Content deleted Content added
→Current law: Changed to "prior" law to note that this was the law at the time of the proposed bill |
→Previous bills: It's like this article was stuck in a 113th Congress time capsule |
||
Line 108:
In the 2011 Bill, opponents were concerned that the bill would have imposed an unrealistic burden on sellers and consumers,<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.mytotalretail.com/article/proposed-marketplace-fairness-act-threatens-direct-marketers/|title=Proposed Marketplace Fairness Act Threatens Direct Marketers|first=George S.|last=Isaacson|website=Total Retail|date=February 2012 }}</ref> while proponents said that it would have helped retailers with a physical presence in sales-tax states to compete with online retailers.<ref>{{cite news |last=Kennedy |first=Sandy |title=Closing Online Loophole Will Level Playing Field |url=https://www.usnews.com/debate-club/should-states-be-able-to-collect-sales-tax-on-goods-sold-online/closing-online-tax-loophole-will-level-the-playing-field |access-date=September 4, 2012 |newspaper=U.S. News & World Report |date=August 8, 2012}}</ref> Proponents have argued that residents of states that impose a sales tax choose to purchase out-of-state products to avoid the sales tax and that businesses selling to customers in participating sales-tax states should collect and pay the new interstate sales tax, to mitigate the effect of consumers who illegally evade the use tax. Opponents of the bill argued that states already have the right to impose, or not impose, a sales tax, and if states wished to compete for interstate sales, they may reduce or eliminate their sales tax.
Large retailers who
===Supporters===
| |||