February 9, 2012 in Washington Voices

Main Street Fairness Act is anything but fair

 

During December’s special session Senator Mike Padden and other Republican senators voted for SJM 8009. The summary reads, “requesting respectfully for adoption of the federal main street fairness act.”

His “never voted for a tax increase in 14 years as a Representative,” led me to believe he’d be against tax increases as a senator. The federal Main Street Fairness Act will place new taxes on all Internet businesses without a physical presence in a state. “Yes” on this “memorial bill” gave his stamp of approval for Congress to pass this new tax bill. If not approving, why vote yes? 

I emailed Senator Padden and appreciated his phone call the next day. The only reason he mentioned was about “fairness” to brick-and-mortar businesses. Really? Why ignore “fairness” to home businesses or those with a small retail place in one state? It’s “fair” to require them to purchase $5-$40,000 of specialized software to keep track of multitudes of taxing districts per county per state? It’s “fair” for businesses already having the software vs. the small guys who just want to make a living and might now be put out of business? What about the employees who lose their jobs? What about the required new layers of agencies of expanded government that must audit this new taxed entity? Senator Padden said he was for smaller government. Has he even read MSFA?

He said his “yes” vote was meaningless – it wasn’t a real bill. Constituents don’t appreciate tax-paid officials doing “meaningless” things.

Alene Lindstrand

Spokane

Recent stories in Washington Voices
One comment on this story so far. Add yours!

  • carpenba on February 09 at 12:08 p.m.

    I would have to take sides with Mr. Padden on this, it isn’t fair to local brick and morter shops to pay a tax that is exempt to internet retails without a physical presence in the state (if it was logistically feasable to eliminate the tax on brick and morter, leveling the field that way, I’d far prefer that). It encourages out of state business to make an unequal profit by operating remotely. This is a loophole that challenges a business to consider the viability of not being fully entrenched in this state or interested in its issues. Our state should make an even playing field, and to omit one fascet of business opportunity makes for a lopsided market that is at least partially responsible for the economic mess this country is in right now.

You must be logged in to post comments.
Please create a profile or log in here.