Mazerov argues that it’s only fair to have taxes on internet sales as online shoppers gain too much an unfair advantage over the retailers. Mazerov opines that the supreme court decision that prevented states from collecting taxes from internet sales made by retailers who have no place of business in those specific states. The effect of taxation on online sales is that shoppers will have to pay taxes to the state as one would in a local retail store. It is the absence of taxes on internet sales that attracts so much notoriety and clientele and some people have argued that introduction of internet sales taxes would greatly reduce the merchandise that is moved online. On the same note, the government by taxing, which may cause downward fall of sales online would eventually reduce the estimated taxes to be collected. The argument that retailers would not benefit is however flawed, as it is the buyers who pay the taxes and not the sellers. Also the retailers have a lot to benefit from the state in services such as police protection, firefighting, healthcare and education. The decision made by the Supreme Court requires the congress to give the States power to tax internet businesses in their jurisdictions. But why tax sales in the internet? Some of the arguments posed are that, firstly, Mazerov argues that a lot of important taxes are lost, which money could be channeled to improving the economy, hospitals, education and infrastructure amongst other things. About $10 billion is lost by states not charging taxes on online sales. Secondly, a lot of harm is done to the local retailers who pay taxes upto 10% making their prices unattractive compared to those selling from an online platform. That is an unfair competition and this should be made to apply equally. Thirdly those who are against taxation of online business argue that this will benefit low income earners and the