CEA Changes Course on Internet Sales Tax Collection

December 14, 2011 -

In the late 1990's and early 2000's a politician proposing an internet sales tax would have been ridden out on a rail. It used to be that lawmakers were scared of the subject. Now even retail associations - some of which represent huge internet companies - say they support the idea. One of those trade groups, the Consumer Electronics Association, has changed sides this week.

CEA has opposed efforts in the U.S. Congress to require Internet sellers to collect sales taxes for years, but the group has "changed its mind" on the topic. Gary Shapiro, CEA's president and CEO, said Tuesday that the group’s opposition to Internet sales taxes was because the internet was "still in its infancy." They now support a unified national collection policy that "applies regardless of whether a product is purchased online or in person will help ensure all retailers -- big, small or online -- operate fairly and competitively in the marketplace," Shapiro said.

CEA is the first tech trade group to support online sales tax collection. Online retailer Amazon supports tax collection as well. Shapiro also points out that Internet sales tax collection would help state budgets and retain local jobs.

Not everyone thinks having a sales tax for the Internet on a national level is a good idea; trade group NetChoice, whose members including Facebook, Yahoo and eBay, continues to oppose Internet sales tax legislation. Steve DelBianco, NetChoice's executive director, says that online sales tax legislation would clear "the field of small businesses who use the Internet as a last-ditch survival strategy against the overwhelming competition from big-box stores."

But Shapiro thinks that no matter what anyone wants, an Internet sales tax law is "inevitable" within the next few years. CEA does at least say that a sales tax collection system would have to provide exemptions for small businesses, but what they see as a small business might not fit lawmakers' definition...

"It has to happen," he says.

Source: Network World


Comments

Re: CEA Changes Course on Internet Sales Tax Collection

Taking bets on whether it was a true change of heart or if something shadier took place (threat, bribe, membership by someone having a huge interest in the matter, etc.)

Re: CEA Changes Course on Internet Sales Tax Collection

Makes little difference to me either way.  I live in the home state of both Amazon and Valve, so I am already paying sales tax on over 90% of my online spending. 

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will Target Australia sell the next GTA game upon its release?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
benohawkThe majority of the blame is on the person overreacting, but if they're still reacting to a real slight then the victim was part of the problem07/31/2015 - 3:28pm
Andrew EisenSure but your analogy doesn't work because cutting someone off means you're in the wrong. Writing an opinion piece does not.07/31/2015 - 3:28pm
benohawkIm not disagreeing that it was an overreaction, I'm saying that if someone beats my ass for cutting them off doesn't mean that I was blameless despite my mistake07/31/2015 - 3:26pm
benohawkI doubt it would of helped goth. it seems a lot of the people who blew up were just waiting for any issue to let loose07/31/2015 - 3:25pm
Andrew EisenI disagree with blaming an overreaction on what people are overreacting to.07/31/2015 - 3:24pm
Goth_Skunkpositions and apologize for any confusion they may have caused. Unless their intent WAS to provoke a sleeping lion, in which case... here we are.07/31/2015 - 3:20pm
Goth_SkunkAn overreaction that probably would not have happened if Gamasutra's article was the only one ever written. And an overreaction that could have also been calmed had the authors all collectively retracted or written follow-up pieces to clarify their07/31/2015 - 3:20pm
benohawkAndrew, neither side is blameless there. Through poor planning or deliberate attempts to offend those articles did push a bad situation to the worse. and the people who blew up are guilty for their reaction07/31/2015 - 3:19pm
Andrew EisenGoth - And the blame for that rests solely on the ding bats who grossly overreacted to a handful of opinion pieces.07/31/2015 - 3:11pm
Andrew EisenHere's a fun fact: Only two of the authors of the "Gamers Are Dead" articles (of which there are about 12) were on the Game Journo Pros list.07/31/2015 - 3:10pm
Goth_SkunkNo! No! Of course not! Nothing wrong with that at all! Nevermind that those articles spawned a huge, almost year-long consumer revolt and culture war that no one in the industry can deny exists. :^)07/31/2015 - 3:10pm
Andrew EisenThere's also nothing wrong with publishing an opinion you know is going to be unpopular with some. So long as it's genuine, anyway.07/31/2015 - 3:08pm
Andrew EisenEh, could be laziness, lack of imagination, bandwagon hopping or maybe Alexander's article inspired them to publish their own takes. Nothing wrong with that.07/31/2015 - 3:06pm
Goth_SkunkIf laziness was indeed the reason other sites produced articles of a similar vein, the laziness must reach levels that would make a cat blush. How lazy does one have to be unable to stop and think "maybe this isn't a good idea...'07/31/2015 - 3:04pm
Andrew EisenThe Mary Sue article title I'm a bit more comfortable being called clickbait as it's a deliberate misdirection but it's done for humor's sake so I personally give such things a pass.07/31/2015 - 3:01pm
Andrew EisenI count six similar titles and two of the authors aren't even journalists, let alone game journalists. It doesn't reek of collusion, it reeks of laziness, if anything. A few others saw Alexander's piece and wrote their own.07/31/2015 - 3:00pm
Goth_Skunkfeed. Additionally, I'm baffled by the irony of someone named 'Infophile' taking a Mary Sue article seriously. Ignoring that I won't give that site a second of my time, that article headline is blatant clickbait and should be ignored on principle.07/31/2015 - 2:58pm
Goth_SkunkI agree with Benohawk: The title of the article meant that the article was worth ignoring. Alas, when 9 additional sites pop up with similarly titled articles of their own, it reeks of collusion and an attempt by the press at large to bite the hands that07/31/2015 - 2:56pm
Andrew EisenAh, okay.07/31/2015 - 2:46pm
benohawkI'm saying that the refrence in the article to the old title would need to be changed well the primary point of the article would be kept the same. Not something that should be an issue if the objective wasn't to be provocative.07/31/2015 - 2:41pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician