Internet Sales Tax measure:

This is expected to be vote on on Monday, 13MAY2013.  WRITE YOUR SENATORS NOW!

This measure's primary proponent is Senator Mark Enzi (R-WY,) so email him and email BOTH of your state senators!  This is likely to place an unnecessary burden on small businesses (now or in the future,) and is wrongheaded and foolish - especially with all of the economic troubles we're having right now...

-----     SNIP     -----

Senator Enzi;
      I would like to write you in protest of the Internet sales tax being discussed (and, hopefully, voted down.)
    I do not believe the consequences of such a bill are being fully considered, and it is being pushed through for the wrong reasons.  Allow me to elaborate:
    - If a state "depends" on revenue generated from sales tax (local or interstate sales,) then it should work to reassess its priorities.  Perhaps spending less money would be an answer?
    - Having to assess, collect, and remit sales taxes for all state imposes an unnecessary and burdensome task upon small businesses that conduct sales over the Internet.  This will also open up businesses to potential for being audited, penalized, and even potentially sued by any of the forty-odd states that collect sales taxes, rather than just the state in which they are present and the Federal government.
    - Having to send out separate remittances to a number of states every quarter similarly imposes a great (and unnecessary) adminstrative burden upon small businesses - a large corporation has the resources and manpower to handle this, but a "one-man band" business?  Not so much.
    - This bill is purported to help small business.  However, small businesses (like myself, for instance) are more likely to go out of business entirely, rather than deal with the headache that would be imposed by this measure.
    - The businesses that are complaining most about a "tax advantage" for Internet sales are most likely located in various microeconomies where local inflation has run rampant, and they therefore have a greater cost of doing business.  Assessing state sales taxes does nothing to address this problem - what is needed is economic recovery in various areas (urban California, New York City, and the like spring readiliy to mind,) because the base price will still be lower - and it's entirely possible that the cost of ordering online, including paying sales tax and shipping, will be rather less.
    - This can also open the travelling consumer up to "double taxation" - once the "use taxes" become mandated, what's to stop a state from assessing purchases made in corpus out-of-state with the state's own "use tax" above and beyond the sales tax already paid?  (Nota Bene: I believe this is what is happening with California's "sin tax" on tobacco - in all forms - but i have yet to verify this.  So, if I were to purchase a box of cigars while out-of-state, I am theoretically required to pay: state sales tax, state tobacco tax, and California's tobacco tax - and from all of these taxes, I get nothing in return.)
    While the measure - as currently proposed - seems to exempt small businesses - what's top stop it from being changed later, to apply to all Internet sales?  And, potentially, to all purchases made while a state resident is not physically present in the state?
    In addition, with all of the economic headache that America has right now, how can it be thought that increasing the tax bite on the consumer would be any help?
    Senator, I implore you to reject this measure out of hand, it does not serve the interests of the American people, and it is open to greater abuse in the future.  Moreover, I consider it wrong-headed and foolish, and is likely to serve as a sterling example of the Law of Unintended Consequences in the near future!

Thank you.

(signed) Jon D. Kelley

cc: Senator BOXER, Senator FEINSTEIN.

-----     SNIP     -----

Per usual, I will be sure to post any responses I get.