annual sales that total less than $500,000 a year would be exempt from collecting individual state sales taxes.

While Amazon has come out in support of the Marketplace Fairness Act, companies such as eBay have come out against the new legislation. EBay feels that it has nothing to gain from the bill since the majority of its money comes from fees it charges other sellers for using its online auction site. Depending on the state, the individual selling the product(s) is usually responsible for collecting sales tax from customers. While eBay does have its own retail business, it doesn’t have the agreements with states to waive sale taxes like Amazon has managed to negotiate.

We'll continue to follow the progress of this bill and let you know if it passes or falls by the wayside.

Source: VentureBeat


Comments

Re: Online Retailers Have Different Takes on 'Marketplace ...

Buying from a store I pay sales tax.  Buying online I pay shipping costs.  I see that as balanced.  If the law goes into effect then buying online I would have to pay sales tax and shipping costs.  It doesn't balance anything; it shifts the advantage to local stores.  The stores don't want fairness, they want dominance.  I get it, I don't begrudge them wanting to make money, but they aren't being honest about it. 

Re: Online Retailers Have Different Takes on 'Marketplace ...

You still pay for shipping at brick and mortar stores, it is simply bundled into the price of the item rather then broken out to make things look cheaper.

Re: Online Retailers Have Different Takes on 'Marketplace ...

Online you pay for:
 - "Product + Warehouse_area + Shipping + Tax"

In a Brick&Mortar store you pay for:
 - "Product + Store_area + Tax"

The cost for store_area and sales-people are so much greater for a "Brick & Mortar" store that they have no chance what-so-ever to compete with an online store. Even if they are taxed the same and you have to pay for shipping, products often end up being 20-40% cheaper online.

Though, you are right in that stores want dominance, which is why B&M stores blackmail publishers into raising online-prices for games by ridiculous amounts.

Stores that has no online-section, is a dying concept and trying to keep them alive is futile for they have no place in this day & age. They are obsolete.

Re: Online Retailers Have Different Takes on 'Marketplace ...

While this might feel true to gadget heads and computer people, keep in mind the majority of the US population still shops B&M, and a lot of people do zero shopping online.

They are only obsolete if one only cares about thier own demographic.

Re: Online Retailers Have Different Takes on 'Marketplace ...

Good points to all.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

How do you usually divide up your Humble Bundle payments?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew Wilsonthe lose of nn would not be good for us, but it will not be good for verizion/comcast/att in the long run ether.04/24/2014 - 2:16pm
Matthew Wilsonsadly yes. it would take another sopa day to achieve it.04/24/2014 - 2:13pm
NeenekoI am also confused. Are you saying NN would only become law if Google/Netflix pushed the issue (against their own interests)?04/24/2014 - 2:10pm
E. Zachary KnightMatthew, you are saying a lot of things but I am still unclear on your point. Are you saying that the loss of Net Neutrality will be good in the long run?04/24/2014 - 2:06pm
Matthew WilsonOfcourse it does I never said it did not.though over time the death of NN will make backbone providers like Google, level3 and others stronger becouse most isps including the big ones can not provid internet without them. they can peer with smaller isps04/24/2014 - 1:54pm
E. Zachary KnightMatthew, and that still plays in Google's favor over their smaller rivals who don't have the muscle to stand up to ISPs.04/24/2014 - 1:45pm
Matthew Wilsongoogle wont pay becouse they control a large part of the backbone that all isps depend on. if verizon blocks their data, google does the same. the effect is Verizon loses access to 40% of the internet, and can not serve some areas at all.04/24/2014 - 1:14pm
Neenekolack of NN is in google and netflix interest. It is another tool for squeezing out smaller companies since they can afford to 'play'04/24/2014 - 12:57pm
Matthew WilsonI have said it before net nutrality will not be made in to law until Google or Netflix is blocked, or they do what they did for sopa and pull their sites down in protest.04/23/2014 - 8:02pm
Andrew EisenGee, I guess putting a former cable industry lobbyist as the Chairman of the FCC wasn't that great of an idea. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/technology/fcc-new-net-neutrality-rules.html?_r=204/23/2014 - 7:26pm
Andrew EisenIanC - I assume what he's getting at is the fact that once PS3/360 development ceases, there will be no more "For Everything But Wii U" games.04/23/2014 - 5:49pm
Andrew EisenMatthew - Yes, obviously developers will eventually move on from the PS3 and 360 but the phrase will continue to mean exactly what it means.04/23/2014 - 5:45pm
IanCAnd how does that equal his annoying phrase being meaningless?04/23/2014 - 5:09pm
Matthew Wilson@Andrew Eisen the phrase everything but wiiu will be meaningless afer this year becouse devs will drop 360/ps3 support.04/23/2014 - 4:43pm
Andrew EisenFor Everything But... 360? Huh, not many games can claim that title. Only three others that I know of.04/23/2014 - 3:45pm
MaskedPixelantehttp://www.joystiq.com/2014/04/23/another-world-rated-for-current-consoles-handhelds-in-germany/ Another World fulfills legal obligations of being on every gaming system under the sun.04/23/2014 - 12:34pm
Matthew Wilsonhttp://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/steam-gauge-do-strong-reviews-lead-to-stronger-sales-on-steam/?comments=1 Here is another data driven article using sales data from steam to figure out if reviews effect sales. It is stats heavy like the last one.04/23/2014 - 11:33am
Andrew EisenI love RPGs but I didn't much care for Tales of Symphonia. I didn't bother with its sequel.04/23/2014 - 11:21am
InfophileIt had great RPGs because MS wanted to use them to break into Japan. (Which had the side-effect of screwing NA PS3 owners out of Tales of Vesperia. No, I'm not bitter, why do you ask?)04/23/2014 - 10:52am
RedMageI'm still disappointed the 360 never broke into Japan either. It had a bevy of great RPGs in the late 2000s.04/23/2014 - 9:48am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician