Should Internet shopping be taxed? Your editorial, "E-Commerce and taxes" (March 11), expresses concern about potential revenue losses from the growth of untaxed Internet shopping, and calls for "a level playing field" between electronic and traditional retailers. Presumably, this would mean allowing states to tax out-of-state sales, which they currently are prohibited from doing in most cases.

There are several reasons why this would be bad policy.

First, there is no immediate danger of large revenue losses for traditional retailers, and by extension, for state tax authorities. Local stores will probably always dominate retailing because shopping is for many people a pleasurable social experience that cannot be duplicated online.

Second, it's not fair to force out-of-state firms to act as tax collectors when they don't benefit from state services. Local firms benefit from police and fire protection, roads, waste collection, and other state services, so it is proper that they help cover those costs. Remote sellers, on the other hand, don't enjoy those advantages.

Finally, differentiated tax rates create healthy competition that helps keep local rates under control.

Let's be honest: Allowing states to tax out-of-state electronic commerce would be the equivalent of a tax increase. States would fatten already overflowing coffers without ever having to bring the issue to a vote at home. That's a dream scenario for state legislators, but a nightmare for taxpayers.

If states are concerned about local retailers, they can effectively address the issue by harmonizing tax rates downward. To improve their business climates states should cut taxes, not scheme to collect more.

Aaron Lukas Washington Trade policy analyst, Cato Institute Center for Trade Policy Studies

Ecological apples and oranges Your March 4 article entitled "Eco-activists fight projects doubling Chile forest exports" mixed apples and oranges in reference to Trillium's Rio Condor Project, for which I have functioned as land steward for the last four years, and Boise Cascade's Chile Cascada Project. The latter plans to export large amounts of wood chips. Trillium is not involved in the export of chips, logs, or any other unprocessed wood fiber.

The Rio Condor Project is focused on production of high quality lumber for use in paneling, furniture, and similar products. Initially, logs will be pressed in sawmills already present in the region rather than by building additional milling capacity and log demand. Logging will be conducted under conservative forest practices such as "shelterwood harvest" (no clearcutting), use of natural regeneration (no plantations), and use only of native species (no exotics). All wetlands, rivers, and major streams will be buffered from logging. As an extraordinary conservation measure, Trillium has voluntarily dedicated one-fourth of its property as permanent ecological reserves.

Jerry F. Franklin Seattle Professor of ecosystem analysis University of Washington

School board's ignominy Regarding the brief entitled "Art Object-ion" (March 10): The sophomoric decision of the Shelton, Conn., school board and other officials to allow a juvenile's aberration to discredit five centuries of public awe for the genius of Michelangelo's David is beyond comprehension.

They might shed their ignominy by placing a bronze plaque at the foot of the "offending" statue showing the title and artist.

Robert E. Whiteway Holmen, Wis.

The Monitor welcomes your letters and opinion articles. Only a selection can be published, and we can neither acknowledge nor return unpublished submissions. All submissions are subject to editing. Letters must be signed and include your mailing address and telephone number. Mail letters to 'Readers Write,' and opinion articles to Opinion Page, One Norway St., Boston, MA 02115, or fax to 617-450-2317, or e-mail to oped@csps.com

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
QR Code to Letters
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today