Slashdot Mirror
California Senate Approves Net Tax Bill
Grant Erickson points to this internet.com story, which says "On Thursday, the California state Senate approved a bill that requires businesses with stores in the state to charge their customers sales tax for purchases made over the Internet." The state's huge ($35 billion) budget deficit is named as a driving force for the measure.
Unfortunately this is something we've all known has been a long
time in coming. When it comes to the government and collecting
"their" money, they won't let any opportunity pass them by.
It will be interesting to see how this will impact online
retailing though. Not having to pay sales tax has been helpful
to sites like Amazon for keeping their costs lower than brick
and mortar stores. Although I think many people don't figure
the cost of sales tax into the purchase of an item as frequently
as they should (I know I don't), so it may not have that large
of an effect.
One interesting sales tax law in my home state (Utah) is that if
you buy something from a state that doesn't have sales tax
(Oregon) then you have to pay sales tax to Utah. Just one of
the lovely little "bend over and grab your ankles" type of laws
on the books. I'm hopeful they won't enact the same type of law
for internet commerce, but I don't have much hope.
Doug Tolton
"The destruction of a value which is, will not bring value to that which isn't." -John Galt
now the question is, will companies relocate to avoid charging their customers the tax?
Mike
well, i certainly hope that it doesnt spread to other states, though i think that when the other states notice how much revenue comes in, we are all screwed...
xao
xao
http://TheHillforum.hopto.org
Integrating a system to charge, process and report state taxes, and losing business due to your higher prices,
OR:
Moving away from california.
This only affects people who live in CA and buy from California merchants. So this isn't going to affect the rest of us. Personally I don't see what the big deal is... California can't charge sales tax to "non-residents" because as yet the constitution still identifies interstate commerce as non-taxable.
Food not Bombs is a nice platitude but it breaks down when you notice that the Bombees are usually well fed
They'll tax anything except their brains.
If you don't think a US$1,000 per capita budget deficit is reasonable, you too can Recall Gray Davis.
I thought it was already the case that businesses who performed business over the Internet (or through catalogues or whatever) had to charge sales-tax as long as their business had a physical presence in the state?
E.g., I live in NJ, I buy from a company that has no physical business presence (i.e. a store-front or hq or warehouse) in NJ. I am not charged sales-tax. Legally, I am required to declare these items when I do my income taxes for the year and pay the sales-tax then. If I buy online from a store that exists in NJ (e.g., Best Buy), then they must charge sales-tax and that amount is included in my bill.
Maybe this is just NJ, or maybe I'm just confused. Any lawyers/accountants who can shed light on the matter?
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
That if I as a European purchase something from an online store in California I must pay sales tax to the state of California ?
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
Do they not see how bad this is going to be for online stores? Not paying tax is a HUGE reason why people buy online. Not only is it cheaper in some cases, it just feels good not to give money to the man. They tax you when you earn it, they tax you when you spend it. Errrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!
(tongue firmly in cheek:)
Hm, so if I buy things from stores that charge me California sales tax am I eligible to get a vote in California in addition to my Texas one, and get Californian social services as well as Texas ones? Could I transfer from UT-Austin to UCB without losing instate tuition status?
If not, this is taxation without representation.
News for Geeks in Austin, TX
Seems like a large percentage of stores on Pricewatch are California based. This tax ought to hurt them a bit. This is, of course, a geek's analysis of where the tax will hurt us :)
This guy is way out there
Have these guys TAKEN math courses? There's two sides to this equation!
Money_Taken_In - Money_Spent = Budget_Surplus_Or_Deficit
Negative values of Budget_Surplus_Or_Deficit are deficits.
Why don't they try SPENDING LESS rather than TAKING IN MORE?
Oh, I forgot, the California is on the LEFT coast.
My journal has hot
Supporting an obviously failing model by increasing taxes. Lemmie think of the last few times that hppened.
The American Revolution
The signing of the Magna Carta
It's time to sever the ties to California and push them into the ocean. They think that they're their own little country, bomb the San Andreas fault and make them one!
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
As the article says, it only changes enforcement of the laws on the books, and maybe broadens existing rules just a bit: service and other facilities within the state now count as brick & mortar to cause you to be responsible for in-state sales tax.
Amazon already keeps its distribution facilities in Oregon and Nevada for just this reason. They might get caught if they have a supply/delivery depot set up for same-day delivery in LA.
This is mainly to put some muscle into collecting from folks like Wal-Mart, Barnes & Noble and Borders, who claimed to have separate businesses running their internet. The new law states that the same 'brand name' is a trigger for tax collection.
Design for Use, not Construction!
Ok, is it just me or is this already being done? I'm charged sales tax for best buy, circuit city, little computer stores, etc. So, what does this change? This just forces companies to do what they're already doing? Honestly, the net tax was a long time coming, just like catalog shopping. Yes, you'll have to pay tax, but for the most part you already were from these places. Or at least I was, both in California and NYC...
If you already live in California (about 1/6 of the population of the USA does) then this bill doesn't affect you.
This is sort of like the massive tax on hotel rooms. Tax people from out of town, because they can't vote against the politicians levying the taxes!
no, it means people in California must pay sales tax when purchasing from online retailers with a physical presence in California.
So now what happens for people in Michigan (and perhaps other states)? We are required to report any online purchases (and pay Michigan tax on those purchases) when we file our state income tax returns each year. This includes purchases from other states. How does this get handled if I buy from California?
Purchases made over the internet in Canada (from Canadian e-sellers) have always been subject to the same sales tax as brick and mortar shops. I don't think internet sales should be given a (relative) subsidy. Can anyone tell me the reasoning behind no-tax internet purchases, if there is any?
This has been the case all along. Any customer living in your province had to be charged the provincial sales tax. Any person living in Canada had to be charged GST.
This is nothing new up here in the North, I'm surprised it took this long to implement.
I also don't think it will have much effect on businesses since for many, Internet sales only account for a small portion of the sales.
Tournament Management Online &
I heard a story here in Oregon on the local news that the Oregon legislator is discussing a tax on fast food. I agree with this kind of tax that same way I agree with taxes on cigarettes and liquor. The state ends up paying for health care for obesity, lung cancer and liver problems.
However, I think that this internet tax does not have the same kind of reasoning. The internet is bringing revenue in for the state and now the state is trying to find a way to make more money.
Where the Music Matters
Californians will be the most heavily taxed state in the union inside of a decade.
Thank Gray Davis and his complete incompetence, but don't forget to give a shout out to the hippies and celebrities who hold so much sway out there.
I swear to god, there's something wrong with people's heads in that state. I've mentioned before I write police software for a living, and we have some California sites.
Most municipalities out there have this screwed up system for dealing with false alarms, and it all boils down to: after the seventh alarm, your permit is revoked, you're charged with being a public nuisance. Both of which make some sense, but get this, the police are to no longer respond to your residence.
I mean, any crooks in LA and it's surrounding counties, theres the hot tip o' the day. Find a business that has had seven false alarms within 12 months (thats a sliding window, not a calendar year), and it's free for the pickins! Smash the window, shoot the owner in the face, the police wont come!
All because some dipshit politician with his head up his ass thought that the police refusing protection to citizens would be a great cost-cutting measure.
Of course, the police will still show up. They cant afford not to, there are too many liability issues (imagine the feeding frenzy if some clerk bled to death on the floor of a 7-11 because the police wouldnt come out for alarm #8).
Bah, that states done. You could fill a library with stupid laws and idiotic political moves in california. Cecede and form Moronia, already.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Why didn't they have a law like this in place already? Most have had one in place cince the 50's covering anything bought by mail order and the company has a presence in that state then sales tax must be collected.
From what I can tell from online purchasing, the other 49 states have had this a really long time..
Now, if they are trying to tack on extra taxes... like yes you are in michigan and we have a store in michigan so on top of the michigan sales tax you have to pay california sales tax?
It's really sketchy on the details... funny how lawyers and government try their damnedest to write everything in gobblety-gook-speak instead of clear english.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
I think the accounting overhead is worse than the money bite with most taxes. They should just raise property taxes or something that's not so hard to keep track of. As it is this just creates more government jobs to attempt to enforce this.
-Libertarian secular transhumanist
The worst thing about the California Legislature is the fact that there is NO oposition. The democrats are in control of the whole thing. Senate, Assembly and the Govenorship.
And you know when money is short the easiest and quickest way to PISS OFF only "rich people" is to raise taxes. That is right, PISS OFF the people who MAKE the economy.
Instead of trying to control spending, the democrats only solution is to raise taxes, drive business out of the state, and give away services to people who don't contribute a thing to the economy.
When was the last time a democrat ever suggested cutting some bloated social program of dubious merit? NEVER. Instead the beat up the "rich".
It is like the right wing on Terrorism, where evertying is a potential terrorist plot or whatever.
The clear point is that there needs to be opposition. It doesn't matter if you are a democan or republicrat.
Next time, vote libertarian. Real political change, Real Freedom.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Everyone needs to contact their state representitives to let them know we disaprove. Here in texas, go to: http://www.capitol.state.tx.us/fyi/fyi.htm Send them a letter saying, I may not have voted for you, but I sure as hell will vote against you if this happens here.
Lets make a special tax just for companies based in our state! And if they don't take the hint we can go and beat them around the head and shoulders with two-by-fours.
===== Murphy's Law is recursive. =====
Much of my computer equipment is bought from online companies in California... a tax on computer equipment would probably be enough to drive people who purchase in bulk elsewhere..
Hell if the same item costs less somewhere else..thats where I'll go...
Good luck Cali, this is a true gamble.
why don't they just cut social service programs. Thats where the bulk of the money goes to. The state should quit giving free handouts to moms that have 8 babies and won't work because they are too lazy. Cut welfare, medicaid, handouts to illegal immigrants. Kick the illegals out and make the people on welfare get jobs.
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
What they are saying is "we don't care if you are seperate businesses, if you have the same name we will tax you anyway"???????
What kind of nonsense is this? What if I licensed the "brand name" of a brick and morter for my e-biz? Now they have to pay taxes on my sales? Damn STUPID money grubbing "public severents"......
-jon
will companies relocate to avoid charging their customers the tax?
They should move on up to Oregon; we don't have a sales tax and we've got a lot of people who would like to have a job.
Personally I don't see what the big deal is... California can't charge sales tax to "non-residents" because as yet the constitution still identifies interstate commerce as non-taxable.
California actually thinks they have to obey the Constitution?
This just helps shift more of the burden of paying for our government onto the little guy. Better not get pulled over for speeding in the next few years -- unless you drive a BMW.
... We don't have a sales tax up here and there are lots of folks desperate to find work.
According to the article, the California budget is short $35 billion. Closing this loophole will give them a whopping $14 million. That means they only have to come up with another $34.86 billion.
Not only are they now charging for sales tax in California, but I just got an email telling me that they're going to be charging me $.05 for every email I send....
"I planned within my means and got a fixed rate mortgage, so where's MY bailout?" -cafepress
I'm a techie that just moved away from my beloved CA, and this just bums me out to see this. Someone get Gray-out Davis out of office. Here's something for you non-CA residents --
How To Tell if Your State is Going Under Economically:
1) Your state government runs like CA's does.
2) See 1).
I wonder how many more high-tech jobs will end up leaving the state now...(it's why I left)!
boo...
cabodog77
"It's such a fine line between clever and stupid." -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
This is a bad idea. I don't think I need to explain why here -- that's preaching to the choir. The question is what to do about it and I think it's simple:
If you go to an online vendor, and you notice they're located in Califorinia, go someplace else.
There's countless online retailers and even if plenty of them are located in CA, you've got plenty of options left over. From time to time, it may be inconvenient, but it shouldn't be that bad.
Remember that if you demonstrate that new taxation like this increases revenue for the state, others will follow. Slashdot has got to represent a significant portion the online market: let's make sure other states don't do the same.
Join Tor today!
I dont see what the big deal is, everybody I've purchased from online who is in California has already been charging sales tax since I'm a resident.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
"On Thursday, the California state Senate approved a bill that requires businesses with stores in the state to charge their customers sales tax for purchases made over the Internet."
If this goes into effect, what will the effect be? Simple.
California's sales tax is typically over 8%. (It varies by location, because cities and counties are allowed to add on their own small deltas.)
So the result will be that companies which are primarily net retailers will CLOSE ANY STORES THEY HAVE in California. Standalones will move their operations to other states. Even large retail chains with an internet sales outlet may split into subsidiaries.
8ish percent of gross is a LOT in a heavily-competitive market. And the WHOLE POINT of buying something on the Internet is that the price differential must be more of a draw than the lack of a local facility is a repellant. So if a company has to charge an extra 8ish percent if it continues to have a presence in the state, it will, if at all possible, eliminate its presence in the state, rather than watching the bulk of its business switch to its competitors or just go away.
The net effect on California's budget will be negative. It will lose more in taxes, on store sales, employee income taxes, and other taxes on the businesses that fold up and move (or die) than it collects. It will also incur extra costs from the business shutdowns - such as unemployment and/or other social program costs for workers that don't move to follow the business.
==========
If this also passes the assembly it will almost certainly be signed into law - because Gray Davis is clueless about anything financial. (Witness his reaction to the "electric deregulation" debacle.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Patent 'A business method for collecting taxes on California Internet Sales' quickly!
You think that I'm crazy, you should see this guy!
Are taxes collect at the POS (point of sale)?
.. is that Newegg.com has lost some of its edge. Nice .. one example of Midwest money that will now be staying in the midwest .. or even head east.
In otherwords, if California businesses jumped over to Nevada for ISP/Mailing addresses, and shipped from California warehouses would they avoid the taxes.
All I know
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
... would do anything of the above you mention. Forget it!
Those of us in Minnesota always pay taxes on goods purchased over the internet or otherwise. It is called Use tax, and the idea is it protects our local business - while generating revenue for the state as an after thought... (I don't buy it either)
Nothing here to see - move along...
+++ UGUCAUCGUAUUUCU
What makes you think it's going to be alot? Online sales isn't THAT big. Certainly compared to traditional sources.
If you don't think a US$1,000 per capita budget deficit is reasonable, you too can Recall George Bush jr.
Well at least impeach:
http://www.votetoimpeach.org/
If they choose to enforce this law, then you as the consumer can choose to not purchase over the Internet from companies in California. Plenty of others to choose from and I doubt the law stands if things get worse because of public outcry. Too many people think of the Internet as something that will inevitably fall to taxation, when I say it laid the first ground for no-tax laws. Make your voices heard people, or just pay your sheep tax.
"Beware of he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
I'm curriouse as to what determines the location of the store. What if it is a purely online store, with the server based in Alaska or something? Would it just go by the location of the storage area? if so, what if there was no storage area, and everything was ordered by the online store owner directly from a company out of state?
I thought Oregonians were "liberal", oh well. Most people who eat fast food are low income; that's all they can afford. Also, have you noticed where a lot of fast food eateries are? In low income or rural areas. All the rich people can afford to shop at Trader Joes and Whole Foods ... the poor folk are stuck eating Big Macs. A fast food tax is a dumb idea, and shouldn't fly if Democratic voters have a clue and can put a and b together. Now an internet tax, that's taxing the well to do, so it's "okay". Not many ghetto kids are buying DVDs online at Amazon, get it?
Mail order remains a (thankfully) sacred sales-tax-free process, at least when the supplier lacks retail outlets in the consumer's state.
So why are Internet sales being treated differently? Seems to me it's the same damn transaction, only instead of a phone operator you use the Web. Why screw one of the few retail growth areas?
Oh. Right. Because they can.
is that if you fly to Austin, you are actually there, and you can talk to people who live there, work there, and maybe even the elected representatives from there. And if you like it enough, you can move there.
If California tries to charge a sales tax to a purchase I make from Ohio, whether I've been there or not, that is precisely taxation without representation.
How about Portland, Oregon? You need to get permission to live there (ostensibly to control the huge influx of Californians). They're just as socialist as California. But would they try to charge you sales tax while they deny you permission to live there? Under this arrangement, it's entirely possible.
If the internet part of their business is run from somewhere besides California, they moved the primary HQ away from California, would they still have to charge a non-californian resident sales tax for California merely because they have some retail shops there?
If the customer is in a different state that also charges internet sales tax and the internet store has retail shops in THAT state, which state gets the sales tax? The customer's home state?
If it IS the customer's home state, then does CA only charge sales tax for the purchase if the customer's state doesn't charge a sales tax?
If it's based on the seller's state, then does the customer's purchase get charged sales tax for EVERY state that the seller has retail shops?
In other words, if I buy from Barnes and Noble, and 12 states that have B&N stores have passed similar laws, do I then get charged a sales tax on my purchase to each state?
Where and how do they draw the line? Do they pick the max tax? Do they split it up? It seems insane.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I was ordering something from Amazon this morning and at the bottom of my invoice it said "projected tax price" and added $1.50 or so. I was quite puzzled at seeing this, but I just assumed that it was for some special reason, and being that it was only $1.50 I let it slide. This does however strangely coincide with this bill.
Does anyone one know if it went into effect as soon as this morning? Are purchases already affected?
My little sad piece of the internet: www.mtndewd
good reasons to buy online. The cost of shipping has driven most online companies into the same price realm as their brick and mortar competitors. The delay in shipping and return hassles plus the fact that you are paying the same amount really shoots down many of the reasons to shop online.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
When I was in law school I remember studying interstate commerce law, (one of the main reasons why we have a federal govermnert) and I wonder how the feds will deal with California if the big lobbys protest this tax move. http://www.gigalaw.com/articles/2001/burke-2001-12 .html
http://www.ilpf.org/events/jurisdiction/presentati ons/
Okay so, lets say I buy a new 17" powerbook (3k i think) and charge it on my credit card. Now lets go and make my child get a job. Well make him work, oh... 40 hours a week. Then we will take part of his money so that i can pay off MY debt. Hrm. I think thats child abuse. He could sue me for that- and win. Interesting viewpoint eh?
But lets say i'm in Florida, making a purchase online from a store in california. Thats exactly wahts going on. Why am i paying off a debt for a state i dont even live in?
~Just keep eating, porky. Fat people are harder to kidnap.
A lot of companies are already collecting internet sales tax across the US, mainly because they want to cover their asses if congress says "Ok, you owe us 5 years in back sales taxes." Supposedly companies are on the "honor system" to pay state sales taxes for internet orders, but a lot don't and there's nobody FORCING them to pay the taxes (unlike in-state taxes.) The smaller stores don't charge sales tax, but the bigger companies (Apple, Dell, Radio Shack, etc) already do. Others will probably follow suit. I knew it was too good to last for long. :)
If you this this will be a cash cow for California, just wait until they pass a bill charging you $0.01 for every e-mail you send and receive.
$34.5 million people * 50 e-mails/day/person * 365 days/year * $0.01 = $6.3 billion/year for e-mails received
Now for e-mails sent: ~100 spammers in California * ~100 million spams/day * 365 days/year * $0.01 = $36.5 billion
So $36.5 billion + $6.3 billion = $42.8 billion per year which should be more than enough to cover their $35 billion deficit.
Things you think are in the Constitution, but are not.
I guess I will have to use Pay Pal to pay my taxes then....
I wonder about all the sites out there that already collect tax. Are they paying it to the government? Probably not, since they don't have to. Hell, I'd keep it too.
At least now all these sites that charge tax will now actually give it to the government, putting it (ultimately, partially) back into the hands and control of the people, rather than pocketing it.
# Erik
It was only a matter of time before politicians realized that such a large stream of commercial revenue was going untaxed and taxed it. California is only the beggining. Other states will probably pass similar laws. In the near term California internet retailers will either have to lower prices further to stay competitive, move to another state, or just suck it up and deal with the lost business. I think most of the smaller retailers will choose the last option since the costs of the others will be too high. As someone else mentioned, sales taxes already exist for walk-in purchases, so this is not a wild new concept. Of course you don't have to pay for shipping when you walk into best buy. I think that's another thing they didn't consider - the hit that the shipping industry in California will take. Mabey it won't be that significant. Who knows.
If the people who didn't have jobs, moved to where there WERE jobs?
I tell ya, this country is going down the tubes for more reasons than just taxes.
I live in Colorado, and I have a small business. I'm an artist. If I sell a piece via the internet to someone here in CO, I have to colect sales tax; just as if the purchase had occurred face-to-face at an art show. Why? Because my business is located here. If that same purchase is made by someone in, say, NJ, no sales tax is charged. I don't have a business presence in NJ. Simple as that.
I have heard a lot of discussion about taxing all internet-based purchases, and I think (hope) that two things are going to prevent such a thing from taking place. First is the sheer scope of such a proposal. Collection and distributing the taxes would be a logistical, not to mention jurisdictional nightmare. Who gets what percent? Are states experiencing budget shortfalls entitled somehow to a bigger slice of the pie? Or does the whole thing get gobbled up at the Federal level? It's the sort of monkey wrench question that would make even the most dedicated tax lawyer blench.
Second, and more important, is the constitutionality of such a measure. If I don't reside or have a business presence in NJ, why in the hell am I paying a sales tax into their coffers? In a nutshell: no taxation without representation.
(Yes; I know about the sorry example of Washington, DC. Don't get me started on that one. So far as I'm concerned, it just proves my point.)
Doing my level best to piss off the religious right wing...
While I feel for those of you who are caught up in this innocently, those of you who voted for that Democrat fool Gray Davis deserve whatever happens: stores moving out of state, paying even more than I do for everything in addition to your higher housing costs, etc.
[ home ]
I wonder how this will effect games like Everquest, who's servers are based in CA. I am not sure if any-other online games are based out there, but it will be interesting to see if the price will go up.
...I live in California!!!
"One man can change the world with a bullet in the right place."
- Mick Travis, "If..."
Stupid, stupid move.
All these CA companies who had good internet sales now charge 6-8% more than any other site. They'll lose a fair portion of those sales. Their overall profit now decreases, which means they do not have as much income. Now CA still does not collect much of the sales tax - but it also has killed off a portion of the corporate income tax. To top that off, already struggling companies will lay off more people since their profits are down. More people on unemployment and less individual state income tax. Instead of coming out ahead, CA has set itself up to create an even worse economic situation than it is already in.
Again, I say, stupid, stupid move.
I was taking one day at a time, but then several days got together and ambushed me. (from a Rhymes with Orange comic)
I can tell you that this happens already when people in CA try and purchase good over the internet from companies based in CA.
it sucks.. but i just dont do any CA business..
--
|-_-| . o O ( bEef!)
In South East Portland, the community voted against a McDonald's opening up on Hawthorne for the very reasons stated above. The kind of jobs provided are also bad ones, minimum wage, crappy jobs. Communities are starting to take action against these kind of corporate chains building in their neighborhoods.
Currently , federal trade laws require any 'online' store that has a brick & morter store in a state that an order is taken from [err .. so if you live in CA, and we have a store in CA, and you order off our website in Towson MD] you are charged sales tax.
.. I spent five years of my life running a rather successful game/hobby store in NewEngland. I know how taxes suck, but I also remember how folks used to order crap online (back when the www first started taking off.) at wholesale + 5% with no tax from jerks who simply opened up an account with WOTC or Chessex [or god forbid .. Max at the armoury.] These folks would sell out of their house, and not have to pay sales tax, or operate as a business. [or for that matter, make money.] yet I was expected to compeate with all my overhead, YET pay taxes quarterly. (Which I did, rather well infact.)]
.. LEGITIMATE business taxes. One of the reasons we *HAVE* the law that you have to pay taxes in a state you have brick & morter in .. is *because* of a retail chain in california who would not 'sell' things at their cash register, but instead point the shopper to an internet terminal NEXT to the cash register and have them buy from there (and pick their product up at the end of the counter - thus avoiding sales tax, and keeping the business's bottom line better to boot.)
:) heh.
.. Im sure Wil Wheaton won't agree, damn bleeding heart that he is .. but I still admire the guy's guts. *grin*
No choice in the matter.
So basically, California's Gov isn't making a new law, he is enforcing a federal trade thang-a-mabob. He is ALSO protecting the REAL small business from closet industry. [which is good and bad i suppose.]
Makes sence to me actually, as bad as it sounds, why SHOULDN'T an internet store have to pay sales tax? if you have a physical location where you ship goods from, and ACT like a business (and expect to rake in the $$), you should be expected to have to behave like a business.
[And before all you 'free as in beer' folks start yelling
In the end of the day, business is business. Be it online, or offline - the laws are in place already.
Sure, it would really suck to be selling cold-cast reproductions of klingon's out of my mom's basement and have to *gasp* actually have a merchant ID and pay taxes on sales. [keeping in mind, you don't have to pay INCOME tax unless you make profit, or make over X a year in sales.] But these are not the folks he is going after. $10 in taxes a year from the 3 models this kid sells isn't going to make a big dent in 35 million/billion/whatever.
California is going after the folks who are using the internet as a loophole to avoid business taxes
Not like I begrudge the chain from TRYING:) thats what free market is all about. Use a loophole until it gets plugged
Blarg
--Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
For mail order, sales tax was charged only when the purchase was being shipped to a customer within the same state as the corp.'s HQ. That's why you see "Illinois residents add 5.5% sales tax" and the like in magazine ads.
California is trying to tax any non-retail (i.e. no store with a cash register was involved) purchase, no matter where the seller is based, as long as the company has any physical presence within the state. So, if a California resident orders something from Microsoft on-line (based in Washington), they'll get charged sales tax, because Microsoft has stores in California.
... the people there work for 1/4 as much as your average Oregonian.
We don't have any damn sales tax. If you really want to avoid it move all your company here, all six of us could use a job...
Oh, I forgot, the California is on the LEFT coast.
That's funny I always thought it was the west coast. Nice try making fun of the left though. As many other posts have pointed out the right wingers haven't been helping the national budget much.
Aston Games
[lemmi get my crow pie]
.. my bad .. its not a federal trade law .. (although they are proposing it be so.)
.. damn hippies, they want their $$ AND their tax breaks :P
Whoops
Its actually approved state by state.
The rest of my heartless rant still stands
heh
--Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
hehe
They don't necessarily make money from the business income. Most of the business income tax will be paid in the state in which they are headquartered, not the state of the sale. That's why they are so aggressive about this now. Half the parties who must pay this are from other states (i.e. can't vote against them).
Don't tax you; don't tax me;
Tax that other guy behind the tree.
Btw, if we want to reduce multiple taxation in the US, why don't we replace sales and business income taxes with a VAT (value added tax, which taxes the difference between revenues and costs per item)? It accomplishes the goals of both taxes more smoothly and is harder to evade.
... but forget to mention how high their property and income taxes are. Oh, but those are BETTER than sales tax! Yeah ... uh, if you are unemployed, and have no property. Guess that explains why so many people are out of work up there ... it's a tax deduction!
I swear to god, there's something wrong with people's heads in that state. I've mentioned before I write police software for a living, and we have some California sites.
FYI, not everyone has his head up his ass in this state, and as an armchair critic it's all too easy for you to make such a statement. Why do you think the real estate prices keep going up in the bay area and L.A. area? Could it be because everyone wants to live here? And since everyone wants to live here, do you think the Legislature thinks it might be able to get away with this tax? The popularity of this state in tourism, education, and culture (i.e. money) seems to allow the Legislature to get away with almost anything.
>> In Nevada...
.
:-)
there's no state income tax...
But, isn't there a place or two where touristas go to throw away money?
and there are places where you can walk down the street with a beer in one hand and a cigarette in the other.
Ummm, now there's a reason not to be in Nevada.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
Well, at least when people that see my geekness and know I shop online bitch at me to "Buy local! Support your local economy!" I can slap them with a big "You ignorant fsck!" lecture about how my buying from Buy.com just helped pay for that textbook their little mini-yuppi-brat-child just smeared boogies in. Besides, most of the big online stores already started doing it volentarily. I say even w/ tax and shipping, it still beats getting outta my chair and running around the brick and mortar obstical course.
DONT PANIC
A bit off topic, but has anybody got the numbers regarding the federal surplus and deficits for 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003 (no need to be precise, I am just curious). And what do the budgets look like in all the 50 states? Are most of them running deficits or surplus?
Here in Canada, since a few years practically all provinces and the federal is running either a surplus or come even. Radical change since the 1990's and I think that the benefits are starting to pay off with our economy still rolling despite's the US lack luster performance. Hey, our dollar crossed the $0.72US today, the highest level in the passed 5.5 years. Still, we are concerned about the state of the economy of our biggest partner.
Remember the year 2000? They promised us flying cars. They delivered the PT Cruiser...
Thats a reasonable thought process, but your forgetting how many Californians also have a habit of smoking cigarretes and last time I checked we have the highest taxes on nicotine products of anywhere in the US, yet smokers still smoke for lots of reasons - none of which involves they don;t know its bad or the fact that it costs $6.50-$7.50 for a pack of smokes.
(for the record my $6.50-$7.50/pack is what I pay for Natsherman Naturals)
Ave Molech Setting
Would it be possible to spin off your Internet named company "Barnes & Noble".com to a subsidiary which is based somewhere which does not have sales tax?
The company can move around as needed to avoid tax as long as possible. Only the name sounds similar.
If I understand this correctly, a company which has a physical retail store in California and sells over the internet (like Walmart) will have to charge California sales taxes. A company that is purly online (Amazon.com) might not have to. That much I think I understand.
Now, here are some quetions / problems.
Lets say California and some other state with a similar sales tax law. Some guy in the other state orders something from Walmart.com. Walmart has locations in both california and this other state. Now, whose tax gets charged? California's or the other states.
Lets say some guy in a state with no sales tax laws orders something online from a shop located in calfornia that does internet sales. Does that customer pay the California sales tax? If my reading of the story is correct, I would guess yes.
Would someone who has a better grasp of this tax crap care to answer?
END COMMUNICATION
Thanks.
The article didn't define it that well. I guess I'm expecting too much from journalists.
less minor spoilers
Taxing internet transactions is very different from taxing physical store transactions.
Problem for California is, there is worldwide competition for California stores.
The tax will...California clearly benefits from taxing local stores. When grocery shopping, I care if the store is in California. When making an internet purchase, I don't care where the store is located, unless it hurts me financially.
There is only a short term benefit for taxing internet stores. After businesses catch wind of this, they will move to Nevada or Texas, or start a new corporation (bn.com) to avoid this ridiculus tax.
it protects our local business
umm, isn't that exactly why the constitution prohibits tax on interstate commerce?
I have an idea. My state should institute a seven and a half percent retailatory use tax on all goods imported from Minnesota. We can get a good old interstate tradewar going.
Protectionism is a harmful economic practice.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
California merchants already had to collect sales tax. What this law says is that any company that does any business in the state of California must collect sales tax, even if they don't sell in California.
And it does affect the rest of us when *our* states start passing similar laws. Btw, it's worth noting that you are probably already required to pay (use) tax on products bought outside your state (not the merchant, *you*; the merchant never pays sales tax; they just collect it from the consumer for the government). That's the law in most states with a sales tax.
What this mainly means is that states are going to push their abilities to the limit. California today; any number of other states tomorrow.
Yeah, the country would be MUCH better off if AlGore was president. I know I'd feel safer and we'd have jobs for everyone who wanted one. Hell, Al invented the Internet so he could probably turn the dot com bubble burst around in a Tennessee minute.
Seriously! That food is 100X more expensive than fast food ( = more revenues).
Wake up. The working class is paying far more welfare to the wealthy than to the poor and this trend has been steadily rising.
w ww.fair.org: //www.taxpayer.net
"Microsoft enjoyed more than $12 billion in total tax breaks over the past five years. In fact, Microsoft actually paid NO TAX AT ALL in 1999, despite $12.3 billion in reported U.S. profits. Microsoft's tax rate for the past two years was only 1.8 percent on $21.9 billion in pretax U.S. profits." http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0402.htm
"Washington-based Center for the Study of Responsive Law has identified 153 federal programs that benefit wealthy corporations but cost taxpayers $167.2 billion annually [$175 billion in 2003]. For comparative purposes, federal support for food stamps, housing aid, and child nutrition costs $50 billion a year." - http://www.projectcensored.org/stories/c1995.htm
Fact: welfare for the wealthy is FAR GREATER than welfare for the poor. BOTH democrats and republicans strongly support welfare for the wealthy. The only debate is welfare for the poor which gets all the media attention.
Result: the working class is paying for both the wealthy AND the poor, with the majority of benefits going to the wealthy. To me, "working class" are people who MUST work AND does work--so a doctor making $200k/year is working class to me.
Method: keep the media focused on welfare for the poor so the working class never even hears about the welfare for the wealthy. Do this by incenting the media by offering to help repeal existing laws that limit media monopolies or go easy on anti-trust remedies.
Why?: the wealthy take action in these matters by contributing money and contacting govt. officials while the working class whine about the poor--its easier for the middle class to look at failures of the poor instead of their own financial failure when comparing themselves to millionaires.
Opinion: Get better informed and take action! Share info, organize petitions, write letters and contribute to campaigns. Tax laws should be simplified to close the thousands of loopholes that only benefit wealthy millionaires. And I propose a fair & just tax cut that simply raises the STANDARD EXEMPTION from around $4,700 to match the poverty line of the prior year (i.e. $9,000 for single, $15,000 for family of 3).
Did I mention Microsoft paid no taxes on profits of $12.3 billion in 1999 and had a tax rate of less than 2% (two percent) for the past couple of years? Yes I did, but its worth repeating.
Resources:
http://www.commoncause.org
http://
http://www.projectcensored.org
http
You know, I made a comment a short while ago about another Slashdot article. I observed that the author of the story referenced did not really care about an email tax to detract spam. His real goal was to try to help justify Internet sales tax. At the time I figured some bill would come out doing just that. Guess I was right.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Florida has the same reporting requirements, however, what you actually have to pay is slightly different from what you say is the case for Michigan. (Check your state law, Michigan may actually do things the same as Florida.)
In Florida, if you purchase a product through mailorder, you must report that purchase at tax time (yes, even though Florida has no state income tax, report it just like intangible tax). If you paid less than the Florida state sales tax rate, you must pay to Florida the difference between the tax rate you were charged and the Florida tax rate. (If you paid more, no, you don't get reimbursed, dangit.)
This is one of the least-complied tax laws in the state of Florida, probably.
I don't know if this applies to internet purchases also.
Buying cars out of state works the same way. If you buy a car out of state, and then move to Florida (or are a resident and bring the car to Florida) less than 6 or 12 months after purchase (don't remember which) you have to pay Florida the difference between Florida sales tax and the tax rate where you bought the car, if the tax rate where you bought the car is lower than the Florida tax rate. And this they *will* check when you register the vehicle.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is... Oops. Frank, I've got your sig again! Where's mine?
it's a never ending battle between the republican types (who hate government involvement) and the democratic types who want more centralized/governmental control.
Say again? You mean proponents of smaller govt like the current set of republicans, who seems to be doing their damnedest to overrule states wherever possible, and enlarging the federal government, and running the biggest deficits in history, just two years after a democrat produced the first budget surpuses in years?
Please, share the secrets of your time travel with us of the present.
Infuriate left and right
Pretty soon we should start seeing "Tax Free Computers shipped direct from Taiwan" in our email inboxes.
Let's see, if I'm an e-tailor with a single/store outlet in California that's doing marginally. Time to close that outlet.
Does this tax effect someone who is just running their server in California? If so, then time to move the server and business out of California.
Watch that sputting economy in California, go for broke.
I used to wonder what was so holy about a silent night, now I have a child.
Lets wake up. The working class is paying far more welfare to the wealthy than to the poor and this trend has been steadily rising.
w ww.fair.org: //www.taxpayer.net
"Microsoft enjoyed more than $12 billion in total tax breaks over the past five years. In fact, Microsoft actually paid NO TAX AT ALL in 1999, despite $12.3 billion in reported U.S. profits. Microsoft's tax rate for the past two years was only 1.8 percent on $21.9 billion in pretax U.S. profits." http://www.ctj.org/html/corp0402.htm
"Washington-based Center for the Study of Responsive Law has identified 153 federal programs that benefit wealthy corporations but cost taxpayers $167.2 billion annually [$175 billion in 2003]. For comparative purposes, federal support for food stamps, housing aid, and child nutrition costs $50 billion a year." - http://www.projectcensored.org/stories/c1995.htm
Fact: welfare for the wealthy is FAR GREATER than welfare for the poor. BOTH democrats and republicans strongly support welfare for the wealthy. The only debate is welfare for the poor which gets all the media attention despite the amounts being far less.
Result: the working class is paying for both the wealthy AND the poor, with the majority of benefits going to the wealthy. To me, "working class" are people who MUST work AND does work--so a doctor making $200k/year is working class to me.
Method: keep the media focused on welfare for the poor so the working class never even hears about the welfare for the wealthy. Do this by incenting the media by offering to help repeal existing laws that limit media monopolies or go easy on anti-trust remedies.
Why?: the wealthy take action in these matters by contributing money and contacting govt. officials while the working class whine about the poor--its easier for the middle class to look at failures of the poor instead of their own financial failure when comparing themselves to millionaires.
Opinion: Get better informed and take action! Share info, organize petitions, write letters and contribute to campaigns. Tax laws should be simplified to close the thousands of loopholes that only benefit wealthy millionaires. And I propose a fair & just tax cut that simply raises the STANDARD EXEMPTION from around $4,700 to match the poverty line of the prior year (i.e. $9,000 for single, $15,000 for family of 3).
Did I mention Microsoft paid no taxes on profits of $12.3 billion in 1999 and had a tax rate of less than 2% (two percent) for the past couple of years while the rest of us are paying more than TEN TIMES that rate? Yes I did, but its worth repeating.
Well? What are you waiting for? Do something about it!
Resources:
http://www.commoncause.org
http://
http://www.projectcensored.org
http
Let's say, where "rich people" go to eat? Probably about 40-50 bucks a plate. I don't see many "rich yuppies" eating at Burger King, that's for sure. They're all standing in line at Slanted Door, or Zuni Cafe waiting for their lemon grass organic bluberry crepes.
The rule is that if you have a physical presence in a state, you must charge sales tax to customers in that state.
Rat Shack - Multiple stores in every single state
Apple and Dell - Both have their own brick-and-mortar stores these days. Don't forget sales offices and service centers.
retrorocket.o not found, launch anyway?
Watch as (a) all the businesses in CA move out and (b) people STOP SHOPPING ONLINE. Congrats, dudes! You think the defict is bad now, just wait!
the state expects to collect at least $14 million in additional sales tax.
California Governor Gray Davis, vetoed a similar bill back in 2000, but has publicly said he is prepared to consider the measure, given the state's $35 billion deficit.
And tomorrow Governor Davis will unveil his plan to solve the word hunger with five loaves of bread and two fish.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
Here's one reason why a lot of these people have to shop at these places: they don't have cars and can't afford to get around. They don't have time to go across town and shop at the mall. Next, why is it that poor neighboorhoods stay poor? Because no developer wants to build a "good" store in a crappy neighboorhood. They use the excuse that nobody with any money is going to want to drive to these crappy areas and shop. So the cycle perpetuates itself.
Good thing I turned in my class paper before this came out, or else I'd have had to write 3 more pages.
A few quick thoughts on this and its relation to U.S. Constitutional law (citations, if any, at the end).
Sorry this is long.
The Constitution limits a state's ability to collect, or force a business to collect, sales and use taxes. In order to collect these taxes the Constitution's Due Process and Commerce Clauses must be satisfied.
The Due Process Clause is often referred to as the personal jurisdiction requirement and focuses on whether the taxpayer has purposefully availed themselves to the taxing sovereign. Modern due process rules have utilized a fairness test, which is refereed to in International Shoe as a "minimum contacts" test. The question, in short, is "Is it fair to drag the retailer into a CA court?" The business is usually considered to have availed themselves to the taxing sovereign if they have purposefully made sales into a particular state. The due process inquiry examines accessing the quality and quantity of the seller's contacts with the state.
Until the Quill decision in 1992, the Supreme Court had applied the Due Process and Commerce Clause requirement interchangeably. However, unlike the Due Process clause, which deals with the fairness of litigating against the taxpayer, the Commerce clause focuses on the effect the state taxation would have on interstate commerce. Therefore, the question is whether the imposition of the tax on interstate business would impede interstate commerce.
In Quill, the Court applied a four-prong test to satisfy the Commerce Clause requirement. The test dictated that the tax must "
[1] be applied to an activity with a substantial nexus with the taxing State,
[2] be fairly apportioned,
[3] not discriminate against interstate commerce, and
[4] be fairly related to the services provided by the State."
The Court stated that the 1st prong of the test established a "bright-line" requirement of "physical presence" to determine a "substantial nexus" and. the older "minimum contacts" view was rejected. Since Quill did not have a physical presence in the taxing state (North Dakota), it was not required to collect use taxes.
The Quill decision essentially exempted the mail order industry from state sales and use taxes, unless the business owner was physically located within the state. This rule has carried over to the Internet sales industry.
Two cases were the Internet retailer screwed up and got hit with CA's sales and use tax are Borders.com and Bn.com. Essentially, these two "click-through" retailers had no direct physical presence within CA. But, the two retailers had "brick-and-mortar" affiliates, Border's Bookstores, and Barnes & Nobles, Booksellers, respectively. The two legally and supposedly financially separated "click-through" and "bricks-and-mortar" companies were so closely affiliated that the CA taxing authority (and the administrative appeal Board) felt that the "click-through" company fulfilled the Quill "substantial nexus" test. These guys so intertwined their businesses that they shared marketing functions, and allowed customers to returns books purchased at "click-through" store to the "bricks-and-mortar" store.
So, the rule, if you don't want to be forced to collect state sales/use taxes, is don't put a physical presence in the state and don't so intertwine your "click-through" business with a local "bricks-and-mortar" business that the "bricks-and-mortar's" physical presence gets imputed to you via agency.
These two cases where done before CA passed this law. So, without reading the new CA, I'd guess it's a change in enforcement not a change in powers, which would be limited by the U.S. Constitution anyhow.
PS:
Every state that has a sales tax, must also have a use tax. Otherwise, the sales tax fails a Commerce clause test. However, normally, no one ever knows or cares about the use tax. And, especially after Quill, i
Grant Erickson points to this internet.com story, which says "On Thursday, the California state Senate approved a bill that requires businesses with stores in the state to charge their customers sales tax for purchases made over the Internet." The state's huge ($35 billion) budget deficit is named as a driving force for the measure.
In other news, there is an effort underway to recall California Governor Gray Davis.
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
SPEND LESS! My income is not going up proportionatly to rate of increase in taxation and inflation. At what point will they consider that we just can't AFFORD to pay them any more? I'm expected to budget myself to live within my means. Why can't the government (state, federal,et al) do the same?
Do you know how much cholesterol, saturated fat and sodium is in a traditional french cream sauce?
Still, my point was that fast food is not cheaper than buying from the market. I don't get your point, and you certainly didn't prove mine wrong. By the way, you can make that same lemon grass organic blueberry crepe at home for about half as much as the restaurant.
I see the opposite argument. At least with a sales tax, you can control it to some extent by simply not spending as much. Whearas with an income tax, you get whacked no matter what you do, just for working. A sales tax taxes people who spend more, and who's able to buy more? Wealthier people. So it's a tax on the rich, which I agree with. If you get annoyed at this, you could not have a sales tax on food, since that's a necessity. Lastly I would say, you're kind of in a bad situation in Oregon because if there's a need to raise taxes, it will only be on income or property which you don't have any control over. At least with an increase in income tax, you can protest it by simply not spending as much. It's a lot easier to do that than stop working. Oh, but I guess there are so many people out of work up there that this point is moot, my bad.
Not only does Colorado not tax internet purchases, the Governor has made it a policy that the state won't enact an internet tax with the specific aim being to get companies to relocate here. More people working in high tech, on-line businesses will do lots more for Colorado's long term financial picture than the short term income generated by enacting a sales tax. I'll also quietly point out the Bill Owens isn't in the same political party as Grey Davis.
A few years back when lots of people were moving from California to Colorado a popular bumper sticker was, "Don't Californicate Colorado." I'm glad to see that this sentiment includes not raising taxes.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
I finally managed to get Acrobat to run (it hid a dialog box, so it was hanging and I couldn't see why). In the overview section of http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/fy2004/pdf/hi st.pdf, I found that the surpluses (+) and deficits (-) were as follows (in billions of US$):
2000: +236
2001: +127
2002: -158
2003: -304 (estimated)
You obviously are not the average American chump that these corporate chains prey on for their bottom dollar.
Now I have to hire a damned lawyer to fight this
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
"Legitimate taxes"...sounds like an oxymoron to me.
Currently, when I order from an online store based in NY, I get sales tax added if I'm an NY resident. What's new about this law? Is it just California catching up with other states?
<grub> Reading
"But, isn't there a place or two where touristas go to throw away money?"
:-)"
/., it's amazing how people will nod and freakin agree with such ridiculous attitudes.
It's a state that was smart enough to leverage a "business" model which gets suckers to drop money there, yes. That's not their fault.
Hell, I know most people would love to get their hands on all those tax dollars if they legally could. That's part of the intelligence of no state tax too though--you minimize paperwork and reduce the excuse of someone trying to jack up an already occurring taxation.
"Ummm, now there's a reason not to be in Nevada.
You've never met a responsible drinker? You're saying that's not possible?
And smoking outdoors to be illegal too? Cripes.
Yes, I realize what you said was tongue out, slap the top of your noggin type of statement. But on
Damn pinkos. *grin*
Why? Because the majority of the middle class is deluded into thinking they can still become wealthy in this nation. By working their assess off while their jobs are shipped overseas, put money into their 401K while the CEOs get stock options up the wazoo, cling to their measly health insurance while costs rise, as we quit the union for a few thousand measley overpriced options as the CFO dumps his million shares priced at pennies, and we get pink slipped and tossed out on the street with a month's severance. Yes, the middle class doesn't revolt and raise holy hell because they're deluded into thinking someday, if we scrimp, save, and hold onto our meaningless job and somehow manage to retire not in debt and pennieless, we will somehow become these "rich people" that seem to have it all and don't go into paranoid fits every time taxes go up via a Slashdot thread. THAT is the real tragedy of modern America: that everybody sees the growing disparity between rich and poor in this nation, but everyone in the middle assumes they're going to somehow scramble up to the "rich" side.
That's great, except for the fact that an internet vendor could relatively easily move to Nevada or Oregon and set up shop there. They would do it if it were to save them millions of dollars per year in taxes. Of course, they could still sell to Californians. They would probably sell MORE to Californians, since they could not be required to collect CA sales tax.
The state government of California is horribly mismanaged and inefficient. They take an extraordinary amount of money from their citizens. California has very high personal income taxes and sales taxes. People have tolerated the high taxes because they love California and enjoy living here. Unfortunately, Sacramento is about to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. It won't happen overnight, but if it is overwhelming financially, people will leave. CA may be great, but Oregon and Nevada are pretty nice too.
My other first post is car post.
The State of California already charges sales tax on internet sales for vendors with a presence (warehouse, brick-and-morter store, etc) within the state. What makes this different from the existing laws?
I guess there is a state even nuttier than California!
For all of you idiots who enjoy higher taxes feel free to give the government 100% of your check for social programs, roads etc. Once they have filled the "needs" of all "the people" then they can issue whats left back to the poor first and you last.. Don't complain when you get nothing back because you are doing it for the greater good..
Oh you canadians, you tax everything!
Of course this is "nothing new" for you eskimos. But down here, in the Freedom loving south, we like... well.. freedom, and that's freedom from having to pay taxes!
Won't effect business? Umm, yeah it will, so now instead of buying stuff from a CA based internet company, I'm going to buy it from some other state where I don't have to add an extra 8.25%!!!!!!!! That certainly effects business for those companies.
California has the highest per capita income in the nation. They also have the highest tax rates (after all is said and done). They also have a tremendous illegal alien problem.
Florida is much smaller economy-wise and population-wise. They have NO state income tax or state sales tax on necessities. They also have a tremendous illegal alien problem.
California has one of the highest (THE highest?) state budget deficit in the nation.
Florida has no budget deficit.
How is this possible? Liberalism run rampant.
Moderate me down for being offtopic if you will, but; I've lived in California since 1956, and I can tell you this tax is good for California. Here's why: This tax will drive business out of California, and with it, hoards of employees and related support businesses and their employees will be leaving as well. Anything that reduces the popluation of California is a good thing. Ask any long time resident.
I don't need no estinkin'
Jeepmeister
That being said, i wonder a bit that a move that they say will gain about $20 million total in taxes is being considered only because of a $35 _billion_ deficit. If i were at mortal risk from an internal hemhorage, my first priority of concern would not be dealing with a papercut.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
The reason for all the fuss is that if I am an out of town mail order customer and I order something from Amazon, the state where it's at cannot get me for a tax, that tax must go to the state I live in. Kalifornicate can only charge me a tax when I'm physically in their state breathing thier polluted air.
A dodge around the Kalifornicate tax would be to place the order by Internet but call and confirm the order by phone or by fax. Null law.
I am required to pay a MUCH cheaper tax to my state, it requires filling out forms and nasty mathematics and stuff.
I out to buy something that gives them a dollar then sue for damages or something. If nothing else the entire tax needs to come back to my home state WITHOUT any fees to Kalifornicate. Mainly because I don't want to pay for their incompetence.
I have enough incompetent politicians on my back as it is.
I think my state would dearly love this, a free tax collector at their beck and call.
I'd go on a Vegan diet but the delivery time from Vega is too long. --brownkitty
I think that is the name. I thought there was a law or maybe something in the constitution about no tariffs or similar charges on goods that traveled across state lines. Wouldnt taxing an item that comes from another state be illegal under this? IIRC
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - BF
So very typical. Elected officials are never willing to say no to any proposed project, they wouldn't want to lose a potential vote, so everything gets approved and the bills have all kinds of unrelated riders to drive the cost up even further. How do we solve the money issue? Golly, let's tax people even more! I pay state incoming tax, federal income tax, sales tax, gas tax, license tab tax, social security, and really tax on just about everything. The only thing a local or federal government hasn't instituted is a tax on tax.
If we're going to have a sales tax then we should have no state income taxes. If we're going to have a federal income tax there should be no additional social security charge.
People have let the government become a crutch and in the long run this does more harm than good. It's like a crappy parent who sends their kid off with someone they don't know very well who ends up beating the shit out of their child. Sure that person will probably get what is coming to them but then the question also gets asked of the parents, "What the hell were you thinking to begin with?"
Sure, pick on California. We all really know that your jealous of our lifestyle. The weather, the recreation, the women, the food, the entertainment, you wish you were here in your dead of winter, where our average temp is something like 70F.
And yeah, we have a "failing" economy. Suuure. Then why is our little state much more productive than 95% of the NATIONS in the world? Hell, we even out GDP France!
We have silicon valley were still the majority of computer research and innovation sit. We have a disproportionate sum of the military. We have the film and television industry. We have 90% of all porno production in the world.
The power problems you like to point out are a result of greedy Enron executives who constricted the sale of electricity, and were still a million times more productive than your baby state.
We have the olympics here all the time. We have great redwood forrests, expansive beaches, world class skiing, sailing, and surfing.
All those messed up laws you talk about? Those are in place so that California doesn't embarass your pathetic state too badly.
Talk your talk, just don't forget that our state could kick your state's ass. Even if you're state is Texas.
It's only going to chase straight dot-coms out, and they aint worth a damn anyhow!
The old-school retailers already pay the taxes, and we are talking about an additional $20M for the WHOLE STATE!
That's peanuts.
Settle down everyone the sky is not falling!
If you don't think a US$1,000 per capita budget deficit is reasonable, you too can Recall George Bush jr.
Also, keep in mind that the Federal Debt has just reached $70,000 per US family. With no sign of decreasing.
Bah weep granah, weep ninny bong!
PBTHTNTHHEEWWWW!!!! (Mt. Dew out the nose) LOLOLOLOL! (rolling on the floor) KALIFORNICATE!!!! BWA HA HA HA HA!!! OH MY GOD, STOP!! Please, you're KILLING ME!!!! KALIFORNICATE! WOW! You're a new Will Rogers... a regular Mark Twain... have you ever considered being a comedian on TV???
(recovering slightly... then remembering) KALIFORNICATE! (resuming rolling on the floor) Oh my god, I think I'm gonna lose it! The next Robin Williams, no doubt!
It's a given that people would move out of a poor neighborhood as soon as they come into money, as you so eloquently put it, I'd just like to get some facts as to how often this actually happens, seeing how the disparity between rich and poor is growing.
taxes hurt small business a lot more than they hurt large ones
And there's no difference between a small business and an internet based business. They can both be small in physical size.
In fact sales taxes should be illegal. We have all been taxed on this money already. That's what income taxes are. So why the need for more taxes? And why are there so many people supporting these taxes?
Does giving the government help us? What does the government do for you? Are your roads exceptionally well built? Are your schools providing real education? Or did they just make a frustrating system that is only good at one thing, spending our money?
I'll *still* shop online for many things, because it's so much more convenient than having to negotiate hordes of prepubescent mall-crawlers.
'He who has to break a thing to find out what it is, has left the path of wisdom.' -- Gandalf to Saruman
If you don't have a lot of money, you go shop at Safeway or Albertsons where they have those two for one price cards and crap. If you have more money than the average bear, you start caring about your health and start shopping at yuppie places like Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, Zupans, Dragers. This is called upscale marketing. It's being done with all kinds of products: think bottled water, coffee. Who shops at Restoration Hardware instead of Home Depot? Who shops at Anthropolgie vs. the GAP? Who shops at WalMart? You may think there's nothing there, but a lot of companies are making a mint off of what kind of classes are percieved to shop at certain stores. Getting back to the original point, so you can see the dotted line from here to there: tax on Fast Food will fly, because the rich people won't pay it. Where's the luxury tax on sushi? Don't see it. Never will. Yet another way the GW boys get away with the fleecing of America.
First Noone was saving our forests, now he likes taxes, and Noone is doing all sorts of other things. Who is this guy?
Take a look at the Mission District in SF as an example. A poor neighborhood. This place has become more upscale in the past couple years because of poor people moving out but NOT because they "came into money". This rarely if ever happens.
What DID happen was an influx of developers who simply ran out of other places to build because real estate is so screwed up out here. So they build relatively inexpensive lofts for people to live in. And guess what came with that, restaurants, stores, nightclubs, all the elements and businesses that make an area attractive. So more well-to-do people moved there.
In essence, the poor people moved out, not because they came into money, but because they could no longer afford the rising rents to live there.
Whether or not you think this is good or bad, is up to you. But it more often happens this way than your trickle down economics way, that's for sure!
I assume that they will start collecting taxes on their stuff. The question is, will they actually pay the tax to the state? There could be great possibilities for hanging some spammers out to dry with that. (Always look on the bright side...)
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
If you can't stay in business you have a bad business model (read: e-tailer).
Everyone should pay the same taxes (e-tailer, brick-mortar, catalog, etc.). We don't need to waste time propping up these failure companies.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
When you try to make Democrats out to be boogiemen, at least don't make your stories so obviously fabricated.
The California Family Rights Act provides for 3 months of UNPAID leave. Not that that matters much, I'm sure you'll still find a way to blame Democrats for the fact that you're having trouble finding a job.
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
It's all their fault! They're voting down taxes and handing a bankrupt economy to the younger generation. Ain't that the truth. I sure hope we get something to loot and pillage for our kids to deal with.
Quick... pull all your money from eToys, cdNow, inkTomi and the like before they dive under $100/share!
If you don't have a lot of money, you go shop at Safeway or Albertsons where they have those two for one price cards and crap.
That's exactly what _i_ said. The real poor shop at supermarkets and cook their own food.
I'm disputing the idea that fast food is aimed at the poor. Fast food is aimed at the stupid, and the middle-class to waalthy who are short on time. Hence the moniker "fast food." Rich people don't buy fast food? In that case please explain all the luxury SUVs i'm always seeing in the drive-throughs.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Answer: The progressive taxes. In other words, don't do what California did in the 1990s.
Sweden has twice the taxes of the U.S. as a fraction of GDP, but they are far better when it comes to sustaining human life. Swedish companies like Ericson, Ikea, and Volvo are above average in their peer groups, so don't believe anyone who tells you that progressive taxes are bad for business.
FYI to ALL! When politicians say "Closing Loopholes" that means they are raising or adding additional taxes.. For all the you idiots who enjoy higher taxes feel free to give the government 100% of your check for social programs, roads etc. Once they have filled the "needs" of all "the people" then they can issue whats left back to the poor first and you last.. Don't complain when you get nothing back because you are doing it for the greater good..
As the government becomes more and more intrusive and present in our daily lives I often wonder what sort of countries might exist beyond our borders that might be willing to accept a civil liberty expatriot from the States? The cost of doing business in the US is already high enough that we're driving away business to places like China and India, it seems to me that this should just encourage more of the same. Yay.
...that an out-of-state retailer is obligated to collect tax on sales to California customers if it has representatives operating in the state who repair or service property bought from the retailer; it has an ownership interest in a California business; or it sells the same products under the same name as the California business.
This only effects the big boys that have a physical presence in California. Interesting this give the ma and pa small e-commerce sites an advantage.
It is getting difficult for me to get animated about state taxes, one way or another. In my experience, states with low or no state income tax typically feature higher taxes on property, sales, etc. In the long run, people want the services they want, and tend to ignore the fact that their taxes pay for it all. (And sometimes it's a disguised tax: I used to live in a small city where each car garaged within city limits had to be festooned with a city decal. No benefits accrued when you bought the annual tag, but you'd be fined for not having one. The town's population had doubled in the last decade, and long-time residents were already ticked off about skyrocketing property assessments.)
States like Nevada are, I think, exceptions: one large metro area, a few other cities, lots and lots of empty space, of which the feds own great chunks. Here's hoping tourism and gambling revenues keep pace with an increasing population's demand for services.
-- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
What to you is too much taxes? I'd love to know. Since CA has mismanaged it's money so much ($35 billion deficit) I should have to bail them out? Will they bail me out if I go into deficit spending this month? NO they won't. This is CRAZY TALK! But for some reason people just take it from the government. You think you aren't taxed enough!!! Blows my mind.
I worked in the government. I know we are are overtaxed. Why do I say that? Because they waste, waste, waste. Come the end of the period, they are scrambling to spend money on ANYTHING so they can get an increase in their budget for the next year. It's all bull excrement. Eliminate the waste and run the government efficiently and then come talk to me about why we should raise taxes. Then maybe it can be an intelligent discussion.
As many as it takes to make the individual amounts of the taxes look small enough to the average consumer.
I guess I think I more or less had it in my head that this was, so but I've not seen it articulated so crisply...
I tend to favor something like fairtax proposes.
I'll peruse that more later, but at first blush it looks quite interesting. Thanks for the pointer!
(IMO, somebody with moderator points should mod up the parent of this message as 'informative' and/or 'insightful'.)
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
Weren't the previous 8% of tax hikes in the last 100 years supposed to fix the budget deficit? Why is this tax hike going to make any difference when all the others haven't?
Ok, since the state assembly in California cannot figure out how to live within it's means, I will NOT be purchasing anything online from vendors in the state of California.
No I am not "anti-american"......
Every year, almost all of the 50 states keep spending more and more and more and more.
Even in a DOWN economy, they always want to add MORE programs. Programs require money, that money comes from taxpayers. The taxpayers have had ENOUGH! If consumers want effective tax reform, to reign in the excessive bloat in government, force congress to repeal the FICA with holdings!
Force yourself to write that check to the tax man every month. See how much money the government steals from your wallet every month!
Like Oreo cookies? Well, the leftist extremists want to make them illegal wherever kids can buy them, supposedly because of transfatty acids. Now I don't exactly eat mountains of Oreo cookies, but if someone wants to eat them, this is supposed to be a free country! Ban those and the liberals, er, leftist extremists will have opened the door to ban all "unhealthy" foods from places where kids can buy them, which opens the door to ban all "unhealthy" foods from this country for everyone. Now under the excuse of "health," the government will be able to dictate what we eat. This is Big Brother. It doesn't matter if right wing extremists or left wing extremists do it... the legal system is supposed to be the bare minimum, with a good education system teaching people how to think and use common sense, and to suggest how they should eat healthy stuff, be polite to others, not smoke, not drink, not do drugs, etc. But the minute the government can dictate which FACIAL EXPRESSIONS you may employ when talking to someone, or which FOODS you may eat, or where your money, that YOU EARNED is going to go, that is extremism and it is wrong.
I'm very sorry... The liberals/leftist extremists have gained control over the media and the schools. They have screwed up the education system because some people are less intelligent than others, so in order to be fair and to avoid hurting someone's feelings, they have reduced the quality of education in order to level the playing field. And this results in a lot of people being idiots... USEFUL IDIOTS, as Lenin said (see link for references).
If I didn't already live in California, I might consider moving here just for the satisfaction of joining the movement to recall Gray Davis. No wait, something about that didn't make sense. But so what, this is California! Land of fruits and nuts. http://www.recallgraydavis.com/
It wouldnt surprise me in the least to see Gray joining the movement. I can't imagine his life is all that wonderful having inherited the mess that he passed on to the next gov, which just HAPPENS to be himself. That would be a nice out.
That's called a FREE MARKET, and it's great for consumers. Oh, you can no longer get a 100% markup on little plastic kiddie toys since the advent of the internet? Tough.
The idea is to *encourage* value added activity, and you don't do this by taxing it.
As bad as things are in CA now, they've been a lot worse. And they're certainly better than in places where VAT is the coin of the realm (ie, Europe/UK).
social programs which are what make California great
I never thought I'd actually hear a Leftist say it, but here it is. It's not California's people, or its companies, or its produce, or its entertainment, or its beaches, or its mountains which make California great. None of those things.
It's the Government which makes California great.
Why, then, wouldn't it hold that it's the Federal Government which makes the USA great over any other aspect?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Nothing there says anything about an interstate tax! The California legislator is simply asking Internet businesses to pay the same taxes that mail order businesses have been doing forever! What is wrong with leveling the playing field and ending the damn state deficet?
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
Two cases were the Internet retailer screwed up and got hit with CA's sales and use tax are Borders.com and Bn.com. Essentially, these two "click-through" retailers had no direct physical presence within CA. But, the two retailers had "brick-and-mortar" affiliates, Border's Bookstores, and Barnes & Nobles, Booksellers, respectively. The two legally and supposedly financially separated "click-through" and "bricks-and-mortar" companies were so closely affiliated that the CA taxing authority (and the administrative appeal Board) felt that the "click-through" company fulfilled the Quill "substantial nexus" test. These guys so intertwined their businesses that they shared marketing functions, and allowed customers to returns books purchased at "click-through" store to the "bricks-and-mortar" store.
So, the rule, if you don't want to be forced to collect state sales/use taxes, is don't put a physical presence in the state and don't so intertwine your "click-through" business with a local "bricks-and-mortar" business that the "bricks-and-mortar's" physical presence gets imputed to you via agency.
So, if more states start doing this, then I'll have to pay dozens of states' worth of tax on one item. Yay.
Danish != nationality
If you are sufficiently large, negotiate one of those sweet deals that will get your company tax breaks in exchange for establishing new facilities in the state.
Your're not large? Well too bad...
Xix.
"Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
So frankly, I don't hold much hope out that they'll remember in November. I'm afraid that we're in for four more 'fears' with King George.
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
If your a Libbie-tarian then you just say, "They poor have no bread? Let them eat cake."
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
But you still want a high-tech military, flawless interstate roads, a literate and well educated work force, public funded basic science research, Army Corp. of Engineer control of flooding, free (or low cost) public parks, etc., etc.
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
The largest source of air pollution in the Central Valley is caused by out-of-state migrants complaining. Moving them out would improve the quality of life.
"dope will get you through times of no money better than money will get you through times of no dope"
I *STILL* can not figure out how Amazon.com thinks is is approprate to charge sales tax on the Shipping And Handling portion of my purchase.
When I contacted their web sites address for such inquiries I receive absolutely no response.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Actually, no.
On order to satisfy the Commerce clause, the states have to give you a credit on your use taxes for sales taxes paid in another state (for the same item). That way they can't mess around with inter-state commerce by hitting you up for double taxation (\sarcasm\ that's what corporate tax & dividends are for \sarcasm\).
For example, you are a NY resident, which has (I don't know. Lets say...) a 7.5% sales/use tax. You go to MD and buy something for $100 with a 5% sales tax. You pay $5 of sales tax to MD. When you return to NY you're supposed to be a good citizen and pay $7.50 in use tax to NY. However, you credit your $5 of sales tax paid towards the NY use tax. This gives you an adjusted NY use tax due of $2.50 (= $7.50 - $5). So, you really just wind-up paying the higher of the 2 state's sale/use tax rates.
Lucky you.
The Internet.com Story has a reference to the actual bill, but I doubt many folks followed it.
For me, the senate floor analysis was the most interesting. According to that, the effect of the bill would be $21 Million, assuming that they get 5% more companies to pay. This strikes me as optimistic, but what can I say.
Federal law already says you can only demand taxes from companies with a "nexus" in the state. This bill tries to "clarify" that a nexus includes service and support, as well as related companies that share a trademark name.
The legality of the law seems open to question, since some companies purposefully define their mail order and on line units as separate companies to avoid having a nexus in a state.
At most this bill will have a minor effect on a few companies. It is not a major change to sales taxes on internet companies.
9/11 Eyewitnesses to Explosive WTC Demolition 1 of 2
Hint: The word is the same as the last name of the president in office at the time.
Debunking the "59 Deceits"
Buying food at the grocery store and preparing it is vastly cheaper than eating out. A fast food tax is like a luxury tax. People don't "need" fast food. In fact, it hasn't even been around all that long.
I buy a wide variety of food at the grocery store, including meat, and I can eat for a wole month on about $160. In that month I might additionally eat two fast food meals.
A tax on the poor? Get real. The only time my home cooked meals approach the price of fast food is when I eat steaks and seafood. If you want to make this fast food tax idea into a discrimination issue, call it a tax on people who can't cook.
My Aunt is a state rep in Missourri. I asked her about this one.
She said that in MO individuals and businesses are supposed to declare what they bought from out of state and then pay state sales tax on it. However, both parties realize the political cost of implementing this is too high, so they go after the big volume retailers (who do not vote or have much influence in MO) to enforce the tax for them. She said the state had made a deal with Dell years ago to charge MO sales tax.
Nice try, but the cusp actually spans most of the election season. 2000's crash wasn't a one-day thing like 1987's.
I haven't read the law precisely...what exactly has changed? Is this merely legal recognition of what has already been the case for a long time?
Amazon? Ebay? Any other big U.S. internet-only (or commonly thought-of as such) business? I guess they must have administrative offices somewhere. [has a quik look] Their Investor Relations dept is in WA, that's the only physical address I can find with a quick browse.
I understand how they end up not taxing out of state residents, as far as the tax people are concerned, it's the purchaser who's paying the tax and it's only being collected by the vendor.
However, this drives up the complexity of sales systems and increases taxation for the smaller number of people who do have to pay the tax.
Change the tax so it's the vendor who pays the taxation, wherever they are, after all, they are using the public services in their particular state.
Then the tax is paid anyway, being spread over a greater number of people, no loopholes, reduced taxation complexity, lower costs.
Government of the people, by corporate executives, for corporate profits.
It was a bipartisen bill, the dem was Rangel, and he was more vocal, but a republican co-wrote it, I can't remember his name now...
"I'll have a Guinness, no wait, make that a Coors Light" -Grad student I work with, who shall remain anonymous...
here is an URL to a paper that discusses immigration (the combination of legal and illegal) as it applies to the public schools systems. FYI
http://www.fairus.org/html/schoolreport1.html
Like you, I have no problem with lawful immigration, in controlled numbers. I think it's a terrible injustice to those lawful immigrants who jump through all the legal hoops and follow the rules, when literally MILLIONS invade and cross the border yearly. The press is squashing the border stories, demonizing those poor ranchers down there who are being forced from their homes and into bankruptcy, and actually suffer physical harm from the invaders, let alone the out gunned federal cops at the border who are stripped of much power to do anything effective. We seem to have enough federal money to go build hundreds of new "border checkpoints" on the pakistan/afghanistan border, yet our own border is left completely wide open, which also goes to prove this whole "terrorism" nonsense is a political globalist scam and sham. Cities across the united states are being marginalized, just so a few people (relatively speaking) can benefit from second world cheap labor, ie they can "make more money" while their neighbors pick up the slack with the tax increases and crime increases.
And my previous point stands about aztlan and mecha, all you have to do is actually just go read their own words on their easily found websites, they DO in fact have a long range plan to seize and takeover large areas of the US, with a combination of massive illegal infiltration, changing the demographics of areas, seizing control of the infrastructure through "voting", then the final push for takeover. Force and violence in politics are COMMON in nations south of the US border, extremely common, yet the clueless ones think that that mindset will just magically go away by stepping over an imaginary dotted line on a map. Think palestinians/israelis or northern ireland or any other example to see where this will go. And it won't matter if even just 1/10th of one percent are actual true believer combattants, that's still a humongous number.
I first heard that idea way back in the 60's from two chicano "brown berets" I met who lived and worked out of chicago. They told me then exactly what is happening now-step by step, massive illegal immigration into key areas, then eventual guerrilla warfare. Heard that with me own ears, hmm, 68 near as I can recall now. Might have been 69 though, but I remember the gist of the conversation. At the time they thought it would take 20 to 50 years to really reach the tip over point where they had such numbers that they could be successful. Well, gee, sorta right on schedule now.
People here are too complacent, they think something like that can only happen "over there" in some place on the television. Clueless. Right in front of our faces, we'bve been sold out. Ship what jobs can be shipped overseas out, import massive numbers of illegals in to take what jobs can't be shipped out. Clear as a sunny spring day. When it was mostly blue collar jobs, it didn't garner as much attention, now you can see it with white and pink collar jobs, retail, office, manufacturing, agriculture, skilled trades, IT, you name it. We even have ELECTED people now who are dual mexican/US politicians and consider areas of the US to be defacto parts of mexico. I mean, ye gads, is this out of control or what? How is someone a citizen of two nations, why is this legal in this country? Isn't that sort of "treason" on the face of it?
It's unfortunate that often times this can be distracted by the invaders and their supporters playing the race card, because frankly I don't care, I am neither a racist nor a bigot, but I can see "invasion and social and economic cost" clear as day, so it doesn't matter to me who is doing it, just that it is happening. And for forked tongue government on the one hand claiming we have "laws" that make most of this illegal, then on the other hand just ignoring it and even encouraging it (free ed
... a virtue, nor does it enhance your argument or viewpoint.
http://www.lawcom.com/immigration/chngs.shtml
"Will all children born in the US be citizens at birth?
There have been several news reports that a law was passed so that children born in the US of non-citizen parents will no longer be US citizens at birth. These reports are not accurate.
There has some discussion of such a change. The right of a person born in the US to be a citizen at birth comes from the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution passed in 1868 after the US Civil War. To change this would require amending the Constitution. It could not be done by passing a law.
To amend the Constitution, a proposed amendment must be passed by both Houses of Congress then ratified by the legislatures of three-quarters of the States. It is very difficult to get 38 States to agree on anything so amendments are not common. In over 200 years since adoption of the Constitution and the original Bill of Rights, there have been only 16 amendments to the US Constitution.
The idea of having some children born here treated differently and not be Citizens at birth is not a popular idea. In this writer's opinion, it is an extreme view held by a small minority at this time with little chance of being adopted as a Constitutional amendment.
So for now at least, all children born in the US subject to the jurisdiction of the US will continue to be US citizens at birth."
"at birth" Seems like simple words to understand.
I'm sure the actual codes can be found, and the amendment is quite clear. If it has changed, it's news to me and I can be educated on it.
for overseas companies! I know lots of people who will now be happy to order new computer components directly from the overseas manufacturers, rather than having to pay California's (what is it, 8%?) sales tax. When buying large quantities, the shipping costs are negligable compared to that.
Sales tax violates the founding principles of the United States anyways. It's a double-taxation for anyone who also pays income tax. We should have one XOR the other, not both.
Actually .. markups only ranged from 20% - 45% .. the majority of that markup goes to overhead.
.. initially.
.. lets look 8-12 months down the line. Most of the internet guys are dead in the water. Their sales were not enough to maintain their interest (as only some 45% of the country is wired anyways), or their business plans were simply not thought out - no one can sell at 50% off and make money, even selling out of their basement. ESPECIALLY when markups average 35% ish. MAYBE 1 out of 10 of them is still around, or the attrition rate maintains a steady number of fly-by-night stores which no one has confidence in.
.. yeah .. that helps consumers. It always helps when you can't buy something you want.
.. but we can order it for you.' Some of these folks are REALLY generous, and offer to only take 25-50% of the product cost upfront.
.. not 4 weeks from now when your order comes in.
.. does this sound familiar poindexter?) and they decide to have a go at actually making money .. AND DECIDE TO CHARGE FULL RETAIL PLUS SHIPPING!
.. now the 8 kids in those towns (remember, the ones where the stores went under? ) can get stuff again, they just pay the prices they paid before, and shipping of course, oh . and they have to wait a week or so till it shows up, and can only pray that no one at the shipping company messes up, because they don't actually get to *PICK UP* the product themselves.
.. impulse / discover sales vs. established market sales.
.. we went full circle (this is history folks, not theory) and now
and
At its best, my store was making 10-12% profit off the gross sales receipts. [Which, for all you 'give me everything free' folks out there, is very good for retail.]
Technically, your arguement [your going to LOVE this] is correct
In a Brick & Morter vs Brick & Morter fight. I would ALMOST say it is healthy. [Which is why you see McDonalds and Burger Kings less than 1 block apart, sometimes NEXTDOOR.]
Prices drop due to fierce competition, internet stores / websites could sell at 50% off retail, and the consumer TOTALLY won.
Now
Many of the retail game stores hit the rocks. Since markup to profit ratios are fairly low,and virtually all of them are s-corp or sole propritorships, any hit to a non established game/hobby store is going to be very hard to recover from. lets say out of every 10 stores, 4 died because the owners made bad decisions, and another 4 died because of loss of sales either due to other brick & morters, or internet sales. So out of the 2 left, they were either established stores, or someone in there was really paying attention.
How does this benifit the end consumer ?
8 towns (the ones where the brick and morter stores went under) no longer have game/hobby stores. 95% of the internet stores are dead or the turnover is so high that you never know if your going to actually GET the product. So 8 towns full of kids can't get the stuff anymore.
Great
There are 2 other phenonimums that follow this chain of events.
'Special order stores' are retail stores that have no money, (for whatever reason) or don't have the faith or balls to compete with folks who are fly-by-night discounting. So they basically have a number of catalogs behind the counter. If you try to buy something that the owner isnt personally intereted in [and thus stocks] they say 'we don't have that
Yeah, I personally LOVE when I need to buy something, and no one actually *HAS* it on their shelf. If I'm in your store with $$ in my pocket, I wan't it NOW
The other (and ironic) thing that happens, is someone notices that the internet stores die because they don't make any profit (Gee
So
I can lecture you on how this causes attrition in hobbies and games at another time
SO
--Ne auderis delere orbem rigidum meum, non erravi pernicose!
I am about to start an internet business, and without getting into details it will only exist in digital format. There will be no brick and mortar component to the business... so can I just arbitrarilly decide where I want it to exist?
I live in California and am not keen on extra accounting or taxes. The site will be hosted in Canada.
In this case its quite rational, they pay very little income tax, but would be heavily affected by a sales tax. Since most of them live off of pension, social security, and savings, their income if it is taxable in the first place puts them in the lower tax brackets. Those investors successful enough to push into a higher tax bracket can buy things like municipal bonds that produce tax free income. However, their spending ususally outstrips thier income, since most people want to live a little during retirement. So for them no sales tax makes a whole lot of sense, its just really bad for business development, and the state doesn't seem to want to just become a big retirement home.
Degaussing scares the bad magnetism out of the monitor and fills it with good karma.
I must admit that part of what I posted was from something heard on the radio...I apparently didn't get it quite right. :-/ I think what I was referring to is new legislation, which hasn't passed and hopefully won't. The current law does require the employer to pay health insurance for the employee during the time off.
Here's the article that mentions Buck: Summit looks at why firms leaving state
What I didn't touch on in my previous post was the bevy of new taxes that're being proposed right now. Unfortunately, I can't find a good summary article but bills are in process that would additionally tax diapers, bullets, cigarettes, gasoline and a host of other items. Our local sales tax rate is already almost 8%!
This is a slightly older article that talks about taxes in California
As to whether or not Democrats are the "boogiemen", clearly they have had control of this state for many, many years. They are responsible for the current business climate which is definitely grim. Throw some more new taxes into the mix, and it will be ghastly. It won't necessarily take much more to drive significant numbers of businesses out of the state. If that happens, California may find itself in a full-blown recession. In the current fiscal climate, IMO other states will fare much better.
Galileo: "The Earth revolves around the Sun!"
Score: -1 100% Flamebait
I'll just have to make sure I purchase stuff from other states.. Like Texas! Directron.com is based in Houston hehe and there are pleanty of online retailers that are in NY, OH, and TX... besides shipping is usually cheaper from Texas... its just one state away from Oklahoma. California is going to loose a lot of buisiness because of this.. if they didn't have so many socialist programs, they wouldn't have a budget defeicit. Guess I'm just cheap!
Go here to sign a petition to get rid of Governor Gray Davis.
Vote for Pedro
Seems silly when alot of Californians pay Nevada's biggest source of tax when they go to gamble in Vegas. Lost Wages is a long way from New York!
OH THE SHAME I fell off the wagon and use sigs again!
fuck you I'm drunk