Another tax on American consumers

[Craig234]

Fortunately, Amazon appears to be 1 step ahead of our incompetent politicians who can't manage their pocketbook, much less a state budget. I'm glad Amazon refuses to embrace these taxes & has threatened to cut all ties with California affiliates. This is exactly the way I'd respond. Politicians need to learn that trying to force your fist down someone's throat won't always produce "your" desired results.

Not only is not the residents who put this lovely state in this mess, it's not Amazon's either & they shouldn't have to pay a dime for it. I'm sick of reading & hearing about other people trying to force others to fix what they broke.

Hopefully Amazon will come out on top when this is said & done.

http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-20038094-93.html

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-...to-sever-ties-with-california-affiliates.html

Exactly the wrong reaction. Amazon is greedily trying to keep an unjustified competitive advantage, as if the advantage of people using the local stores who pay the costs to display merchandise for them to examine, and then go buy it from Amazon more cheaply because they don't have that overhead, wasn't enough - they need only the local stores to have to charge sales tax to give Amazon an even BIGGER advantage, one they do nothing to deserve.

It's a 'put a store up, get punished' policy.

I've already contacted Amazon to send a message to their management that if they fight for this, I'll redirect my purchases elsewhere, though I'm now a strong customer for them.

(And yes, the last time I did taxes when Turbotax asked the question, I looked up my Amazon purchases and paid hundreds of dollars in sales tax).

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Ill agree with this if they repeal state income, property or car tax.

 

[Craig234]

Ill agree with this if they repeal state income, property or car tax.

Why don't you just look for ways to lie about those, too, and not pay them either?

Clearly, lying to not pay the tax owed is something you think is a good idea.

Actually, it legitimately creates a lot of resentment for people to pay the tax, when most people do evade it, which is a good reason why they should improve collection of it.

 

[CPA]

Yeah, but in Europe the state creates a nice standard of living and people are glad they live there and pay the taxes. Here the money gets sucked up by special interests and corporations and sent down the rat hole of war.

LOL, have you seen Greece, Portugal and Spain lately?

 

[Exterous]

It's not a new tax. It's just collecting of taxes that people were supposed to be paying all along.

Yeah - it's not a new tax - its just forcing you to pay the taxes now instead of reporting them on your taxes. With the massive growth in online purchasing I imagine that a large number of purchases go unreported at tax time

 

[djnsmith7]

Exactly the wrong reaction. Amazon is greedily trying to keep an unjustified competitive advantage, as if the advantage of people using the local stores who pay the costs to display merchandise for them to examine, and then go buy it from Amazon more cheaply because they don't have that overhead, wasn't enough - they need only the local stores to have to charge sales tax to give Amazon an even BIGGER advantage, one they do nothing to deserve.

It's a 'put a store up, get punished' policy.

I've already contacted Amazon to send a message to their management that if they fight for this, I'll redirect my purchases elsewhere, though I'm now a strong customer for them.

(And yes, the last time I did taxes when Turbotax asked the question, I looked up my Amazon purchases and paid hundreds of dollars in sales tax).

Craig, as much as I appreciate your opinion / views on this issue from a competitive perspective (& actually agree with you on that basis), this is more of an easy money making opportunity for this incompetent state (CA). California is desperate & looking for cheap ways to make others pay for their mistakes & I'm sick of it. It's like a homeless person asking every person they see for money with their hand sticking out. It's a sad, sad sight.

My opinion still stands & thankfully, our Supreme Court is more competent than these lackluster politicians of CA, so Amazon will probably win this one.

I'm sick of being taxed & gouged every time I turn around, so it's good to see someone put their foot down. California's been getting away with this kind of BS for far too long.

 

[nonlnear]

While I enjoy online shopping being tax free in many cases, I don't get why so many people think it's a terrible thing that states want to tax purchases equally. IMHO states that collect sales tax based on the purchaser's location are doing it right. It's unfortunate that some states attempt to compensate for "lost" revenues through kludges in their income tax forms. *cough* New York *cough* Sorry incompetent states, if you're not going to collect sales taxes at the point of sale, you're not getting them out of me by a crude guesstimate fudge factor on my income taxes.

 

[werepossum]

Once again I agree with Craig. <gasp!> While I love Amazon, I think they should collect sales taxes in any state in which they do business (i.e. have a physical presence.)

 

[marincounty]

Amazon is a major reason small retailers are going out of business everywhere. They have a major built-in advantage by not charging state sales tax. Of course they will scream bloody murder if they are forced to collect taxes.
People need to man up and pay their taxes in order to live in a decent society. Quit whining and pay the tax on your chinese-made crap. Oh, and federal taxes are at the lowest level since the '50's.

 

[djnsmith7]

There are other reasons why Amazon has the customer base it has, such as great customer service, excellent prices, for the most part, & they sell just about everything. Not charging taxes is a bonus, but by far not the only reason for its presence in the industry.

 

[drebo]

How about we lower sales taxes and then people won't try so hard to avoid them.

It's a novel idea that just might work!

 

[Craig234]

How about we lower sales taxes and then people won't try so hard to avoid them.

It's a novel idea that just might work!

No, it won't. But why don't we do lots of things you seem to support?

Let's make stores leave goods out front for taking, to reduce shoplifting.

Let's require women to be more easy, so we can reduce rape.

Let's make the minimum fraud needed for charge $10,000 so people don't hide it.

Let's eliminate child protective services, so parents don't try so hard to hide abuse.

Let's get rid of speed limits, so people don't worry so much about police.

Oh ya... The sales is actually designed to raise revenue to pay the bills, so just cutting it creates a deficit. Oops. You worked so hard on the suggestion, sorry it's useless.

 

[catilley1092]

It's not just Amazon. I buy a lot of merchandise from Newegg & LL Bean also, tax free. Funny thing, a few years back, the government was encouraging us to shop on the internet to "save the planet", so to speak. Another "green" idea, one that worked. Also, by using the internet to order, we save a few days over filling out forms & licking stamps, only to hope that the company still has the item. Let's not roll back to the 60's, please.

There's more than mere sales tax collections on the table here, it'll take away the advantage of shopping on the net. It'll also put cash in the oil companies pockets, because with taxes being charged, there's no incentive not to go directly to the local retailer to get what we need. Where we have to wait in line, listen to a sales pitch over options, and so on. Or an old line, "the last one just went out the door" on sale items. It's typically not that way online, although sometimes online retailers run out too.

The internet is an actual planet saver, we can travel from one online store to the other, w/o creating a ton of nasty exhaust emissions. Taxing us for doing our part to save the world is the most backward assed thing that the government can do to promote reduced emissions, since it was them who has pushed for clean air, and in the early 2000's, laid fiber optic cables across many areas of the US, so that we can all have internet access.

This whole idea sounds fucked up to me. Sounds more like a Republican idea over a Democrat one, as the oil companies & the tax collectors are the gainers here. And a huge rollback in incentives to have clean air to breathe. Our air is the cleanest it has been since the early 70's (in NC). 40 years of hard work will vanish in 5 years over a few dollars in taxes that will be blowed anyway.

Why don't we break out our LP albums, VHS VCR's & 8 Track tapes too, along with our old cars & trucks with dual exhaust pipes, and leaded gasoline, too? If we're going to step backwards, why not go all the way?

Cat

 

[soccerballtux]

Meh, this tax I would support. I look at it as creating a more level playing field for physical stores against virtual stores.

it already is a level playing field. If I buy online I have to wait for it. Are you going to give a tax rebate for the value lost from having to wait? Maybe it should be a VAT on top of the sales tax for the ability to get it immediately.

 

[nonlnear]

Once again I agree with Craig. <gasp!> While I love Amazon, I think they should collect sales taxes in any state in which they do business (i.e. have a physical presence.)

In another shocking twist of agreement, I go one further. Not only do I sort of agree with the agreement of werespossum and Craig234 (which in itself is shocking) that a certain tax is good (shocking also), I push for even more taxes.

I really dislike the physical presence test. I think sales taxes should be collected, but collected by the state of the delivery address. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota is an outdated ruling which did not contemplate the volume that online sales would reach. It would be nice if federal legislation were passed invalidating Quill v. ND, removing the physical presence test completely, and simply legislating that in lieu of any other test of tax authority that the delivery address is the point of sale.

It's rare that I advocate for more taxes but in this case it would make a lot of sense IMHO. But until it's done I'll enjoy my tax free shopping and continue screwing over those poor local merchants.

 

[Doppel]

We all knew this was coming and some states/vendors already abide by it. It's a pain for consumers but not the end of the world. This was always, always inevitable.

 

[KK]

No, it won't. But why don't we do lots of things you seem to support?

Let's make stores leave goods out front for taking, to reduce shoplifting.

Let's require women to be more easy, so we can reduce rape.

Let's make the minimum fraud needed for charge $10,000 so people don't hide it.

Let's eliminate child protective services, so parents don't try so hard to hide abuse.

Let's get rid of speed limits, so people don't worry so much about police.

Oh ya... The sales is actually designed to raise revenue to pay the bills, so just cutting it creates a deficit. Oops. You worked so hard on the suggestion, sorry it's useless.

How bout we cut out the useless spending, like your food stamps and section 8 housing.

 

[Craig234]

In another shocking twist of agreement, I go one further. Not only do I sort of agree with the agreement of werespossum and Craig234 (which in itself is shocking) that a certain tax is good (shocking also), I push for even more taxes.

I really dislike the physical presence test. I think sales taxes should be collected, but collected by the state of the delivery address. Quill Corp. v. North Dakota is an outdated ruling which did not contemplate the volume that online sales would reach. It would be nice if federal legislation were passed invalidating Quill v. ND, removing the physical presence test completely, and simply legislating that in lieu of any other test of tax authority that the delivery address is the point of sale.

It's rare that I advocate for more taxes but in this case it would make a lot of sense IMHO. But until it's done I'll enjoy my tax free shopping and continue screwing over those poor local merchants.

To be clear, that's what I'm supporting as well. A temporary advantage for the internet might have some arguable case based on helping the internet get established, but in the longer term it seems like a completely unfair advantage for internet sellers over brick and mortar that discourages brick and mortar, causing closures, for no good reason - the only reason being people who just don't like the tax at all, and are willing to screw brick and mortar businesses to get the tax partly avoided.

 

[Craig234]

It's not just Amazon. I buy a lot of merchandise from Newegg & LL Bean also, tax free. Funny thing, a few years back, the government was encouraging us to shop on the internet to "save the planet", so to speak. Another "green" idea, one that worked. Also, by using the internet to order, we save a few days over filling out forms & licking stamps, only to hope that the company still has the item. Let's not roll back to the 60's, please.

There's more than mere sales tax collections on the table here, it'll take away the advantage of shopping on the net. It'll also put cash in the oil companies pockets, because with taxes being charged, there's no incentive not to go directly to the local retailer to get what we need. Where we have to wait in line, listen to a sales pitch over options, and so on. Or an old line, "the last one just went out the door" on sale items. It's typically not that way online, although sometimes online retailers run out too.

The internet is an actual planet saver, we can travel from one online store to the other, w/o creating a ton of nasty exhaust emissions. Taxing us for doing our part to save the world is the most backward assed thing that the government can do to promote reduced emissions, since it was them who has pushed for clean air, and in the early 2000's, laid fiber optic cables across many areas of the US, so that we can all have internet access.

This whole idea sounds fucked up to me. Sounds more like a Republican idea over a Democrat one, as the oil companies & the tax collectors are the gainers here. And a huge rollback in incentives to have clean air to breathe. Our air is the cleanest it has been since the early 70's (in NC). 40 years of hard work will vanish in 5 years over a few dollars in taxes that will be blowed anyway.

Why don't we break out our LP albums, VHS VCR's & 8 Track tapes too, along with our old cars & trucks with dual exhaust pipes, and leaded gasoline, too? If we're going to step backwards, why not go all the way?

Cat

That's a somewhat novel argument, and one with a good cause, reducing pollution.

And it can be argued that the costs of pollution are not well reflected in prices.

But this isn't the way to do it.

Brick and Mortar already face disadvantages, including:

- the overhead of retail rent, inventory displays, more retail staff
- the limit of fixed location (the store is in a physical spot, the internet is not)
- the time and travel costs customers have to spend traveling to a store
- typically limited hours (or expensive 24 hour staffing), internet stays up 24 hours

These are strong pressures to do what you want already, use the internet over stores.

If they aren't enough, I'd say it's a better solution to make the costs paid closer to the costs incurred - for example, like the CRV tax on purchased beverages to cover the costs of the disposal of the container - rather than just cutting the tax on the internet sellers, leaving the states without the revenue they need.