Deb Peters has the Golden Ticket for SD v Wayfair

State Senator Deb Peters who has done extensive work on Main Street fairness legislation has a historic ticket for the arguments in SD v. Wayfair being heard in the US Supreme Court today:

16 Replies to “Deb Peters has the Golden Ticket for SD v Wayfair”

  1. enquirer

    i’ve heard so many national pundits yell about the ‘effort to enact a national internet tax’ when they refer to this. it’s so easy to get the facts right. sheesh.

    Reply
  2. Anonymous

    Good. Hope she gets some acclaim for this, given that Jackley’s been basically taking credit for her work since he started his campaign for governor.

    Reply
  3. Retailer

    It is a shame Congresswoman Noem had to send out a press release to criticize Marty for his Supreme Court appeal. Her statements were used in Wayfair’s brief to hurt South Dakota. She put her own political gain before South Dakota.

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      Politicians are at their best when they don’t care who gets the credit. That goes for all 3. Deb did her part. It was only part. Marty is doing his part. It’s only part. Noem would look better if she said something nice once in a while.

      The starvation for credit and acclaim is a common human weakness.

      Reply
  4. "Very Stable Genius"

    Yep, there is nothing better than a legal precedence which empowers the state of California to tell South Dakota businesses what they must do in the future…. 50 federal governments? Isn’t one enough?

    Reply
  5. GOP’er

    When did we start supporting new taxes like those being pushed for online sales? And why is this something we should be proud of?

    Reply
  6. Troy Jones

    GOPer,

    1) This isn’t a new tax. Current state law provides for taxation of these transactions. It just isn’t being collected.

    2) This isn’t a new revenue source or will not increase tax revenue to the state. In 2016, the Legislature passed a law which automatically adjusts the sales tax rate down in direct relation to online sales tax collections.

    3) This is about correcting perverse incentives. Why should we give a competitive advantage to online, out-of-state businesses (online in-state businesses pay the tax currently) verses our in-state businesses who employ our citizens?

    Reply
      1. Anonymous

        Marty is philosophically in the right here, but he straight-up said in the oral argument that he prefers a solution whereby each state can levy retroactive tax across their borders (page 10 of the transcript), which doesn’t seem like the way to get at conservatives’ hearts.

        Reply
  7. "Very Stable Genius"

    Relative to this issue, why aren’t we just enforcing the current use taxes that we have on the books. And if such taxes are hard to enforce, then why should those who abide by such a law be penalized by continuing to pay such a tax?

    Reply
  8. Anonymous

    I wonder how Deb felt when Marty took credit for her law on page 58 of the transcript:

    “It’s a situation where it’s this Court’s decision in Quill that’s basically striking down every state statute, including mine, no matter how non-discriminatory, no matter how low the burdens are.”

    Reply
    1. Anonymous

      I wonder if Marty gave her a ticket or if she had to stand in line with everybody else. I heard he was being stingy with tickets so he could take the limelight.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.