Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by koboll 2921 days ago
>The taxation is on the person living in that state.

Right, and before this decision, it was that person's responsibility to remit. Now it is the business's. So the burden of remittance has shifted to the disenfranchised party.
2 comments
ScottBurson 2921 days ago
Not really disenfranchised. You don't have to sell to someone in another state if you don't want to.

The laws of various states place many restrictions and requirements on businesses who want to sell to their citizens. This is just another one of those.

link
delinka 2921 days ago
"...the burden of remittance has shifted..."

And the party paying the tax has not shifted. The party paying the tax votes on representation.

link
koboll 2921 days ago
>The party paying the tax votes on representation.

Technically the business is "the party paying the tax", in the sense that they are the party sending money to the government. If I drop ten dollars on the counter and sprint out of a store carrying an item that costs ten dollars plus tax, the store is still responsible for paying tax on that item to the government.

link