Slashdot Mirror
NY Times, LA Times Want Amazon To Collect More State Taxes
theodp writes "Recalling that CEO Jeff Bezos originally explored placing Amazon.com on an Indian Reservation near San Francisco to 'have access to talent without all the tax consequences,' the NY Times argues it's time to put an end to the e-tailer's 'entity isolation' tax-avoidance games. The LA Times chimes in, saying Amazon's claims that collecting sales tax constitute an undue burden are 'worth a horselaugh,' noting that Amazon boasts it has no problem keeping track of millions of unique products."
Amazon has to collect taxes in countries where the law makes it mandatory, e.g. in the EU. So it's not so hard.
Amazon UK manages to collect the appropriate VAT, depending on country. Which is why, if you buy from e.g. Denmark, you should order from one of the smaller UK book stores so you get to pay the UK VAT (0% on books) instead of the Danish one (25% on everything).
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
The NY times article chooses to skip mentioning all the taxes other than sales tax Amazon would be paying in those areas with its isolated tax groups. I also think it's cute that they feel amazon has a moral right to pay more taxes in this 'time of hardship'. But really, people are surprised when a company is avoiding as many taxes as possible, especially a tax that would make them less able to make a profit? They're surprised people aren't paying use taxes?
I don't care what you say, all I need is my Wumpabet soup.
Because only amazon avoids taxes with legal loopholes.....
Nice to know a health care bill goes in with a "tax" per person, but we still cant get microsoft, blackwater, goldmansachs, to their fair share of taxes...
Guess amazon needs more lobbyists.
The state and federal governments made complicated tax laws and Amazon is following them in a business efficient manner. What is their problem?
Home of The Suki Series
Everybody knows that if you call Amazons customer support you'll get transferred to an indian.
If you quote this signature there'll be 72 copies of Windows ME waiting for you in Heaven.
It might not be an undue burden to Amazon, but what about smaller online companies? You could use software to manage the collecting of sales tax for everything but the real problem comes to sending off that money to every town, county, and state that collects sales tax. Someone buys something for a couple bucks and suddenly you have to send payments of a few cents to three different places. Even if you save it all up and send it bi-yearly you could be looking at thousands of separate payments based on how widespread your client base is.
You can't just look at a huge company with millions in revenue and make a one size fits it all decision.
The reason that Amazon has the advantage over all the local retailers that it puts out of business, is because it plays by different rules. No, it's not right, and Amazon needs to start playing by the same rules as everyone else.
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
The New York Times article states that Amazon collects sales tax in the four states (Washington State, North Dakota, Kentucky and Kansas) in which it has presence that legally requires them to collect sales tax. It has offices in other states, but due to the nature of these offices, amazon is not required to collect taxes in these states.
So, basically, the NYT is saying that Amazon should go above and beyond its legal obligations and pay more taxes for the hell of it. I somehow don't see that happening anytime soon. Perhaps those states with unbalanced budgets that could benefit from Amazon paying additional taxes should start enforcing their existing use tax laws?
The state and federal governments made complicated tax laws and Amazon is following them in a business efficient manner. What is their problem?
It is the whole 'letter of the law' vs 'spirit of the law' thing... The letter of the law may allow someone with access to expensive lawyers to avoid paying taxes, but it is not in the spirit of the law?
if there were no tax heavens anywhere in the world and businesses just paid what they owed like the rest of us. Sure the prices will go up but if this happened from the get go, it wouldn't be an issue. I'm annoyed with companies avoiding paying tax but then using the government system to seek protections or create laws for their benefit.
Jonathanjk.com
The letter of the law may allow someone with access to expensive lawyers to avoid paying taxes, but it is not in the spirit of the law?
"Anyone may arrange his affairs so that his taxes shall be as low as possible; he is not bound to choose that pattern which best pays the treasury. There is not even a patriotic duty to increase one's taxes. Over and over again the Courts have said that there is nothing sinister in so arranging affairs as to keep taxes as low as possible. Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands."
(US Appeals Court Justice the Honourable Learned Hand)
That's an excellent idea you've set down for all of us to read; I've never heard anyone else say it, so it must be your idea.
I'm sure the IRS will be happy to accept a check. Oh, IOKIYAR?
Did you really just say that Linus Torvalds should pay taxes for the billions of dollars that Linux is worth?
On Slashdot?
By the way, I don't think that code has that much monetary value, since he can't actually sell it. Sure, the net economic gain from using Linux could very well be in the billions, but that doesn't mean the guy is ever going to own the Moon.
I'd rather you rationally disagree than irrationally agree.
By the way, I don't think that code has that much monetary value, since he can't actually sell it.
That's not all that different from how cities calculate taxes on the assessed values of homes.
This is my sig.
if there were no tax heavens anywhere in the world
I live in Delaware USA. There's no sales taxes, and low incomes taxes. I think its awesome. Please, raise your taxes.
This is my sig.
This is an attempt to please brick and mortar stores who want to push electronic sales into the toilet. On line sales already carry a great burden in shipping costs. If you add taxes on top of shipping costs you kill online sales completely.
Yes, there is a real burden here. A "brick" store only has to deal with exactly ONE tax rate, which is the rate for their physical location. A chain of stores would only need to deal with this on a per-store basis. However, the web retailer is expected to charge tax based not on their own physical location, but rather, the location of the customer ordering the merchandise. This means keeping a database, and keeping it updated, for each and every single tax jurisdiction in the country. In many states this varies by individual city and town. There are thousands of these. In some cases they are even split across zip codes. And it's not just rates to worry about. Different jurisdictions have different exemptions of what products don't require a tax (food in one place, only perishable food in another, bath products might be included in another, school supplies exempted in a few, etc).
Then there is the issue of ensuring the taxes get paid to the proper government entity. That and making sure people are not subverting the system by sending packages to other locations.
Some solutions to this are possible.
I suggest that instead of the stores charging the tax, the credit/debit card processor charge the tax. The advantage of this is that they readily know the billing address of the account holder. Their payments to the government entities would be more in bulk, instead of these governments getting thousands of small payments from all the "mom and pop" web sites that would be compliant with tax law changes. The one change that would need to be made is each credit/debit charge would need to have split up according to product type classifications (a federal standard needed for that).
Another alternative is for a federal law that simply requires each of the states to submit ONE tax rate for the whole state, and accept a set of exemptions designated by that federal law, to be part of the inter-state tax program. One other requirement is, to be a part of it, they treat in-state web retailers exactly the same as out-of-state (e.g. all or nothing).
The burden on web retailers is NOT a myth. It is very real. Amazon can probably handle it. But you know the smaller retailers will be next, and eventually they will try to impose this on others. Taxes are essential, but it needs to be kept simple. Also, smaller retailers need to have a SINGLE (not 50) payment destinations (a central clearinghouse for this).
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
When you think about it, the problem with most of the taxes imposed by states is that the idea is to pay for government provided services. Now, for out of state businesses, shouldn't the ONLY real burden be on the transit systems(roads and rails)? The postal system already charges money for delivering things, so really, it is just about transit systems. Sales taxes, such as they are, are a bit foolish to impose on out of state entities since the equipment that handles the actual exchange of money is generally not in the state demanding that sales taxes are collected. Basically, if a financial transaction takes place outside of a state, I don't feel that state has the right to demand money for the transaction.
Now, a national sales tax would eliminate this issue, or some other system.
The real problem that many states are running into is that they are run like governments, spending money they don't have and will NEVER have to provide services that will never end up with a net profit. Paying employees too much money, giving too much PAID time off(including the dozens of government holidays where other businesses stay open), and really, just spending too much for the tax income they bring in. If a private business were to try operating like that, they would be bankrupt within a year. So, the states are all crying that they are broke while paying assistants to government employees upwards of $80,000 per year.
It's not Amazon that would be paying sales tax. The buyer pays the tax. Amazon just doesn't want to a) deal with administering separate tax rates and payments to multiple States and b) have it's perceived prices increase with the addition of tax.
The funny thing is in general I agree with your view on taxation; it's just that in this instance your argument doesn't fit the issue.
Wow. You are pretty much a dumb douche.
Imagine every piece of intellectual property being taxed... Own the copy right to a song that isnt making any money? TOO BAD, pay up!
Seriously... You are an idiot.
All it would take is for California and New York to each pass a law creating a standardized tax rate for their entire state. No local sales taxes, etc. Just a single state sales tax which is redistributed by the state tax authority to municipal governments. It would then be as easy for Amazon as "cut a check every month and mail it to Sacramento or Albany."
I say that intellectual property should be property taxed. Shouldn't the New York Times and the LA Times be charged a property tax for every back article they have ever written?
So shouldn't they pay nothing then? I mean you said they should be taxed on intellectual property but there's nothing intellectual about being a couple left-wing shill like those 2 rags.(And the Boston Globe Democrat who is pretty blatant about it.)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Target is operating from within the Amazon world. All taxes are appropriately computed and assessed there.
Keep Doing Good.
Did the builders have their blueprints taxed?
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
When you buy something, amazon brings up a page that states:
We understand that your state, and possibly city and local, governments levy taxes that may include taxes on the things that you purchased. Click here to send a report at the end of the month to the state, city, and local authorities regarding your purchases.
It's then up to the individual to determine if they want the state to take care of the accounting or if they want to do it themselves.
Help! I'm a slashdot refugee.
Everyone does it, rich and poor alike and all do right, for nobody owes any public duty to pay more than the law demands.
There's a certain truthiness to that, but the perspective is a bit narrow, doncha think? How, for example, would you explain the following Wiki entry:
Rich men trying to give their hard earned money to the government? Blasphemy.
If you really hold that the general principle that "Nobody owes anybody anything" is valid, then I suppose "sharing" is delusional and childish, "sacrifice for others" is delayed gratification, "charity" a clever misdirection or an attempt at ego agggrandisement, and "community service" is an atonement for misplaced guilt.
The problem is that even animals don't subscribe to that kind of thinking, or behaviour. Your justifications no doubt seem correct to you, but I suspect in the end you'll wind up recognising them as nothing other than sophistry. I'd also suspect visiting a school bake sale or a community food bank and talking to the locals might accelerate the process.
I'm glad everybody's discussing the article... but I have another concern.
What the holy hell is a "horselaugh?"
Comment of the year
Where every single tiny loop hole in the law is exploited to the fullest by the large cooperations and everyone else has to obey the spirit of the law because they can't setup the giant shell game that is required to avoid paying taxes. How many fully owned separate legal entities comprise Amazon? It's all one giant cooperation for all intents but they break it up into a ton of little pieces to get around the spirit of the law. Leaving everyone else to have to make up for Amazon skips out on paying. It's not a level playing field.
It reminds me of the ownership structure of Ikea, which is extremely complex, but ultimately results in almost no taxes. Which is great for Ikea, but horrible for everyone else who has to pick up Ikea's share.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA
Look it up under corporate structure.
And then there are states like New Hampshire, with no state sales tax (and no state income tax, either)
I guess these dying dinosaur newspapers will concentrate their efforts where governments are largest and extract the most wealth from the serfs.
Part of the Second American Revolution!
Alzoron has it right! In fact, in any NEW project, even for a large company, trying to get the myriad payments right is extremely onerous.
I happen to have experience with the topic from a project I did - even if you have a big budget and months of time its not easy.
Remember that the internet is global. If the USA charges sales tax based on the location of the CUSTOMER, then all countries in the world can and would do the same.
Imagine trying to get that right given millions of towns and counties all over the world.
The NY Times and other paper publications are right now on a crusade to attack the low cost base of internet business.
They are talking about de-indexing Google for similar reasons.
We should understand the interests behind such attacks.
I read quite a few (not all) comments on this page, but what I cannot understand is why people feel that Amazons defense ("it's too complicated") is valid, when you consider that we are talking about the company who can do magic with their recommendations on a sale-level; people who bought this also bought that, 57% people on this page bought this item, the others went here, combo deals with books you viewed before, etc. You'd think they would be able to come up with a system for the taxes ... wanting to is something completely different.
I can perfectly understand that it's not as simple as the EU system (e.g. I pay 19% VAT), however, it's not fair to claim that on a $9.99 book they have to pay 0.12 here and 0.53 there instantly, since that is most probably not the case in the first place. Amazon has to collect the amounts and send them off every X (month/quarter), same as they do with VAT they collect.
There are lots of comments here about how difficult it would be to charge tax based upon a persons physical location.
At first glance it doesn't seem to difficult. We've had these laws in place in Canada for a long, long time and so I'm used to them. That said, there are a lot of convincing reasons I've read in other posts about how much more complicated it is to tax people in the US than pretty much everywhere else in the world. Not only do you have Federal tax and State tax, but also country and municipal sales taxes, and varying taxes based upon item type (liquor vs tobacco vs books, etc).
So, I can understand someone saying that this is complicated for the smaller retailler.
What I don't understand is why no one is seeing the business opportunity here. It should be relatively simple (data intensive, but programatically simple) to code up some library of tax rates based upon zip code and the nature of the item purchased.
Once you've done the work once, it would be a matter of updating it quarterly with updates from each area's taxation department. Again, programatically simple, but data heavy.
I realize it sounds boring, but keep in mind that companies like Quicken have to do this every year for their taxation software.
It's software that could be very useful, simple to make, but tedious to update. Basically, no one will *want* to do this (so FOSS alternatives will be slim), but everyone has to have it. From what I've seen in the market, this basically translates to "buckets of money in my pockets".
cost to implement and track. they are accounting nightmares to keep up with.
Read radical news here
Well that's two down, one to go.
My ism, it's full of beliefs.
So the papers for two jurisdictions who have astronomically fucked themselves with their rampant fiscal incompetence want to steal more money from the private sector.
*Shocker*
Several start-ups developed zip-code based tax collection systems at the dawn of the web era. They were little-used, but exist. The US Congress prohibited "taxing the internet" for most of the 1990s and 2000s to the chargrin of states. Problably would hurt the dot.com bubbles they were speculating in.
Customers hate paying sales taxes too. So many use the internet for that reason.
After two major recessions this decade, governments are re-examining the tax issue.
Nobody owes anybody anything. Some choose to donate out of their own free will. Others don't. The freely-chosen donations of one person do not, in any way, imply that another person should be required to "give" in order to "match up".
If you disagree, then, well, my mom gave me a really nice roasting pan for Christmas. To match a small part of her generosity, I'll be expecting a measuring cup set from you.
Breaking Into the Industry - A development log about starting a game studio.
The special laws and money reservations get is beyond stupid. I know a few native american's (another stupid term) in my area that get monthly checks for a couple grand.
/end possibly offtopic rant.
Fuck. That. Shit.
I could understand the whole sovereign nation within a nation thing if they actually lived the way they did in the 17th century. But they don't. If they want free money and their own set of laws they shouldn't be able to use the technology that the white man gave them. It's not like there's any shortage of wilderness in the US either.
Laws like this only fuel racism, if we are all equal, then why the fuck do we have different laws for different races?
Sorry,
Buffet and Gates Sr. are entitled to their beliefs, I have mixed feelings on it myself, but to say that they are trying to give their hard earned money to the government is a mischaracterization of their beliefs. If that was all that they wanted, they could leave the same proportion of their wealth to the government in their will. Instead they are advocating the forcible confiscation of a portion of all wealthy (defined here as those subject to the estate tax) individuals' assets at their death.
Just because nobody owes anybody anything in a legal sense does not mean that they have no moral/ethical obligation. Similarly, just because I am not obligated to do something does not mean that I should not or will not do so. In fact, this is analogous to many arguments about free will - without the potential to do evil, it is impossible to actively do good. The intent matters in actions, not just the outcomes.
Guess what else the two newspaper articles failed to make completely clear...that the 'someone' is you and me. This isn't about Amazon paying more corporate tax, but Amazon collecting sales taxes from sales to everyday people. The internet has given the average person a small but noticeable tax cut. We obviously can't have the populace spending their money how they would want to, so we have to stop this right now.
They do have a point, though. Why should a newspaper (and their online equivalent) pay tax when other companies can avoid it on the basis of what is basically BS?
Insert
If you really hold that the general principle that "Nobody owes anybody anything" is valid, then I suppose "sharing" is delusional and childish, "sacrifice for others" is delayed gratification, "charity" a clever misdirection or an attempt at ego agggrandisement, and "community service" is an atonement for misplaced guilt.
This is not true. From the general principle "Nobody owes anybody anything," which I happen to share, it only follows that others may not force one to share, sacrifice for others, do charity or perform community service. All of which is perfectly OK to do voluntarily, based on each own subjective values.
Rich men trying to give their hard earned money to the government? Blasphemy.
He favors an estate tax, which would force others to pay. It's not about trying to give his own money to the government. He has said he plans to give his money to charity, so the estate tax has no impact on him.
How do you think Buffett feels about taxes that actually affect him? Hmm well check out this article if you're curious: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125729682025626851.html
If you really hold that the general principle that "Nobody owes anybody anything" is valid, then I suppose "sharing" is delusional and childish, "sacrifice for others" is delayed gratification, "charity" a clever misdirection or an attempt at ego agggrandisement, and "community service" is an atonement for misplaced guilt.
Again those are all voluntary actions. Don't you think that's an important distinction from compulsory taxes?
If you really hold that the general principle that "Nobody owes anybody anything" is valid, then I suppose "sharing" is delusional and childish, "sacrifice for others" is delayed gratification, "charity" a clever misdirection or an attempt at ego agggrandisement, and "community service" is an atonement for misplaced guilt.
The problem is that even animals don't subscribe to that kind of thinking, or behaviour. Your justifications no doubt seem correct to you, but I suspect in the end you'll wind up recognising them as nothing other than sophistry. I'd also suspect visiting a school bake sale or a community food bank and talking to the locals might accelerate the process.
There is a difference between 1) someone taking your money and 2) you giving it away freely. Just because someone chooses to give to a charity does not mean they want to be taxed more, and just because someone wishes to keep their taxes low does not mean they wouldn't give to a charity. You are equating the idea of giving with the idea of having things taken from you forcibly. At no time did GP imply that this was the case. Basically, "Nobody owes anybody anything." does NOT imply "sharing is delusional and childish" or any of your other examples.
Three days from now?? Thats tomorrow!! ~Peter Griffin
I think you have some comprehension problems. A duty to pay what the law demands is not the same as "nobody owes anybody anything". Paying up under threat of imprisonment is not sharing, nor is it "sacrificing for others". It is not charity nor is it community service.
Wanting others to have to pay more so you can get free stuff is not altruism. It is greed.
"nobody owes any public duty to pay MORE THAN THE LAW DEMANDS" is quite different from "nobody owes anybody anything"
There's a certain truthiness to that, but the perspective is a bit narrow, doncha think? How, for example, would you explain the following Wiki entry [wikipedia.org]:
One of the world's wealthiest men, Warren Buffett, CEO of Berkshire Hathaway, and the father of another of the world's wealthiest men (Microsoft founder Bill Gates), William H. Gates, Sr., favor the estate tax.
Rich men trying to give their hard earned money to the government? Blasphemy.
They may "favor" the estate tax, but they're not going to pay it.
That's what "foundations" and "trusts" are for. Buffett's late wife had most of her money estate squirreled away so estate taxes didn't apply and Buffett's money is the same way.
Guess who's setup to "manage" the charitable foundations? The kids.
As several commenters have mentioned above, collecting and submitting taxes for all the various state, city, and local taxes would be a huge burden on small business. It is also unnecessary since most states already have a "use tax". Of course, no one actually pays the use tax. Why? Because the state has no idea how much stuff you have bought on-line, so why would you pay it?
So then, the solution is easy. Why not create a new Federal 1099-E form. A business dealing with another state does not have to collect any tax. At the end of the year they issue a Form 1099-E to each applicable state and to their customers. The customers now know the state knows how much they've bought so they will be compelled to pay the use tax. It will also be easy to do since they just have to add up all their 1099-Es. It shouldn't be difficult for a business to keep track of the total spending for a customer and issue a couple automated forms.
Clovis
^ Clovis, look! It's that guy you are!
As with catalog sales in the days before the Internet, Amazon.com is not required to collect taxes in any jurisdiction where it doesn't have a business presence. There's no trickery involved. Amazon doesn't collect any taxes it isn't required by law to collect, just like you don't pay taxes in states that you've never set foot in.
Since only the federal government can regulate interstate commerce, the ability of State X to force Amazon.com to collect its taxes when it doesn't have a presence in that state would require federal legislation to that effect. Also, for any such federal law to work it seems to me that tax rules and rates would have to be simplified across all 50 states. There's an effort to do so called the Streamlined Sales Tax Project, but despite its name it strikes me as ridiculously overcomplicated (as in "you need a certified computer program to handle the differences between each state's rules") due to the desire to please all the participating states.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Make the consumer pay use tax. They won't suggest that but Amazon isn't breaking the law where as the consumer is.
Are you going to have Program assessors look at your source code and tell you to pay money
That is what they do with physical property. Businesses have to justify their inventories, and everyone has to have their property assessed for property taxes. Tis how schools work. Tell me, is big media now anti-school!
This is my sig.
Own the copy right to a song that isnt making any money? TOO BAD, pay up!
They do it for property. In case of the song, failure to pay property taxes would cause it to revert to the taxpayer, aka, public domain.
This is my sig.
Well first thing there is no problem here since the people are obviously properly reporting the taxes and paying them quarterly or annually when they file their taxes for all of their online purchases where tax wasn't collected. That is the law, taxes are requested no problem. If people don't report them it isn't Amazon's problem.
Secondly who cares what a bunch of pulp based aging news sources thinks. They should give up and move along with with Rupert.
-Xen
The headline of the article is "NY Times, LA Times..." and we've seen a number of articles on here about New York and California bitching 5x more than the rest of the states. Their political systems also tend to be two of the worst examples of the "waaaaaahhhh why can't we just tax, tax, tax and make it everyone else's responsibility" mentality in American politics.
Granted. The law sets a minimum of what everyone owes society.
True enough. Scrooge paid his prison and poor house taxes, yet clearly he was miserly because despite his great wealth he chose to shun others in his pursuit of greed. The possession of money became an end.
Wanting others to pay more so others can become better off is altruism. Rallying against the abuse of tax law (ie, to use language loopholes to violate the intent of law) instead of fixing the tax law or to rally against the lobby for the introduction of new loopholes is not greed. It is a argument for the consideration of fairness of tax law. Of course, tax law should not be the end because, as noted, tax law is meant as a minimum of what people owe society. The bigger complaint, then, should not be that people or organizations have such low taxes but that they spend so little on charity. The New Deal, Welfare, etc has not changed the need for charity any more than the poor houses in England did, so obsession over taxes are not as relevant as the actual total spending towards society.
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
Should programs which no revenue is derived from be taxed? Unlike property source code does not appreciate it depreciates. How much does dos cost nowadays?
When do you tax these programs youve written? They are automatically your intellectual property the second they are written, so do you have to imediately submit every line of code for your tax pourposes? DO you have to wait till you save and then submit, can you do it when the program is done being written? Or can you wait till after youve compiled the source code. When does programs become taxable? Who will decided they are taxable, and how will you enforce this?
Admit it this is just a petty swipe at liberals and linux. Your still an idiot.
You are entitled to your own opinions, not your own facts.
Online retailers best watch out before our legislative bodies make an end-run around the issue. It would not take much for legislation to be crafted that would require online retailers to report sales information to State revenue/taxation departments. These reports would then be used by those departments to calculate Use Tax in those jurisdictions where it is required. The requirement would not require online retailers to collect taxes, but would allow States to collect taxes where presently they collect none. If a consumer files a tax return without disclosing the purchases that are subject to Use Tax, the States would have the ability to handle it just as they would for taxpayers who do not disclose income that has been reported on a W2 form.
The online retailers will need to decide whether it will look worse for them to collect the sales taxes or to be seen as turning over their purchase information to State goverments (even if compelled to do so under law).
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
Perhaps you were raised in a different culture than I. I was always taught that sharing and charity were voluntary, not owed, so I could certainly believe "Nobody owes anybody anything", give to charity and share with others, and still be morally consistent.
In fact, there are those who believe those things being voluntary makes them more meaningful.
By and large the coastal states are taxed at the Federal level so that up to 40% of those tax receipts can be gifted to the bootstrappy heartland states.
No whingefest about mean old taxes is complete without a mention of this fact.
My own state only gets 60 cents spent on it for every dollar we contribute. And that includes the sub bases!
Blar.
Polarize much? Just because nobody owes others anything beyond what is strictly ethically required (which may amount to far less than others demand via government coercion) does not mean that nobody has any reason to give to others. GP is saying the former. You are putting the latter words in his mouth. Also, referencing Buffett's and Gates' opinion on the estate tax is an inappropriate appeal to authority. There is no reason why their opinion on the matter should be taken over anyone else's. And note that they aren't merely saying the wish they could give a bunch of their money to the government - they can do that any time they want. They're saying they think the government should take the money of lots of other rich people. That doesn't make them generous. It makes them graspy, unprincipled proto-socialists like the rest of the country.
If they are hell bent on collecting taxes on the Internet, then why don't they just create a I-tax just for the Internet, all across the board (all countries) everyone pays the same I-tax rate. That way there is no confusion.
If I have a small business in CA and sell less than $400/year retail, the state doesn't want to be bothered setting up to collect sales tax from me. Similarly, if I run a small candy store in Vermont and ship something to CA a few times a year, it isn't worth anyone's trouble to collect sales tax. That said, if I do sell within my state, I have to compete with businesses that pay no taxes.
Here's a reasonable solution....
1) If you ship less than $5K/year into a state and you aren't located there, don't worry about it.
2) If you ship more than $5K/year into a state, then you must check with that state (in a nationally standardized way) to find out if they have opted to tax incoming items. If they have, you have to pay the same tax rate as their in-state businesses, but you get to send it to the state along with a standardized (probably CSV) file indicating the zip-codes and totals you have shipped to.
3) If you ship from outside the US, you can either follow the procedure in (2) above, you can let ebay/paypal/Visa/MasterCard/Google handle that for you, or you can pay a standardized 10% fee by the same mechanisms that handle import duties now. Common Carriers (USPS, DHL, FedEx, UPS) would find it necessary to ensure that they either have confirmation that the duties have been paid or that they collect them from the shipper (just as they presumably do now if you try to ship something non-duty-free from abroad).
Here's the biggest existing one: https://thestc.com/
The problem for small merchants isn't calculating sales taxes, but disbursing the right amounts to the various states, counties, and cities.
Still, this is a problem that could easily be handled by PayPal (which I use to process online payments to my business), Yahoo, Google or any of the many other companies that handle merchant services online. In fact, I'm sure that about 30 days after we have federal legislation that requires online merchants to collect sales/use taxes, one of the payment processors will have a tax collection & payment system up and running, with the other services offering something similar within weeks, if not days.
I suspect that Google and PayPal, at least, have such systems already developed and ready to go.
- Robin
http://internetvideopromotion.com/
Burden??? What Burden???
It is database issue with GIS lookup.
If Amazon is already doing this Washington State, then the hard part is over, since the tax districts in Washing State follow the Elementary School Districts as part of the boundaries.
Personally, the USPS (or even FedEx and UPS) should step up and be the "tax experts". Since they validate the address (hence GIS) they can determine the correct rate from the over 160k districts in US.
GIS is important since a given address maybe on City, County, State, Federal land and different rates apply.
I did this software for a large bug company. Had to get the correct rate for almost 10 million addresses, since the "cash register" is at the service location. It is not hard, but once a month we had a service supply us new tables.
What about the cost to the governments to process all of these micro tax payments? They will need to hire more staff and implement new systems to manage the influx of tax payments and make sure they are properly cataloged and applied to the appropriate vendors. In essence, you would either be breaking even or operating at a loss with this kind of system. Then again, we are talking about government here. When they see dollars signs they worry about the details later.
And how much will it cost a "mom and pop" web store to get these new tables every month? And for new address, how will the system deal with them between the time they come to exist, and when the monthly service adds them? How would you make sure that new addresses always work even if the table doesn't have them? And what about people that have stuff shipped to their PO box, PM box, or office address (a very legitimate thing to do)?
How is this database accessed? What software does it? How much does the Linux version cost? Where is the open source version? Shouldn't public data be free? I'm not worried about Amazon solving this. Instead, I'm worried about the cost for mom and pop. Will it be under $150 a year?
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Web retailers charge close to or full retail prices for things without the overhead of brick and mortar storefronts or high priced commissioned salespeople. The tax payment is a lookup table and electronic transfer. Gee, they might have to hire a programmer or two to keep up. Your argument falls in the "whaaah" category because online retailers are cleaning up.
I hate being bipolar; it's awesome!
...in Chicago? I mean, how could it, with all those byzantine tax regulations? What? Both local and nationwide brick-and-mortar stores are still in operation in Chi-town? That's unpossible!
Yes, I understand that tax laws are complicated when you have to deal with multiple, overlapping jurisdictions. I also understand that Amazon only differs from, say, Wal-Mart, in that it mostly ships goods to direct to people, rather than shipping them to stores first. I'm pretty sure this is a problem any large business not only could, but already has, figured out. Jeff B. just doesn't want to.
Wanting others to pay more so others can become better off is altruism.
I think you might want to look up the definition of altruism. You helping the group, perhaps to your own personal detriment, is altruism. Forcing somebody else to help the group out for you is stretching that definition beyond recognition.
Of course, being altruistic doesn't necessarily equate to correct or moral. Even accepting your expanded definition, I could go out and axe-murder anyone with over a million bucks and give all their stuff to the poor and be altruistic without being moral or even "good". I could also go out and shoot everyone with a mental illness or physical disability that renders them unproductive - this could arguably benefit the overall group prosperity. Probably wouldn't be all that morally correct though.
Conversely, I could selfishly go out and build a business so that I can become rich beyond your wildest imagination. In the process I create a product that enhances the lives of millions and my company employs hundreds of workers who are able to feed their families because of these jobs. I have done nothing altruistic at all, but I have accomplished the result of "helping others" with a much higher degree of success than if I had simply given my money to a charitable organization or government to redistribute.
Actually, I'd disagree with you on this. I'd say that the evidence is pretty solid that the new deal programs have had a much greater impact on the need for charity than the poor houses in England ever did. Remember the "permanent underclass" discussions of the 80's-90's? The perverse incentives of the welfare society increase the probability that someone will need aid for extended periods of time (because it is available). The equally perverse "justice" of the poor house definitely carries incentives that discourage long term dependence (although in a manner that defies all common sense and human decency). So post New Deal we have a much greater need for charity (due to the successes of the new deal), although the individual charitable needs are much less acute than in days gone by (also due in large part to the successes of the new deal).
Jews: Cancer of progress and plague of humanity.
I'm not saying I agree with you but, I prefer Jews over you.
Stupid greedy Jews, always fucking everything up.
So long as it pisses you off, I'm happy.
Now with my dick in your mouth . . . While you are at it, you can hoard my nuts in your mouth too.
Faggot.
... it's terribly confusing for a company that ships everything it sells right to your front door to figure out where you actually live! Tell me another one.
I'm actually in this situation myself: my zipcode corresponds to both an independent city and a county in Virginia. How do the shipping companies figure out which? When they see my zip code, they throw up another screen that asks: do you live in a) Independent City X or b) Y county?
Seriously, this is not hard.
And yet, somehow, Amazon still manages to get packages to me, even though my zip code resolves to more than one jurisdiction. This problem is way, way overblown.
Given that as of right now, they're not even TRYING to collect sales taxes (even though it appears that they legally should be), I doubt that Amazon execs are exactly quaking in their boots about what state governments will do if Amazon does try to collect them. This is purely in effort on Amazon's part to not have to deal with the trouble and expense involved.
No kidding. Which is why Amazon isn't actually PAYING the tax. It's COLLECTING the tax, which is actually paid by the person who lives in the jurisdiction... and who is presumably partaking of the services the tax is paying for. Better go back to the drawing board on this one.
I can just see a whole business with freight forwarding or mail boxes developing for online purchases in the States in States that have the lowest tax for online purchase. Just like people buy in the U.S., consolidate their purchases at mail box in Miami or where ever, and ship them to destinations around the World. Well, they will start doing that between States also to avoid the online sales tax.
Living in Chile
... but this is all beside the point. Amazon doesn't pay the tax, the customer does. And there is no question that a customer in jurisdiction X is receiving the benefits of the services provided by X. And that means they should pay. The debate is really about whether Amazon should be COLLECTING the tax, and this is pretty much settled law - if you have some kind of physical presence in a state, you collect that state's sales tax. The NYT/LAT articles are about the fact that Amazon is manipulating its business organization to obfuscate the fact that they have a physical presence in states including NY and CA.
Just 30 seconds using Google with the search "sales tax determination service" found numerous companies that do just what Amazon claims is too difficult. The first company listed, Sabrix, provides address verification and tax info down to the exact street.
And with Amazon branching into all kinds of developer services, they could write their own and recoup the investment selling this service.
The point of TFA is that there IS trickery involved - Amazon has apparently set up a bunch of shell organizations to make it appear as though they don't have a physical presence in certain states, even though they really do. It's not at all surprising that the states involved are trying to put a stop to this.
It's a good thing then that we aren't required to pay property taxes on things besides real estate, then (and perhaps on cars in some areas), since we all have stuff we "own" but couldn't sell for its perceived value.
It doesn't hurt to be nice.
Admit it this is just a petty swipe at liberals and linux. Your still an idiot.
You are still an idiot.
Fixed that for you.
Truth: If it's not one thing, it's another
it is against this backdrop that he makes semi-facetious comments about taxing intellectual property - which carries its own background and baggage. It is definitely a swipe, but I don't think Linux is included in the swipe, and I don't think it is anywhere near limited to liberals. However, judging by your response, I'd say it is definitely a swipe at people like you, so your outrage is probably justified.
I live in the state of Washington, and Amazon always collects sales tax from me. For example, the last item I've ordered costed 89.99 USD, but the total was 97.46 because Amazon took 7.47 as sales tax. I always thought that this is the way it operates for people in the US, but apparently I't totally confused.
Developing a service (perhaps SaaS) to compute local taxes from an address would be possible but complex. As has been pointed out you cannot simply map a zip code to a sales tax. There are state, county, and local tax jurisdictions, sometimes more than one in a given zip code. Rules vary widely depending on what is being purchased. Some items like groceries may have lower tax rates or be tax free. Others like beer and wine have higher tax rates. Purchased items would have to be categorized based on their tax liability and compared to rates for that class of item.
And assuming that such a service was available and it's underlying database was fully populated - it would have to be kept up to date. Every time a state, county, or city changed it's tax rates or rules, the database would have to be updated.
There's the issue of who has legal responsibility if the database gets out of date. Is it the merchant or the service provider. Either way, it could prove expensive, and that expense will no doubt be passed to the consumer.
Finally, there's the remittance issue - the merchant would have thousands of payment transactions ranging from millions of dollars to pennies to various taxing jurisdictions. Again, the overhead would be passed on to the consumer.
Congress could simplify this by creating a national tax on on-line transactions. They could pick an arbitrary rate - 6%, 8%, 10% ... and charge that on all on-line transactions. The money could be collected by the federal government and distributed to the states. The states could re-distribute the money to counties and cities if they chose to.
The current Congress is fairly "tax friendly", so it should be relatively simple to pass. States are almost uniformly in budget crisis, so such a measure would have considerable support by many state and local politicians.
Whether such a solution is wise, or desirable by the citizens of the country - well I'll leave that to the reader.
[Insert pithy quote here]
I don't care what the NY Times or LA Times think about ecommerce sites collecting sales taxes. Obviously they're functioning as a mouthpiece for other interests.
It seems that the US government and certain corporate interests aren't going to rest until everything that is great about the internet is destroyed; I am far more concerned about censorship/free speech/organizing potential online thanI am about taxes, but whether it's:
country-wide filtering schemes,
trying to expose bloggers to liability/loss of freedom for reporting news that powerful interests don't like,
All sorts of plans to violate due process/4th amendment rights in the name of groups like the RIAA/MPAA (when "Hollywood" earned far more money this year than any other),
talk of a unique digital online ID, (like an online social security card) that everyone would be required to use to go online so any activities can be traced back to a real name,
network neutrality stuff...
All of this stuff seems to me to have the same goal - taming the internet, turning it from something wonderful into an apparatus that collects information and money on behalf of the state while at the same time ending extremely important sites like Wikileaks, and stopping the free flow and dispersion of information (because the powers that be want to control what you know and learn about)....
There's a plan to make interstate sales taxes work, from the Streamlined Sales Tax Governing Board, which is an organization set up by multiple states to coordinate interstate sales taxes. The problem is that it doesn't have enough clout to get the states to standardize.
The basic idea is that the sales tax calculation software takes in the destination address and the commodity code, and comes up with the sales tax rate. But the organization doesn't have enough clout to make state legislatures standardize. Only about 25 states have signed up.
They've made some progress, though. Those 25 states have agreed that sales tax rates can only change quarterly, they've agreed to use a standard dictionary of classes of items, and they have uploaded boundary files of taxable areas. For those states, rates and boundaries are available for FTP download. Some states have trouble with the concept of "one sales tax rate per zip code", and the organization is struggling with this.
There are three "certified service providers" who can handle the sales tax payments for merchants. They plug into the shopping cart system, calculate the sales tax, and bill the merchant for total sales taxes collected. They then pay out sales taxes to all the states involved. So the merchant only has one bill.
So the machinery is in place to make this work. Sort of.
Bezos is a whiny bitch:
Let me introduce you to
www.adptaxware.com
and the government program that's going to FORCE Amazon to charge sales taxes sooner or later
http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/
This has been a solved problem since Amazon.com first opened it's doors (ADP's tax division, formerly Taxware, formerly AVP, has been in the sales/use tax business for around 30 years).
And they have PLENTY of competition in the marketplace.
Disclaimer: I worked for Taxware/ADPTaxware.
You need to do a little research...
1) USPS is responsible for address validation. It is their system that will add a new address to the database. Right now about 98% of all addresses will validate correctly(unknown). Specially with 5 different types of postal codes that affects how an address is validated. When it validates incorrectly it is normally an error in the USPS system. Nothing can fix that expect them.
2) GIS information normally runs 3-6 months behind USPS.
3) Tax rates are currently gathered monthly and supplied to clients by multiple accounting companies just for this need. Must all tax changes occur 3-4 months before they go into effect. Even if you miss the date, there is normally a grace period in which you implement the change.
YES all these services today you pay. If you use the USPS will be free, but do not over use it.
That is why I would like USPS to be the tax expert, you validate an address for shipping and they supply you the tax rate. Since it is USPS, they would be "always right", and indemnify the user of service. If an address does not validate, that too will be reported *AND* a tax rate will returned to as a default. We used the closest spelling match, and if more than 1 was found, the lowest rate. This logic passed all states, since it was the best that could be used at the time.
If the USPS steps up, the cost should be no more than what it costs today to validate an address. They are already passing back route information and other unneeded information for normal processing, the tax rate(s) that are in effect would be just a little more.
Solutions to this problem have existed for a loooong time. I have developed consumer systems that used Vertex in the late 80's and 90's.
Whether it's right or not is a different question, but it is not any more of a burden than any other service that businesses typically use.
There are companies that perform this exact service (VertexInc.com is one) and have since the 80's.
It seems to me that those who have pointed out how difficult it is to determine the level of sales taxation have conclusively made the case that none of the existing sales tax laws should apply to the internet. There's also the little detail that current federal law bars taxation of the internet. There is of course an obvious workaround -- just require states who want to tax internet commerce to create a separate simple tax rate for internet products.
Re: the LA and NY Times op-eds:
1. Is there ANY tax these scribbling fools don't like?
2. Could we have expected any more (or less) from two newspapers that are now "circling down the bowl"?
Prediction: In five years, Amazon will still be around. The NY Times and the LA Times won't be.
When I purchase from Amazon I am engaging in a private transaction with an out of state vendor. What exactly is my state contributing to that transaction that it deserves a cut? Sure, the state can take a cut, because it can cause injury to my property or to my person if I refuse, but so can the mafia. In a modern, democratic republic shouldn't we require a higher standard of our government? Let's give the state some credit here. Surely this isn't outright extortion. What is it that my state is doing to deserve this additional cut?
Let's see. My state already collected taxes on the income I'll use to make the purchase, already collected taxes from the shipping company that will deliver my purchase, already collected taxes for the roads on which the purchase will be delivered, already collected taxes from me for the home in which I'll use my purchase, already collected taxes to pay for the police and fire that will aid me in protecting my purchase, and my state will be right there to collect taxes on the disposal of my purchase when I one day discard it.
Now, what exactly is my state, or your state, doing to deserve an additional, direct cut of this private transaction?
Other than the threat of force? Nothing. I have it, and it wants it. Nothing. The same thing it's doing when it tells me to buy health insurance for simply existing, for simply having been born into this world and having the audacity to be alive. This, my friends, is the audacity of hope.
The Timeses have it backwards. It is time for the states to stop extorting sales tax for entities that are not doing business in their state. There is no burden on the state for a sale done mail order. If the government wants a national sales tax then enact one. Otherwise the states should only get sales tax for sales originating within their state.
"Rich men trying to give their hard earned money to the government? Blasphemy."
They are entirely free to do so in the absence of an estate or any other sort of tax. The IRS has mechanisms to enable living people to donate money to the federal government, and newly deceased to leave their estate to the federal government as well. What Buffett and Gates are in favor of is the IRS confiscating a portion of *other* peoples estates from the would be heirs. Better to say "Rich men trying to give away other's hard earned money" - which is altogether typical. Far from unusual.
46 & 2
Estate tax is only for people too poor to find a shelter like holding companies. A common thing for very rich is to create a holding company that "owns" all but one small house and one checking account. All the shares and property are owned by the holding company. Family members get "1099" wages with enough padding to cover the amount owed in taxes.
When Dad dies, kids are already on the "board" of the holding company as "employees" so the whole thing skips estate taxes all together except for cash and valuables that are personal belongings. Kids elect a new boss and continue to get checks.
They will be collecting "usage taxes" which are generally defined as equivalent to sales taxes in the amount owed to the taxing authority.
But for those of you hung up on things that are exempt from sales taxes, this is where it will get murky. So Amazon sells you something that has a combined tax rate of 10% (just for example and it actually gets split between 4 different authorities in your state). Amazon will charge you that tax, collect it and pass it on to your state. They will do this regardless of the actual tax status of the item due to tax holidays, eccentric local tax exemptions and even special tax exempt status for various non-profits or items for resale.
Now if you feel that you have paid a usage tax that you should not have because you or the items you purchase meets one of these tax exemption requirements, it will fall upom you to claim a usage tax refund from your state - just as it currently falls upon you to accurately pay the usage tax on all your online purchases that the seller has not already collected from you.
You either believe in rational thought or you don't
where is the point of sale? thats what all the sales tax collection comes down to.
its tricky since the point of sale is multiple physical locations.
is it where the customer is physically sitting when ordering? is it the shipping address? the billing address? the location of the corporate hq? the location of the servers that process the order? the location where the items ship from? run your imagination wild for a few minutes and you can expand the list with all sorts of scenarios. collecting taxes and getting it occasionally wrong would lead to expensive problems.
How about if Amazon simply reported their sales by address to the state in question? Then it would be up to the state to pursue the use tax if they care to. Kind of like financial institutions report interest income to the IRS without collecting any tax due.
He has said he plans to give his money to charity, so the estate tax has no impact on him.
Warren Buffet makes a lot of money from life insurance. A huge portion of life insurance is purchased because of the estate tax. That is why he supports it.
The key thing most respondants are ignoring is that Amazon already collects taxes in all 50 states for certain purchases. If you RTFA, you would find out that Amazon controls the "Toys R Us" online store which does have to pay tax on all its sales.
So, while there may be other arguments against Amazon collecting taxes, the "burden" argument is nothing more than a load of horse puckey.
California can't figure out how to spend what it takes in now. Sane people spend about what they earn. California spends what it damn well pleases and then worries about paying later with no evidence that this spending pattern is going to change. Being progressive may be laudable; it is also very expensive. While we're chasing tax scofflaws, we should also ticket every single person driving faster than the speed limit on our highways. That way we can absolutely get every last dollar due to the state. Maybe we should start fining people for ripping the labels off mattresses too. Just a thought.
"altruism - Regard for others, both natural and moral; devotion to the interests of others; brotherly kindness; -- opposed to egoism or selfishness." Beyond that, neither I nor the post I responded to said "force". The word used was "want".
Nor would it be altruistic. There isn't very much regard in axe-murdering millionaires; Robin Hood stole, not murdered. As for shooting the mentally or physically ill, such people are just as much brothers of mankind as those who are mentally or physically fit. Ie, there is just as much reason to show them brotherly kindness, and there's nothing kind about shooting them.
Which says nothing against taking your new found wealth and giving it to charities. It is not an either/or to choose capitalism and charity.
That's precisely the point. Poor houses failed because they chose to punish the poor. The New Deal has failed, in part, because it simply supports the poor. Because both England of old and modern America are capitalistic societies, governments are not the solution to the long-term prosperity of the poor; they don't make the jobs, after all. That void can be best filled by charity. This doesn't mean the charity of feeding the mouth (the New Deal fixed that, mostly). It does mean the charity organization and business that prov
Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
A lot of posters have commented on the complexity of different tax regimes in different cities, counties and states. I think that the best way to solve the problem of collecting sales tax is to develop a meet in the middle approach.
Amazon should be required to make detailed sales histories available on a yearly basis. They should be required to provide an API that allows any municipality with tax authority to receive a simple CSV list that includes the value of the sale, the date of the sale, the zip code it was sold to, and the category of the merchandise. Amazon should have to take an accounting charge against their estimated tax liability. It will then be the responsibility of each municipality to submit a tax bill to Amazon to collect their taxes. There should be a reasonable statue of limitations to do so. Perhaps three years is long enough?
The API would have to have a way to tag transactions as paid so that Amazon doesn't get double or tripled billed. The most intensive part of the process would be coming up with the merchandise type field. I'm sure Amazon already has it, but there is a question of whether or not is compatible with the tax categories. It should be easy enough to harmonize them though.
In Colorado there is a county tax that is different in every county. In NJ they have enterprise zones where the tax is half unless your a business in NJ then you need to pay full tax. See, it is unbelievably simple.
On taxes in general... they have already been paid. The manufacturer paid tax on the raw goods, tax was paid by the distributors, and income tax was collected from the people who work for these organizations. Have I left out anything? Please add it in if so. Do we get any more representation in Congress for the items that have been taxed three or more times? Please, if it is taxed in the EU, let's not do it here.
Estate tax is only for people too poor to find a shelter like holding companies.
A Panamanian foundation will cost you about $500 US per annum to run, and can hold properties in a structure such that no estate tax will ever be payable. You don't have to be super rich for that to be worth doing.
... because they already do it. Amazon already collects sales tax for products sold by third-party merchants on their site. So, they already have the infrastructure in place to assess and collect sales tax for merchants located virtually anywhere.
This is simply about keeping a competitive advantage they have over brick-and-mortar stores. Sure, you could say it's not moral for them to avoid paying their fair share, but you could also say it's immoral for them to NOT find ways to maximize profit for their shareholders (which might include you, depending on your retirement plan!).
I would deeply surprised if there weren't multiple solutions to taxing goods in the US. It's not like its a new problem.
On taxes in general... they have already been paid. The manufacturer paid tax on the raw goods, tax was paid by the distributors, and income tax was collected from the people who work for these organizations. Have I left out anything? Please add it in if so. Do we get any more representation in Congress for the items that have been taxed three or more times? Please, if it is taxed in the EU, let's not do it here.
I expect (any) government's reasoning is that no single tax that can be fairly applied across the spectrum, so therefore multiple overlapping taxes. This is not exclusive to the US. Each government / region sets forth its tax code and its up to any entity which wishes to do business in that jurisdiction to adhere to it. Yes I'd rather not pay tax on goods shipped from internet sales, or failing that at least have a single tax everywhere, but I see no valid technical reason that it couldn't be done.
Commerce clause commerce clause commerce clause.
If NY/CA/etc want to collect sales tax revenue from out-of-state retailers with no domestic presence, let them collect directly from their own citizens.
Not that I care, my state doesn't collect retail sales tax. Meh.
Any database that would allow Amazon to properly collect all the required appropriate taxes could also be employed by Amazon to display alternative tax rates, as well. Can't you just see it? "You total tax rate is $xx.xx. If you ordered in the nearby county of ------, your tax rate would only be $x.xx. In the state of --------, you would only pay $x.xx in tax. If you remove the -------- from your order, your tax rate goes down to xx cents. Under other conditions...." People would start comparison shopping tax rates, and have their orders sent to friends in other lower-tax jurisdictions, and tax revenues would go down even further!
Also the local taxes aren't linked to postal/zip codes.
So you can't just do a database look-up.
The mailing address is the address of the post office that delivers the mail, not the civil location of the building. A small northern California city has its post office in Oregon, so the California residents have an Oregon address on their California driver's license.
And what about post office boxes? Real USPS ones or FEDEX ones?
I recently returned from Disney World in Florida. The sales tax varies depending on which store you happen to be in.
Yes I'd rather not pay tax on goods shipped from internet sales, or failing that at least have a single tax everywhere, ...
I totally agree, let's elect people to do that.
By buying from Amazon I help shrink Govt.
When does programs become taxable? Who will decided they are taxable, and how will you enforce this?
Tax the program when you file a copyright. If you want to keep the copyright, take it in to get it assessed by the property tax assessor for that software. You could do it like every couple of years, just like getting a driver's license, and even better, you could actually peg the amount you can sue for infringement to the taxes that you have paid. If you don't pay the taxes, then that copyright is reverted and the content is in the public domain. You could even cap the amount you can sue for damages for infringement - in total -, by the amount you claimed for your IP worth.
Admit it this is just a petty swipe at liberals and linux. Your still an idiot.
You only say I'm an idiot because I'm outlining a copyright scheme that can actually work, and I've figured out a way to shift the tax burden from center-right industries like manufacturing, mining and farming to liberal industries like intellectual property, and furthermore, use all of your social arguments against you.
In fact, I'm going to run as a Republican Candidate for US Senate, offering Canadian Style Single Payer Health Care, all financed by levying a copyright and patent property tax on every invention ever made and every book every written. The end result will be a sharp reduction of submarine patents, a greater churn of software, patents and legal paperwork into the public domain, and finally, universal health care for all Americans with no strings attached.
Seems to me, that your progressive self is simply being greedy, trying to avoid paying taxes so that people in need of medical care go starving. How could you do such a thing!
This is my sig.
Cool, let's charge the fuck out of Faux News too, and let's also charge the Fox Network, imagine how much money we could beat out of that evil old fuck Rupert Murdoch on taxes for all of the Fox Network IP in shows such as The Simpsons, Family Guy, American Dad, etc.
While we're at it let's have a 100 percent income surtax on anyone who uses the phrase "liberal media". And anyone who uses the phrase "lieberal media" gets the 100 percent income surtax, two .45 slugs in the back of their head and we harvest their organs for sale.
cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
The bias of the lieberal media is well-documented. That you deny it exists means you are simply stupid, illiterate and willfully ignorant.
In the meantime, for making threats against us conservatives and libertarians, you and your family have been put on the execution list. Properly equipped snipers will be dispatched to kill you and your family from a safe distance. Either that, or the justice squad will wait until you or your children are in a liberal-mandated "gun free zone" to slit your throats with rusty blades.
... these increasingly irrelevant olde mædia dinosaurs are going to take any tack they can to stick it to the interwebs and the customers who aren't suckling at their teats. The sad thing is that too many people in this country seem to think that increasing taxes during a recession is a good idea.
MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
agents of the foreign empire are declaring their intent to force more people to pay tax.
Screw spendthrift state governments. Instead of controlling state spending by paring down ridiculous state and local employee pensions, the first thing the MA state legislature and governor did was increase sales taxes by 25%. Not a very bright move in the middle of a recession when your state is right next door to sales-tax-free NH. No wonder that's where Amazon located their regional distribution center. A great case example of how high state taxes kill off jobs and commerce, sending them to lower tax states instead.
This doesn't sound like News Media reporting the news. It sounds like News Media trying to shape national policy. And at who's bidding?
I think the bigger question isn't if Amazon should or should not be allowed to conduct business without sales tax but why are the NY Times and LA Times making a political issue of one company when they (LA & NY) present themselves as mere reporters of the news. This doesn't look like news, it looks like coercion.
Amazon has stated that if states make UNIFORM sales tax laws, then Amazon would have no problem collecting taxes.
I agree. Taxes should be equal and fair across the country. For Everyone.
The problem here is that if you're buying out of state, or even out of country then you have no voice or vote on the matter. I order stuff from other countries all the time, and the reality is that if they started slapping a tax on my goods, then I have to like it or lump it. My opinion is that taxing stuff is going to have an obvious a chilling effect on internet sales but its up to legislators to realise the consequences.
Speaking as a veteran, bring your shit on you pansy ass.