DOCSLIB.ORG

Internet Usage and State Sales Tax Competition

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange Doctoral Dissertations Graduate School 8-2007 Internet Usage and State Sales Tax Competition Mary E. Howard University of Tennessee - Knoxville Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss Part of the Business Administration, Management, and Operations Commons Recommended Citation Howard, Mary E., "Internet Usage and State Sales Tax Competition. " PhD diss., University of Tennessee, 2007. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/194 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Graduate School at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Mary E. Howard entitled "Internet Usage and State Sales Tax Competition." I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the equirr ements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Business Administration. LeAnn Luna, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: Kenneth E. Anderson, Donald J. Bruce, William F. Fox Accepted for the Council: Carolyn R. Hodges Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official studentecor r ds.) To the Graduate Council: I am submitting herewith a dissertation written by Mary E. Howard entitled “Internet Usage and State Sales Tax Competition.” I have examined the final electronic copy of this dissertation for form and content and recommend that it be accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, with a major in Business Administration. LeAnn Luna________________ LeAnn Luna, Major Professor We have read this dissertation and recommend its acceptance: Kenneth E. Anderson____________ Donald J. Bruce________________ William F. Fox_________________ Accepted for the Council: Carolyn Hodges_____________ _ Vice Provost and Dean of the Graduate School (Original signatures are on file with official student records.) Internet Usage and State Sales Tax Competition A Dissertation Presented for the Doctor of Philosophy Degree The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Mary E. Howard August 2007 Dedication This dissertation is dedicated to my parents, Bobby and Sarah Palmer, for always believing in me, inspiring me, and encouraging me to achieve my goals and to my husband, Jonathan Howard, for always believing in, encouraging, and supporting me. ii Acknowledgements I would especially like to thank my committee members, LeAnn Luna (Chair), Ken Anderson, Don Bruce, and Bill Fox for their help and guidance in this process. In addition, I would like to thank Carl Hollingsworth and Brian Carver for their helpful research suggestions. I would also like to thank Brian Hill, Zach Richards, Bryan Shone, Martin Tackie, Laura Ullrich, and Terry Woodall for their support during my time in the Center for Business and Economic Research. This paper has benefited from the comments of workshop participants at Appalachian State University, Auburn University, Middle Tennessee State University, and Northern Kentucky University. iii Abstract This paper examines the influence of increasing access to the Internet and increasing online purchasing on sales tax competition among the states. Prior research indicates that the tax rates set by a state’s geographical neighbors influence the tax rate set by the home state. As consumers gain access to the Internet and begin to participate in online shopping, their opportunity cost to participate in cross-border shopping decreases and their “mobility” may increase due to the ease of purchasing from vendors lacking nexus in the consumer’s home state. Thus, states may begin to respond less to the sales tax changes of their geographic neighbors and may begin to define competitors differently. I find that increases in both the percentage of the population having Internet access and the percentage of the population making online purchases influence the response of a state to its neighbors’ tax rates. Specifically, states with higher percentages of either of these measures have more positive response functions when examining the “effective Internet tax rate” definition of neighbor. States appear to respond only slightly to changes in the tax rates of their geographic neighbors. This paper also examines the influence of Internet usage on the sales tax revenues of the states by separating the influences of cross-border shopping through traditional means and through the Internet. Research finds that consumers who live near physical borders are more responsive to tax differences than are consumers who live farther from physical borders. As more consumers access the Internet and begin to purchase goods online, all consumers may become as responsive to tax differences as are those who live near physical borders. Thus, both traditional means of cross-border shopping and cross-border shopping through use of the Internet would be expected to influence the sales tax revenues of a state. Surprisingly, I find that sales tax revenue per capita appears to increase with an increase in my measure of Internet-based cross-border shopping. This may indicate that online shopping does not act entirely as a substitute for local forms of shopping but rather represents an increase in consumption. iv Table of Contents 1. Introduction..................................................................................................................... 1 2. Theory and Prior Research.............................................................................................. 7 Cross-Border Shopping and Sales Tax Competition ...................................................... 7 E-Commerce and Sales Taxes ...................................................................................... 12 Hypotheses.................................................................................................................... 16 3. Research Method .......................................................................................................... 20 Sample Selection and Data Sources.............................................................................. 20 Method .......................................................................................................................... 21 Defining Neighbors................................................................................................... 21 Model ........................................................................................................................ 25 Competition Model 1 ............................................................................................ 25 Competition Model 2 ............................................................................................ 27 Revenue Model ..................................................................................................... 33 4. Results........................................................................................................................... 40 Descriptive Statistics..................................................................................................... 40 Tax Competition Model – Internet Access ................................................................... 41 Internet Neighbor...................................................................................................... 42 Geographic Neighbors .............................................................................................. 47 Tax Competition Model - Internet Purchases ............................................................... 52 Internet Neighbor...................................................................................................... 52 Geographic Neighbors .............................................................................................. 56 Sales Tax Revenue Model ............................................................................................ 60 5. Additional Analyses...................................................................................................... 64 Tax Competition Model - Internet Access.................................................................... 65 Most Recent Six Years.............................................................................................. 65 2003 and 2004 Only.................................................................................................. 66 Pew Internet Data...................................................................................................... 67 Separate Nexus and Lagged Tax Rate ...................................................................... 68 Tax Competition Model - Internet Purchases ............................................................... 69 Most Recent Six Years.............................................................................................. 69 2003 and 2004 Only.................................................................................................. 71 Separate Nexus and Lagged Tax Rate ...................................................................... 71 Sales Tax Revenue Model ...........................................................................................
Recommended publications
  • GAO-07-466 Medicare: Geographic Areas Used to Adjust Physician

    GAO-07-466 Medicare: Geographic Areas Used to Adjust Physician

    United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee GAO on Health, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives June 2007 MEDICARE Geographic Areas Used to Adjust Physician Payments for Variation in Practice Costs Should Be Revised GAO-07-466 June 2007 MEDICARE Accountability Integrity Reliability Highlights Geographic Areas Used to Adjust Highlights of GAO-07-466, a report to the Physician Payments for Variation in Chairman, Subcommittee on Health, Committee on Ways and Means, House of Practice Costs Should Be Revised Representatives Why GAO Did This Study What GAO Found The Centers for Medicare & The current 89 physician payment localities are primarily consolidations of Medicaid Services (CMS) adjusts the 240 localities that Medicare carriers—CMS contractors responsible for Medicare physician fees for processing physician claims—established in 1966. Since then, CMS has geographic differences in the costs revised the payment localities using three different approaches that were not of operating a medical practice. uniformly applied. From 1992 through 1995, CMS permitted state medical CMS uses 89 physician payment localities among which fees are associations to petition to consolidate into a statewide locality if the state’s adjusted. Concerns have been physicians demonstrated “overwhelming support” for the change. In 1997, raised that the boundaries of some CMS revised the 28 states with multiple payment localities using two payment localities do not approaches: CMS consolidated carrier-defined
  • A Review of Redistricting in Washington State

    A Review of Redistricting in Washington State

    A Review of Redistricting in Washington State Appendices A – LWVUS, LWVWA positions B – League activities C – Efficiency gap D – Legal information E – Census information F – Historical timeline G – Redistricting in Washington constitution and related statutes H – List of interviewees I – Commissioners views J – Current Washington district maps K – Legislative election results comparisons 1992 – 1990 comparisons 2002 – 2000 comparisons 2012 – 2010 comparisons L – Local redistricting examples M – Redistricting in California N – Redistricting process by state O – References Appendix A - Redistricting positions of the League of Women Voters of the United States (2016) and League of Women Voters of Washington1 LWV Redistricting Position in Brief: Support redistricting processes and enforceable standards that promote fair and effective representation at all levels of government with maximum opportunity for public participation. Redistricting Position: 1. Responsibility for redistricting preferably should be vested in an independent special commission, with membership that reflects the diversity of the unit of government, including citizens at large, representatives of public interest groups, and members of minority groups. 2. Every redistricting process should include: a. Specific timelines for the steps leading to a redistricting plan; b. Full disclosure throughout the process and public hearings on the plan proposed for adoption: i. Redistricting at all levels of government must be accomplished in an open, unbiased manner with citizen participation and access at all levels and steps of the process, ii. Should be subject to open meeting laws; c. A provision that any redistricting plan should be adopted by the redistricting authority with more than a simple majority vote; d. Remedial provisions established in the event that the redistricting authority fails to enact a plan.
  • Proposed Threshold Criteria and Redistricting Standards

    Proposed Threshold Criteria and Redistricting Standards

    UTAH INDEPENDENT REDISTRICTING COMMISSION Proposed Threshold Criteria and Redistricting Standards Draft: July 27, 2021 The following proposal is intended to help guide the work of the Utah Independent Redistricting Commission (“UIRC” or the “Commission”) as it seeks to fulfill its statutory duties. The following proposal discusses how the UIRC will evaluate maps in light of the threshold criteria and redistricting standards. The Commission is committed to following a criteria-driven approach. The proposed criteria and requirements below are intended to aid that effort. Comments on the proposed threshold criteria and redistricting standards are due by August 20, 2021 at 5:00 PM MTN. The Commission will review all comments, make any adjustments necessary, and release a final version no later than September 1, 2021. Table of Contents Threshold Criteria, Utah Code § 20A-20-302(4) ............................................................................ 2 Legislative Redistricting Principles ............................................................................................ 2 Population Deviation .................................................................................................................. 2 Federal Law ................................................................................................................................ 3 Single Member Districts & Contiguity ....................................................................................... 3 Reasonably Compact .................................................................................................................
  • Guiding Principles

    Guiding Principles

    COMPUTATIONAL AND VISUAL ANALYSES OF SPATIAL INTERACTIONS: A CASE STUDY OF THE COUNTY-TO-COUNTY MIGRATION IN THE US by Ke Liao Bachelor of Science Lanzhou University, 1998 Master of Science Northern Illinois University, 2004 Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements For the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography College of Arts and Sciences University of South Carolina 2011 Accepted by: Diansheng Guo, Major Professor Susan L. Cutter, Committee Member Michael E. Hodgson, Committee Member Linyuan L. Lu, Committee Member Tim Mousseau, Dean of The Graduate School UMI Number: 3469151 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI 3469151 Copyright 2011 by ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This edition of the work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, MI 48106-1346 © Copyright by Ke Liao, 2011 All Rights Reserved. ii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS My sincerest gratitude goes to my advisor, Dr. Diansheng Guo. By being a magnificent example, he taught me what research and what doing research are about. His passion, insights, and persistence to high standards have been the resources I count on. Thank him for his great guidance throughout this dissertation process. His advising and encouragement has made this dissertation possible. I would also like to express my thankfulness toward my great committee, Dr.