So you paid sales tax to your state every time you purchased an item out of state before the supreme court ruling? You know you were legally obligated to pay even though the company didn't collect the taxes right?
There's a big difference between neglecting to go the extra mile to do the accounting and register with the state to pay use-tax on out of state purchases, and deliberately using some service to get around the tax requirement. I'm surprised there's even a legal workaround (as opposed to some accounting trick that makes it harder to trace the purchase back to you, but doesn't really eliminate your requirement to pay the tax).
Regardless of my ability to accurately account for my online purchases, I prefer online sites take the correct amount of taxes to reduce my liability in regard to accurately accounting for my online purchases.
more power to you. Personally I prefer to pay during tax time rather than at time of purchase. Or better yet, if this is now a federal sales tax then make it a federal sales tax. Stop acting like we're all obligated to pay different amounts depending on state.
Taxes stress me out. If the government could easily send me a bill of my sales taxes at the end of the year I might prefer that but given the system we have I rather pay at time of purchase over manual and more error prone tracking over a year.
Regardless, and maybe it's not a great distinction, I find a difference in a company not charging sales tax vs a company sending an excited e-mail about how they've found a loophole to avoid sales tax. Maybe that's just me.
Even ignoring the compliance issues the government would never do that. They already do not do that with income taxes--having changed the system to "pay as you go" as soon as they hiked it (WWII, then--surprise!--never cut it for peacetime) to levels where it would matter to most Americans.
Instead they "withhold," helping themselves to an interest-free loan and obscuring the bill so the average Joe grumbles a bit sometime when he sees his pay stub but has little awareness of his actual tax liability; then he jumps for joy at his "refund" April 15 when the government kindly returns his money that was never theirs in the first place. Hooray!
I like that in Australia, retailers and others have to show the final amount. It seems that because sales taxes can't be known definitely for a given consumer at time of advertisement, certain businesses abuse this to include other unmentioned fees. Like resort fees at hotels. I would much rather look at a business' offerings and know immediately what I will be paying out-of-pocket. Federal sales tax could make that far easier.
We have several targeted excise taxes that work exactly this way at both the Federal and state levels. Gas, alcohol, tobacco, etc. (Even, since Obamacare, tanning!)
I thank God this is not the custom anywhere in this country for general sales taxes (all state and local). All "having to show the final amount" means is that the tax is hidden from the consumer in his day to day transactions, instead of staring him in the face every time--even requiring some quick arithmetic on his part. The last thing we need is even less awareness from the public of just how much of their money the government is taking from them. (Income tax withholding has already done an excellent job of that.)
I am constantly shocked, in fact, that in the name of "consumer protection" our politicians have not already hit upon this ingenious way to increase taxpayer complacency. Give it time, I am sure--especially since "being like other countries" (only insofar as they have more government involvement in their citizens' lives, of course) is the increasingly open and fervent declaration of politicians over here.
And in fact jurisdictions around the world and throughout history have typically done essentially exactly that--when sales taxes exceed a certain number (I think it's around 12%) they switch to "excise" to temper public awareness and outrage. And then the dam is burst; they can hike all they want. No thank you.
