Slashdot Mirror


Every Day's a Tax Holiday At Amazon

theodp writes "With Black Friday here, Slate's Farhad Manjoo reminds readers of how Amazon.com undersells Best Buy, the Apple store, and almost everybody else. Read his lips: no sales taxes. Unless you live in KS, KY, NY, ND, or WA, you'll pay no sales tax on many purchases from Amazon, giving Amazon a huge — and largely hidden — price advantage over most other national retailers. Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos is certainly no fan of taxes — he explored founding Amazon on an Indian reservation, and recently ponied up $100,000 to defeat a proposed WA state income tax, a good investment for someone who's cashed in close to $800,000,000 in Amazon stock this year alone. So, is Amazon's tax-free status unfair? Of course it is, says Manjoo. Amazon has physical operations in 17 states in which the company and its employees enjoy the fruits of local taxes — police and fire protection, roads, hospitals, and other infrastructure that make its operations possible. Yet Amazon skirts tax collection in most of these places through clever legal tricks."

50 of 377 comments (clear)

  1. indirect taxes are important by wakim1618 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Each state in which Amazon is located also benefits from the jobs, both direct (employed by Amazon) and indirect (e.g. transport services and power generation) which Amazon pays for. These workers in turn pay income taxes and sales taxes (when they purchase goods and services) which pay for the roads and infrastructure. Corporate and sales taxes directly paid by the company are usually not the primary means by which a company contributes to a government's tax revenues. It may well be argued that if Amazon is expected to contribute towards its consumption of infrastructure, then it should be some of its taxes back in many states.

    1. Re:indirect taxes are important by Dionysus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      don't all those companies that Amazon competes against elso provides jobs to workers who "in turn pay income taxes and sales taxes (when they purchase goods and services) which pay for the roads and infrastructure"?

      --
      Je ne parle pas francais.
    2. Re:indirect taxes are important by anguirus.x · · Score: 3, Informative

      These workers in turn pay income taxes and sales taxes (when they purchase goods and services) which pay for the roads and infrastructure.

      Well, if they buy stuff from Amazon they don't pay sales taxes, which is exactly the point, son.

    3. Re:indirect taxes are important by samriel · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So the rest of those companies go out of business, and their employees have to work at Amazon. You get less choice when you buy stuff online, so Amazon gets more money, so it can destroy other businesses, and hire more employees...

      Isn't the free market great?
      </sarcasm>

    4. Re:indirect taxes are important by misexistentialist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Chains like Walmart already devastated local business before Amazon got a chance to.

    5. Re:indirect taxes are important by IndustrialComplex · · Score: 3, Interesting

      "You get less choice when you buy stuff online" Whaaaaat?

      The internet will trend toward monopoly. Even though it seems like the perfect 'entry-level' system, large companies can negotiate with suppliers to achieve prices that a smaller company cannot match. The smaller company will operate on smaller margins until the larger company can match or beat those margins (Automation, etc).

      Even things with no tangible products are susceptible. Think of something like facebook. The market share is so large that it becomes the market. You can't really compete with these companies unless you offer a substantially better product and almost rise to popularity overnight.

      Our current system HAS competition, but I don't see anything really preventing the competition from evaporating as time passes. All trends seem to point toward monopoly. (Except home run at-cost ventures for things like email or basic services)

      --
      Out of modpoints but really liked a post? 1BDkF6TtmmeZ3yqXbz9yhdYVqRYnwFoXDj
    6. Re:indirect taxes are important by clintp · · Score: 2, Informative

      Amazon's generating a lot of taxes revenue for those states, just not in direct sales taxes:

      Amazon pays property taxes on the warehouses it owns/leases.
      Amazon pays fuel taxes for the trucks it uses to cart that stuff around.
      Amazon pays the employer portion of payroll taxes (state worker's compensation, employer-paid portions of state income taxes, and a host of other crazy employer-paid taxes and fees you would not believe)

      Plus, there's all of the taxes the workers are paying:

      The workers pay income taxes and sales taxes on day-to-day things they buy.
      The workers pay property taxes on any property they own/lease.
      The workers pay fuel taxes commuting to their jobs.

      Yes, they are dodging some taxes (albeit, legally). It's the American way. *flag waving ensues* And they're welcome to move into my state (Michigan), employ thousands of people (directly or indirectly), and dodge sales taxes here too if they can.

      --
      Get off my lawn.
    7. Re:indirect taxes are important by AmberBlackCat · · Score: 2, Informative

      Around here, Wal-Mart, Sprint, and I think Harley-Davidson all got tax breaks for locating a "brick-and-mortar" store in this area. Something about luring businesses to stimulate the economy or employment. So they're getting tax breaks online businesses don't get.

    8. Re:indirect taxes are important by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's about efficiency gains.

      What used to take 100 sales clerks to provide, can now be done by 0 sales clerks.
      What used to take 100 separate warehouses, now takes 0 warehouses (direct from vendor shipping).

      Previously, those 100 sales clerks would have found other work, some might have retired, a few would have failed/died/turned to crime.
      The warehouses might have found other uses, or decayed (both happened).

      I think this is a paradigm shift tho.

      Most of the 100 sales clerks will not find other work. Jobs for manual labor type work are going away without replacements.
      Jobs on the top end (less manual) are also going away (offshoring).

      I think we could see over 30% unemployment within 2 decades. That would have significant effects on what our society votes as "reasonable".

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    9. Re:indirect taxes are important by Dutch+Gun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I doubt you can get away from basic economic reality that easily. I'd imagine that if only corporations are taxed instead of people, they'd have to make up the difference in cost. That means either cutting costs in some way (layoffs are the simplest), or raising prices.

      It's the same sort of logic people use when trying to tax the rich. Unfortunately, the rich (and upper-middle class) are the entrepreneurs and venture-capitalists, and tend to be job creators. If you try to tax them, they end up working to just preserve their own capital instead of investing it back into the economy where it does the most good. It's quite simple - if you remove the potential reward, it's not worth the risk of investment.

      When you siphon off money from the economy via taxes, it doesn't really matter where you take it from. It all has the same negative drain on the economy.

      --
      Irony: Agile development has too much intertia to be abandoned now.
    10. Re:indirect taxes are important by CastrTroy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The problem is that you had people doing jobs that are unskilled. If your job could be done by the average kid in high school, you should really should rethink your career path. Long gone are the days where you could go work for the local factory and work there your entire life. People are capable of much more, but for the most part, they aren't living up to it because there was always an alternative. Most people are lazy and will take the unskilled labour route if it means they can pay the bills. Once that path does not exist anymore, and the options consist of "live on the street" or "learn how to do something useful" you'll see a lot more people doing useful stuff.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  2. Go after those who purchase from Amazon instead by garcia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    From the article:

    Technically, then, if I buy a $1,000 laptop from Amazon, I'm supposed to pay a $90 use tax when I file my taxes to my home state of California at the end of the year. I've never done this, and I bet you haven't either--almost nobody does, because states have no good way to enforce use tax collection.

    Then stop whining about the lack of sales taxes. The taxes should be borne by the customer of Amazon, not Amazon (at least in the states in which it does not have a physical presence and no, affiliates are not physical presence no matter how bad the states want it to be). The government knows better than to enforce those taxes upon the citizenry as it only causes a minor inconvenience on a single online retailer, 300 million people are likely to be a lot more upset.

    1. Re:Go after those who purchase from Amazon instead by rolfwind · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Apt Tax.

      http://www.apttax.com/

      It's the only semi-progressive tax I see just from treating people fairly all transactions at the same rate - meaning it will hit million dollar stock trades (at $6k) just as much as the guy buying a $100 piece of furniture ($0.60).

      All other taxes I see are rather unprogressive. The poorest used the biggest amount of income for daily needs and so sale's tax hits them hardest. Fica is capped at 120k income (or something like that) - that's a staggering 15% of your income (and let's be honest here, if the employer is paying half, he's just figuring so much less from your pay and poor self-employed people pay the 15% all by themselves. Etc, etc, etc.

      The only semi-progressive tax is income tax and even that is so riddled with loopholes that it's the middle and upper middle classes that get screwed, the rich can afford to pay for good advice on how to structure.

      And since it's deemed $$$==free speech, the rich will always make sure politicians keep it this way. And I'm not talking about rich individuals necessarily, rich corps are the real culprits and since everyone does it, they somewhat owe it to their stockholders to do it as well.

      And while it's nice that Bill Gates and Warren Buffett donate to charity, most of it goes to 3rd world countries which they do because it helps the most people per dollar, honestly a big chunk should have gone back to the country (people) that helped them build up in the first place.

  3. Shipping Costs, Etc. by resistant · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've always wondered why when irate brick and mortar retailers yell about an "unfair advantage" with no sales tax, they invariably fail to mention shipping costs, which don't exist for direct in-person brick and mortar store purchases. Admittedly, Amazon (for example) these days has free shipping for many orders of $25.00 or over, and intense competition over the past few years has put great pressure on all on-line retailers to not play games with charging excessive shipping fees to pad their profits, which used to be a huge problem.

    Frankly, I gloat over not having to pay sales taxes (when possible). That's the free market. Amazon certainly has no moral obligation to levy sales taxes if there's no direct legal obligation to do it. It's up to the individual states to decide how badly they want to drive out business or attract it with varying tax treatment.

    --
    A truly excellent pizza parlor is a delight unto the heavens. Treasure the sauce and the toppings!
    1. Re:Shipping Costs, Etc. by Tensor · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So do you believe that merchandise magically appears at a brick&mortar shop ?

    2. Re:Shipping Costs, Etc. by arkane1234 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      it's more of of a situation of the shipping price being added on previous to purchase at brick & mortar, versus like sales tax after purchase.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    3. Re:Shipping Costs, Etc. by thijsh · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The shipping cost are negligible compared to the rent of a store on a prime location. This has given online retailers an advantage from the first day an online store opened it's doors, so to speak... This saves them so much cost compared to the brick and mortar retailers that they can sell products for a lower price and deliver it to you in one day for free and still make more money than retailers do. The advantage is and has always been with the online retailers and the only way brick and mortar stores can compete is with service, and playing on peoples feelings because most people still prefer to be able to talk to someone in person, ask questions and feel the product they are buying (and are willing to pay a little extra for that). Both on- and offline stores have advantages, nothing special about that.

      The sales tax is a whole different matter, it does create an unfair advantage because Amazon just shifts responsibility for the tax to the end customer. It has to be payed anyway they just don't because, supposedly, it's a hassle to figure out to who... It's tax-evasion and the larger the company the more accepted it is... It has come to the point that the largest companies with the greatest income pay the least amount of tax (percentage that is), that is the underlying unfair advantage that will eventually result in monopolies.

      Smaller companies pay more tax => Unfair advantage for the big companies => Monopolies in the long run => The bill for the customer (whether in money, service or quality)...

    4. Re:Shipping Costs, Etc. by Jenming · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Not collecting sales tax to make up for shipping costs amounts to a government subsidy on shipping. Maybe thats a good idea, but its not the free market at work.

      --
      Morpheus, God of Dreams.
    5. Re:Shipping Costs, Etc. by TapeCutter · · Score: 2, Informative

      "Amazon certainly has no moral obligation to levy sales taxes if there's no direct legal obligation to do it"

      Yep, that's it in a nutshell. It reminds me of a wealthy bussinessman here in Oz called Kerry Packer who was dragged in front of a senate inquiry into media ownership laws. Check out his response to one of the seantors starting from about 7:25 in this video.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    6. Re:Shipping Costs, Etc. by Belial6 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Honestly, the whole practice of even calling it "online" sales is a misnomer that confuses the argument. "Online" sales have existed long before "Online" existed. "Online" sales ARE mail-order sales. Arguing about Amazon mail-order is no different then arguing about people buying mail-order in 1900. Just as with everything else, "On a computer" does not make mail-order some completely new thing that is somehow magically different from what has been going on for the last 100 years.

    7. Re:Shipping Costs, Etc. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So do you believe that merchandise magically appears at a brick&mortar shop ?

      just as magically as it appears at Amazons warehouses.

    8. Re:Shipping Costs, Etc. by Rich0 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It has to be payed anyway they just don't because, supposedly, it's a hassle to figure out to who... It's tax-evasion and the larger the company the more accepted it is...

      No, it is called the interstate commerce clause. You know, that clause of the constitution that usually causes people to pay more in taxes and deal with more government intrusion. It turns out that in this particular case it makes sales taxes on items purchased in other states illegal, which is why you don't have to pay tax on purchases across state lines.

      Now, states do try to charge a "use tax" on items purchased in other states. This is of course flagrantly in violation of the constitution since it is just another name for a sales tax, and you have to pay it even if you never use the purchased item. However, courts have upheld it, and so you could potentially be punished for not paying this unconstitutional tax, assuming somebody manages to figure out how to bill you for it and survives the backlash.

    9. Re:Shipping Costs, Etc. by noidentity · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So do you believe that merchandise magically appears at a brick&mortar shop ?

      Do you believe that shipping 100 widgets on a single truck to a single store costs anywhere close to shipping 100 widgets individually to 100 people's doorsteps?

    10. Re:Shipping Costs, Etc. by Fjandr · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This is the only comment that needed to be posted for this story. The arguments here are rehashing stuff that was settled years ago. Some of that was settled correctly, some not.

      States that charge use tax on out-of-state purchases exercise power which is clearly and specifically denied them by the US Constitution's Interstate Commerce Clause, which gives sole authority to do such things to Congress. People failing to report the purchases may be committing a crime, but they are certainly not doing anything wrong.

  4. Technically true, does it explain pricing? by ukyoCE · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Neither Best Buy nor Amazon include sales tax in their advertised prices. Yet Amazon's (and Neweggs, and etc.) prices are typically discounted 20% or more compared to the brick and mortar stores. Even after accounting for shipping. I don't think lack of sales tax is why people pick Amazon and Newegg.

    1. Re:Technically true, does it explain pricing? by MistrBlank · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I live in New Jersey where I "enjoy" a 7% sales tax on NewEgg orders for the last 5 years or so since they built the Edisson warehouse.... they're still cheaper than anywhere else. You're completely right that it's not a factor. On top of that, most of my orders arrive NEXT DAY, even when I take the free shipping options that are supposed to be 3-5 days and NewEgg's support has always been nice to me for close to 10 years now. That is the reason I keep coming back.

    2. Re:Technically true, does it explain pricing? by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't think lack of sales tax is why people pick Amazon and Newegg.

      Indeed. I'd pay Newegg an extra 20% not to have to deal with the hassle of Best Buy. At least I can return defective stuff to Newegg without having to threaten a manager, and I'm honestly surprised that Best Buy hasn't installed TSA-style scanners so they can enhance their "I just watched you pay for this but I'm going to treat you like a shoplifter anyway" experience.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
  5. There is always by kilodelta · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The little fact that the power to tax interstate commerce is the exclusive domain of the FEDERAL government. Not the states. That's why Amazon can skirt most state use tax laws.

    I live in a state that requires me to report anything I bought outside the state or online via a USE tax. I'm waiting for someone to buy something but never use it and let the state prosecute. them. I bet that stupid voluntary use tax would be dropped post haste.

  6. Bait and switch by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    in which the company and its employees enjoy the fruits of local taxes — police and fire protection, roads, hospitals, and other infrastructure that make its operations possible.

    And I am sure that those employees pay their federal, state and municipal taxes, as well as sales taxes on just about everything they buy... I'm sorry what was your point again?

    Ahh yes, the shameless grabbing of money by idiotic governments so addicted to spending that even the bonds they issue are worth little more than junk. Shame on you. Instead of reaching your hands out for more money like spoiled children, how about making real efforts to cut spending.

    There's a law of nature - the more you try to tax, the less money you actually get. People and companies eventually move - out of state, or out of country. It's a simple decision - if the cost of moving is less than the cost of taxes, we move. Careful when you raise the cost of doing business. All the rules, regulations, by laws, and other problems associated with employing people in the US is what is driving business offshore (where things are SIMPLER) to begin with. I really don't see what exactly is anchoring a global company like Amazon specifically to the US. A plunging US dollar may be "good for exports", but it means that the line in the income statement that says "Income from the USA" is actually worth less and less every year.

    --
    Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    1. Re:Bait and switch by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Ahh yes, the shameless grabbing of money by idiotic governments so addicted to spending that even the bonds they issue are worth little more than junk.

      Oddly enough, it's not that simple. For the US Federal Government, Treasury Notes are still one of the safest forms of debt to own, even though the US is obviously holding a huge debt. The reason has more to do with the risk of the US defaulting versus their ability to tax and/or grow their way out of debt. Meanwhile, a state like California has suffered from junk bond status on its debt because US states can default on their debt and California has anal laws when it comes to raising taxes yet trivial laws for increasing spending; ironically enough, California like most states has to balance its budget (ie, have no net debt*) every year (or few years, I'm not entirely sure which) so it'd seem to be much safer in the short term.

      Shame on you. Instead of reaching your hands out for more money like spoiled children, how about making real efforts to cut spending.

      Yea, that'd be the fault of voters. People say "cut spending", elect politicians on a vague platform to deal with the budget (since specifics would leave you unelectable), then turn around and vote out anyone who would actually make the tough choices and cuts spending (since it only takes a few percent of people to swing the vote and people selfishly vote on their own interests). And of course, cutting taxes** is great to get you reelected but it has nothing to do with solving a debt crisis generally.

      There's a law of nature - the more you try to tax, the less money you actually get.

      Two things. One, the Laffer Curve clearly indicates that in fact there's a range of tax rates that increasing the tax rate will result in greater tax revenue until a point; after that, tax revenue does go down. The evidence would seem to indicate the effective tax rate where tax revenue drops off is close to 50%. Two, I don't think anyone believes government should intrinsically work to maximize tax revenue; it just happens that voters keep electing for spending and that inherently requires more tax revenue to pay off.

      People and companies eventually move - out of state, or out of country. It's a simple decision - if the cost of moving is less than the cost of taxes, we move. Careful when you raise the cost of doing business. All the rules, regulations, by laws, and other problems associated with employing people in the US is what is driving business offshore (where things are SIMPLER) to begin with.

      Perhaps in part, yes. However, the standard nd cost of living in the US (and hence the inherent minimum wage) is larger than many other countries regardless of taxes, regulation, etc; hence if the product can be shipped and shipping is cheap, then businesses will sanely offshore as much as they can. Meanwhile, sufficient demand for goods eventually raises the standard and cost of living in offshored-work countries (presuming they're capitalistic) and the value of US goods to trade (or more precisely US currency which represents the ability to buy US goods) lowers in value resulting in US goods being more attractive to produce and export.

      Of course, we have various regulations for a reason (for example, we don't like China-quality air in our cities) and people and businesses are often unwilling to move given the risks, hardship, and general dislike to leave what they view as home; besides businesses and effectively be in multiple countries at once. Let's not forget that California, even with its repetitive debt crisis, frequently mocked heavy-handed regulation, etc has the 8th largest economy of the world and represents 13% of US GDP and has about ~12.3% of the US population. So, it has slightly more GDP than one would expect for its population size and it has a large percentage of the US population even though it is trivial to move in the

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
  7. Perhaps they avoid tax in the USA... by Lincolnshire+Poacher · · Score: 4, Insightful

    > So, is Amazon's tax-free status unfair?

    Amazon.com Inc may have "tax-free status"...

    Amazon.co.uk Ltd, Amazon.de GmBH and Amazon EU Sarl most assuredly do not, yet we Old Europeans still shop there.

    It's about the long-tail of products in the range, not prices. A lot of the items in the Amazon catalogue aren't even available through high-street shops, so what difference would a few dollars more make?

  8. Re:BS by antifoidulus · · Score: 2, Insightful

    u know unfirable state employees who get paid significantly more than private sector equivalents, retire early and have vast pensions

    Conservatives love to tout this fact, but if you actually look at the reasoning behind it, it isn't that government employees are getting paid a lot more than they used to, it's that private sector wages have been slashed mercilessly in the past 30 or so years to the point that even though government employees don't make that much more, adjusted for inflation, the ratio between private to public sector salaries has fallen significantly.

  9. You probably still owe it by markdavis · · Score: 3, Informative

    Just because Amazon doesn't COLLECT sales tax doesn't mean you do not have to pay it. In Virginia (and I expect most states with sales tax), you are required, by law, to list your out of state purchases each year on your income tax forms and pay the tax.

  10. It is a question of level playing field by 140Mandak262Jamuna · · Score: 4, Insightful
    If a small mom and pop restaurant or a minor retailer is forced to collect taxes internet companies should be asked to collect taxes too. The idea of multiple jurisdictions, exempted products etc are lame excuses. All these people coming out of the wood work cheering on this multi billion dollar corporation shafting tiny jurisdictions out of their meager sources of revenue go suddenly silent when there is a media frenzy urging the government to do something. Some wild fire in the prairie, Govt should airlift water using helicopters to douse it. Oil gushing from a well in the gulf, the govt is expected to boom thousands of miles of coast line. But the moment the crisis is over well funded anti-tax shills shout about govt inefficiency govt stupidity and cheer mega multi-billion multinational corporations tax evasion.

    Whatever is the tax rate, we can not have one rule for one set of businesses and another for another set. Govt should not be biasing the field, it should not be picking winners and losers. By forcing off-line merchants to collect sales tax while exempting on-line retailers government is creating a non-level playing field. That is reason enough to be force the on-line guys to play by the same rules.

    --
    sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
    1. Re:It is a question of level playing field by Belial6 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It is an unlevel playing field that has existed for over 100 years, and the brick and mortar stores have dominated most markets. That might not invalidate your argument, but it is a factor that people seem to conveniently ignore.

  11. Relevance by fyngyrz · · Score: 3, Informative

    There are no sales taxes in my state. Trying to argue that Amazon is "ripping off" anyone seems like the wrong argument. On the other hand, states with sales taxes... now there one could make a good argument for ripping people off. Especially considering how far out of constitutional compliance most states are (just following the feds, I know.) As for roads, isn't that typically part of fuel taxes, a use tax, more or less?

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    1. Re:Relevance by jonbryce · · Score: 2, Funny

      You are probably told to hate VAT because it was invented by France rather than because it is socialist.

    2. Re:Relevance by popeye44 · · Score: 2, Funny

      In California if I use my car.. it's 27 cents per gallon tax (18c norm and they add sales tax).
      What I find hilarious.. is that any so called loophole Amazon is using is a LEGAL one. Bitch all you want but it is legal.

      In my case if I don't pay my tax at the end of the year, my savings just from Amazon would be around 100.00. Of course I will dutifully report any and all purchases on the declaration line.(meh)

      If I order online someone else is paying taxes to operate here. The money used to get that company to my house pays taxes. So they've paid "or amazon paid" to make a trip to my house. They paid for the road and the highest vehicle registration taxes in the nation.
      California is NOT a business friendly state. We already have a law that states we must pay a tax if one is not collected. It is NOT Amazon's responsibility to collect it.

      For 1 gallon of gas 27c goes to California Plus if I spend a dollar at Dollar Tree it's another 9 cents to them. So 36c to drive to the store and pick up 1.00 worth of food. They wonder why this state is bankrupt?

      --
      Inane Comments are Generously Disregarded
  12. Unfair Advantage? by jgrabell · · Score: 3, Interesting

    On the one hand, no sales tax, long waiting times, shipping fees and hassles. On the other hand, sales tax, immediate gratification, no shipping.

  13. I walked into RadioShack on Tuesday by brokeninside · · Score: 5, Informative

    I was looking for a Firewire 400 to Firewire 800 cable. The salesman went into the back office to look up a product code, came back, and guided me to a rack with 4 pin to 6 pin Firewire 400 cables.

    So I left, went to a a computer, fired up the web browser, pointed it at Amazon, and found the cable I needed in about sixty seconds.

    When I'm shopping for books, I tend to have a similar experience. I'm always surprised when local shops have the titles that I want. But what is neat, though, is that with the Amazon Marketplace, nine times out of ten, I'm buying from a small bricks and mortar shop even though I'm purchasing from the 800 pound gorilla of e-merchants. Turns out that Amazon doesn't want to stock hardbound copies of Epictetus' Handbook or Farabi's Epistle on the Intellect. But their associates, small booksellers across the county that specialize in this or that, can do so and partner with Amazon to get national exposure.

    Which is to say, Amazon's "unfair" advantage with regard to sales tax is a red herring.

  14. Farhad must hate military too by deapbluesea · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've lived in 5 states in the last seven years, according to Farhad, I've "enjoy[ed] the fruits of local taxes — police and fire protection, roads, hospitals, and other infrastructure that make its operations possible". Guess what, I pay those local taxes in the form of sales tax on everything I buy. I'm currently helping to prop up the state of California with my hard earned dollar (and you wouldn't believe the cut in quality of life I had to take when I was assigned here).

    The argument Farhad should be making is that those states are not benefiting from sales taxes on Amazon purchases. By talking about services paid for by local taxes (not sales taxes), he's getting muddled. But let's analyse that argument too. If states are benefiting from sales taxes paid by an out-of-state customer, then they would essentially be stealing from the state that customer lives in. The money that would be collected by, for instance, Kentucky, on each sale Amazon makes is money that would have been collected in the purchaser's state had they bought locally. In fact, to boil this down to a zero sum game is stupid. I don't simply bury the money I saved from buying at Amazon. Instead, I take my wife to the movies, go out to eat, maybe invest it. Each of these activities results in a business making a profit, which means a job is created or saved (to use a completely useless metric), and someone, somewhere takes a cut of that money in taxes.

    Farhad simply lacks a broader perspective. It seems he'd rather complain about a company's success than understand how that success benefits the economy as a whole, which ultimately benefits him as well.

    --
    Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.
  15. Taxation without representation by Rockoon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can't believe that nobody has mentioned this yet.

    The issue at hand is taxation without representation. If California was to collect sales taxes from a retailer in Connecticut who sells remotely to Californians, then neither that retailer nor its employees would not have representation with regards to those tax laws.

    The slippery slope is that California could effectively create predatory taxation on out-of-state businesses without those out-of-state businesses having any representation.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
    1. Re:Taxation without representation by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You are focusing on the tax amount and who pays it.

      Tax laws deal also impose rules on the Collection of those taxes.

      It is that process which is at issue. The California Legislature writes laws regarding that process for which the Connecticut business is not represented, and it isnt hard to imagine that the process could be discriminatory against out-of-state businesses.

      This is why it is up to the citizen to make sure that the tax is paid on out-of-state commerce, and not the business.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    2. Re:Taxation without representation by Trepidity · · Score: 3, Interesting

      That isn't the issue here. If you read the article summary, the issue is Amazon not collecting sales takes in states where they actually operate and have employees.

      They're doing that via some ridiculous loopholes, which I'm surprised actually stand up to scrutiny. The main one is that they claim many of their warehouses aren't actually "Amazon" warehouses, and the employees aren't "Amazon" employees, because they're owned and operated by subsidiaries. Their Texas operations, for example, are owned and operated by Amazon.com.kydc, Inc., which they assure you is not the same business as Amazon.com, Inc., so they don't collect Texas sales taxes.

    3. Re:Taxation without representation by sumdumass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All corporations are owned by natural people. The founding fathers were capitalists and all owned some sort of business of their own. Stop trying to contradict history in order to remake some fictional world that suits your ideals better.

  16. The states already have the power to fix this by Ichijo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's quite simple. Eliminate the state sales tax.

    Yes, it means the state might have to raise any fee that doesn't already cover the cost of the government service it's supposed to pay for. And the state might also have to raise the income tax, but that's a progressive tax.

    So eliminating the state sales tax will make local businesses more competitive with Internet retailers while also eliminating a regressive tax. That to me sounds like a good deal for everyone.

    --
    Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
  17. Re:BS by Mongoose+Disciple · · Score: 3, Informative

    Government employees also have to deal with a shittier segment of the public than most businesspeople. You think it's basically the same people, but you genuinely have no idea.

    If you work in the private sector (as I do) and no one has ever urinated on you at work, be thankful for your private sector job as I am.

  18. clever legal tricks by OFnow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...means obeying the laws the legislators actually wrote?

  19. ... and why is there free shipping? by DrJimbo · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Many years ago, before Amazon was such a dominant player, they introduced free shipping for orders over $25. This was a very big deal back then. It had been virtually unheard of before. Amazon made a choice to forgo traditional advertising and use their advertising budget to give their customers free shipping.

    Amazon refused to charge us the (so far) totally optional advertising tax that the all the other retailers in the article are charging us for. I don't know if Amazon has changed there (low/no) advertising policy since then but I don't remember ever being inundated with Amazon ads. IMO advertising is an unnecessary evil. For me, getting free shipping and fewer ads is a win-win.

    --
    We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
    -- Anais Nin