Slashdot Mirror
Rhode Island Affiliates Banned From Amazon.com Sales
Rand Huck writes "Amazon.com has now added Rhode Island to its blacklist of affiliates in response to its proposed budget changes to enforce a tax on Internet sales, which includes commissions on their affiliate program by content providers based in Rhode Island. The first state to be blacklisted was North Carolina, for the same reason. If you go to a Rhode Island-based or North Carolina-based website that advertises Amazon.com goods as an affiliate, that website will no longer have the goods available because otherwise Amazon.com would be forced to pay sales tax to the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations or the State of North Carolina. The state's rationale is, if someone clicks to buy a good from Amazon.com via a site based in Rhode Island, it's equivalent to buying a good from a brick and mortar chain store located in Rhode Island."
...the only Amazon.com affiliates left will be in The Amazon.
Let all the states do this. There's too much affiliate-link spam going on already. Kill 2 birds with one stone - lower spam AND help fix the budget deficits.
The only ones complaining are the affiliates and Amazon - but they're the source of the problem to begin with. Let them pay their fair share of taxes, so that others don't have to pay more than their share to make up for it.
These are not the only states to impose this type of tax. NY requires collection of sales tax, but Amazon isn't shutting out those affiliates. If they want to make a stand, they should at least be consistent about it.
These states don't realize that anyone doing major affiliate sales will either get around their taxes, or the bans that affiliate programs place on a state. There is always an overseas country willing to take a bunch of rich technologically educated people.
A Magic the Gathering Article and Forum Aggregator
This is difficult, because an internet retailer is a lot like a catalog retailer, who might have 80% of their business out of state and isn't set up to take 50 states' differing tax rates and does not have the accounting muscle to pay 50 different state taxes each quarter. I think that's the main problem. And then you have the issue of ship to in one state (NC for example) and bill to (non-taxable like Oregon) etc etc. It creates a lot of headaches. Catalogs typically only pay/charge sales taxes for the state their accounting division is in. Multiply this by millions and millions of customers and you can see why Amazon would oppose this merely on the accounting issue. Most accounting software simply isn't set up for taxation in all 50 states, especially automatically.
moox. for a new generation.
Why would I or Amazon have to pay taxes twice or more for something? First Amazon would need to pay taxes at whatever locale they're at, then I would need to pay taxes on the same product in my home state, then also every state it goes through as it is getting shipped from Florida to Rhode Island?
There is a reason intra-state purchases are not taxed. Read the constitution or so, you know the part where it says: The Congress shall have power . . . To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
I can't speak for anyone else, but providing yet another source of revenue for government is the last thing I want. The US government already spends more than any other government in the world, and (surprise) the result isn't even close to ideal.
No, what the US government needs is less spending -- or even a change in where the money goes -- certainly not more revenue.
Taxing more things is not a fix for a budget deficit. You don't give a coke addict more coke because they're going through withdrawals. All 50 states need to learn to balance their budgets by *gasp* spending less money.
Amazon is taxed. They aren't getting a free ride. Everyone is already required to pay a sales tax on the items they buy out of state anyway. In your state tax filing it is usually listed under Use tax.
So amazon isn't going to pay any more in tax, the people that are evading taxes would be paying for the tax.
I doubt its amazon links you see spammed, they're pretty strict about bad practices. If you see such for amazon links, you can report it and they will look into it (and disable the affiliates account without payment if he has violated terms of services)
The ones you see spammed are usually something shitty like "get 1000's of your friends click this link and earn $0.001 per click!"
I'm sure the gasoline and other annual taxes to deliver the products to the customer cover the wear and tear on the roads.
Amazon is not using sewer, electrical, police or road services locally as brick and morter store would.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Sorry, no they don't. Check the U.S. Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 5.
How are they not taxed like everybody else? As with catalog ordering, they aren't responsible for state sales tax.
They pay corporate taxes, no free ride there.
Am I missing something?
Awesome!
All will be well as long as amazon keeps carrying nuclear grade duct tape. Because, the only thing COOLER than duct tape, is NUCLEAR duct tape!
If you have a problem nuclear duct tape can't solve...then god help us all.
"http://www.amazon.com/3M-Performance-8979N-48-Millimeter-54-8-Meter/dp/B000NG3ZKI"
(And its great for fixing the liquid sodium coolant leaks in my basement too)
Do you know how much superhighways take to maintain? The Internet is the information superhighway, so the taxes go to pay for travel on it. When you drive to Amazon, you're putting wear on the superhighways of the state Amazon is based in, and then Amazon has to drive your order to the affiliate, which puts wear on the superhighways to the affiliate's state. That's a lot of virtual wear!
I run a brick and mortar store AND an online store. No more than 5 minutes ago I was talking to a customer in the store, and she was asking what the sales tax was to see if she could buy the product cheaper online. That's ridiculous. People are short sighted and selfish. If this continues, we will have very little retail anywhere in the country in a few years, because everybody will be trying to avoid the sales tax. The gov't needs to close this huge loophole. Amazon needs to compete on a level playing field with other retailers. I know that I'd much rather add a bit of code to my web site to collect sales tax correctly all over the country than to have people avoid my brick and mortar store to try to shave a few pennies off elsewhere. I support online retailers having to collect sales tax.
They DO get taxed, their company HQ has a physical location and they MUST pay business taxes. Boeing and Nvidia pay LESS taxes than Amazon.com does.
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
I've been following this, and I'm taking it to be a pissing match between Amazon and the Government, amirite?
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
I'm in Massachusetts. If I happen to visit the website of the Trinity Repertory Theater (www.trinityrep.com), a theater located in Providence, RI, then my internet traffic doesn't even pass through Rhode Island, much less end in Rhode Island. Their website is hosted by a low-cost provider out in California. The only tie to Rhode Island is that the website was created by an organization in Rhode Island. If I visit that website I don't "visit" Rhode Island. So why should Rhode Island have ANY claim on anything I might purchase from an affiliate program hosted on that site? I'm visiting a website hosted in California and if they were an Amazon affiliate then that would involve a company located in Washington. RI doesn't have any valid claim to tax such a transaction.
By their own logic, I'm buying goods from a brick & mortar store in California (or more appropriately Seattle), NOT Rhode Island. If anything, the company in RI is simply acting as an advertising agency. They designed an advertisement (the website) that's on display in California for a company that actually does business in Washington.
A much better solution then, would be to end the sales tax in the various states to promote more competition with the internet retailers. I realize that taxes are a necessary evil, but let us not spread that evil any further that it has already gone. Every time the government sucks a penny out of the economy we are all the worse for it.
One of the reasons we are able to get things so cheaply on Amazon is BECAUSE they have lower operating costs. If they have to pay taxes, and if we have to pay sales tax on such things, it increases the costs for everyone.
And how is buying from an Amazon affiliate the same as buying from a brick and mortar store? Two completely different concepts!
We should try to keep thinks cheap.
Proudly posting without RTFA.
The local state has the right to tax their residents out-of-state purchases. When you buy something in another state, you're supposed to pay your local sales taxes, and then file for a reimbursement from the state you paid the original tax to - but it's not enforced. Now the individual states ARE saying - hey, here's a way we CAN enforce it.
I think that would work out very well: Congress dictates ONE tax for the internet in terms of sales tax. It's ludicrous to force anyone (even if they do have the resources) to have to divert resources to figure out fifty different sales taxes. Also, there is the risk of being double-taxed at stake (Company A pays sales tax wherever its accounting division is located, and passes it on to customer, and then customer has to pay sales tax again of his/her home state).
Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
By the very same reasoning they use for Amazon, if anyone goes to a phone located in Rhode Island and makes a purchase of anything, it's the same as going to a brick and mortar of that shop in the state and is also subject to equivalent taxes. Even ordering by US mail out of a catalog would reason out to the same logic (providing the catalog and/or mailbox is physically located in R.I.). Amazon might even be able to use that to force R.I. to either include phone orders across the board or drop the bill/law.
pay taxes?
Are internet retailers using your sewer? You schools? Your police?
Then why should people living in another state fund yours?
Tax them where they reside.
Whats next? Taxing people for giving gifts to people in higher tax states? Hell, lets tax people's medical benefits - oops.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
if all US states get a VAT for internet sales, will amazon then close their US business ?
Amazon needs to get taxed like everybody else. They've had enough of a free ride to get started (and pick up huge market share). They shouldn't have a competitive advantage over other sellers simply because they're taxed less.
No,when YOU buy something from out of state, YOU are responsible for declaring YOUR purchase to YOUR state's revenue service, so YOU can pay the applicable sales tax YOU owe.
Typically, this is not done for small purchases because collection costs more than the tax.
Let them pay their fair share of taxes,
They already do, considering that they're consuming approximately 0% of the state's resources.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
If every state does it, Amazon will start charging the sales tax as part of the sale, and the referral program will remain.
They're only blocking these states to try and prevent the practice spreading. If everywhere charges sales tax, Amazon have nothing to gain and lots to lose by blocking referrals.
The problem with this story is that it isn't clear where the sale has taken place. I click a button in Massachusetts, paid for the object with money from a Connecticut bank, the company hosting the web site is in New York, the headquarters of the company is in Arkansas, the shipment is made from New Hampshire, my mom receive the materials in Illinois (I dropped shipped her a gift). Where was the sale? I don't know what the right answer is... but I'm certain that state legislatures rushing to get something passed will end up making a mess bigger than the one they find themselves in now. I don't blame Amazon for pushing back. If I were Amazon management I'd be doing the same thing.
Agreed. The whole "affiliate" business is mostly slimeballs now, anyway. After all, you can still buy the product. It's just that the spammer with the "affiliate" site doesn't get paid.
And also putting wear and tear on the physical highways, which are used to ship the goods.
State revenues have fallen through the floor. California how has the worst credit record around, and on July 2nd will start issuing IOUs instead of cutting cheques, because they're out of money.
They have to do this because lenders won't take California IOUs (bonds) because California can't raise taxes enough, thanks to Proposition 13.
The federal government also has to raise taxes ... half the budget is IOUs, and lenders are starting to make noises about wanting their loans counted in yuan or euros, and not greenbacks. The accumulated deficit will be between $20 Trillion and $25 Trillion by 2016 - everyone agrees it's not sustainable, and that taxes will have to rise.
No governments only diverse taxes when they have helped for example you can charge sales tax on some things because you (presumably) drove on government roads to get there. On the other hand, when I order something online especially virtual goods like a song, e-book or movie what did the government do to deserve the tax? Nothing. Therefore they should not be taxed.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
They already do, considering that they're consuming approximately 0% of the state's resources.
So I guess Amazon just drops everything off at the state's border?
This is my sig.
And also putting wear and tear on the physical highways, which are used to ship the goods.
That is what the Federal tax on fuel is supposed to pay for.
Good lord, at first I thought you were being serious, the funny part was, I was not suprised that someone would say something like that.
CS: It is all sink or swim...oh and did I mention there are sharks in that water?
This is where the Federal Government actually has the authority per the Constitution to step in and regulate interstate commerce. Congress needs to dictate ONE tax rate for all Internet purchases.
You aren't going to trample the sovereignty of my state because your business is too lazy to implement a lookup table to comply with my laws. That's bullshit.
This is my sig.
Sales taxes are taxes on CONSUMPTION. The CONSUMER isn't paying their fair share, and Amazon is the enabler. Consumption taxes help pay for your local schools, etc. Your local retailer does their share, and so do their customers. Since Amazon's customers aren't paying their fair share of consumption taxes, your local retailer is paying MORE than their fair share. Your education budget is also taking a hit, as are other services. The "tax holiday" was supposed to be temporary - Amazon wants it to be permanent. Your local retailer would also like a tax holiday, you know ...
Also, they DO consume a portion of your state's resources every time they ship something to or through your state. Extra pollution, wear and tear on the highways, and disposal costs for the packaging and ultimately the product itself when it breaks/wears out/becomes obsolete.
Level the playing field.
Are you kidding me? Just how petty are we today? This is not a "rights" issue. This is a responsibility issue.
First, if affiliates receive some kind of compensation from Amazon, they should pay taxes on it. Hopefully everyone can agree on that.
The larger issue is how to collect the state/local sales taxes from Amazon customers. All local retailers need to collect the taxes and send them to the appropriate units of government. It should be no different for Amazon or any other online or mail-order retailer. Their prices are artificially low due to the lack of sales tax and that's poor policy when it comes to maintaining a healthy business climate. We need our local retailers for many reasons, not the least of which is their local presence, meaning they have a stake in what happens in the community.
We're all responsibile for our society and paying taxes is part of that. Amazon and other non-local retailers essentially facilitate tax evasion by consumers. Yes, it is the consumers who are evading but it is Amazon and others who are complicit in it.
The local sales taxes pay for vital things like roads, schools, emergency services and a host of other things. Paying taxes isn't a case of, "do I benefit, and if not, I shouldn't have to pay." We all benefit from these things and we all have a responsibility to support them. Anything less is shirking your responsibility. I've never understood why anti-tax forces hate their communities so much.
Yes, you are missing something. Businesses and corporations DON'T pay taxes of any kind - ever. YOU pay the taxes - they only collect taxes.
Raise a tax on a business and watch the price of the goods they sell go up.
Why can't any of you understand this? Oh, it's wealth envy and hatred of "evil" corporations.
Let's get this country moving again doing it the right way.
They pay taxes on fuel when in the state.
"You can either have software quality or you can have pointer arithmetic, but you cannot have both at the same time."
You really want to go down that line of reasoning?
The customer pays for his/her bandwidth.
FedEx and UPS pay their taxes for road use(fuel).
Et al, etc.
Glad to see a company taking a stand.
Time to order another book...
So how do you propose we pay for roads/police/fireman/military etc..... you are saying we are ALWAYS worse if the government takes some money to pay for these things? I think we would be much much worse if we weren't taxed and these things weren't paid for.
This is absolutely correct! In fact, you are supposed to report and pay use tax on everything you purchase - even used stuff from garage sales, (not that anyone does).
"Michael, I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing - and it was everything that I thought it could be."
Sure, but you can always pay more for roads.
Not that they get any better when you do that. You can just pay more for them. It helps you get re-elected. What, you're not in Congress? Oh, well disregard everything I just said...
LOOK, SEX SCANDALS!
No, this is no more than another reach where states are trying to end run the commerce clause which has prevented them from successfully taxing out of state mail order purchases. This one is especially stupid because they are saying "because Amazon does business with contractors in our state, they have to act as a tax collection agent for us." This is a change in two ways:
* The state is extending the definition of "nexus" to include the use of contractors. Historically, a nexus includes employees and/or property.
* The state is basically telling mail order merchants to not spend a dime in the state or you have to become a tax collection agent for the state.
Basically, N. Carolina and Rhode Island are shooting themselves in the head and preventing mail order operations from using any in-state contractors to do things like print catalogs, mail catalogs, provide call center services, freight forwarding, delivery services and so on. In other words, no jobs for your state from any mail order company.
This is why there is a commerce clause in the constitution - to prevent one state from taking actions that unfairly burden a business or citizen in another state. Why should I care what sales tax is in California? My business is in Indiana. Eventually this will go to the supreme court and get tossed just like every other attempt by one state to make businesses in another state collect taxes for them. This has been building up for a while and we're due for another 8-1 decision in favor of the Federal Government having EXCLUSIVE jurisdiction over interstate commerce.
-- $G
I think you have an incorrect conception of the internet. I know a US Senator who could explain things to you.
Also, I want to tax the taxes that are being taxed on those goods running through my state.
Amazon is basically screaming: "Taxation Without Representation" and taking a stand against what it believes is unconstitutional taxation. (ie being taxed by a foreign (different state) government) This is exactly what happen in the mid-late 1700s and the reason the US is it's own country rather than part of the United Kingdom.
I completely agree with Amazon. I happen to have an Amazon shop (I'm not located in either of those states) I know it screws the webstore owner, but Amazon is doing the right thing and THEY need to stand up to their own state's goverment and let them know that they are hurting their own people by being greeding and trying to tax people that don't even live in their state.
If they have to pay taxes, and if we have to pay sales tax on such things, it increases the costs for everyone.
Amazon does pay taxes in the places they have physical facilities. They do not want the expense of having to collect and pay sales tax in every jurisdiction in America. There's more to this than just state tax, there's county, city, township and even school district level sales taxation in different states in the US.
-- $G
Sales tax for interstate domestic commerce should be based on location of business not the location of the consumer, the sale happens where the business is located.
Amazon is incorporated in delaware, delaware has no state sales tax, hence the tax you owe is 0%
So the store doesn't get a sale, doesn't pay the stakeholder, who was presumably going to spend money in the state on taxable goods and services. The state still loses. The original sale doesn't generate revenue and the seller won't be purchasing anything that generates tax revenue with the proceeds of the sale that didn't happen. Sorry states, there will always be at least one state that will take advantage of this and host amazon friendly affiliate websites. This is kinda like how you can incorporate an LLC in any state you have an "agent" in (100 bucks a year gets you agent representation in any state) but no one in their right minds incorporates an LLC outside of Nevada or Delaware because of the incredibly low taxes and business friendly body of case law they've produced. You still have to pay personal income tax in the state you perform work but you get a credit for taxes you pay to other states for your state of residence taxes.
Stop. Just stop. You're making too much sense.
There was a bill introduced in the Maryland General Assembly this session that sought to charge title taxes on off-road vehicles - figure that one out!
Really, though, we should all just realize that for the most part these kinds of taxes aren't supposed to make sense, they are just supposed to raise revenue.
"Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
even used stuff from garage sales
I'm not sure about that. I thought there was something about the equivalent of "trade" vs. sales? Sort of like craigslist? I didn't think those sorts of "sales" counted as a sale, and thus didn't have to be reported for tax by the use tax.
Sales taxes are consumption-based taxes. They're a tax on the consumer, based on residence. Amazon is enabling consumers to avoid paying their consumption tax. This "tax holiday" was supposed to be temporary. Congress has sat on their behind too long, so individual states are taking matters into their own hands and saying "We're going to enforce state law."
If you buy something out of state, you're supposed to pay the sales tax to your local state and then apply for a reimbursement from the state you paid the original tax in.
So what next - are you going to argue that people earning money off the Internet shouldn't pay income tax because it's two completely different concepts, and we should try to keep things cheap? Don't complain when your job gets off-shored.
No. Amazon is simply not collecting sales tax for states they are not located in. Why should Amazon (an out of state company) have to pay to do the job of the RI Department of Revenue? Since when did they delete the commerce clause from the constitution?
-- $G
I realize that taxes are a necessary evil, but let us not spread that evil any further that it has already gone. Every time the government sucks a penny out of the economy we are all the worse for it
Are you? Is everyone worse off if the government sucks out pennies for e.g. basic education? Police? Roads? I agree on too much taxes being bad, but a certain level of public services is necessarry, and to everyone's gain.
Also, how about "enough to cover the costs in the long run" rather than a large, permanent deficit? The size of the costs is one issue, but the US has been undertaxed for many years when one considers how much money the US wants to spend.
Absolutely none of the sales tax paid will go towards maintenance of the internet. Try again.
IMAGE VERIFICATION IS EVIL!
Pretty soon we'll have GPS required for all packets to monitor the distance they travel so they can be taxed on it. The copper line manufacturers have been pushing for this while the fiber line manufacturers have been calling for government tax breaks to packets that use their lines.
Mij
So, the feds set an "internet sales tax" rate, which is collected once at payment by the end buyer. It all goes into a big fund that is divided amongst all of the states (perhaps according to sales or population)
Err..that isn't Amazon's fault. I would have to think that the companies that actually do the shipping do pay fuel and other taxes to the state in question when they travel across it and deliver said packages. Isn't that what fuel taxes are for...paying for road maintenance?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Don't mean to jump on the 'citation needed' bandwagon -- in fact this is my first time requesting one...
I'm just curious why you came to that conclusion and, if true, I want to learn & understand why.
I'm ok with it as long as I can pay the taxes in virtual money.
When my income tax is no longer taxed twice, I might feel OK with paying taxes on items bought over the net.
What is taxed twice is your return. Your tax return for paying to much in taxes is counted as income and taxed the following year. Even though those monies were taxes collected.
LOL. More businesses will be leaving for other states. Only politicians and paupers will be left in that state.
and yet the state i think also just pasted another 2 cents tax increase on gas
im just waiting for it to hit 3 bucks they still have 3 days to get it over 3 bucks before the 4th
I live in RI and made a whole $4.52 in the past two years from the affiliate section of my site ( http://www.gotpoetry.com/Product.html )! Now how am I going to buy my next extra large Regular Dunkin Doughnuts coffee!
And I suppose the person with 50k in credit card debt and a house in foreclosure is also in that situation because they can't raise enough income?
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the million dollar house and their insatiable desire for new goods. A good rule of thumb for people (and states for this matter) in debt is to first create a budget that reduces spending below ones income. Not to figure out a way to make more money. This is not rocket science.
Or they could just cut back. If you can't afford it, don't buy it. This is just as important for States as individuals.
Get off my lawn.
Ok, that's your take, here's mine. California is currently in this fix because they hand out gold plated salary and benefit to the state worker union during the boom time and assumed that the boom time will last forever. The so call cuts currently being contemplated are cuts to the scheduled increases in salary and benefits. The problem is not with revenue, but with spending. We've already pass the largest state tax increase in history this past Feburary, and that's still not enough. People who actually pay taxes in California is not in the mood to pay any more just because the Legislature have to satisfy their master, state workers unions.
Will some of the sales tax go towards purchasing a clue/sense-of-humor for certain, sadly bereft individuals?
Now that I think about it, I'm pretty sure everything I just said is completely wrong.
Your entire post is just wrong. First, Amazon dosn't pay sales tax on items you buy from them in thier home state unless it is a state where they have a nexus. Second, if your home state has a Sales Tax it most likly has a Use Tax and you are supposed to pay that tax on items you buy from out of state that haven't had sales tax paid on them in the other state and sometimes even if it has. This has NOTHING to do with the Commerce clause of the US Constitution.
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surtax
what really should be happening is that the Affiliate's should be collecting sales tax in the state that the Affiliate is located - Amaazon should only be responsiable for the sate inwhich it is located (as it does now).
if you order from an affiliate in your sate - it is the same as a brick and mortor store in the state - when you look at the affiliate. when you look at Amazon .. they are a supplier or the affiliate - and there for the fact that the Affiliate is purchacing it from Amazon for resell means no sales tax collection for Amazon but when the Affiliate charges you they are required to collect sales tax and to pay it to the sate.
this is how every retail store works - they buy from someone else and sell to you - the end person pays sales tax. if you order from an out of state company they arn't required to collect the sales tax but you are required to pay the the tax - if you don't pay it to the state then you are guilty of tax evasion.
the states are being really stupid here in going after Amazon - they just see the name and the big money and are trying to cross the legal bounds in the presuit of money. what they need to do is crack down on the Affiliates that do not collect/report/pay sales tax like they should.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Well, they could stop spending. They could start to consider that this massive govt. run healthcare (regardless of your views on it) is something we absolutely cannot afford right now. They could stop with the pork in bills.
Why can't the govt. do what a 'sane' normal household does when it is having budget problems. The first thing is to cut spending!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
In New York State, for example, there's no way to get sales tax right--it varies by county and municipality, with borders that DON'T LINE UP WITH ZIP CODES! So it's a pain in the ass to get it right.
Let's be completely clear, it is the customer being taxed and not Amazon.
The customer is resposible for those taxes in most states wether Amazon colectes them or not.
I do beleve that online retailers should be made to collect the sales tax for the state the good are being delivered to.
However, I also belive that it will require federal action for this to happen.
The federal fuel tax doesn't come close to paying for road transportation. First, the federal highway trust fund is bankrupt. Second, it only pays for U.S. highways and interstates. Your state gas tax pays some for local roads but the biggest contributer to road maintenance is the property tax. The sales tax also plays a significant role in may areas. Third, the feds don't even pay for all of the maintenance on U.S. highways and interstates. Your state is paying for some of that too.
So no, fuel taxes don't cover it. Not even close.
Article 1, Section 9 - Limits on Congress:
No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.
Fuel taxes don't pay for the cost of disposing of the packaging, they don't pay for the cost of recycling the end product, and if you believe that fuel taxes pay for your local streets, you're living in a dream world. Look at the bond issues your local government has to make when they put streets in place - and which residents have to pay for through their municipal taxes.
I found a poem for you:
Tax his land, tax his wage,
Tax his bed in which he lays.
Tax his tractor, tax his mule,
Teach him taxes is the rule.
Tax his cow, tax his goat,
Tax his pants, tax his coat.
Tax his ties, tax his shirts,
Tax his work, tax his dirt.
Tax his chew, tax his smoke,
Teach him taxes are no joke.
Tax his car, tax his ass
Tax the roads he must pass.
Tax his tobacco, tax his drink,
Tax him if he tries to think.
Tax his booze, tax his beers,
If he cries, tax his tears.
Tax his bills, tax his gas,
Tax his notes, tax his cash.
Tax him good and let him know
That after taxes, he has no dough.
If he hollers, tax him more,
Tax him until he's good and sore.
Tax his coffin, tax his grave,
Tax the sod in which he lays.
Put these words upon his tomb,
"Taxes drove me to my doom!"
And when he's gone, we won't relax,
We'll still be after the inheritance TAX!
Author Unknown
Hmm, I just found the following on Amazon's website.
LINK: http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=468512
(not sure how to make a pretty link on /.)
Items Shipped to New York State
Effective June 1, 2008, Amazon.com LLC will begin collecting sales tax on items shipped to destinations within the State of New York as New York has enacted a new law requiring out-of-state sellers to collect and remit sales tax based on advertising. Amazon has filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of this provision. However, as required by the law, we must still begin collecting New York sales tax beginning on that date.
Please note that if you place an order prior to June 1, 2008, your Order Total may not include an estimate of New York sales taxes, but those taxes may still be charged if your order is readied for shipment on or after that date.
So, they pay taxes to NY, but won't for North Carolina and Rhode Island? I haven't seen anywhere that they revoked New York webstore owners.
No, no, NO! Fuel taxes do not cover the cost of roads. Look at what your state puts into raod construction and maintenance. You'll more than likely find that property taxes are the biggest source of revenue for that purpose. Sales tax also play a significant role in many areas. So no, the shippers do not pay the cost for Amazon, or even to cover their own use of roads.
They should pay taxes solely because if they don't, we're going to lose much, much more retail than we already have lost. The tax system certainly isn't perfect, but the way it is now, it heavily favors online merchants over real, brick and mortar merchants.
actualy i doubt they will just "add it to the price"
it isn't as simple as "add 6% to the price" sales tax verys not by just state but county and town and city and districts.. infact any governing body that can charge a tax could effect the cost of goods. and also it verys based on what the good is..
where i live when you sum up the taxes i pay from 2.5-7.5% sales tax depending on if i'm buying food, recyclables, consumables, toxic materials, raw materials.
Amazon sells a very wide range of goods - to actualy do it right they would have to look up on each item in each location what the correct tax is - then collect it and pay it based on the schedual set out by the governing bodies.. for all of the US..
what happens if they charge too much or too little? or don't pay on the right time frame? well then they are breaking the law..
no it should be the Affiliate's responsibility to collect the correct taxes for the goods sold through them in their area of taxation. Just like the local convince store. Amazon is just the supplier to these people.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Taxes are never levied for the benefit of the taxed. I live in Oregon (NO Sales Tax!) so I REFUSE to pay yours. I never voted for it (Taxation without representation ring a bell?) and my states has voted NO on sales tax NINE TIMES. Fix your deficit the way all of us do: Spend less. Too many state wastrels on the payroll? fire a few.
- Minutus cantorum, minutus balorum, minutus carborata descendum pantorum.
You can't calculate tax just by zip code - if you could, it'd be simple. You have to account for states, counties and municipalities, and zip codes don't line up completely with at least the last two. Zip+4 might, but that in itself is a nightmare (Zip+4 can be down to 10 or fewer individual addresses).
A couple of examples: I live in a suburb of Chicago that gets much of its revenue from sales taxes on malls, etc. within the city limits. Its tax rate is different from the next municipality over, but my zip code overlaps that suburb. Another example: my office is in a town that straddles the border between Cook County, IL and Lake County, IL. The Zip code at my office (in Cook) and at the hospital where I have customers (in Lake) are the same, but the tax rates differ by 3% (Cook has among the highest sales taxes in the nation, if not the highest).
fencepost
just a little off
Since Amazon's customers aren't paying their fair share of consumption taxes, your local retailer is paying MORE than their fair share.
That sounds an awful lot like an issue between the customer and the state. If you buy my used car, it's your responsibility to pay the taxes on it. In what way is that substantially different for Amazon?
In reality, taxing Internet sales is like taxing tourism: it's a zero-sum game. If your state's citizens pay $100,000 in my state, and my state's citizens pay $100,000 in yours, then it's moneywise exactly as if they'd stayed home and paid their taxes there. If all 50 states begin collecting Internet sales taxes, then the average net revenue flow will be exactly $0.00, at the cost of huge regulatory overheads for every single Internet-using business.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
yes you missed it
states like ri i live here
went and gave BIG TAX breaks to the likes of GTE the people that make the lotto machines video slots for Twin river which is going under cus all that they can do is buy new machines in the hope that people will play them
so that they would head quater there company in ri
what needs to be done is stop with all the tax breaks that are not bringin in money to just have a company in the city or state for that matter
You wouldn't. Amazon doesn't pay (sales) taxes at whatever locale they are at. And no state can charge a tax for shipping goods through the state (as mentioned in your Constitution excerpt), except as a fee for using the road system. That only leaves the final point of sale.
Why should ordering something over the internet and having it delivered to your door result in you paying less sales tax?
First, the word you are looking for is interstate. Intrastate purchases are taxed. Secondly, the interstate aspect of the transaction is not being taxed, rather it's the purchase in Rhode Island of a good that is.
I fail to see the distinction between paying sales tax on goods purchased at Amazon and goods purchased in a local Walmart (when discussing non-Washington/Arkansas residents). In either case you're purchasing an item in, e.g., RI and accepting delivery there. The actual charges are applied from a credit card company in Deleware to an account, which you will then pay later with a check drawn on some other corporation. Why should the Internet be magical?
Your ad here. Ask me how!
I actually agree with the basic principle here. However, we need to level the playing field first. Once wealthy individuals pay their fair share of taxes, then we can talk about eliminating some business taxes. Things like the property tax on businesses must stay because they're using a resource and should pay for it like everyone else. I'd be ok with eliminating the sales tax as long as we get at least a revenue-neutral progressive increase in the income tax.
Despite not living in California, I have been following this with great interest. What I am hoping to see, before the inevitable rise in taxes, is a real attempt to reduce government spending. My thinking is that at this point most of the spending by the state of California is on programs with broad support. And this Prop 12 business is just Republicans taking advantage of people wanting to have stuff and not wanting to pay for it. So... when the state begins to cut said programs, people will have a clearer idea what their taxes go to pay for.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Do you know how much tubes take to maintain? The Internet is the information tubes, so the taxes go to pay for travel on it. When you drive to Amazon, you're putting wear on the tubes of the state Amazon is based in, and then Amazon has to drive your order to the affiliate, which puts wear on the superhighways to the affiliate's state. That's a lot of virtual wear!
There, fixed that for ya. You seem to be a bit behind the times. Senator Stevens was recently kind enough to reveal that the internet wasn't really a superhighway but was in reality a series of tubes. Tubes need lots of expensive maintenance. The London tube system cost billions to maintain. It's only fair Amazon should pay their fair share.
Who is John Galt?
Why is that a problem, let alone one that the government should address?
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Make that former US Senator.
This is a boring sig
I think the attitude of "We should try to keep *things* cheap" has done a lot to destroy a lot of what was nice about the United States. I'd rather to see things cost a little as rational but not so little we're driving small businesses & communities to bankruptcy and supporting a permanent underclass.
Things not Thinks, I make that typo all the time :-)
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Doesn't go a long way to suggest a National VAT like tax?
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Why is that a problem, let alone one that the government should address?
You want to live in a city with no retail, and nothing but warehouses and UPS trucks? Really? You should try to leave your basement every now and then.
I totally forgot what you were saying. Where's the scandal, again?
-- $G
It could be just money-grubbing politicians, but I think there's more to it.
Time and time again, I see businesses (or industries as a whole) lobby for laws that prevent or inhibit the adoption of internet-based technology because they don't want to take the risks or pay the overhead to keep up with the times. We've seen it in the entertainment industry with digital media and also with ISPs with bandwidth capping and net-non-neutral campaigning.
Through media and in conversation, I have heard complaints from brick-and-mortar store owners who say they "can't compete" with online retailers and one reason is the tax issue. Yes, people are SUPPOSED to report internet purchases on their returns, but I doubt everybody does. Even with a price match, they either eat the tax themselves or make you pay for it. With the big-box stores like Wal-Mart, Target, and Best Buy, I would think that an online retailer like Amazon would be a very viable way for mom-and-pops to stay competitive and also reap huge gains in their customer bases. If the small-shop store owners and the politicians who represent them really wanted to help them out, they would be trying to lax online retail tax law, not make it more invasive.
There are more (many many more) state and local taxes than just sales tax, or do you think states like New Jersey not have roads, police, or fire departments?
Wrong, as with most of the rest of your post. There is no such "reimbursement". If a resident of Maryland physically goes to Pennsylvania and buys something, the sales tax on the transaction is owed to Pennsylvania. There is no reimbursement, even if Maryland also demands a "use tax" on the item.
The Supreme Court decided some time ago (in a mail order case, not an Internet case) that companies could not be required to collect sales taxes for states in which they did not have a "nexus". It's not a matter of a "tax holiday" or of Congress sitting on their behind; Congress has no obligation to act for the states in this matter. It's not a matter of enforcing state law. It's a matter of states trying to widen the definition of that "nexus" beyond what the courts have accepted in the past. It probably won't work, but Amazon isn't willing to get into a court battle over it. Newegg, on the other hand, after initially collecting New York tax, ceased doing so after consulting their lawyers. NY has apparently not taken them up on the challenge.
A bit late for that. Didn't California raise taxes about $12 billion early this year?
And they still can't come within $20 billion of a balanced budget....
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
The government does NOT pay for internet infrastructure. That is mostly a private op.
NO SIG
RI (and NC before them) are a looter's government, demanding money they haven't earned. My parents taught me that was theft, but the states call it "taxes."
These states are poorly managed and now want a chunk of money they didn't earn and have no right to to make up for their incompetence and stupidity. Good for Amazon. They can continue to "Shrug" as much as they want until states realize that being business-friendly means your state has money.
Don't just game, Dungeoneer
Okay, so then will the information highway become free to travel on? If we're paying the government to maintaining the information superhighway, we won't need to pay the ISP. I'd buy into that.
They already do, considering that they're consuming approximately 0% of the state's resources.
If it wasn't for Amazon's giant warehouse, my tomatoes would be in season much, earlier.
Those thieves. Give me some money!
This is my sig.
Please understand how sales taxes work before you submit nonsense like that.
I'm not going to explain the whole system, but suffice it to say that if I pay sales tax in one jurisdiction, then that tax paid is a credit to my tax due in another jurisdiction. This is Amazon's biggest objection -- the nightmare of calculating taxes paid and taxes due.
If I'm an RI retailer, and I buy directly from Amazon (as a wholesaler to me), I charge sales tax to my customers in RI. Then when I have to pay the sales tax to RI, I deduct what I have paid to Amazon as sales tax on my purchases from them. However, since Amazon has no nexus in RI, I'm not paying any tax to them.
What the new tax structure is saying is that retailers shouldn't be able to escape the tax requirement by only being a referrer to Amazon. So sales taxes are due to RI.
In essence, RI & NC are saying that the referrers are retail outlets, not referrers.
This does not raise any specter of double taxation or worse. It's just a battle over whether Amazon referrers are retailers or not.
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
Mod parent up.
Being an affiliate is basically like becoming a franchise. Under Amazon's name, and under their practices, you become an independent outlet store. What you sell is up to you; you're using Amazon as a supplier.
Affiliates need to pay income taxes to their own state. Not Amazon.
Do you understand that retailers don't pay sales taxes, but they just collect them on behalf of the taxing authority? The state of Rhode Island wants to tax the residents of Rhode Island when they spend money in Rhode Island or spend money on things that they will be using in Rhode Island and then they want to use the money to pay for sewers and schools and police (and corruption and graft and bribes) in Rhode Island.
I can't make you drink it, but I'll even bring you to the watering hole: It's called a "consumption tax".
Proposition 13 isn't the problem, it really isn't. The problem is the state legislature which continues to add socialist benefits to socialist benefits.
The Political Beast eats its own, creates an unsustainable welfare state, paid for by exorbitant taxes. We currently have Sales taxes fast approaching 10%, chasing the merchants from the state. Brick and Mortar shops cannot compete with Amazon's sales tax free setup, even if the prices are the same, and you include shipping!
We wouldn't be in this problem if the legislature (Democratic LOCKED)got off its fat ass and started to CUT spending on programs that do nothing but ensure voters vote for (D) candidates.
Oh, but that is "taking away from the poor", and we can't do that! Well, with that attitude, eventually everyone left in the state will be "poor" with nobody left able to pay the taxes needed to support them.
Hell, I'd move if I could afford it, and I might not be able to afford NOT to shortly.
How is it, that the solution that most people think of first is "More Taxes" rather than "cut spending" ??? When is it ENOUGH????
And lets not "fix" healthcare until they can fix the economy (HAHHAHA).
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Amazon runs a business, not a charity. It's not about the good of the state and it is not their job to try to level the playing field, they're job is to make as much money as possible for the shareholders. Additionally, they have the RIGHT to NOT do business as they please. As far as I'm concerned R.I. can tax away, but don't expect people to sit by idle while they do it...
An inventor is a man who asks 'Why?' of the universe and lets nothing stand between the answer and his mind.
It's not that they're being unreasonable, per se. It's that they're applying and old model to a new technology. It's a bit like trying to do rocket science with the math available to Aristotle.
Physical location matters little on the Internet. But our countries and states are defined by physical location. So it's not a trivial problem, but applying solutions that simply don't fit will not solve anything.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Why should I pay a tax when I buy something at Amazon when I don't use any of the infrastructure used in supporting a brick and mortar store like WalMart? Because it's not "fair"? If your infrastructure is that expensive, I suggest you find a better way of paying for it (or, I don't know, cutting spending perhaps?) other than whining that mail order/Internet orders need to be taxed.
I'm sure it has nothing to do with the million dollar house and their insatiable desire for new goods. A good rule of thumb for people (and states for this matter) in debt is to first create a budget that reduces spending below ones income. Not to figure out a way to make more money. This is not rocket science.
Budgeting your household income is not rocket science, but state budgeting is an entirely different beast. In California, the revenue for each budget year must be estimated 2 years in advance so that the budget can be drafted a year prior to enactment. This creates a large potential for incorrect revenue projections. The California budget is near $100B, and contains hundreds of thousands of line items. In addition, thousands of revenue streams are required to be spent on specific areas in the budget, so even though you have excess revenue from one stream, you cannot utilize it in areas that are under funded. Also, you are not permitted to keep excess funds, you have to return them each year... so, except for a small rainy-day fund, you cannot save/invest monies to protect against future down times.
These are just a few of the problems state's face, it is not as simple as "reducing spending". You have to estimate, project, and plan years in advance based on an ever changing population and revenue stream.
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=230057&title=youre-welcome-california-budget
"Once wealthy individuals pay their fair share of taxes, then we can talk about eliminating some business taxes."
You mean once ten percent of the population no longer has to pay ninety percent of the taxes?
You mean when fifty percent of the population finally pay more than zero net tax?
You mean when the vast majority stop getting more benefits than they are paying for then maybe we can spend less?
Yes that sounds great.
That's what GP is saying. Sales tax is paid by the consumer. He's saying the consumer should also pay sales taxes based for their online purchases, to the consumer's district.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
I do beleve that online retailers should be made to collect the sales tax for the state the good are being delivered to.
What, you want to force everyone out of online retailing except for a couple of megacorps? I defy anyone to even figure out what taxes are due and on what and to whom. There are tens of thousands of tax jurisdictions, and their tax rates and rules are all different. In my immediate area, there is a state sales tax. There is a city sales tax. There is a county sales tax. There is a "convention center district" sales tax (the convention center district is a subset of the city). There is a "7 county metro area" sales tax. All of these taxes have different boundaries (the county is much larger than the city), and the boundaries do not correspond to zip codes. Christ, I live in the area and not only can I not always tell which taxes are applicable, the state tax office (which collects them) can't either (the best they can do is say "portions of that zipcode").
Now lets move on to what gets taxed. Food? No, not in my state, unless it's a carbonated beverage or uncarbonated water in containers less than one liter, or contains more than a specified percentage of alcohol (that's a bonus tax). Nor clothing, except furs and jewelery. Nor, for a limited time, solar panels. 40 miles away, in the next state, both are taxed.
Can requiring retailers to collect tax for all destinations work? Of course. Simply require that every state agree on a single uniform tax rate for goods, and a single uniform set of rules on what those goods are. (And hopefully, that the tax will be applied to all sales, including sales to nonprofits and government units of various sorts, because it's really hard to tell who qualifies when you're a retailer on the other side of the country.) Let the states provide a single unified destination (at their expense) to send all sales tax payments to, identified by either zipcode or state, and have that central point figure out who gets what, and pay them.
Come back when the states get their shit together, and we can talk.
Then fucking tax appropriately. Fuel tax for roads. Property taxes for schools, parks, etc in your jurisdiction, etc. Taxes should go towards what they're meant for, not a god damn slush fund.
Because Amazon is enabling consumers to commit widespread tax fraud? Maybe Rhode Island should get their AG to file a RICO complaint ...
Same as other commerce isn't a zero-sum game.
If you buy something out of state, you're supposed to pay the sales tax to your local state and then apply for a reimbursement from the state you paid the original tax in.
No, you're supposed to voluntarily pay a the use tax to the state you reside in, and not pay the state sales tax from which you bought the item. Not to be pedantic, but some states have a use tax at a different rate than the states' taxes. (+ city and county sales tax, naturally) Of course, most people don't know the intricacies, because everything is made so delightfully complicated.
We aught to just move on to a nationwide VAT and be done with it.
Not true at all. Your understanding of the taxing authority is faulty. Government is under no obligation to even provide some vaguely plausible reasoning to tax you. Government needs tax revenue to exist. It has the authority to tax anything to get the revenue. As a citizen you have the right to elect representatives who will try to make the tax fair. And it is your obligation to pay the tax according to whatever is the current tax code whether you agree with the system or not. If you think the system is not fair, elect people who would make it fair. Don't go about spouting non sense like "government can charge sales tax because it provides some vague service" etc.
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
The NY law states that any sales to a purchaser in NY must collect sales tax for NY.
The RI and NC laws want online retailers to collect sales tax for any purchace made from a business in RI or NC.
The NY case is fairly straight-forward. Collect tax based on the destination.
The RI and NC laws open up all sorts of potential difficulty. Collect tax based on the source. What if the online store is in California, the affiliate is in New York, the affiliate's warehouse is in Rhode Island, and the purchaser is in Washington? What do you base your tax on? Do you have to pay tax to each entity? Instead of paying no sales tax, do I now pay nearly 25% in tax?
Whichever way this goes, it could get very ugly if online retailers have to account for local (city/county) taxes as well. For example, in Washington state, the state sales tax is 6.5%, but with county and city taxes added in, I pay 10%. Will I, at some point, be subject to 40% and upwards in tax if I buy online?
Think how much land Amazon.com uses for their fulfillment centers across the country, and the corresponding property taxes they have to pay. Chicago *paid* Boeing to move their HQ here.
[citation needed]
At the end of the day online businesses are nothing more than mail order businesses that use the internet to advertise and place orders.
They DO get taxed, their company HQ has a physical location and they MUST pay business taxes. Boeing and Nvidia pay LESS taxes than Amazon.com does.
the police are all crooks the fireman all make to much the highest wages in the county i believe
Every breath you take
Every move you make
Every click you make
Every step you take
I'll be taxing you
Every single day
Every word you say
Every game you play
Every night you stay
I'll be taxing you
Oh, cant you see
You belong to me
How my poor RIDT aches
With every step you take
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
1) How much is my fair share, and who decides?
2) Who should I pay my share to?
Please show justifiable legal explanation to these 2 questions. Or, drop the smug overly righteous tone, please.
This will also affect the large number of non-spam affiliate marketers. For instance the site in my sig. I have made a strong effort to make it a value added service and not just spam. (Washington/Utah have the most hikes listed so far)
Hikery.net - The best hiking site ever. Made by yours truly.
Where are you getting your information? This is almost completely wrong, and has absolutely nothing to do with jobs being off-shored. It has everything to do with states attempting to extend their reach beyond the Constitutional provisions of the Commerce Clause.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
If they substantially raised taxes as part of a budget compromise I missed it. The last news I read was along the lines of "There appears to be little chance that a compromise on how to solve a $24.3 billion budget will be made before the midnight deadline."
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
It truly amazes me how few people understand even basic economics.
Amazon does not have brick and mortar stores. So it's not the same. In fact, when the tax laws where written that apply to "mail-order" they understood this basic concept. Based on those laws you only have to pay sales tax if the company you're ordering from has stores(brick and mortar) in your county.
Facts: Amazon pays taxes. They pay taxes on their employees, properties, income, purchases, etc. The shipping companies also pay taxes. In order to pay all of these taxes the price of their products and services get marked up.
So, when you order an item from Amazon, a surprising amount of what you're really paying for is indirect tax. Including local taxes paid by the shipping company.
The gross tax lean across the US is over 50%. It's insane. Anyone who agrees that there should be any new and/or more taxation is a complete and utter moron. More taxation increases the cost of living, which increases poverty, which increases crime rates, which has the end effect of idiot politicians stating that we need more tax. It's a corrupt cycle that killing this country and needs to end.
Really, though, we should all just realize that for the most part these kinds of taxes aren't supposed to make sense, they are just supposed to steal from people.
Fixed that for you.
Found an article about companies and taxes.. it was one of the sources in the Amazon.com WP article i think.
Nvidia at 2.2% tax: http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/04/0423_corporate_taxes/22.htm
Boeing at 3.2% : http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/04/0423_corporate_taxes/18.htm
Amazon.com at 4.1% : http://images.businessweek.com/ss/09/04/0423_corporate_taxes/15.htm
http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
Well, at least it's a form of perverse justice, since the federal govt. uses the commerce clause to get around basically every right reserved for the states.
I wasn't responding to the merits of sales vs. other taxes. I was responding to:
Every time the government sucks a penny out of the economy we are all the worse for it
Which would imply that ANY tax is always bad.
no, they actually don't. They came up with some abboration of logic called a Use tax, which means you pay tax on something bought in another state fro the right to USE that property in your state. oh, it just happens to be the same rate as the sales tax. The courts for sme reason didn't shoot this down, but at least they said it can't be MORE than the sales tax.
Are you one of those morons who really thinks people are going to buy all their groceries from online retailers just to save sales tax?
The only retailers that online sellers are putting out of business are smaller electronics and computers stores. For most other things, the cost of shipping and the inconvenience of not seeing the product first-hand outweigh the tax advantages of buying online. And even with electronics and computer parts, and other things bought online, the main advantage of buying online is NOT saving sales tax; it's a lower selling price (Newegg vs. Best Buy ALWAYS comes out in favor of Newegg), or better selection or availability of obscure items that are hard or impossible to find locally.
Another side of this is Amazon's perspective, if they lose 1 or 2, or even 10% of their "affiliates", it will affect their bottom line far less than the increased hassle of implementing state specific taxes. All this is really doing is taking away affiliate income from those states that chose to implement silly tax laws like this.
Florida does similar stuff to people who have any physical representative in the state, but I guess they haven't tried to reach for Internet based tax dollars, yet.
Why shouldn't employer-provided medical benefits be taxed? AFAIK, if they paid you the cash and you bought it in the free market, your income would be taxed. Why not eliminate this subsidy for getting your health insurance through your employer?
Your ad here. Ask me how!
You fail econ 101.
If they could have raised prices they already would have. Only in commodity markets or other very low profit markets does this occur. Prices have nothing to do with costs in most markets, they are just set at the highest the market can bear.
So Amazon should be responsible for what the people should be reporting to the states but are not? It's not Amazon's fault that the people who buy from them don't file their taxes properly. Why should be bury them with undue overhead because people are breaking the law? There are already systems in place to handle this sort of thing. The state in question can have their IRS audit people whom they think are skipping out of reporting the tax. No need to force every internet store to keep track of the sales tax laws of every state, county, city and township in the union.
~Z
Everyone is already required to pay a sales tax on the items they buy out of state anyway.
Not true. I live in Oregon. We don't have sales tax. While you are free to question the wisdom of that approach (and our public school teachers and administrators would surely agree with any criticisms you have to offer), I don't pay sales tax to (e.g.) California when I buy something online there, and I am not legally required to pay use tax to Oregon for purchases made out of state.
Humpty Dumpty was pushed.
Amazon is in no way responsible for use taxes for roads if it does not operate its own fleet. The shipper is responsible for that end. It is not relevant how much road fuel taxes comprise in the overall cost of roads. They do play a part and road fuel taxes for large trucks are considerable. Every single commercial vehicle is taxed for every mile they operate in the state. This is offset by any fuel they bought while in the state. The end result is their tax liability which must be paid for each and every state they operate in annually. Those states they did not operate in they can apply for a refund if they purchased a fuel tax sticker for that state.
Amazon contracts with shippers to deliver the goods to the consumer. It is the responsibility of the shipper to pay the road fuel taxes incurred by that delivery. It doesn't matter if that amount is a very small portion of the overall cost of upkeep on these roads. This is how every state assigns taxes for road use to commercial vehicles. If they felt it wasn't fair they should change their tax laws. Amazon, by themselves, are not responsible for ANY road taxes unless they operate the fleet delivering the merchandise. So, I see no reason why Amazon should be required to play tax collector in states it does not truly operate within.
Yes, I drove a semi for many years. These tax laws were one of the reasons I never bought my own rig.
The problem is that people buying out of state are supposed to pay taxes on what they buy. The internet makes this fuzzy because exactly where did the purchase take place? If it takes place at the consumer, the consumer is responsible for paying the tax and opts not to do so and Amazon is in no position legally or otherwise to make them do so. If it takes place at the shipper, then Amazon should be applying state tax for the jurisdiction it resides in and no other state. Then there is the matter that since this is virtual did the sale take place where Amazon has their offices or where they house their servers?
I think taxing at the shipper state of residence is probably the correct one. If they have multiple locations you could either allow the consumer to choose (probably a bad idea) or chose the location the product will be shipped from. All internet businesses should collect tax for the jurisdiction they reside in or the jurisdiction the product is being shipped from only. I don't believe it matters if you physically cross to another state or virtually visit another state via the web. You made the purchase in state 'X'. You pay the tax in state 'X', not state 'Y' and definitely not in state 'X and Y'. Are there problems with that? Sure. I can think of a bunch above what I already mentioned which is probably why Congress is dragging their heels addressing this. I don't have any ideas on how to fix it, but letting the States overreach their authority to burden a business with collecting taxes for municipalities it does not reside in is setting a very dangerous precedent.
See this? This is my virtual middle finger and I'm shoving it in the general direction of politicians who think it's a smart idea to tax web purchases.
Because sales taxes do not exist to defray the cost of the infrastructure that supports the sale. Your premise is thus flawed.
Sales taxes are mostly used to support the quality of life of the purchaser. In fact, it has entirely to do with the purchaser's obligations, not the seller's. That's why sales tax is added to the final price.
The government just forces stores to collect the taxes and forward it on their behalf. Becuase voluntary compliance (ala mail orders) is often neglected. Same reason your employer has to forward monies to the IRS; to reduce the likelihood of cheating.
And my infrastructure pays for parks I enjoy, roads I use, schools which educate the people around me so that they don't all turn to street crime, police to deal with the ones who do, etc. Taxes buy me civilization. I'd rather not pocket a few more bucks in returning for living a life that is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
i wonder if amazon could turn around and place a "rhose island surcharge" on purchases made from rhode island to cover the expense. of course, this would upset consumers, which would create pressure to change the law. not sure if this is legal however.
And my infrastructure pays for parks I enjoy, roads I use, schools which educate the people around me so that they don't all turn to street crime, police to deal with the ones who do, etc. Taxes buy me civilization. I'd rather not pocket a few more bucks in returning for living a life that is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
You just outlined everything my property taxes pay for. Please feel free to outline what my sales tax gets me.
I have a solution for Amazon!
Price Everything at $0.01. Then adjust the shipping rate to make up the difference!
Of course, there is probably a law against that...
The Fed should just mandate a flat sales tax on all out-of-state sales, thus alleviating the burden of knowing tens of thousands of sales tax regions because of state, county, and district level taxes.
"The accumulated deficit will be between $20 Trillion and $25 Trillion by 2016 - everyone agrees it's not sustainable, and that taxes will have to rise."
Well, they could stop spending. They could start to consider that this massive govt. run health care (regardless of your views on it) is something we absolutely cannot afford right now. They could stop with the pork in bills.
So why are we already spending tons on health care? he average is at 4K per american right now. Higher than the supposedly expensive Canadian healthcare (which is at around 3K a person). You can't cut it both ways. You either accept that those with no insurance will be turn away and left to fend for them selves or you give basic coverage and reduce the paperwork and control the price inflation of health care.
Your property taxes pay for some of it. Your sales tax pays for more of it. The sales tax, like tolls, is used to cause visitors to pick up a portion of the cost of what they use, so it doesn't all fall on the residents.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
it isn't as simple as "add 6% to the price" sales tax verys not by just state but county and town and city and districts.. infact any governing body that can charge a tax could effect the cost of goods. and also it verys based on what the good is..
This is very true. Here in my home state of Minnesota, we've got a new set of sales tax rates going into effect tomorrow.
St. Paul (State, County/Transit, City): 7.625%
Minneapolis (State, County/Transit, City, Stadium) : 7.775%
Hennepin County (State, County/Transit, Stadium) : 7.275%
Washington County (State, County/Transit) : 7.125%
Ramsey County (State, County/Transit) : 7.125%
Dakota County (State, County/Transit) : 7.125%
Anoka County (State, County/Transit) : 7.125%
None of the above (State only) : 6.875%
Now multiply that by 50 states.
Qualitas edurus commercium, nullus penitus net rimor, nullus deus beneficium
That's all correct.
However, California and other states acted like the boom times would never end, and budgeted accordingly. Now that revenues have fallen to more realistic levels, they can't afford boom time spending. Instead of accepting this fact, they're trying to increase revenue.
It's a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
Really? Then what is my internet provider doing with the huge chunk of $ I throw their way every month, just for the privilege of being able to be online? Is none of that going towards maintaining and improving infrastructure?
You already pay a tax to maintain the information superhighway. It's called your monthly cable or DSL bill. Neither individual states nor the federal government actually have any cost incurred in maintaining any part of the internet - it's all done by private companies which are paid for their efforts. You pay your ISP, they pay their ISP, and so on.
Ahh, I see, a shotgun approach to tax collection. Another reason government spending should be reined in.
The only retailers that online sellers are putting out of business are smaller electronics and computers stores.
I gotta disagree with you there. I live in a very very progressive college town, and as of the last 5 years we no longer have any:
- book stores
- music stores
- video rental places
I think that a lot of people just don't care, but it definitely has a negative impact on my quality of life.
What the parent was trying to say was that in some states a "use tax" may apply whereby the purchaser living in that state is required to disclose the amount of tax that he would have paid, had he made the purchases in state, for out of state purchases made by mail order. Now in practice very few people actually voluntarily report any "use tax" but that is their responsibility and NOT Amazon's.
It has everything to do with states attempting to extend their reach beyond the Constitutional provisions of the Commerce Clause.
Hell, the Feds have been doing it for decades now... surprised it's taken the states this long to get in on the game.
The meek may inherit the earth, but the strong shall take the stars.
Having worked on ERP accounting systems, I can say that sales tax should always be calculated based on the ship-to address. That said, smaller accounting packages may not be set up to support taxation for all 50 states.
It's not just fifty because it's not just states. Counties and cities impose their own sales tax on some items but not on others. Which accounting package do you recommend for determining the tax rate for every good in every city of every county of every U.S. state?
Taxes are never levied for the benefit of the taxed. I live in Oregon (NO Sales Tax!) so I REFUSE to pay yours. I never voted for it (Taxation without representation ring a bell?) and my states has voted NO on sales tax NINE TIMES. Fix your deficit the way all of us do: Spend less. Too many state wastrels on the payroll? fire a few.
Then you should have any problem with this. After all, it's specifically about states who have sales tax asking Amazon to pay it when they sell stuff to people in those states. If your state doesn't have sales tax, it doesn't affect you at all.
The issue is really Amazon dodging any kind of sales tax whatsoever, while still doing business in the state.
You'll also more than likely find that UPS and FedEx have a physical presence in whatever state they deliver in. Even if they don't own the land that their physical presence is located on, the cost of their lease will most certainly factor in the property tax. So they pay property tax, they pay fuel taxes. The state is getting its funds.
Stop Global Warming!
Just say no to irreversible processes!
Wow. Those commercials really are working. You are aware that political commercials are rarely accurate. You really should try researching things yourself before spreading misinformation.
With the exception of a couple of unions, most California state workers are paid less than their city, county and private sector counterparts. And that was before the furlough program that effectively gave most state workers a 10% reduction in pay.
I find it interesting how many people are willing to hit a small group of people (who are already paid less than the norm) for 10-20% (there is talk of up to 2 more furlough days) so that they don't have to take a 0.5% hit.
There is definite bloat that can and should be trimmed from the state agencies, but I would also look closer at the special interests. They are scapegoating the unions to take attention away from themselves.
Consider the source of your information and notice how they don't actually provide details, just unverifiable generalities.
No we shouldn't. This would hurt states that highly depend on their sales tax. Florida is a good example. They manage to survive using only the sales tax. (Considering the state government here is pretty cheap to run). Since the state is a big tourist play ground, it makes sense. If you were to modify this up or down, it could affect how much revenue the state receives. A National VAT could be used to transfer "excess" in one state to less fortunate states. I don't like that idea at all.
Not true. I live in Oregon. We don't have sales tax. While you are free to question the wisdom of that approach (and our public school teachers and administrators would surely agree with any criticisms you have to offer), I don't pay sales tax to (e.g.) California when I buy something online there, and I am not legally required to pay use tax to Oregon for purchases made out of state.
I believe GP was explaining this in the context of a state that has sales tax. In a state that doesn't have one, it's fairly obvious that you don't get to pay it, whether it's bought online or not.
it's more like advertising I find. Should people clicking a google ad and buying things be required to pay taxes in the state where the original website resides?
And of course money from the feds. Which is why they can pressure states into passing laws they wouldn't otherwise pass. Don't want to pass a law lowering the legal drinking age? No money!
No, they couldn't. Legislature wouldn't have anywhere near the number of bills they currently pass.
Additionally, just think of all the Incumbents who'll be quaking in their boots come re-election day?
"Look how little he did to help YOU while he was in office?" (says their opponent from the OTHER party)
And even if the incumbent did a good job for the country, most voters would buy it and elect the person who promised them Bread and Circuses.
This space for rent. All reasonable inquiries will be entertained at proprietors discretion.
Are internet retailers using your sewer? You schools? Your police?
Last I checked, sales tax was not conditional on using sewers, schools or police.
You really want the states deciding they can tax based on a FREAKING LINK?!? Remember that story that broke a few days ago about some old newspaper people complaining about people linking to their sites? Guess what, every CFO in the country now has a valid and compelling reason to sue *anyone* who happens to link to *anything* on their site.. because you know, a link, that's enough to trigger the Nexus problem with the state those random people happen to live in. Your link to my site could cost me money when I suddenly get audited by your states tax man, because you posted a link to my site, thanks guy.
Yes yes, I know, "But affiliates make a small commission, blah blah".. they're contractors, outside vendors, nothing more. Last time I checked, the state of Georgia has a 4% sales tax, and "over 400 taxing jurisdictions" (their tax mans words, not mine).... the average "jurisdictional tax" is another 3-4%, but it varies. Based on this wonderful theory, almost every entity in the US needs to track/file/pay for any sales occuring in those 400 jurisdictions.... Why? UPS's headquarters is in Georgia.. find me a company that doesn't use UPS for anything at all... even if you don't use UPS to actually ship your product (because remember, this is the states trying to claim that Amazon has a nexus in their state, and taxing *all* sales in that state, not just the affiliate generated sales)... you use them, you pay them for a service, so hey, thats a nexus! Awesome for the state of Georgia, not so hot for everyone else.
The consumers/residents do pay taxes. FedEx has offices in all 50 states, they pay taxes. If I send a package to you by USPS or UPS or FedEx, should I pay more than the stamp or cost of the shipment?
And why exactly is this a problem?
- book stores
Regular book stores have high prices and generally poor selection. You also live in a college town, where students are dirt-cheap and poor. Here in barely-literate Phoenix, Arizona, the Barnes & Nobles stores at the malls seem to be doing just fine.
- music stores
Have you been living under a rock or something? Music stores are all going out of business because 1) new music sucks, 2) everyone's buying music online from Apple's iTunes store (something that can't even be done in a B&M store), and 3) the backwards people still buying CDs all buy them from Wal-Mart. Go ask Wal-Mart how their music business is doing, and if they're in danger of closing up shop. Probably not. Wal-Mart's been putting smaller retailers out of business for long, long before the internet became a threat.
Here in Phoenix, all the music shops have also closed, except for Zia which is a used record/CD store that has many branches and seems to be doing fine. And of course, Wal-Mart.
- video rental places
And this is a problem why? Netflix (especially with the "watch instantly" feature) is cheaper and far more convenient than Blockbuster. And don't say "places"; there's only one video rental "place" left, and it's Blockbuster, since they put everyone else out of business, before Netflix started killing them.
If you want to bemoan the death of small, interesting shops, then complain to all your fellow citizens who have patronized giant big-box B&M retailers like Wal-Mart and Blockbuster. While you're at it, you can spread some blame to the mom-n-pop retailers too for having terrible operating hours, not being open when regular people get off from work.
The internet didn't kill your precious B&M stores, and sales taxes most certainly have nothing to do with it. In fact, your precious B&M stores are mostly alive and well: they're called "Wal-Mart", "Best Buy", and other such names. Both these stores are doing well, have large CD selections, and people actually pay sales tax when they shop there! So what are you complaining about?
Fuel taxes don't pay for the cost of disposing of the packaging, they don't pay for the cost of recycling the end product,
No they don't. But the consumer's taxes and fees do.
The USPS is governed by its' own special set of laws. You can't simply apply laws that are specific to the US mail and apply them to other businesses.
Also, even if Amazon doesn't have a business presence in a certain state, the affiliate DOES. That's why Amazon is crapping 2x4s - the law is against the affiliates. Amazon also provides services to its' affiliates in each state, over and above having a business presence there by proxy. By not providing mechanisms for the collection and reporting of sales taxes for their affiliates, Amazon has become an enabler of tax avoidance and tax fraud. Hello, RICO!
As for NewEgg, aren't they selling direct, and not through affiliates, so the example doesn't apply?
So what, tax toilet paper for sewer maintenance? Pencils for schools? No, we have a variety of revenue sources that we try to balance to get something done. Part of the problem is that there's a very loud minority that doesn't believe we should invest in anything collectively anymore. If you want to look for the reason the U.S. is teetering on the edge, they're it.
People will still buy local for stuff they need NOW. Groceries, pet supplies, home goods, gas, car repair, etc. Other than that, go all mail order. Works for me. I really can't remember the last time I purchased a "retail good" (computer part, CD, book, magazine) in a B&M store.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Except for the sales tax you conveniently ignored.
When people start buying toilet paper from Amazon instead of Walmart/$localgrocer, I'll worry. Part of the problem is that there's a very loud minority who doesn't believe in keeping government spending in line with a reasonable amount of tax revenue (for example, see: California).
the option of letting people purchase out of state and duck paying sales tax
I'd just like to point out that the premise of your comment is incorrect. People doing mail order are still liable for state sales tax. It's just most of them choose to break the law and not report the sales tax since it is a self policing system.
Your contention that sales tax can be avoided is incorrect. Legally, it can not be avoided and you are supposed to claim it on your state tax returns.
You want to live in a city with no retail, and nothing but warehouses and UPS trucks?
It's not a matter of personal want. If that's what's demanded, then that's what gets supplied.
You should try to leave your basement every now and then.
<retort class="appropriate">Well, you're a poopyhead!</retort>
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Amazon is in no way responsible for use taxes for roads if it does not operate its own fleet.
Amazon is responsible because Amazon exists in and benefits from society. Amazon could not do business without all of the things we invest in collectively. Amazon is shirking its responsibility, as are the internet purchasers who don't pay their taxes.
That would mess up the plan of keeping a majority of the votes^H^H^H^H^Hpeople dependent on the government...
Just imagined what that'd be: a tax collector approaches, I grab my shotgun. Sounds fun!
Circumcision is child abuse.
Not everyone with a foreclosed house has a million-dollar house or lifestyle.
When the only houses you can buy in an area are in the ~400k-500k range (as things were near where I work for the past several years), you need to get a loan that size to live there. If, after doing so, your property is suddenly valued much lower (e.g., 250k), you're often likely to be foreclosed on. I know engineers who live frugally who still have encountered (or narrowly escaped) foreclosure.
Please try to exercise some empathy, and not assume that the reason for a foreclosure is irresponsible living. Many entered into mortgages on the belief that property values were mostly going to stay similar, or go up -- not halve in value. Who (aside from a very few) had ANY IDEA that the housing market was going to go as tits-up as it did?
That's all correct.
However, California and other states acted like the boom times would never end, and budgeted accordingly. Now that revenues have fallen to more realistic levels, they can't afford boom time spending. Instead of accepting this fact, they're trying to increase revenue.
It's a spending problem, not a revenue problem.
I'd say it is primarily a projection/estimation problem. If a state were able to say on October 1st (or whatever day they start their fiscal year), we have X dollars to spend this year and divide that up among their budget needs, then we would have a much better budget system. Instead they have to say, we think we will have X dollars in 2 years and then divide that up among their future budget estimates. Then when they have less than X dollars in 2 years they have to fight over budget shortfall issues.
It wasn't a spending problem until the revenue estimations were incorrect. You could argue that states collect and control too much revenue, but that is an entirely different argument.
Never mind that many states, California included, pay more to the federal government than they receive in benefits, while other states receive more than they pay. The Fed has too much power via the purse strings and the South has been living off the riches of the rest of the country for far too long... http://www.nemw.org/taxburd.htm
Corporate taxes are bullshit, plain and simple. They are nothing more than a ruse to get the gullible public to go along with MORE taxes.
Corporations are owned by people. They are just like a bike or a house. They are an asset. And when you sell them -- you must pay taxes on your capital gain (if applicable). You also have to pay taxes on any dividend the corporation pays you as the owner (taxes are paid as part of your income tax). All of this is already part of the US tax code.
Someone please explain how ANY kind of tax on corporate profits IS NOT double taxation? I don't pay a "use" tax on my bike once I have bought and paid for it. Yet, we demand a tax from corporate profits, even though all monies will eventually get to the owners and they will be taxed on that money.
For some reason, we act like corporations are somekind of special entities. They are not. ALL of them are owned by someone(s). No exceptions. All of the money, value, and assets of a corporation are already accounted for inside of an individual's personal finances.
You see, you don't see the big picture. You are arguing purely with the US governments system. I on the other hand am arguing for governments in general. What is the point of government? To maintain order. People established and went with small tribal governments to protect people as a whole. It was a compromise, people allowed some basic rights to be violated in order to have stability and order. However, over time their rights were violated too many times so they decided to make a limited government. Part of having a free government is that the government should have no more control over its people save to have order. The government should not deserve my hard earned money unless they do something for it. Otherwise the government is either tyranny or is a thief.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
They're trying to confuse you with facts. Don't listen! Keep arguing!
The delivery person drove on government roads to get to you. Etc Etc
...And so the answer would be to charge taxes for shipping and handling (and I think that they already do that) not on the good itself.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
So... correct me if I'm wrong here...
1- Taxes should be payed on a sale made in a state with sales tax
2- You don't think that a citizen of X should pay Y's sales tax
3- And technically (at least for the states I know), if you buy something out of state you're supposed to file a 'usage tax', essentially paying your state the sales tax that you owe it
thus
4- Amazon should be paying sales tax to the *customers'* states, not the vendors' states.
Am I way off base here?
-b
No offense, but I've stopped responding to AC's.
People are being "short-sighted and selfish" now, because they're shrewd enough to try to find the best deal? Sales tax can make a pretty big difference in the total price of a product, when you're buying something substantial! Take a new Apple notebook computer purchase, for example. Sales tax on your typical Macbook Pro is going to add roughly $200 to its price. That's not just "chump change"....
The Internet has been putting the hurt on brick and mortar retailers for at least a decade now,and sales tax is NOT really a major factor. If you're a retailer, you better have a BUSINESS MODEL that justifies all that overhead! It's not enough to simply sell a line-up of products you think the public wants to buy. You need to offer superior customer service and add value to each purchase. One of the big reasons I still buy items locally is the ability to quickly and easily do an exchange or a return, if needed. (EG. I tried to buy a replacement DVD-RW burner driver for a guy's Dell PC not long ago, to fix one he had where his drive tray was broken. He wasn't too computer savvy and didn't give me enough information to know for sure whether the system used EIDE or SATA for the burner. I took an educated guess it needed EIDE and purchased that type of drive at a local Best Buy. Turned out it needed SATA after all, when I got to his house. So thankfully, it only took another 15 mins. to drive back and exchange it for the right type of drive.)
With many local shops getting stingy on return policies though? They just drive me to the Internet, since that's their only "saving grace" worth paying a premium for, in my book.
Cost is a BIG factor in people's purchasing decisions, but not the ONLY one. They're trying to determine an overall VALUE equation. My experience is, FAR too many brick and mortar stores sit back and complain about online and mail order competition, without really thinking about why they're losing out on sales to them all the time.
Interesting points you all have made here, I've learned a lot. So the sales tax is supplement to the property tax to pick up the cost of quality of life the government provides for its residents. This supplement tab is partially picked up by visitors so that the residents to pay less. It sounds to me that this supplemental tax has absolutely nothing to do with actual sales. It can be applied as illogical and unrelated as drinking milkshakes as long as drinking milkshakes can be organized and accounted for by the government via other entities. Apart from the argument of this highly precise bill we have to pay, there is nothing logical about the ways you obtain funding for this bill. Is this why you keep pay taxes on the same car every time it exchanges hands from one owner to the next? It just a clear cut opportunity to demand payment for government spending for your benefit. Now only if government was as honest, just, efficient and accurate with their finances as these hypothetical arguments make them out to be. Nothing is more dangerous than an idle person with authority!
So if it were a republican legislature, brick and mortar would be able to compete w. Amazon? - (just joking).
California has over-spent during the good times, no question about it. Prop 13 is a part (only a part) of the problem, because Cali schools went from some of the finest to the worst because of chronic under-funding. Sacramento kept on spending, riding the bubble just like almost everyone else, and is now teetering on bankruptcy - and the Feds have said they won't bail them out. There's simply not enough money for every bail-out.
Health care won't get fixed - no money, no candy-stripers. Bail-outs sucked the well dry, and Obama blew it, throwing good money after bad instead of following Econ 101 and letting the market clear out the bad debts via bankruptcies and re-orgs, and supported people through the transition to new jobs, not this massive corporate welfare that has changed America into the largest corporate-welfare state in the world. Much as I hate to admit it, Bush had it right - no bailout for GM. (he had it wrong bailing out the banks - they should have been temporarily nationalized as they failed, instead of rewarding incompetence and greed and penalizing those with more acumen).
Oh, that poor, exploited upper 10%. Woe is to them. Why should they have to pay 90% (probably an overestimate) of the taxes just because they control 90% (probably an underestimate) of the wealth?
--Jeremy
Jesus was a liberal
Which are already paid for in shipping/transport taxes. Its included in the shipping fees you pay. If a truck is over weight and caught, they also pay a fine to cover the yet additional wear-n-tear on the highway.
Besides, when you purchase something in a brick and mortar store, those same goods had to be delivered to the store. It sounds like you are now suggesting retailers should now both a transport tax, in each state it travels through, and a tax on good from the origin warehouse, plus tax when the goods are actually sold.
In short, all taxes have already been paid. Internet tax does not make sense unless it ships from the same state in which it was sold. Otherwise, states and the feds begin to double, triple, and and even quadruple dip into all of our wallets and coffers.
And I suppose the person with 50k in credit card debt and a house in foreclosure is also in that situation because they can't raise enough income?
Half of all bankruptcies involve medical bills. In countries without universal health care, not every citizen can afford the recent drugs, surgery, etc. to keep him alive and working.
Greetings and salutations....
This "supplemental" tax picture you have is right on the money. here in Tennessee, for example, we have an "Entertainment tax" of about 15% that is levied on movie theaters, restaurants, bars, etc. It is not listed ANYWHERE in the bill, but it is there in the total. Since a big chunk of income for the state comes from tourists, it was another way for the cash addicts in the government to feed their habit off folks that had no power and were not likely to complain.
Cash to a politician is like crack to an addict.
Oh yea...Tn is not alone in these cute tricks....EVERY state that has a large tourist income does the same thing.
regards
dave mundt
YAB - http://blog.beemandave.com/
The avoidance of which taxes this is an attempt at stopping.
Well, from everything I'm seeing and hearing now...this current govt. healthcare thing will cost aobut $1Trillion additional money, and still leave about 35 million people uncovered.
How about just starting with regulating that insurance companies can't deny you for pre-existing conditions. How about broadening the HSA (Health Savings Account) to be more flexible and allow more citizens to save MORE of their own money pre-tax for their routine health needs, and only need insurance for catastrophic needs?
I did that for awhile and it was great. Why should people not budget for routine health needs like they budget for other things in life (food, shelter, etc)? Hell, when I was doing that and told Dr. and labs I had work (even an MRI) I was paying on my own, they gave me at least a 15% discount right on the spot.
I found that I could shop around for Dr. and what all for best price and service. That puts true competition back into the system...that would lower costs, it also cuts out the bean counters and other middlemen.
Trouble is...that wouldn't allow the govt. to have a heavy hand in the midst of it all, and with the current govt...that isn't a goal of their apparently.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
No, I want states to tax based on where the fact that the product is shipped to a consumer in that state. Period. None of this UPS slippery slope crap. None of this "it passed through contiguous states" slippery slope crap. There is one recipient for a good. Let the state where that person recieves it get the sales tax at whatever rate it normally charges.
Let the federal government appoint one company to manage it all for a small cut of the fees, to make processing a fixed cost if you don't want to roll your own. Problem solved.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Hawaii is now banned also.
I think the problem is that when I, an Oregon resident (no sales tax) purchase something from an amazon affiliate in RI. Why should I or Amazon be required to pay sales tax to state when I have zero use for that state's publicly funded infrastructure. And you can't talk about wear on the roads or use of digital infrastructure because that is paid for by shipping charges and isp charges respectively.
This seems more like a money grab than anything else. Why should the internet be a magical source of unearned tax revenue?
How do you avoid paying your garbage bill? The GP was complaining about disposal costs. Those are already covered by the consumer.
Amazon dosn't pay sales tax on items you buy from them in thier home state unless it is a state where they have a nexus.
Wow, I must have missed where "nexus" was defined in the Constitution. Don't get me wrong, I believe all sales taxes should be abolished in favor or progressive income taxes -- but to make such distinctions is asinine. Why should Amazon's board be able to decide which state is and is not a "nexus", and then deign to follow those laws that they choose? Amazon uses Idaho for gift certificate sales because it is one of the few states that allow the proceeds to return to the company when the expiration date passes. They are picking and choosing the local laws that they want to follow; but then they cry and take their toys home when others play the same game.
Amazon should charge sales tax on those states that pass these laws. The fight is between the citizens of those states and their publicly elected governments, not between Amazon and the government.
This has everything to do with the commerce clause. The states are flirting with the fringes of it, and Amazon is playing it for their benefit. If you really don't think it is, then go ahead and try to buy a big-ticket item (such as a car) from a neighboring state and then bring it home and register it...
The wheel is turning, but the hamster is dead.
I agree with the problem (although for different reasons... I would say because no sale occured in RI. Obviously no one objects to the affiliate paying income tax).
However, I was replying to an anti-"tax on internet sales, period" thread. So please understand my comment in that light.
Sales tax is not to defray infrastructure costs associated with the seller. It's to defray what the infrastructure the reciever uses, often in non-sales venues. Roads, schools, etc. But I agree that Portland has choosen to fund those some other way, and RI should not try to grab money.
I think the law was overreaching because they were struggling to get some amount of the cash RI residents spend on the internet. I think it was a valid goal, accomplished poorly, in large part due to it being an issue the federal government ought, but has not, handle.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Amazon started litigation to fight the New York tax that is ongoing. By refusing to do business there, they would lose the legal case because they would be admitting the tax is legal.
They are taking the position they have in other States, partly because the States are smaller, and partly because they would be forced into more litigation over the same issues they are fighting in New York. I would bet their lawyers believe they will eventually win in SCOTUS and then they will restore their old practices.
But, in March of this year, SCOTUS refused to hear a case from New Mexico involving Dell. The New Mexico Court of Appeals ruled in that case that Dell's use of contractors to provide Warranty Support was enough of a nexus to require Dell to collect New Mexico Sales Tax.
Governments could generate $3 billion in new revenues if Web retailers had to collect taxes on all sales to consumers, according to Forrester Research ( FORR - news - people ).
A tax grab - now? People are really struggling to avoid defaulting on their credit cards, so lets get $3 billion more in taxes out of them. Because it... makes... so much... sense......
In Michigan (my state), if you order a $2,000 item and fail to report the purchase and pay 6% use tax on it, you are evading taxes, which may work out okay year to year but probably isn't the best idea in the world.
For items less than $1,000, there is an option to pay a fixed amount based on AGI, rather than 6% on each item.
So to some extent, by calling tax evasion 'the best deal' you are making GP posters point for him.
Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
And my infrastructure pays for parks I enjoy, roads I use, schools which educate the people around me so that they don't all turn to street crime, police to deal with the ones who do, etc. Taxes buy me civilization.
I don't believe that is true, at least not according to this:
http://senseofevents.blogspot.com/2009/06/duty-of-wealthy-is-to-be-robbed-by.html
Granted, its a 25 year old study, but I don't imagine the situation has improved.
I HAVE CUBIC WISDOM THAT TRANSCENDS AND CONTRADICTS ONE DAY GODS
ONLY should that even be considered, if they FIRST drop the income taxes. No need for both of them!!!
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Well, not quite. Link below for the State of Minnesota's use tax form, which states that any sales tax paid in another state can be deducted from the amount that should be reported to Minnesota. Not a "reimbursement" but the net effect (to the taxpayer) is the same. Maryland does the same thing with their use tax.
MN Use Tax
Is not about taxing the items that are sold (as you are already supposed to report these on your state tax filing) but Amazon would be required to tax money it pays out to affiliates. This is a double taxation! Amazon is already required to pay any business tax on itself and the affiliate that receives money from Amazon needs to report this as income (to be taxed).
There is a business in Asheville NC that derives approximately 2/3rd's of its income from Amazon affiliate sales. Now the NC legislature wants them to be taxed on it once when the payment is actually made and again when they pay income tax? As a result the business is closing up shop in NC and moving to another state. Way to go NC! No not only are they not going to get the affiliate tax money their greedy little hands so desired, they will also be missing out on the income tax the owners paid, the other local businesses that supported the moving business will be hurt (more lost tax revenue), shops and restaurants they ate at, etc... the list goes on and on and on. Our governor actually was saying how this was such a good thing (the tax) and it was a way to "make up" the budget deficit. What an idiot.
"it could just be the midgets. You've got to be careful with midgets in Spandex." --Jamie Richardson
Chances are you can pick up an unencrypted wifi signal from MA or CT!
I have noticed that Amazon TV prices match Best Buy. Who are these affiliates? When I order from Amazon is Best Buy the actual shipper affiliate?
Why should I pay tax to my state for using my goods which I purchased from another state? If I buy my liquor in MA, I pay the purchase price, plus 6.25% sales tax, plus another $4.05/proof gallon. If I buy it in NH, I pay slightly more than actual cost, with all profit going to the state of NH. So what sense does it make that I buy it in NH, bring it back home to MA, I have to pay taxes to MA for that? For what reason?
P.S., my captcha was "evasion"
"I'm not sure about that. I thought there was something about the equivalent of "trade" vs. sales? Sort of like craigslist? I didn't think those sorts of "sales" counted as a sale, and thus didn't have to be reported for tax by the use tax."
Well, I can't comment on the other 49, but here in Washington State, one of the descriptions of use tax is, "Goods are purchased from someone who is not authorized to collect sales tax. For example, purchases of furniture from an individual through a newspaper classified ad or a purchase of artwork from an individual collector", (emphasis mine).
Citation here.
There are other differences from a 'regular' sales tax, (the rate, the location of the sale, etc.), but let's be clear; the state definitely wants their slice of every pie imaginable.
"Michael, I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing - and it was everything that I thought it could be."
If a resident of Maryland physically goes to Pennsylvania and buys something, the sales tax on the transaction is owed to Pennsylvania. There is no reimbursement, even if Maryland also demands a "use tax" on the item.
If I go to Washington state to buy something and show them my Oregon Driver's License, then they don't charge me sales tax for anything that will be consumed in Oregon, which has no sales tax. (Restaurant meals and hotels rooms are consumed in Washington, so they are still taxed.) So at least as far as Washington state's interpretation of the law, it matters not where I buy it; the sales tax is a tax on in-state consumption of a product. Likewise, if I am a resident of Washington and buy something in Oregon to take home, then I am legally obliged to pay Washington state sales tax on it even though in practice this is unenforceable and nobody does (the highest grossing Safeway store in the world is located on the south end of the interstate bridge between Washington and Oregon. I have a strong suspicion that not all the people shopping there are from Oregon. In fact, there are mostly Washington plates in the parking lot.)
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The special status of the Post Office was not at issue in the mail order case.
Which means the affiliate is responsible for collecting sales tax on anything the affiliate sells.
"Tax avoidance" isn't even illegal -- it refers to structuring your business so as to owe a minimum of tax. And Amazon isn't responsible for providing the mechanism for collection and reporting of sales tax for their affiliates. They couldn't even if they wanted to; the affiliates are independent businesses, not subsidiaries.
Governments provide services. Those receiving the services must be taxed to pay for those services. If you purchase something from a company without operations in your state, then the company should not be taxed, as they have received no services from your state. However, you DO receive services from your state, and you CAN be taxed. This amounts to a luxury tax on all purchases made by residents of your state. The only question is, does your state or local government have any right to force an external entity to collect it's luxury taxes for it? Amazon's response to this question is See figure 1
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
I mean once the wealthy 10% pay at least the same tax rate as the middle class. Right now they pay a much lower effective rate. They should be paying a higher rate than everyone else because they benefit most from what we produce from taxes.
And remember, the top income tax rtate in the U.S. was as high as 94% at one time and stayed at 91% for a good long while. The wealthy are severely undertaxed. Why else do you think the wealth gap is growing out of control?
And by taking away affiliate income, it is reducing the taxes paid to the state. You'd think after the first state tried this and got slapped back into its place by Amazon dropping the entire state's affiliates, no other state would be stupid enough to try it. I shudder to think what this says about the governments of Rhode Island or Hawaii.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
Your comment would be funny if the Internet were a big truck that you could just dump stuff on, but it's not. Sheesh, I thought everyone knew that.
Now if you'll excuse me, someone sent me an Internet yesterday, and I need to find out why I still haven't received it. I bet it got tangled up in all those commercial Internets that keep clogging up the tubes.
Just once I'd like someone to call me 'Sir' without adding 'You're making a scene.'
Amazon decides just like any other business by having a presence in that state. Company decide to base in a given state for many different reasons.
Is buying a Harley Davidson as your first motorcycle since you were 16 at age 49 a midlife crisis issue?
What nonsense. You will never be foreclosed on if you're making your mortgage payments. What ever gave you the idea that a house could be forclosed because it's theoretical resale value fell?
There is *no overlap* between "living frugally" and "house you can't afford". House prices here are stupid so I *rent*. Fuck all the assholes too proud to rent.
The only possible reasons for forclosure are "irresponsible living" and "two disasters" (merely losing your job or unexpeced medical expenses are no excuse, only both at the same time). BTW, I knew the housing bubble would pop. Everyone rational who had bothered to compare house prices to historical trends knew the housing bubble would pop. Only people with a near-religious belief that "house prices only go up" were blind to the obvious.
Nothing but pathetic excuses for irresponsible lifestyles.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
So if it were a republican legislature, brick and mortar would be able to compete w. Amazon? - (just joking).
When this is true, I'll vote Republican. I can remember when the Republican party was the party of fiscal conservatism, but that seems like such a long time ago. Now is seems the choice is between censorship of porn and censorship of violent video games, with no actual difference on issues of substance.
Eventually, California will be *forced* to cut spending, but it will be the very last thing they try.
As horrifically bad as the bail out and spendulus is, it's nothing compared to the $45 trillion in unfunded Medicare liability. Eventually America will be forced to cut healthcare spending, but we have some *extreme* denial to work through first!
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
State revenues have fallen through the floor. California how has the worst credit record around, and on July 2nd will start issuing IOUs instead of cutting cheques, because they're out of money.
They have to do this because lenders won't take California IOUs (bonds) because California can't raise taxes enough, thanks to Proposition 13.
Cry me a river. California can eat my poo. So can the federal government. Spend less money.
Good luck monitoring a data packet with GPS, not that the politicians haven't probably already tried to.
Whenever I speak about futzing with taxes I presume a revenue neutral policy. If the Government requires more money, there is already a method in place for raising taxes, and using some sneaky back door tax policy is certainly not the way to go.
In this case, with a goal of harmonizing states sales taxes and NOT increasing revenue for a given GDP, I was thinking that a national VAT would replace state sales taxes and the bulk of revenue returning to the states anyway.
I wouldn't support a broad replacement of income tax with sales tax because of the highly regressive nature of sales taxes.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
That sales tax is an ineffective way to fund your government in this day and age.
Then the government needs to fix its tax structure, not try to charge us more sales tax.
It's simple: fuel tax pays for roads. If it's not enough, then raise the fuel tax. Instead of hobbling the economy by taxing everyone for purchases, it would make a lot more sense to tax road users for their use of the road, and let that cost be passed on as appropriate (i.e., someone shipping lots of heavy stuff will be forced to raise prices, whereas someone selling digital goods won't).
Good luck monitoring a data packet with GPS, not that the politicians haven't probably already tried to.
I think if we sold the government a list of buzzwords and told them they had real value, perhaps they'd be willing to invest in...
Oh, wait...
Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
If you barter you are STILL required to pay tax on the value of the barter. (i don't know the details and have don't know anyone that has done this)
But you can see why they'd do this.
Oh please - we spend more on healthcare through our private option than any other country on earth spends through their government run option - with worse results. That monthly 300-700$ (or more!) taken out of your paycheck for your HMO isn't called a tax, but if it were people would be a lot more pissed about the service they get than they are now.
If you want to start saving money in government stop giving away more tax breaks to corps than you take in from taxes from them, get rid of corporate minimum income tax and stop our run-away military budget (28%!). Under TARP - they managed to give away 2.7 billion dollars of benefits to Captian Morgan - yeah that really helps our economy.
One thing the military could do is start closing the huge amounts of bases they have all over the world - read Howard Zinn's book "A people's history of the United States" to get a perspective on how many bases we are talking about here - it really does border on crazy.
Well no. You'd tax property for sewer maintenance. Its difficult to use sewers without having a connection to them. So hotels would pay them, and the out of state residents staying in them would provide the revenues to service the tax liability.
You should be very careful about making an argument based on "paying fair shares" of tax burdens. Given that some states pay out to the federal government more than they receive in benefits is.. paying more than their fair share. I'm pretty sure that even in those states, there are counties which pay out more (to both state and federal levels) than they receive. Again..
If we are all paying our "fair share" of tax burdens that we create, we wouldn't need a system of taxation. Governments would be able to survive on fees alone, since we're all bearing our fair share of the tax burden. Not to mention that the laws passed in NC and RI have nothing to do with shifting burdens from those who bear it to those who deserve to bear it. The buyer need not be in NC or RI, yet these laws would impose those states' sales taxes on people who do not reside in, nor will be shipping to, those states just because the referrer is in those states.
I don't expect morality, equality, consistency, or justice from the law. I expect only legality.
One of the big reasons I still buy items locally is the ability to quickly and easily do an exchange or a return, if needed.
My wife and I tried that a while ago. She wanted a new laptop, and didn't want to wait for mail-order, and wanted to be able to return it if there was a problem. So, we went to Best Buy. What a mistake that was. I'll spare you the long-winded version of the story, but there was a problem and we had a lot of trouble getting them to take the laptop back without charging some stupid "software clean-up" fee (so they could sell it to someone else) even though the machine was defective. We then got a laptop much cheaper on Newegg.com. While the price premium might have been worth it for easy returns, Best Buy's return policy is horrible, and there's not a lot of other places to buy computers locally, so online is the only thing that makes sense.
On the bright side, however, I've now convinced my wife that Best Buy is horrible and must be avoided at all costs.
True, darned thing gets stuck in the tubes.
Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
Isn't this whole thing something less like buying from a brick and mortar store in RI, and more like seeing a billboard in RI that urges you to go to NJ or CO and buy a product there (and when you tell them you bought it because you saw their billboard in RI, the guys in RI get a little incentive for putting it up)?
How does an "affiliate" link translate to a brick-and-mortar purchase?
Not true at all. First, every order comes with a billing and ship to address. so much for not knowing where orders come from. Second, sales tax rates have increased in some jurisdictions, but mostly about 1%. The last one sounds good, but has little basis in fact because eCommerce businesses were mail order and were protected by the commerce clause.
This isn't about fair share. It's about preventing tariffs between the states.
-- $G
No, Amazon should act as a tax collection agent in the stat they are located in (employees or property). No other state should have the power to force them to act as tax collection agents for their state, too.
-- $G
This study was before Countrywide asked for a loan and ended up crashing the entire world economy in the Great Reality Check. It does lend us a window into seeing an alternate reality where the healthcare crisis caused micro-recessions.
I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
If I'm not mistaken, that's exactly what the GP was saying.
lol, that's easy.
Someone else mentioned their state had 400 tax codes.
WA has about 366 ( i think they added a couple lately).
now hold those numbers.....
That is not the worst part tho. Not every state taxes the same items.
WA does not tax food...ID does. ID does not tax crutches...but WA does!
Not every item that is 'non-taxable' is always non-taxable.
Syringes are non-taxable....unless you are giving your cat insulin injections in which they should be taxed.
Now add in the dozens/hundreds of such exemptions and rules for each state......
NOW you can multiply it all out !
(i had over 1100 choices for the customer tax code just to do the above for WA and ID(and ID only has like 3 zones not 300-400!))
We can simplify Internet taxes same as I have done for several years, complete no order with sales tax. Always I find same product without sales tax @ lower price thru other store.
Who the hell pays THAT much??
Maybe a private policy on a high risk person, but, at work..never paid much more than like $40-$6/mo for full coverage....
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
This reminds me of the WSJ "Missing Millionaires" article
It's true no man is an island, but if you take a bunch of dead guys and tie 'em together, they make a good raft.
Now that is a true statement.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
Why would I or Amazon have to pay taxes twice or more for something?
Do you know how much superhighways take to maintain? The Internet is the information superhighway, so the taxes go to pay for travel on it.
I already pay to maintain the internet infrastructure, when I pay my ISP.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
That is what the Federal tax on fuel is supposed to pay for.
Federal, state, and maybe local fuel taxes.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The federal fuel tax doesn't come close to paying for road transportation.
That's why fuel taxes should be raised. The tax on fuel should cover the cost of building and maintaining roads. And the more your drive the more you should pay. Now this presents a problem with more fuel efficient vehicles. But a way to solve that is by taxing mileage, miles driven. The first tyme a vehicle is registered the odometer is read. The following year it is read again and the owner is charged a fee based on how many miles they drove. The only problem I see with this is that people may not have an idea of how much they will owe, in which case people may be able to check mileage and pay monthly.
Third, the feds don't even pay for all of the maintenance on U.S. highways and interstates. Your state is paying for some of that too.
And states have their own fuel tax. In New York the total fuel tax including local, state, and federal is 59.7 and in Georgia it's 30.8 cents per gallon.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I believe all sales taxes should be abolished in favor or progressive income taxes
And I believe just the opposite. The federal income tax should be abolished, then the size of the federal government cut back to it's Constitutional limits. Once that's done if user fees aren't enough them have a federal sales tax. People should not be taxed for their hard work, just for what they buy and or use and the pollution they create.
Amazon should charge sales tax on those states that pass these laws.
Why should Amazon or any other business pay sales tax to a state they do not operate in? They shouldn't period!!!
The fight is between the citizens of those states and their publicly elected governments, not between Amazon and the government.
This is as it should be between Amazon and those states who would require Amazon to collect taxes for goods sold to residents of those states. Those states are demanding Amazon spent more money to collect and distribute taxes. And the US Supreme Court has already told states they could not do that to a business that was not located in those states that want collect sales taxes from businesses that are not located in the state.
This has everything to do with the commerce clause.
That's right, these states are trying to get around the commerce clause of the Constitution of the USA. And they should not be allowed to. Now if the federal government had stayed within the limits put on it by the Constitution or is forced to then it got rid of or lowered income taxes then states could raise their own taxes to pay their own needs.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I fail to see the distinction between paying sales tax on goods purchased at Amazon and goods purchased in a local Walmart
Except the US Supreme Court has already ruled states can not force out of state businesses to collect sales tax on goods sold to residents of that state, as it interferes with the commerce clause of the Constitution of the USA.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Sales tax is not to defray infrastructure costs associated with the seller. It's to defray what the infrastructure the reciever uses, often in non-sales venues. Roads, schools, etc. But I agree that Portland has choosen to fund those some other way, and RI should not try to grab money.
Roads should be paid for by a tax on fuel, the more you drive and use the roads the more you pay. Schools, and fire and police, should be paid for with property taxes.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Taxation _always_ hurts the economy whatever its source. My question is: Is the service paid for by the tax worth the damage it causes? The problem is the economic damage is not so readily apparent. It's a more diffuse kind of trouble -- like a slow leak in the GDP. (Or not so slow more recently). It is a rare thing indeed to find good value in government.
my infrastructure pays for parks I enjoy, roads I use, schools which educate the people around me so that they don't all turn to street crime, police to deal with the ones who do, etc.
Fuel tax should pay for roads. Property taxes should pay for schools, fire, parks, and police.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I'd rather a sales tax or VAT, as well as usage and pollution taxes rather than an income tax.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I was thinking that a national VAT would replace state sales taxes and the bulk of revenue returning to the states anyway.
For many purchases this increases the cost of collecting and distributing taxes. There is no reason a state should tax purchases made that are from businesses that do not have a presence in that state.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
We did. And then Bush took office and fucked everything up, again. Finally, we have a Democrat that is our only chance at a balanced budget.
--
$tar -xvf
I wouldn't support a broad replacement of income tax with sales tax because of the highly regressive nature of sales taxes.
Oh, I left something out in my previous reply. Sales taxes are not regressive if clothing, food, medicine and other things that are needed for life are not taxed. A sales tax is actually fair because the more you spend the more you pay in tax. On the other hand by taxing income you're taxing work, and many people work hard to make the money they earn. This discourages work.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
... thanks to Proposition 13.
Prop 13, my ass. The problem is waste and graft. Why the fuck are my taxes going to subsidize the California wine industry's advertising costs in Europe? Let the fucking vintners pay their own way. If they can't compete without their hand in my pocket, plow their shit under and build something else. Quit providing central valley farmers with water at rates below the cost of delivery, while they stand there leaning against the fence "offering" to sell the water to the cities "at market rates".
Absolutely fuck that shit -- they get the water cheap for the benefit of the state so that food can be produce cheaply. If they can't do that, while using current technology to minimize usage of water, then piss on them -- strip them of their "water rights" if they can't use the water for the intended purpose. It's not their goddamned commodity to parcel out as they see fit.
Then let's look at the practice of giving state legislators TWO cars of their choice (not mandated Chevys) PLUS gas cards that are basically unaudited. For Christ's sake, you know damned well the car at home is being used for family use at the same time as the one in the capital is pissing around up there. Many with full-time drivers sitting around with their fingers up their asses waiting for the royal one to call for a ride.
No, no -- let's not look at any of that shit -- let's close libraries and parks because "they can't pay their own way". Let's close an emergency room instead. Let's cut back any services except those used by the bastards at the top.
"Why else do you think the wealth gap is growing out of control?"
Ok, I'll bite on this.
I know lots of very wealthy people and also very poor people.
The wealthy people I know are motivated and make good decisions.
The poor people I know make bad decisions and don't take responsibility for their condition.
I'm sure there are exceptions on both ends but this applies to the people I know.
So let's not pretend that some kind of magic causes one or the other.
I think the attitude of "We should try to keep *things* cheap" has done a lot to destroy a lot of what was nice about the United States. I'd rather to see things cost a little as rational but not so little we're driving small businesses & communities to bankruptcy and supporting a permanent underclass.
And how does keeping "things" cheap destroy "a lot of what was nice about the United States"? No, what's destroying the US is government!!! And how does it drive small businesses out of business? Oh, you must mean Amazon sprang full grown out of the ground and didn't start as a small business. I knew someone who ran a small book store out of a converted house, then she opened an online store as well. After a couple of years she sold the brick and mortar store to someone else because it cost her more yet she made more online. Now by forcing these small online stores to collect the sales tax from different states you're adding to their cost which can drive them out of business.
I myself want to start an online business, as a photographer, and I do not want to pay the extra cost of collecting sales tax from every state I sell photos to residents of. Paying tax for what I sell instate is one thing but having to collect and pay taxes to other states is bad and there is no reason I should have to.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
if you order from an affiliate in your sate - it is the same as a brick and mortor store in the state - when you look at the affiliate. when you look at Amazon .. they are a supplier or the affiliate - and there for the fact that the Affiliate is purchacing it from Amazon for resell means
Affiliates are not buying from Amazon then selling to other buyers. When someone clicks on an affiliates link that link goes to Amazon. All the affiliate is doing is providing that link. Amazon itself takes the order and fulfills it. It then gives or credits money to the affiliate. Look at one of slashodt's affiliate links, for the book A Practical Guide to Ubuntu Linux 2nd ed." Down at the bottom of the review you'll see a link to Amazon with slashdot as part of the url:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/0137003889/ref=nosim/?tag=slashdot0c-20.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
"Everyone" agrees that it's not sustainable. However, raising taxes is not the only way to reduce or eliminate the deficit. They need to STOP. SPENDING. MONEY.
Hello little man. I will destroy you!
Consumption taxes help pay for your local schools, etc
Sales tax should not be paying for schools, property tax should. It should also pay for fire and police. And fuel tax should pay for roads.
The "tax holiday" was supposed to be temporary
There is no "tax holiday". And buyers are paying taxes. When I've bought online from Amazon part of the price I paid was for shipment, which goes to the shipper. The shipper pays fuel tax when it buys fuel. For downloads buyers also pay. Buyers pay directly for their net access, which the ISP then uses to pay it's own expenses. Sellers also pays for their connection. There is no free lunch.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Fuel taxes don't pay for the cost of disposing of the packaging, they don't pay for the cost of recycling the end product
No those who dispose and recycle pay. I have to pay for garbage collection as well as recycling, when I used to be paid to recycle.
Look at the bond issues your local government has to make when they put streets in place - and which residents have to pay for through their municipal taxes.
Those streets should be paid for with fuel tax. If the tax doesn't cover it then raise the tax. Those who use the roads more pay more then, er at least until they buy more fuel efficient vehicles. But when everyone is driving more fuel efficient vehicles then they can be taxed on their mileage.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
The issue is really Amazon dodging any kind of sales tax whatsoever, while still doing business in the state.
Amazon is not dodging taxes if Amazon does not have a presence in the state. And being online does not create that presence.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
State revenues have fallen through the floor. California how has the worst credit record around, and on July 2nd will start issuing IOUs instead of cutting cheques, because they're out of money.
Maybe then California has to cut spending. I know when my income was cut I had to cut spending, and so should governments.
everyone agrees it's not sustainable, and that taxes will have to rise.
No, not everyone agrees taxes have to rise, many say spending has to be cut. Heck even taxpayers know this. When the government gave tax refunds last year, most people used it not to buy more but to pay off some of their debt.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Half of all bankruptcies involve medical bills. In countries without universal health care, not every citizen can afford the recent drugs, surgery, etc. to keep him alive and working.
Health or medical care costs so much because we do not have a free market in it. There is no free market in health insurance nor is there in medical practice. Nor drugs.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
So why are we already spending tons on health care?
Because we don't have a free market in health care.
Higher than the supposedly expensive Canadian healthcare (which is at around 3K a person).
Yet we have Canadians who can afford to to come to the US to get health care, including surgery. Medical care in Canada is rationed.
The reason health, medical, care is so expensive in the US is because we do not have a free market in medicine.
You either accept that those with no insurance will be turn away and left to fend for them selves or you give basic coverage and reduce the paperwork and control the price inflation of health care.
Making the market in medicine freer will drive costs down. Then for those who still can not afford insurance have the policy issuers contribute to a fund that will cover them. A non-profit like Blue Cross and Blue Shield can run the fund. With a million people looking for private insurance policy issuers will be doing what they can to lower premium costs, as well as different types of policies. A family of four or a single person may only want catastrophic coverage but have Health Savings Accounts for ordinary medical expenses while others may want insurance that covers everything.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
I can remember when the Republican party was the party of fiscal conservatism
I certainly can't recall when Republicans were fiscally conservative. They certainly haven't been since before Reagan maybe Nixon.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
You are taxing the customer - in particular, you're making sure he is paying the tax he is obligated to.
The customer is supposed to pay the tax themself not Amazon. In Minnesota, my state, there is a line on the income tax forms that asks how much you ordered from out of state businesses, you are then required to pay a use tax on those purchases. By requiring Amazon to collect the tax you are adding to Amazon's expenses.
In particular, you are avoiding discriminating local businesses who contribute to their local societies and provide jobs there.
Two problems here, one those local affiliates are part or the local society and they pay taxes. Two, local businesses can start selling online as well, and by doing so expand their business. I knew someone who started a small book store in a converted house. When the internet came along she took her store online. Eventually she sold the brick and mortar store because it cost her more to run and the online store made more money. Another store owner I knew had her son build an online store as well. Some of her customers traveled more than 100 miles to get to her store so when the online store was opened she benefited because they could easily and cheaply visit the online store.
Of course if you look at the internet as an enemy instead of an opportunity then it's your fault if you lose. Amazon, eBay, and others saw the potential and grabbed for the rings. Now their competitors who didn't want to gripe.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Huh? How so? A customer walks into a store in NC and the price of an item is automatically 7.75% higher than if they bought the same product online. How is that level?
Nothing is stopping that NC store from going online and compeating as well, if they don't it's their own fault.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
And my infrastructure pays for parks I enjoy, roads I use, schools which educate the people around me so that they don't all turn to street crime, police to deal with the ones who do, etc. Taxes buy me civilization. I'd rather not pocket a few more bucks in returning for living a life that is solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
So if I'm already living a great life right now, then I don't need this Internet sales tax to keep me from living a "brutish and short" life, do I?
This is just something the politicians want cause they smell money. Well I hate to break it to you assholes, but you're not getting a dime of my money in sales taxes unless the business is in the same state. Only the Feds have the power to regulate interstate commerce.
this way... Think of a Wal-mart. In many Walmarts, there is a fast-food joint, usually some type of salon, an eye doctor of some kind.
And they have their own registers where customers pay. However all Amazon's affiliates do is link to Amazon, where the order is placed. Now if the affiliate actually took orders then your scenario would be correct but it does not work that way. Now if I buy a book online from Barnes and Noble because B&N has stores in my state I would have to pay sales tax on that book.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
No, I want states to tax based on where the fact that the product is shipped to a consumer in that state.
Well, I can see a problem with this approach. What if I live in Alaska (no state sales tax) and I buy a gift to ship to my cousin in California (highest state tax)--will I have to pay California sales tax on that item?
What if I am running a business that drop ships items to customers. Say a customer walks into my store and places an order. Since I am making an intrastate sale he has to pay tax on that item. But if I am placing the order (and drop shipping it to his address) then I will have to pay the sales tax as well. The net effect is the customer has to pay the sales tax twice because I acted as an agent for him to order an item from out of state. Is that fair?
The US used to have a lot of small businesses which have been closed due to price competition from business like Walmart. In the end the customer gets a greater selection of inferior merchandise, the employees become a permanent underclass, and small towns around American are in decline. This is in the news on a recurring basis but still Americans will chose a tainted product produced by enslaved children if it is a nickle cheaper.
The US used to have a large and vibrant small family farm / produce sales. Now the family farm is a myth, and Americans consume industrialized food products manufactured by large transnational corporations and shipped around the world. That product has less nutrition, less taste, damages our environment, and is unsustainable. However, because it is slightly less expensive than real food American consumers prefer it.
The government is just people. If you have a problem with them, I would suggest that you not vote for parties who think the government is bad and want to "strangle it in a bath tub". They've long since proven disastrously incapable of governance.
The huge variations of state & local tax codes is, again, not a problem of the Federal Government, this is a states' rights issue. A Federal VAT could easily replace the vast array of local & state taxes. But that is not how the US is designed... If you don't like that, don't vote for people who are strongly in favor of states' rights.
Or someone could just write an application which figured taxes automatically based on shipping addresses... I wrote more complicated code in High School.
Finally I don't buy into your 3 exclamation point hysteria.
Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
Let the federal government appoint one company to manage it all for a small cut of the fees
Yes, yet another government appointed monopoly, just what we need.
As for the slippery slopes you object to, really, this is the tax man and our lovely appointed representatives we're talking about, they know what's best for your money, and they definitely need it (see also California), this is one slope they'll not only slip down, they'll be bobsledding to see who can get down the hill fastest, because at the bottom is going be all that free money they need to X (bail out failing auto companies / make state payroll / pay for their trips to argentina / line their pockets)
Maybe they could use a PIG.
The problem here is not the sales taxes Amazon collects from me, it's the fact that if I, a resident of Utah, go through an Amazon affiliate's website, and said affiliate happens to reside in NC or RI, I must pay RI or NC state sales tax.
Why am I sitting in Utah, hitting up someone's blog hosted in San Cupertino, CA, supposed to pay Rhode Island taxes because the blog maintainer in Providence made reading suggestions?
This is hardly the same as, "Dude, you live in Utah, so before you finish this Amazon purchase, you gotta fork over Utah sales taxes."
When you walk into Walmart pick something up and walk to the register and pay for it.
at the point you pay - walmart takes the money then holds it for 30days then pays out the cost portion to the provider of the product (manufactuer).
There isn't a single item in a Walmart that is actualy owned by the store you are in. All they are doing is providing you a way of finding products from a ventor and helping with the money transactions (it's amazing when you look at their tax savings from this).
Not really much diffrence in what your discribing..
The one way of looking at this is that you are going to the Affiliate to make the purchase - they could have
A) kept an inventory (which they bought from Amazon for resell) and sold and shipped to you and collected tax as they should
B) outsourced the money proccessing and have the supplier drop ship - inwhich they should still be collecting tax as they should (which they arn't)
Sure Amazon might be the person shipping it or place handeling the money transaction - but you are agreeing to purchase it from a "Affiliate"
this is no diffrent then going to a regional store for goods made and shipped from out side the state.
Is this Amazon's fault? no - it's the Affiliate's that are the ones failing to collect tax - they are using Amazon's to out source their money collection - and in doing so failing to collect tax's for their area.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
But when everyone is driving more fuel efficient vehicles then they can be taxed on their mileage.
Or raise the fuel tax so that the total revenue remains constant. Or rejoice in the fact that your road maintenance costs have dwindled dramatically because average vehicle weights have dropped and they're not being damaged as much.
OK, so #2 will never happen, but a guy can dream!
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
I think you should. If you were to purchase an item for him in California, you would. If you get it shipped to you and reship it, the equivalent of buying it in Alaska and shipping it yourself, you wouldn't.
That situation already exist; CostCo populates small shops' inventories already, or a local Coca-Cola bottling plant ships sodas to convience stores. And the solution already exists (IIRC), the company can get back the sales tax it paid when it resells an item.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Thing is, the internet isn't like a pipeline, it's more like a series of (sewage) tubes.
Yeah. Would you choose a neurosurgeon who pokes around people's brains in his spare time? I wouldn't.
By national, I mean it works exactly the same everywhere. Individual states could still set tax rates for items "transferred", or "value added" within their borders, or items which enter their borders. Tax money would still go to the state just like it does now (and the state distributes tax to counties and cities where applicable, just like it is now)... Except purchases out of state would be taxed at the VAT rate for the purchaser's state, and the seller's state would write a check to the purchasers' state quarterly. Sounds complex, but fore most entities who participate in national commerce it would be as simple as shifting a few digits in a database or spreadsheet.
If done right it would be vastly more simple than the current state of sales tax, which is a hokey mess... It would also end the varied attempts by various states to money grab and make the rules even more complex.
No, actually. This is about Rhode Island attempting to tax me for Amazon purchases even though I live in Oregon. Just because I happened to reach Amazon via an affiliate link from a site based in Rhode Island. Notice how neither Amazon nor I is in Rhode Island?
The US used to have a lot of small businesses which have been closed due to price competition from business like Walmart.
And Amazon's affiliates aren't businesses? Maybe not all right I bet some are run just like that, as businesses. Amazon also uses other businesses too for goods. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more businesses now than just 10 years ago.
The US used to have a large and vibrant small family farm / produce sales.
Oh I agree but that's not because of Amazon. That is because large agribusinesses receive billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies. Archer Daniels Midland, ADM, and Cargill alone each receive billions. Amazon does not receive subsidies. Here's a list of subsidies Cargill gets from Belgium, and Cargill is one of the largest private US corporations. Fact is is small farmers are not the main beneficiary of farm subsidies. And I have railed against farm subsides for years.
Now the family farm is a myth, and Americans consume industrialized food products manufactured by large transnational corporations and shipped around the world.
No, small family farms still exist. I am a member of two member owned co-ops and they both support both organic and local farms. All over the US both community supported agriculture or CSA which both of my co-ops sell shares in, and farmers markets are booming. Farmers markets are even blooming at hospitals.
The government is just people. If you have a problem with them, I would suggest that you not vote for parties who think the government is bad and want to "strangle it in a bath tub". They've long since proven disastrously incapable of governance.
I vote, yes I vote, for people not parties. For each position I look at what position each candidate takes then vote for the one that comes closest to my beliefs no matter what party they are from. I have voted for Democrats, Libertarians, Republicans, and Reform Party candidates.
The huge variations of state & local tax codes is, again, not a problem of the Federal Government
Can youn show me where I said it was a problem of the federal government? Or is this FUD?
If you don't like that, don't vote for people who are strongly in favor of states' rights.
Ah but I do favor states' rights, that is one of the issues I look at. However requiring Amazon or any other business that sells online to collect sales taxes in a state they are not located in is not a state right, it directly contravenes the commerce clause of the Constitution of the USA.
Finally I don't buy into your 3 exclamation point hysteria.
You're part of the problem of this country, someone who will let politicians do whatever they want instead of holding up the Constitution of the USA. Requiring out of state businesses to collect sales tax for that state is unconstitutional.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
Sure Amazon might be the person shipping it or place handeling the money transaction - but you are agreeing to purchase it from a "Affiliate"
this is no diffrent then going to a regional store for goods made and shipped from out side the state.
It is different. The store is a physical presence in the state. Amazon is more than likely not in the state. The affiliate may or may not be. A professor I had in college in Minnesota had his own website for his classes, and it was hosted in Texas. If states are allowed to tax online sales from out of state what state would be paid? Where the person lives or where the host is? Or both? If the person running it is set up as a business he or she is already paying taxes. My sister has her Masters and is a Certified Public Accountant and runs her own accounting business and she has clients all over the nation. Profits she makes from out of state clients she pays state income tax on. She also pays for the office lease and the property owner pays both income and property tax. The owner makes enough from the lease to pay those taxes and make a profit. She has employees which she also pays taxes on.
I want to start my own business, sell locally but also online, as a photographer and I don't want to be forced to collect sales taxes for what I sale to someone in another state. To start I'm looking at joining online stock agencies and some may have have affiliates in different states. While the agency probably would handle taxes I eventually want to open my own online store and I if I have to collect out of state sales taxes I may think it's not worth it. Especially if I use affiliates. If so then both state as well as federal government and the economy will not be helped, whereas if I do start a business it can help. Not only would I be paying income tax but I'd also to be paying my suppliers who would in turn be paying taxes.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
if the Affiliate and Amazon are both out of state then the person ordering should be paying the tax at the end of year.
if the affiliate is in state then the Affiliate should be collecting tax for it's location for people in it's state placing orders just as any biz is required to do.
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
I know someone who walks everywhere. He cackles with glee when the price of gas goes up; of course his grocery bills et al get larger when that happens.
He like everyone else pays indirectly. Businesses consider taxes as well as other expenses when setting prices.
An excellent public transit system should be supported by those who use the roads. After all, I have to get around. Subsidize my using public transit, and there will be less traffic.
No, just as drivers do you should pay your part too. Mass transit prices should reflect all the costs of transit. When I walk or ride my bike, and I do when I go shopping sometimes, first my use doesn't not put much stress on the infrastructure, not nearly as much as the trucks that deliver the merchandise, but when a business factors in fuel tax I pay a higher price. Or I would if the fuel tax paid for the infrastructure. The problem is it does not. With mass transit, if it moves people more efficiently then it shouldn't be paying as much in taxes as if the individuals drive themselves. However it isn't all that efficient, not where I live. I live in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis/St Paul, MN and it's mass transit is supposed to be one of the most efficient systems in the US. However I once took a bus to go somewhere I can drive to in 10 to 15 minutes, and it took me about an hour on the bus. I'd quite willing to pay another $2 a gallon on fuel for the convenience of reaching my destination a lot quicker. And get this, it cost more than $5 round trip even though I walked a couple of miles to get to the bus station, so even with fuel tax being $2 more I still would pay less driving. The one think I like about the buses here is that they have bike racks, so people can ride a bike to the bus stop, put it in the rack, then take it out when they get wherever.
Mind you I'm not against mass transit, I wish we had better systems, but even mass transit users should pay. Actually I've dreamed of building my own home an hour or two away from a big city but in a rural/wilderness setting and Off the Grid. What I'd like to be able to do then, and be willing to pay for it, is to drive from home to a train station where I drive my car onto a train car then drive it off when I've reached the city. If I was going to be in the city for a while and do some running around.
I tend to think schools should be paid for with income taxes. But I don't know what difference ad valorum vs. income taxes make. With police protection, you again get the freeloaders who benefit without paying.
Property tax not income or sales tax should pay for protection, and there are no freeloaders. Except those who live on the streets. But by allowing people to keep more of the money they work to earn the more jobs will be created thus taking some of them off the streets. And I've been there, having money as well as being broke and lacking a regular job. When I found myself like that, I went down to a labor pool and worked as a day laborer. And though there were others like me, many going to the labor pool were homeless. The pay wasn't much but it was enough to eat. Work for a day, then back at the pool get paid with a check. A couple of doors down there was a check cashing business, which takes a chunk of the money. Or a person could walk about half a mile to the bank the check was written from and cash it there, keeping all the money. With $40 or $50 in hand you could then take your family to a restaurant to eat. And yes there were families living on the street. Myself, I am and was single and was a college student then. Now I am disabled and collecting disability because of it. I hope to be able to start a photography business RSN, partially online and I don't want to have to deal with a bunch of different state sales taxes.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
if the affiliate is in state then the Affiliate should be collecting tax for it's location for people in it's state placing orders just as any biz is required to do.
All the affiliate is doing is providing a link. They are not processing payments or shipping and should not be required to collect sales tax period. If they had to do what you propose then they'd have to set up their own stores basically. A hundred stores for a hundred jurisdictions in each state.
The problem to begin with is government is too big, shrink government and you shrink the perceived need for revenue.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?
You missed it. There was a substantial tax increase early in the year, then come the deadline, they wanted a SECOND substantial tax increase. Needless to say, they didn't get it.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
I've never had a job where health coverage was that low sadly :(.
My last job was 320$ a month, and I'm single and in good health. A colleague with 4 kids was spending almost 700 at the same job.
You think?...I don't see too many 747s on the highway
Todos mis movimientos están friamente calculados
they are not just providing a link - they are also getting paid for sales make via that link.
that is the diffrence
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
they are not just providing a link - they are also getting paid for sales make via that link.
Sure but they are not taking the orders then forwarding them. If they were required to collect sales taxes then they would have to process the orders themselves. Which would add a lot of costs, and may end up costing more than what they make from commissions.
Falcon
Should there be a Law?