IBJOpinion

Online retailers should collect taxes

October 16, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
IBJ Letters To The Editor

In response to [an Oct. 11 letter to the editor] by Marc Oestreich, “Online shopping isn’t the problem,” the comments made regarding taxes on Internet sales miss the mark. The statements made by David Simon were factual and not “inflammatory.” Further, this inequity will not be corrected by reducing current sales tax rates. Reducing sales tax rates, without requiring collection on Internet sales, will do nothing to level the playing field for all retailers.

The Internet sales tax initiative advocated by a number of states does not propose any new tax, but instead seeks to apply the sales-tax laws uniformly and fairly to all sales that occur within a state, regardless of whether they occur in a brick-and-mortar store or through the Internet. States are failing to collect sales taxes on a number of Internet sales for the same goods that consumers buy in brick-and-mortar stores, where the sales tax is collected and paid. Those same brick-and-mortar stores also pay real estate taxes and employ thousands of our fellow Hoosiers.

This is not just a matter of fairness. It is the law in most states that consumers pay sales taxes on Internet and catalog purchases. In Indiana, consumers are required to report these transactions, and pay sales tax, as part of their annual income-tax-return filings. Existing technology can be used to assess and collect these taxes on Internet sales when they occur, which is what brick-and-mortar retailers do every day, and eliminate the need to rely on Indiana taxpayers to report the sales at year end.

Simon Property Group’s model does not depend upon the failure of online retailers. We compete with all forms of retailing, whether online or otherwise. We simply feel, as do many state legislators, that, regardless of where consumers buy their goods, sales taxes should be collected and paid on transactions when they are made.

____________

Jim Barkley

General counselSimon Property Group
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. President Obama has referred to the ACA as "Obamacare" any number of times; one thing it is not, if you don't qualify for a subsidy, is "affordable".

  2. One important correction, Indiana does not have an ag-gag law, it was soundly defeated, or at least changed. It was stripped of everything to do with undercover pictures and video on farms. There is NO WAY on earth that ag gag laws will survive a constitutional challenge. None. Period. Also, the reason they are trying to keep you out, isn't so we don't show the blatant abuse like slamming pigs heads into the ground, it's show we don't show you the legal stuf... the anal electroctions, the cutting off of genitals without anesthesia, the tail docking, the cutting off of beaks, the baby male chicks getting thrown alive into a grinder, the deplorable conditions, downed animals, animals sitting in their own excrement, the throat slitting, the bolt guns. It is all deplorable behavior that doesn't belong in a civilized society. The meat, dairy and egg industries are running scared right now, which is why they are trying to pass these ridiculous laws. What a losing battle.

  3. Eating there years ago the food was decent, nothing to write home about. Weird thing was Javier tried to pass off the story the way he ended up in Indy was he took a bus he thought was going to Minneapolis. This seems to be the same story from the founder of Acapulco Joe's. Stopped going as I never really did trust him after that or the quality of what being served.

  4. Indianapolis...the city of cricket, chains, crime and call centers!

  5. "In real life, a farmer wants his livestock as happy and health as possible. Such treatment give the best financial return." I have to disagree. What's in the farmer's best interest is to raise as many animals as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible. There is a reason grass-fed beef is more expensive than corn-fed beef: it costs more to raise. Since consumers often want more food for lower prices, the incentive is for farmers to maximize their production while minimizing their costs. Obviously, having very sick or dead animals does not help the farmer, however, so there is a line somewhere. Where that line is drawn is the question.

ADVERTISEMENT