好事儿   象征性收点吧

对于普通消费者来说应该是噩耗。以后淘宝、京东等电商全线产品涨价。

迟早的

13年以前就应该收税了，应该一次性补齐！

现在是没条件收税，而且ZF才意识到要收税。

13年以前就应该叫这帮电商交税了！第一平台商自己应该交大头，在平台上经营的散户交小头！公平、公开、公正就行！（不过这也仅仅是个人的美好愿望而已）
某些平台商少谈点神马10-20年要吧什么搞到神马里边去，认认真真做好平台！

。。。。。。。。。都进了谁的口袋啊？反正不是我的啊

淘宝创建前就开始使用易趣购物的人不反对对电商征税

好意思跟别人说自己不是平台商，自己是个科技公司，一秒钟能处理多少多少购买申请，谁不知道你的破基地里边的几百台破电脑往那里一放，就神奇的变成科技公司了！这算那么门子什么事呀！

税最终都嫁接到消费者的身上

普通群众，看不惯电商的霸道行为而已

普通群众，看不惯收税的霸道行为而已

对于做空电商股可能是喜讯。。。

羊毛到时出在羊身上
我国赋税水平已经高的离谱，严重阻碍经济活力的释放，
楼主何来的天大喜讯？

奉上一篇诺贝尔经济学奖获得者Gary S. Becker 关于讨论是否应该给电子商务征税的经典文章，译文可参阅《一个经济学家的良知和社会责任》，樊林洲译，商务印书馆，2011版。请大家参考。
The Hidden Impact of Not Taxing e-Commerce
Gary S. Becker. Business Week. (Industrial/technology edition). New York: February 28,
2000. Iss. 3670; pg. 26.
A federal commission is badly split over whether to allow states to tax interstate
commerce conducted on the Internet. The supporters of a moratorium on taxation,
including Senator John McCain, former Presidential candidate Steve Forbes, and to some
extent Vice-President Al Gore, believe that Web sales should not be taxed in order to
encourage the growth of this revolutionary new medium for commerce. This argument is
weak, but there is a much stronger case for excluding Internet commerce that relies on
political-economy considerations.
Let's begin with the 150 American tax economists, conservatives as well as liberals, who
are supporting a petition against continuing the moratorium on taxation of cybershoppers.
They argue that the growth of e-commerce should be driven by its convenience and
competitive advantage, not by special subsidies. To make collections easier, they want
taxes to be based on where consumers live, not on the location of e-commerce producers.
The argument for taxing Web sales relies on the concept of economic efficiency. When
Internet commerce is exempt from sales taxes, some consumers buy over the Web simply
because it it cheaper, not because it is more efficient or convenient. They use the Internet
only because tax advantages artificially lower the cost of Internet purchases compared
with traditional retailers. This is why the petition favors the same sales tax rate on
Internet and brick-and-mortar retailers.
FALSE ASSUMPTIONS. University of Chicago economist Austan Goolsbee shows that
the rapid growth in e-commerce is in good part due to the tax factor. He finds that
Internet sales have grown more rapidly in states and localities that have higher sales taxes
on retail shopping.
My economist colleagues are correct in their analyses of the efficiency effects of
exempting e-commerce from taxes. But their perspective is too narrow and they do not go
far enough. Their recommendations are crucially dependent on the assumptions, never
made explicit, that both other taxes and government spending are independent of whether
the Internet is taxed. Yet one does not have to be a cynic about governments to recognize
that these assumptions are false. For their analysis of the effects of Internet taxes on
revenues and spending is static, and ignores the dynamic changes these taxes have on the
behavior of individuals, businesses, and politicians at the state and local level.
If Internet sales are permitted to be taxed at a lower rate than brick-and-mortar retailers,
these retailers are likely to put strong pressure on politicians to greatly lower, perhaps
even eliminate, taxes on their sales as well. If they are politically successful, tax rates on
conventional and Web sales would become more equal, but at much lower levels than at
present. By contrast, the tax economists' petition advocates equal treatment at the present
high tax rates imposed on conventional merchandisers.
SMALLER GOVERNMENT. A more relevant analysis would also incorporate the
common sense belief that public spending rises when governments can tax more readily.
If the Internet continues to receive special exemption from all sales taxes, it should slow
the increase in overall tax revenues and also slow government spending. Once this effect
is recognized, the case for taxing Internet sales would not be persuasive, especially to
persons who are concerned about the size of governments.
Clearly, the link between taxes and public spending is not unique to Internet taxation. A
colleague, Casey Mulligan, and I have shown that public spending in most democracies
does in fact grow faster when governments have easier access to more efficient taxes,
such as sales, value added, and social security taxes. According to our analysis, it is not
surprising that both the Republican-dominated Congress and President Clinton have
proposed sizable increases in federal government spending in response to the almost $2
trillion surplus in the federal budget anticipated during the coming decade. This is why I
continue to maintain a prediction in an earlier BUSINESS WEEK column that most of
the surplus will be spent on government programs such as medical care and social
security rather than remitted to individuals and businesses through tax reductions.
Of course, not everyone will like these implications of Web tax exception. But surely
these effects on overall tax policy and the size of government must be included in any
complete evaluation of whether e-commerce should continue to be exempt from sales and
other taxes.

应该要交税，淘宝名义上是马云的，但是实际投资者受益人却是日本人，现在又想变成美国人，以便长期要挟中国。

没看出国家拿着么多钱，能干啥

只看过减税高兴地，没看过征税还这么开心的。呵呵呵呵

以后网上买东西也贵了，什么狗屁的喜讯啊！噩耗才是！

特大喜讯？ 税缴得越少越好？越少商品越便宜，老百姓越实惠。

收税是应该的

哪来喜讯啦？难道没学过经济学，不知道会有部分税收转嫁到消费者身上？况且这种情况下，受影响最大的是淘宝而已，京东、当当、卓越、国美等电商基本都习惯被要求开具发票了

楼主做实体店的
以后网上没便宜东西买了，对惨淡经营的实体店来说，确实是喜讯

收税可以，也是应该的，看看有没有本事收吧。
电商避税容易，税务局那些公务员们的智商和勤劳程度，收税是个艰难的问题。
要不要先天价培训个一年？
by the way，实体经济不好，怎么不先想着减税刺激消费呢？商品税太高了，一个馒头11%不需要减税吗？

所以更应该对其征收重税！

这事情也许13年以前就应该征收了！应该一次性补齐！凭神马就他不交税！

哥哥我不做实体店，普通群众而已，只是看不惯某些电商长期不叫税而已！

实体店都收税，那他们平神马不收呢？

They argue that the growth of e-commerce should be driven by its convenience and competitive advantage, not by special subsidies.

说到了重点、核心！

电子商务的发展应该是由它的便捷、竞争优势，而不是依靠ZF特殊的补贴。
尤其是依靠一些隐蔽的、特别的、关系所获得的补贴（不收税应该算是一种变相的补贴）。