The status quo received a weighted total of 1.75, which means that it has the lowest overall ranking. It ranked last in adequacy because the current public policy surrounding sales tax applied to online purchases is still primarily based off the 1992 Supreme court hearing of Quill v. North Dakota. This is surprising given the reality that the internet has evolved tremendously since this court ruling. For example, most Americans did not have internet in the homes in the early 1990s and if they did it was a slow dial-up connection. Additionally, popular online shopping destinations like Amazon.com did not even exist in 1992 (Amazon.com, Inc., n.d.). The changes in the way that we interact with the internet and advances in technology make it
…show more content…
The result is that retailers and states are having to engage in constant legal battles over whether they need to collect tax or not, which is not efficient for either party.
The status quo received a 1 for economic and financial possibility because the current situation has resulted in states losing billions of dollars per year in tax dollars and this number is expected to grow each year for the foreseeable future as online shopping grows in popularity (Goolsbee, 2000). The status quo received a two for political viability because even though it is not popular with most states, it passes political barriers because it has the protection of a Supreme Court ruling. This leaves the status quo with a weighted total of 1.75.
Federal Ruling on Nexus …show more content…
This could end up having a bigger impact on the economy than the new tax revenue would. For political viability, I gave this alternative a 1.5 because some states like New York have already could successfully passed Nexus type laws, but these ruling could still be challenged. This leaves the status quo with a weighted total of 1.85.
Marketplace Fairness Act. The Marketplace Fairness Act received a weighted total of 2.7, which gives it the highest score out of any of the alternatives. For adequacy, the Marketplace Fairness act received a 3 because creating a free and easy tax collection system would stop retailers from being able to use the Quill case as an excuse to not collect taxes. For administrative operability, I gave the Marketplace Fairness Act a 2.5 because states would still need to create and manage the software. This act would also shift liability to the states if a retailer collected the wrong taxes (“About Marketplace Fairness Act Bill, 2017). However, once the infrastructure is set up, the Marketplace Fairness Act would be relatively simple to run and
The result is that retailers and states are having to engage in constant legal battles over whether they need to collect tax or not, which is not efficient for either party.
The status quo received a 1 for economic and financial possibility because the current situation has resulted in states losing billions of dollars per year in tax dollars and this number is expected to grow each year for the foreseeable future as online shopping grows in popularity (Goolsbee, 2000). The status quo received a two for political viability because even though it is not popular with most states, it passes political barriers because it has the protection of a Supreme Court ruling. This leaves the status quo with a weighted total of 1.75.
Federal Ruling on Nexus …show more content…
This could end up having a bigger impact on the economy than the new tax revenue would. For political viability, I gave this alternative a 1.5 because some states like New York have already could successfully passed Nexus type laws, but these ruling could still be challenged. This leaves the status quo with a weighted total of 1.85.
Marketplace Fairness Act. The Marketplace Fairness Act received a weighted total of 2.7, which gives it the highest score out of any of the alternatives. For adequacy, the Marketplace Fairness act received a 3 because creating a free and easy tax collection system would stop retailers from being able to use the Quill case as an excuse to not collect taxes. For administrative operability, I gave the Marketplace Fairness Act a 2.5 because states would still need to create and manage the software. This act would also shift liability to the states if a retailer collected the wrong taxes (“About Marketplace Fairness Act Bill, 2017). However, once the infrastructure is set up, the Marketplace Fairness Act would be relatively simple to run and