Slashdot Mirror


Amazon Pulling Out of Texas Over $269 Million Tax Bill

ralphart writes with this excerpt from the Dallas Morning News: "As a result of an ongoing tax dispute with Texas, Amazon.com has decided to take its ball and go home. The online retailer said Thursday that it would shutter its Irving distribution facility April 12 and cancel plans to hire as many as 1,000 additional workers rather than pay Texas what the state says is owed in uncollected sales tax. Texas wants $269 million from Seattle-based Amazon in past-due sales tax. It sent the bill to the company last October." We've discussed the online retailer's tax battles with other states in the past.

811 comments

  1. Texas Budget Deficit by eldavojohn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    While they're by no means the only state with budget problems, it is kind of coincidental that we're seeing this from Texas in the midst of a budget deficit. With $10 billion in lost revenue, they're starting to get creative like demanding university offer a $10k bachelors degree. Oh the abuse of the educational system, both lower and higher education. It's probably going to come down to just cuts across the board. My friends from Texas have often bragged about it but Texas doesn't have income tax so it's sort of asking a lot to do all this on 6.25% sales tax. You can make promises like "no new taxes" and "more tax cuts" but it looks like they'll run Amazon out of town on this one. Well, they were right that taxes hurt businesses! Bye bye Amazon!

    --
    My work here is dung.
    1. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by tthomas48 · · Score: 2

      Meh. This isn't an onerous business tax. Pretty much all states have this tax. You have a physical presence in the state you pay sales tax. Dell does it. I have no clue why Amazon thought they could skirt it.

    2. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by firesyde424 · · Score: 1

      Sales tax isn't a tax on businesses, not directly. It's a tax on consumers. What is at issue here is the perceived total price of an item. All other things being equal, when two different companies offer the same product, consumers will choose the one that is cheaper 100% of the time. If Amazon offers something that Tiger Direct offers for the same price, chances are Amazon will get the sale because Tiger Direct charges sales tax.

      I am not saying I agree with Amazon, but from their perspective, they do not need to have a physical presence in Texas to sell to consumers in Texas. I highly doubt they put a distribution center in Texas solely because they thought they wouldn't have to charge sales tax. They likely built a distribution center in Texas because of a corporate tax incentive designed to lure business to Texas or perhaps because of Texas's longtime anti labor union practices.

    3. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 3, Informative

      The tax rate is 8.25% for many of the residents.

      Plus property taxes are about $1,000 per $50,000 home value.

      Our problem is the Perry sucks as governor in the same way Bush did.

      Instead of being a true conservative, he was a spendthrift.

      Dan Patrick (who is too socially conservative for my tastes) *may* be a true fiscal conservative which would be nice.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    4. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by hedwards · · Score: 2

      Mostly right, but the problem is that in most states with a sales tax there isn't a sane way of consumers paying their sales tax if it isn't collected by the store. What I mean is that it pretty much involves keeping track of the receipts yourself and then there has to be some way of sending the money and the receipts in to the state.

      I'm not aware of any state that actually advertises the process or enforces compliance. Really the best thing would be to just cave and provide a system for telling retailers how to calculate the tax for various parts of the state. Providing that free of charge would almost certainly result in more tax revenues for the state in one way or the other.

    5. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by rwv · · Score: 0

      Business helps cash flow through the economy by selling products and creating jobs.

      State needs money to operate and takes some of that money.

      State uses money to provide necessary services to people who buy products and work jobs.

      Business gets tax bill from the State and decides to relocate to a different State.

      Business sends message to people: we don't want to subsidize your necessary government services.

      ===

      Obviously Amazon is within their legal rights to seek out favorable tax havens to operate within the United States, but hardball tactics like this make them appear to be quite evil. I'm curious how long it will be before Texas (and other states) start sending them tax bills for the privilege of selling products to residents within their states. If I'm not mistaken, sales taxes are never added to Amazon purchases because of loopholes in the Online Sales / Across State Lines mechanisms involved in buying things over the internet. Obviously Amazon will just pass these taxes along to their customers, but at least they'll finally be competing (tax-wise) on even footing as WalMart and other brick-and-mortar stores.

    6. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by yodleboy · · Score: 1

      8.25% sales tax actually.

    7. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      It isn't just 6.25% sales tax. They DO have pretty hefty property taxes if I recall.

      All states get you..one way or another...one tax or another.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    8. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Moryath · · Score: 1

      Oh please.

      Dan Patrick was caught on his radio show saying anything but engineering or medical research is research nobody cares about when justifying Texas's asinine education cuts coming up.

      He's the definition of a retardican. Just what the US doesn't need in public representatives.

    9. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by FtDFtM · · Score: 5, Informative

      Texas is after sales taxes from before Amazon came to the state.

    10. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      For as long as I can remember, and long before the Internet, if I ever ordered something via mail or phone, there was always something on there that said "XX residents, add Y% sales tax." The list would vary depending on where the company was, of course. But it was there. This isn't something new.

      Amazon seems to be arguing that a fulfilment center does not constitute a "physical presence." (At least, I can't think of what other argument they might use.) It certainly isn't a store front. It's a warehouse. Amazon's "store front" is their website. Still, it's presence in the state of Texas, and it unfairly competes with other businesses in Texas that do charge sales tax.

      I live maybe 20 minutes from this distribution center, so I would get direct benefit (fast, cheap shipping) from it. Not charging Texas sales tax is unfair competition for the other retailers near me.

    11. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by lgw · · Score: 1

      I doubt the dispute was over sales tax where both the buyer and seller were in Texas. Most of these disputes arise when buyer and seller are in different states.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    12. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I didn't say I liked him or he was perfect. I said he *might* be a fiscal conservative.

      Your pointing out that he is making spending cuts only agrees with that perception.

      Everyone can say "oh we need cuts but in some other area".

      In the end, the cut has to happen somewhere. We have a huge deficit coming up because of overspending and lack of wisdom about the economy never getting worse.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    13. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by swfranklin · · Score: 4, Informative

      Companies don't PAY sales tax, they COLLECT it. The people in Texas that order from Internet retailers like Amazon are the ones who pay, or don't pay, sales tax. Amazon just collects the tax from the customer, and then pays it to Texas.

      One difficulty is that if a Texas consumer wants to buy an item online, and they pay sales tax when ordering it from Amazon.com but not tax if ordering from (e.g.) buy.com, then Amazon will lose business. So it's in Amazon's best interests to NOT collect sales tax from Texas customers if they can avoid it.

      There is no clear answer here. On the one hand, you have the Streamlined Sales Tax movement (http://www.streamlinedsalestax.org/) that is trying to enact legislation in as many states as possible requiring retailers to collect tax from customers, regardless of whether the retailer has a presence in that state. The intent is to "level the playing field" and close the no-tax loophole of ordering from out of state - allowing in-state merchants to compete fairly with out-of-state merchants. If this were enacted, Amazon would collect the tax and so would everyone else - so no one would be at an advantage or disadvantage in that regard.

      That sounds well and fine, but the difficulty is the mechanics involved. Sure, Amazon and Wal-Mart and other big companies can code their web sites & shopping carts to figure out where the customer lives, and collect sales tax appropriately. The problem is that setting up a web site to do this is expensive - there are data subscriptions and a lot of coding involved. Over hundreds of thousands or millions of transactions, the cost is minimal. But the effort required by Amazon is really not much different from the effort required from doggiechewtoys.com or any other mom-n-pop operation - except that the little guys don't have the transaction volume to dilute the up-front costs. So it is VERY hard on small businesses to make this kind of change.

      What to do? Beats me.

    14. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 0

      THANK YOU. Amazon collects taxes. Texas just wants to extort Amazon.

    15. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by mysidia · · Score: 2

      Meh. This isn't an onerous business tax. Pretty much all states have this tax. You have a physical presence in the state you pay sales tax. Dell does it. I have no clue why Amazon thought they could skirt it.

      Amazon.com, Inc. does not have a physical presence in the state of Texas.

      Some company Amazon contracts has a facility in the state of Texas that distributes goods, which are ultimately required to fulfill Amazon's orders.

      Dell has physical stores.

    16. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by tthomas48 · · Score: 1

      Except, that Dell does it. Toys R. Us does it. Barnes and Noble does it. Amazon can do it. It's not onerous.

    17. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by commodore6502 · · Score: 1

      From The Frakkin' Article: "Amazon, with $25 billion in sales last year, has operated the Irving center since 2006. It argues that a subsidiary company owned the center."

      If that's true, then it's not amazon who owes the sales tax, but the other company who owns the warehouse. Whichever "citizen" has physical presence inside a Member State is the one who falls under their juris diction and owes the cash. The warehouse owner should pay up.

      And here's the alternate view:
      âoeAmazon.com was asked to play by the same rules and has responded by eliminating hundreds of Texas jobs,â said Danny Diaz, a spokesman for the Alliance for Main Street Fairness in Washington, D.C. âoeAmazon could have chosen to collect the sales tax as Texas retailers do, but instead they opted to protect their special sales tax loophole to the detriment of hardworking families.â Amazon has been involved in similar battles in states including New York and North Carolina.

      --
      Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
    18. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      But, from what I understand...Amazon either contracts with, or at the very least, does not directly OWN that facility....so, they argue they don't have a presence in the state.

      So, if this is Fred's Distribution Centers, LLC...and Amazon contracts with them for work...does Amazon have a legal presence in TX? I mean..is this not the same as Amazon using Fed Ex or the airlines to transport stuff, some of which goes through TX...should TX claim a presence for any company that has some product travel or be handled through that state on its way to other destinations?

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    19. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Online retails should not have to collect and pay taxes on the transaction if they are out of state. Almost every state has a use tax. That means if you buy something out of state you are suppose to declare it and pay the taxes when you file at the end of the year.

      States are either seeking to double dip here and tax twice or they prersecuting these online retailers instead of prosecuting their tax cheat citizens as they should be doing! Its not an out of state companies responsiblity to enfore the law, that is like one thing government is supposed to do enforce laws.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    20. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Follis · · Score: 1

      You are mistaken. Sales taxes are not added because of Article I section 8 of the U.S. Constitution.

    21. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The article wasn't clear. What was being taxed? Was it goods distributed out of the Texas based office or did some bean counter decide that one building in Texas entitle the state to a percentage of all Amazon profits? Secondly, are these goods being taxed at source AND destination states? If so, they are killing the Internet business model out of selfishness. Thirdly, it is in the Commerce clause of Constitution that states cannot obstruct commerce with other states. (A topic that seems to be getting buried of late with the advent of Internet business.) Texas apparently isn't interested in commerce, just taxes.

    22. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like maybe there's trouble coming in income tax-free paradise...

      Amazon is clearly wrong IMHO, however, if TX loses huge businesses by cracking down on corporate sales tax deadbeats... where will they get the pesos to run TX? I suppose most, like Dell, Apple & IBM are all paying their taxes, but the case against Amazon isn't going to be cheap.

      TX could save a lot by just by getting rid of the death penalty, but I have a feeling the conservative philosophies of constituants would never allow that, nor income tax.

      Hmm.... I wonder what state revenue would look like with just a 0.05% income tax for just a few years...

      Maybe they should tax football... and guns! And ball caps and open containers! Problem solved! :P

    23. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by maxume · · Score: 1

      You mentioned something involving politics.

      Why would you expect a response to have anything to do with what you said?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    24. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by c6gunner · · Score: 2

      The problem is that setting up a web site to do this is expensive - there are data subscriptions and a lot of coding involved. ...
      What to do? Beats me.

      Create a (federal) government run site to manage sales-tax related data, and offer an API that can easily integrate with all major services. The coding required for individual vendors would be minimal - when the user clicks the "checkout" button, create a connection to the API requesting the most recent applicable tax rates for the customers address, and apply them to the total. Even a script kiddie could slap together the required code in about 5 minutes. Larger sites could store a local cache of the entire tax database to minimize latency and unneccessary overhead, while smaller vendors would use the simpler approach. For even easier integration, paypal and similar payment-sites could compute the taxes automatically if the vendor requests it.

      I'm not saying that this is neccessarily the ideal solution, but it's certainly not an insurmountable problem.

    25. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by jonsmirl · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is not a loophole. It is a provision of the US Constitution that Amazon does not have to pay these taxes. Amazon has careful set up their ownership structure to avoid these taxes. Commerce_Clause This clause has been around 224 years so Texas should be aware of it.

      It is the states that are trying to grab taxes that aren't theirs to grab. Texans are free to buy from Texas based merchants and pay the sales tax. Texas has a use tax so Texans are supposed to send in a sales tax equivalent when they buy from out of state. So blame the problem on Texans for choosing out of state vendors and then not sending in their use tax. I also suspect if the money grubbing states would ever put their use taxes up for a vote, they would all be immediately repealed since they are highly unpopular and hardly anyone obeys them.

      The U.S. Constitution provides an essential protection against burdensome State regulation. The Commerce Clause uniquely empowers Congress “[t]o regulate
      Commerce among the several States” and, as interpreted by the Supreme Court, bars States from burdening interstate commerce without specific Congressional approval. On the matter of State sales taxation, the Supreme Court has held, in the National Bellas Hess and Quill decisions, that the Commerce Clause bars States from requiring out-ofstate (a.k.a. “remote”) sellers to collect taxes on sales to residents within that State unless a remote seller has “substantial nexus” with the State. Otherwise, held the Court, the current sales tax regime is so complicated that such a requirement would impose an unconstitutional burden.

      Amazon Tax

    26. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Informative

      Obviously Amazon is within their legal rights to seek out favorable tax havens to operate within the United States, but hardball tactics like this make them appear to be quite evil.

      It is Texas that is using hardball tactics. They had previously exempted mail order/etc companies from sales taxes.. until one day they noticed that they got a lot of suckers to move their businesses into Texas.. then they changed the rules overnight and sent out bills to many such companies.

      You know that Texas is up to know good because they didnt perform an audit of Amazon's activities in the state, but instead simply made up a figure and demanded it.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    27. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Obviously Amazon is within their legal rights to seek out favorable tax havens to operate within the United States, but hardball tactics like this make them appear to be quite evil.

      To who, exactly? Most of Amazon's actual customers buy from them when it's convenient and cheap, and don't see paying lower prices there as 'quite evil'.

      Obviously Amazon will just pass these taxes along to their customers, but at least they'll finally be competing (tax-wise) on even footing as WalMart and other brick-and-mortar stores.

      But I thought Walmart was evil? That's what I've been hearing from the anti-business left for about the last decade.

      The ultimate effect of this action if Amazon are forced to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to the Texas government is that they will leave Texas for another state which wants them there and a bunch of Texans will lose their jobs. You'd almost think that the left would be opposing actions that would cost jobs for people who probably aren't on high salaries in the first place.

    28. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Imrik · · Score: 2

      The company that owns the warehouse isn't selling anything, they're just distributing packages.

    29. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am all for taxes; they are a necessary part of any healthy functioning society, but this isn't an "onerous business tax" this is a failure to collect an interstate commerce tax (which is unconstitutional). I can understand the state wanting to collect taxes on goods bought through Amazon by Texas residents for items shipped from an Amazon Texas warehouse but the state wanting a piece of the pie from all it's residents that transact with other states is wrong especially when they want Amazon to collect for them.

    30. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by ZFox · · Score: 1

      Are you sure you're not including your city and/or county sales tax?

      Sales tax rate calculation

    31. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by natehoy · · Score: 2

      Actually, if Amazon truly contracted Texas-based shipping to a real third party then it might be true that NO ONE owes Texas that money. Amazon (outside Texas) sold the goods, and another company (also outside Texas) shipped the goods to the customer. As long as that Texas distribution center is not owned by or affiliated with Amazon in any way, and never ships any product to any customers in Texas, Amazon might be OK. No single sale to a Texas customer has been fulfilled from anyone affiliated with Amazon who has a presence in Texas.

      The company inside Texas is not the seller, so they don't have to collect taxes. Every company I've worked for has done this for some subset of their products - it's usually called a "Direct Ship" arrangement.

      However, such "arm's-length" agreements tend to fall apart quickly unless you are having the actual manufacturer of the goods ship for you, or you get competitive bids and can prove that you truly are doing business with a third party distributor. If Amazon happens to be the only customer for that distribution center, and the company that runs the DC happens to be closely associated with Amazon, especially if owned by Amazon or if they have a common parent company, they're probably fucked.

      They also have to avoid intrastate shipping like the plague. In many cases, you also have to make sure that your Texas-based DC is not shipping to any Texas-based customers (which is why when I lived in Lexington Kentucky I never had any product shipped from the DC 10 miles from my apartment, but now that I'm in Maine I get stuff from Lexington all the time). If you start shipping within a state, you lose interstate trade protections, because the order was fulfilled at your orders from the same state as the customer resides.

      So, as long as the Texas DC was:

      1. Only ever used to ship Amazon product to Amazon customers OUTSIDE Texas, and
      2. Not owned by Amazon or shares a parent company with Amazon. ...it may be true that neither company owes Texas jack shit.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    32. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Not to mention that one state trying to force a retailer in a different state to do ANYTHING is a pretty blatant violation of the Commerce Clause.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    33. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Nemesisghost · · Score: 1

      Texas doesn't have an income tax because of how much money they get via property taxes. And in most places the sales tax is a lot higher than 6.25%. Where I live it's closer to almost 9%.

    34. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Then, this 'Federal Site' becomes a major target to criminals. So security has to be ramped up. It becomes even more of a problem. Additional security staff have to be hired. It becomes necessary to ramp up enforcement efforts, and the rules of the Internet need to be changed to match.

      One you let the nose of the tax man into the tent, all of government will eventually ramble in.

    35. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by operagost · · Score: 0

      Not to mention being modded down (overrated I presume, since it's invisible) for actually responding to the troll.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    36. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by alva_edison · · Score: 2

      What is your reasoning for this statement, TFA mentions no such fact. Instead it claims that Amazon's argument was that a subsidiary owned the facility. However, the real issue is that the facility wasn't a point of sale. So Amazon, if it can get to the U.S. Supreme Court, has a good argument that Texas' actions violated the Commerce Clause. If Texas prevails, it could mean that states claiming that USPS, FedEx, and UPS are agents of Amazon and therefore Amazon owes sales tax because those three companies have presences in each state might have a shot.

      --
      He effected a bored affect.
    37. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by I8TheWorm · · Score: 2

      I remember hearing about this a while back though, and I believe it all actually started before the budget crisis.

      That said, I live in Texas, and am pretty incensed that my state is trying to do the same thing a few other states have to companies that do business on the internet. The end result is they've cost quite a few jobs, meaning they've actually eliminated some tax revenue (no state income tax, but jobless people buy fewer things, so less sales tax). Also, that when I buy something from Amazon it's likely it will take a little bit longer to get to me (not a big deal, just me whining a little).

      I think your friends left out the fairly high property taxes in most parts of the state... it's sort of how they make up for no income tax. Then there's the state lottery which pays something like 80% into a general funds pool.... ugh. Plus my ex police officer wife agrees most fines (speeding etc... minor stuff) are for revenue rather than punishment, but that's probably true in most if not all states.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    38. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by HungryHobo · · Score: 1

      I think it's along the lines of some other company like *Generic package handling Inc* owns and runs the warehouses.
      amazon has a contract with them to handle the packages for them.

      People buy from amazon and then *Generic package handling Inc* makes sure it gets to their door.
      And amazon is arguing that DHL/fedex doesn't get the tax bill for packages they deliver so why should some other contractor.

      There's also something about the state trying to collect taxes from before the warehouses in question were even set up I think.

    39. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by AK+Marc · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Rick Perry has been "in power" for more than 10 years now, and this is part of a budget shortfall that requires massive cuts. My question is, why hasn't there been cutting the last 9 years?

      Personally, I think there is a class of Republicans who hate government enough to get in power, purposefully screw up, and force things like this because of the damage they deliberately inflict and then blame on "big government" which they created in the first place. He runs up a bill for billions, then cuts education and social programs left and right, leaving in subsidies for the rich. It wasn't an accident, it wasn't an unforeseen shortfall, it was deliberate sabotage in order to force hard choices while they are in power to remake it in their image.

      Why did Bush push through NCLB? Because he knew that unfunded federal mandates over state matters was the core of the big-government Republican image. He knows that NCLB will shackle school districts, increasing cost and wasting resources. He knows NCLB will harm children all over the country. And he's happy to hurt the children. Why? Because when the education system comes crashing down, the vouchers he really wants will then look like a good idea.

      Not that I'm trying to imply the Democrats are any better. I'm just pointing out the "capitalist" Republicans are massively supporting socialism. Take from everyone and give to the needy businesses (and every business is needy). And the small government Republicans are passing massive sweeping legislation to take away states rights and purposefully harm children to further push taxing everyone to pay for religious schools with direct government funding of religious organizations (as nearly all private schools are religious).

      And for anyone wondering, I was born in TX and lived there under GWB (and a few before him) and left just after (but not because) Rick got the job.

    40. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by GooberToo · · Score: 1, Troll

      The problems have absolutely nothing to do with lack of income tax in Texas. Texas is horribly mismanaged and has more than its share of corruption and theft of public funds. The governor is one of the more prominent criminals; which even includes using eminent domain to take private property to gift to his friends.

      Texas is an extremely wealthy state (oil, gas, technology, manufacturing, exports/imports, transportation hub) and has had big budget problems before. They've always been addressed by simply clamping down on the extremely huge excesses which are extremely common in Texas politics. It may take a couple of years but its easily doable. Worst case, roads which were never needed will hopefully, simply not get built. Some public park facilities will be shut down. Some corporate shelters are tightened.

      The day Texas requires income tax is the day Texas criminals and politicians have won, leaving the general population to simply suck it up. Most other states have income tax because they don't have the critical mass in corporate presence or the population to sustain on sales tax alone. No ifs, ands, or buts, if Texas needs income tax, the corruption is so bad, politicians literally need to be lynched in the streets.

    41. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by JustNilt · · Score: 1

      Here's an article about the issue. This is a bit dated now but it's not likely you'll find much more; this has been kept pretty quiet overall.

      Essentially the dispute centers on Amazon having the distribution center held by a subsidiary which "just services orders from another company, nudge nudge, wink wink". This, however, isn't the entire issue as Texas billed for taxes as far back as 2005 but the distribution center opened in 2006, as I understand it. I'm not a lawyer so perhaps there's a fine shading of case law that affects this.

      Amazon's filed suit demanding an audit of the tax bill but this sort of crap is something they play hardball over pretty regularly. Remember that the law works quite differently when you have enough money to fight it. Friggin' corrupt system, I say. I'm all for collecting sales tax on all orders but, as others have said, this is expensive for smaller online retailers to manage so it's a non-starter.

      Folks need to remember that businesses are not compensated for collecting, accounting for, banking and then remitting these taxes. This is something that's not without cost yet we're obligated to do it for no benefit to ourselves. Before saying there's benefit from paying taxes, keep in mind these are taxes owed by customers, not the businesses themselves. We business owners typically pay taxes on top of this for ourselves; handling those shouldn't be compensated.

      --
      You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
    42. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by maxume · · Score: 1

      Click the score to see the moderation. I sort of like that a single moderation is no longer used to describe a comment.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    43. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Mr+Z · · Score: 2

      That's a good question. Where did you see that this facility was something other than a subsidiary of Amazon? The article made it sound like this was Amazon's distribution center, not a 3rd party fulfilment house on contract with Amazon.

      The online retailer said Thursday that it would shutter its Irving distribution facility April 12 and cancel plans to hire as many as 1,000 additional workers rather than pay Texas what the state says is owed in uncollected sales tax.

      Furthermore, the analogy to FedEx doesn't work. When Amazon ships via FedEx or UPS or whatever, they're shipping from somewhere to somewhere. The carrier is merely a conduit. I order a book, and voila: A package arrives here in Texas from Kentucky or wherever. FedEx didn't sell me the book. Amazon did, and they sent it from a distribution center.

      If I had instead bought it from an Amazon affiliated seller, say, Bob's Books, and Bob's Books has stores here in Texas, Bob's Books would collect sales tax from me before sending me the book, even if they ended up sending it from a location in Kentucky.

      If the distribution center is "Fred's Distribution Centers, LLC", and Fred is merely a conduit for a purchase after the purchase was made, picking up packages from Amazon's warehouses outside the state and then rerouting them to customers here (ie. no warehousing or logistics other than mere package routing), then they're indistinguishable from FedEx. But, if the distribution center is tightly integrated with Amazon's supply chain and order fulfilment process, such that they're carrying an inventory for Amazon to fulfill orders that have not yet been made, then they're not like FedEx at all. Either Fred or Amazon has to charge you sales tax, because they're selling goods from within Texas.

    44. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      The simple answer is to cancel all sales tax and just have income tax. That way people can directly see what taxes they pay, none of this hidden tax crap. Or make one sales tax for everything.

    45. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      That said, I live in Texas, and am pretty incensed that my state is trying to do the same thing a few other states have to companies that do business on the internet. The end result is they've cost quite a few jobs, meaning they've actually eliminated some tax revenue (no state income tax, but jobless people buy fewer things, so less sales tax). Also, that when I buy something from Amazon it's likely it will take a little bit longer to get to me (not a big deal, just me whining a little).

      The difference between buying from Amazon and from the shop round the corner is that the shop round the corner has to collect sales tax from you, and send it to the government, while Amazon doesn't collect the tax from you, but you have the choice to either send the exact same money to the government, or to commit tax evasion and save some money. If all customers were one hundred percent knowledgable and honest, then Amazon wouldn't have this advantage (I suppose lots of people are honest and _believe_ that Amazon is cheaper because they have no clue they have to pay the tax anyway by law).

      So you are arguing that jobs will be lost. On the contrary. The companies that are forced to collect the sales tax will have to fight less unfair competition, so they will sell more. That will create new jobs, exactly as many as are lost because of Amazon. And the jobs will be locally, so it will benefit the local population.

    46. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by spudnic · · Score: 1

      Subscribe to a checkout service similar to PayPal that could calculate the taxes and adds them as appropriate?

      Hrm. I smell a business opportunity.

      Ignore this reply, please.

      --
      load "linux",8,1
    47. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      You answered your own question. If Barnes and Noble does it for TX and Amazon doesn't, then, even though the customer owes the same tax on the same $20 book, they are forced to pay if they buy form B&N and not from Amazon, so Amazon wants this perceived discount for the tax-evading Texans.

      The issue isn't whether it's onerous. The question is whether Amazon wants to pay it and whether they are required to pay it. From my last reading (and there have been some tweaks by lawmakers and courts since then), Amazon is not required to collect the tax unless they have a retail outlet there. And they don't. Whether it's onerous is irrelevant to whether it is required by law and whether it gives them a perceived advantage. Businesses act amorally based on finances. Whether they "should" or "should not" is not a question they ask. Whether it will or won't increase profits is the *only* question asked these days by almost all companies.

    48. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by commodore6502 · · Score: 1

      I object to the Streamlined Sales Tax movement based upon an old, old, old argument:

      "No taxation without representation." No state has a right to tax me unless I have a voice in their legislature to say, "I think the tax is too high." Of course if my body enters that Foreign state, then of course I am subject to their laws/juris diction, but as long as I stay outside they have no more right to tax me, then does China or the European Union.

      --
      Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
    49. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by dave562 · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? The information in the site is already public knowledge. The application would not need to be much more than a queryable set of a few tables. How many columns do you really need? State, zip code and tax rate? Maybe a couple tax rate tables for various taxes (Federal, local, etc).

      It should be maintained by the IRS. If they want the tax, they should eat the cost of maintaining the infrastructure to simplify the collection of the tax.

      I'm not even a security architect and I could design a secure system for this. You only need a read-only web server farmer that the public accesses. That farm only accepts updates from an authoritive server on the other side of a firewall. The firewally only allows outbound connections from the master server to the farm.

    50. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by CharlieHedlin · · Score: 1

      As far as know every state will credit sales tax paid towards use tax. Texas shouldn't have to build a use tax enforcement system (there isn't one for consumers).

      Amazon should have been collecting these taxes. I usually try not to hold sales tax against the merchant when comparison shopping (although on expensive appliances I have been known to).

    51. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by rwv · · Score: 1

      hardball tactics like this make them appear to be quite evil.

      To who, exactly?

      To their (soon to be former) employees.

      the left would be opposing actions that would cost jobs

      Other comments have pointed out that citizens who don't claim out-of-state purchases such as those where they give business to Amazon are the real problem (and one of the major reasons that states need to look elsewhere for tax revenue). Amazon isn't at fault, per se. However, Amazon takes advantage of the fact that the government sucks at tracking "out-of-state purchases" and implicitly allows its customers to easily evade the local sales tax laws. Other comments have pointed out that the sales tax is evil (easy for rich to afford, difficult for the poor), so good riddance. I guess there is no shortage of confusion about the details of how interstate commerce works. The smartest, richest people know how to take advantage of federal and state tax laws.

    52. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by smelch · · Score: 1

      An API that just serves the tax rates when you request them once every month or so is not a big honey pot. What do you anticipate a hacker would do? Raise/Lower tax rates for their jurisdiction and risk going to jail for an extra 6.25% off of online purchases? That's ridiculous. The IRS already has a big online presence anyway, this would be trivially easy to do.

      --
      If I can just reach out with my words and touch a butthole, just one, it will all be worth it.
    53. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by gtall · · Score: 5, Informative

      "retardican", that's good. I've had this argument with similarly unenlightened people before. The argument goes:

      Them: No public money for research unless it is medical research.
      Me: Hmmm....quantum mechanics and relativity, modern techno-stuff is built on it, couldn't get funded these days.
      Them: Uh...uh...yeah, but I'm talking about pie in the sky research.
      Me: That was pie in sky, so was group theory, which underpins transaction security you can buy stuff on-line.
      Them: Yeah, well, they could point to something useful.
      Me: No they couldn't, Galois died in 1932.
      Them: Oh, okay, but not social research.
      Me: So, you don't want to know what social problems have solutions, like failure of schools?
      Them: Okay, you made your point.

      Two months later:

      Them: No public money for research unless it is medical research.
      Me: Recall we had this argument 2 months ago and you admit you lost.
      Them: What was your reasoning again?

      You see, there's no talking sense to these people, they cannot keep anything abstract in their heads for longer than a gnat's attention span.

    54. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by CharlieHedlin · · Score: 1

      Sales tax in texas starts at 6.5% (State) and is legally capped at 8.25%. Localities, library districts, metro and such can have taxes that add up to more, but there is a priority in who actually collects it (because of the 8.25% cap).

    55. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Then you get into the squishy issues of interstate beer, wine, and liquor sales-- also a muddy topic. Is the UPS driver going to card you? Collect sales tax for your state, or the state where the liquor was made?

      The nexus has usually revolved around having a physical presence. Texas argues that having a warehouse is presence. All of the items in that warehouse might have been shipped to NM, LA, OK, or other surrounding states, although I doubt that's the case. Amazon's argument that it was a subsidiary only damns the subsidiary.

      Gosh, and Texas was a model for fiscal responsibility just a year or two ago-- what happened? Bills come due?

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    56. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by JustNilt · · Score: 2

      It is not a loophole. It is a provision of the US Constitution that Amazon does not have to pay these taxes.

      Just to point out a matter of terminology: paying taxes and remitting taxes are different things. These aren't taxes that Amazon really owes; their customers who are citizens of Texas do. This cannot really be disputed from a legal standpoint; Use Tax or Sales Tax is mandatory ... you have to pay one or the other. According to Texas, Amazon was supposed to collect the sales tax on behalf of the state then remit them to the state on behalf of the customer. Amazon disputes that they had an obligation to do so.

      Sorry to be nit-picky but this is kind of an important distinction. This is not in any way tax evasion on Amazon's part. The thing I want to know is if Amazon settled and paid the taxes how could they recover this money from the customers who were supposed to pay it?

      --
      You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
    57. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thing is, though, it's not really that hard if the law is written right.make the feds maintain an api and/or download-able db with zip-code = tax-rate and it's really quite simple. customer enters zip-code Z, tax rate Y is applied. make it free to access and make the state liable for errors in data entry and you'll find most shopping carts implement it quite quickly.

    58. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      I think you have a valid point. I think our system is a failure because we lost "intent" many years ago. The letter of the law is more important than making slightly more vague laws with clear intent and leaving the people working the laws to satisfy the intent. The Constitution is vague. Moreso than most constitutions. It's also short, and accessible, so the politicians don't like it. Unknowable laws justify their existence and gain them power and influence.

      Why the rant on intent? Because if Amazon contracts with Fred who exists solely to serve Amazon and no other reason, there is no practical difference between Fred and Amazon, other than some ownership papers, then Amazon has a presence. A representative of Amazon, employed by Amazon to that effect, is doing business as Amazon.

      When you send something in a FedEx box, FedEx doesn't pack the box for you in your own name and then interface directly into your billing server to make it seem like FedEx does not and never has existed. Fred is purposefully concealing his identity when operating on a daily basis such that the customers Fred serves will only see Amazon. Fred only does business with Amazon. And is paid by Amazon to represent Amazon's interests. Whether Fred is paid as a contractor or an employee, it seems obvious to me that Amazon does indeed have a presence in that location.

      But then, that's actually paying attention to what the intent of the law is and how it was obviously meant, rather than the letter of the law and definitions of contractors and subsidiaries and such, which the law has been reduced to.

    59. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by gtall · · Score: 1

      Your solution is totally unreasonable. There is no way you will get compliance like having people report their purchases nor do the states have the resources to track them down. Someone above had a decent solution, have federal site that could be queried by Ma and Pop and Amazon alike to compute taxes and then charge taxes like all the brick and mortars. A national sales tax probably won't work because as soon as money goes to Washington, it has a tendency to get spent by Congress-critters.

    60. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Anything that's not engineering or medical research is research that doesn't exist!

    61. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      He was pointing out arbitrary and unreasoned cuts while propping up spending of the same nature at the same time. That's not fiscally conservative, that's just what everyone else does now. Wanting to cut 1% more than your "enemy" doesn't make you conservative. Wanting to cut programs like education that will result in greater expenses later in prisons isn't fiscally conservative (even if it is politically conservative). So no, just cutting randomly doesn't prove conservativeness, especially when that cutting quote includes supporting something else on some arbitrary lines.

    62. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      Gosh, and Texas was a model for fiscal responsibility just a year or two ago-- what happened? Bills come due?

      In a way. The Texas legislature only meets every other year, so they were running on the previous two-year budget. That made the budget look overly good, because it assumed higher tax income due to a better economy.

      Now they're writing the budget for the next two years, so they're having to face today's reality.

    63. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Mr+Z · · Score: 1

      It depends on whether Amazon is selling goods from within the state of Texas. If Amazon or Generic Package Handling, Inc. have inventory in Texas that hasn't yet been sold, then Amazon is selling from within Texas. Amazon is liable to collect the sales tax (since they're the ones handling the customer's money), regardless of whether it's Amazon or Generic that "owns" the packages.

    64. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by gorzek · · Score: 1

      Are you familiar with NewEgg? They're based in New Jersey. I live in New Jersey. Whenever I order something from them (and have it shipped in-state), I have to pay 7% sales tax. When I lived in Indiana, I did not have to pay sales tax when ordering from NewEgg.

      This isn't a really hard thing to implement. If you're based in a single state, you only really have to worry about the sales tax laws of your own state. If someone from another state orders from you, don't collect sales tax. If they're in your state, collect it. Easy. What is that, like 2 lines of PHP? :-p

      Things get murkier if you have a national (physical) presence, but then you are probably big enough to have lawyers to sort out such things.

    65. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 0

      To who, exactly? Most of Amazon's actual customers buy from them when it's convenient and cheap, and don't see paying lower prices there as 'quite evil'.

      Actually, low prices are not "inherently good." The philosophical arguments usually do revolve around Wal-Mart, suppressing quality to suppress price, among other things. It is argued that Wal-Mart's direct impact on the economy is to destroy wealth by causing poor people to buy cheap goods which don't stand up to usage as well as more expensive goods, creating a disproportional cost-benefit curve between price and durability; in other words, they sell shit that you have to buy every 2 weeks instead of every 2 years, at a third of the price. Other arguments are that they indirectly force businesses to move their labor or supply sources out of the country, which either impacts the job market directly (labor = India) or indirectly (no demand for locally manufactured goods = no demand for manufacturing labor = China).

      Not saying Amazon is bad for their price win, just that selling shit for cheap doesn't automagically equate to goodness.

    66. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by slashdottedjoe · · Score: 1

      I agree about a small business having a hard time with the Internet as it deals with sales taxes. However, I do not think it is a fair playing field with the tax. The states claim that a purchase used in their state is taxable, regardless where they buy it. So, every person buying any non-food item should be presumed to use it in their home location. Every transaction must then be identified. To be fair every brick and mortar must ID every customer and file a form for each applicable state. I am sure they will consider that fair!

      The goal of fairness is always achieved with more rules to the point everybody is screwed. The best way to a fair tax is to keep as simple and low as possible. However, that requires what nobody seems to want, smaller government.

    67. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I was pretty surprised by the moderating . Some of the worst I've seen in a while.
      I've had statements downmodded where i thought, "What? Oh, I guess I can see it. Stupid but I can see it". In this case, I can't imagine why it was downmodded.

      But either folks will mod it up or they won't. No skin off my nose.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    68. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Well, personally, I'm for an income tax.

      I think high property taxes are extremely punitive to the retired and anyone who loses their job.

      High sales and income taxes at least only hit people spending money (and sales taxes are tuned to avoid basic needs).

      However, along the same logic... any increase in income tax will apparently lead to massive flight of the wealthy from Texas to Belize or Mississipi or France.

      The wealthy won for a while with the "I'm going to take my ball" argument, but now that EVERYWHERE is running into money problems, I think taxes may flow the other way for a while.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    69. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by eap · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The tax rate is 8.25% for many of the residents.

      Plus property taxes are about $1,000 per $50,000 home value.

      Our problem is the Perry sucks as governor in the same way Bush did.

      Instead of being a true conservative, he was a spendthrift.

      Dan Patrick (who is too socially conservative for my tastes) *may* be a true fiscal conservative which would be nice.

      True, the myth of lower taxes in Texas is false. I moved from Texas to Colorado (generally assumed to be a less conservative place), bought a more expensive house, and make more money, but my overall taxes somehow went down. The services I receive have improved too.

    70. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I must apologize for my incredibly trollish and/or inflammatory comment. Rarely have I posted such an offensive post which deserved down modding more than this one. Shield your eyes, lest it cost you sleep at night.

      In the end, if you are 29 bllion in the hole and a state not the federal government, you must cut your budget by 29 billion.

      Every cut seems dumb to those in the area being cut.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    71. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      It actually doesn't need to be that hard. You are talking about interstate commerce, so it is something that the Feds have an honest to goodness right to point at the Interstate Commerce Clause for, and put in some regulation. That being established, the Feds could simply require any municipality that wants to collect sales tax publish the zip codes tax rate at a standardized web address like 90210.taxrate.ca.gov. and have it just return a number that is the taxrate. This would allow anyone from the biggest to the largest to lookup up tax rates for any address that they are selling to.

      If they wanted to get fancy, they could make it an XML document that gets returned that has tags for . This would be both human readable, and easily parsed by software. The effective date would also allow for caching of the rate to reduce load and handle outages. It would also allow for known future rate changes to be broadcast before the change without breaking the current lookups.

      The burden on the taxing authorities would be trivial, yet it would reduce the burden on the stores dramatically. It really isn't too much to ask of a taxing authority to publish their tax rates in a standardized format.

    72. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by JoshRosenbaum · · Score: 4, Informative

      This sounds easy on the outside, but in reality it is not if you are doing it right. (FYI: I have experience adding a third party sales tax vendor (similar to the API you write about) into ecommerce websites.) It definitely does not take 5 minutes and I wouldn't suggest that any script kiddie do it. (You are dealing with real money here.) In the real world, you have to deal with all sorts of things like:
      *) Taxes that vary depending on the type of item being bought. (Meaning you have to make sure your items have the various classifications for all the various laws.)
      *) Need to then deal with crediting taxes on order cancels/returns/changes, which can be even more fun when you are doing it for a split quantity returned.
      *) Error handling when remote API goes down
      *) Validating user inputted address matches up with a valid tax address.
      *) Shipping is taxable for some areas and others not. So again, you get to deal with this headache every time there is an order return or other order changes.

      It's definitely doable, just not near 5 minutes doable and is definitely a cost to be considered by smaller sites.

    73. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Miamicanes · · Score: 3, Informative

      > State, zip code and tax rate?

      Bzzzt. Sorry, nice try, but wrong answer. Zipcodes don't correlate to municipal taxing boundaries. They're usually *close*, but legally that's not good enough. Just to give one example, the city of South Miami, Florida is a "patchwork city". After the first real estate crash in Florida (during the 1920s, when the combination of the Great Depression and 1926 Hurricane more or less destroyed South Florida physically AND economically), the city of South Miami went bankrupt and couldn't provide municipal services any longer. Some influential residents got the Florida legislature to allow individual landowners to secede from such municipalities. Many did. As a result, to this day, not even the city's police and fire departments can tell for sure whether or not any given square foot of land is or is not within the city limits. The net result is that nothing short of a geocoded database that resolves down to every street address in America can definitively assign every order to its proper taxing authorities. And even then, the database could become invalidated if a city changes a law and fails to notify whomever maintains the database.

      It gets worse when you consider how the IRS (if it were tasked with the job) would almost certainly go about doing it -- they'd "privatize" it to a third-party that would turn around and charge anyone smaller than Wal Mart or Amazon $3 to do a "taxing-district analysis" (kind of like how when you renew your license plates in Miami, you're going to get hit for a minimum of $3 above and beyond the alleged cost of the plates/sticker themselves, because you MUST renew through a private "tag agency", and there's literally no way to pay the renewal fee that doesn't involve payment of ADDITIONAL fees for the "service" of collecting your payment and handing you the sticker to put on your plate (or the plate itself)).

    74. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      the Commerce Clause bars States from requiring out-ofstate (a.k.a. “remote”) sellers to collect taxes on sales to residents within that State unless a remote seller has “substantial nexus” with the State.

      For having such a good reading of the Constitution, you have an exceedingly poor reading of this issue. Texas is not violating or ignoring the Commerce Clause. Texas agrees 100% with your reading and interpretation. They are claiming that having an Amazon distribution center in the state is a "substantial nexus." The issue is that Amazon claims that if they just outsource it to someone who claims to be Amazon (via invoices included in the packaging, the packaging marked as "Amazon" and such) then they don't actually have a "substantial nexus" in the state.

      I would tend to agree with Texas, in that if someone is authorized to do business as Amazon, as the distribution center does in this case, then they are a sufficient representative of that company to form a substantial nexus, even if the company expends great effort to have no technical ownership of that representative company. Amazon's response is "We don't own them, neener neener neener. We are taking our ball and going home. *phhhhhth*"

    75. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          That depends on how you define Affiliate.

          It would appear that they are talking about the locate "Amazon.com.kydc LLC", at 2700 Regent Boulevard, Irving, TX.

          Like any big company, they break up operations into logical blocks. Amazon has Amazon Global Resources, Inc.; Amazon.com.dedc, LLC; Fulfillco.ksdc, Inc.; Amazon.com.kydc, Inc.; Amazon.com Commerce Services, Inc.; Amazon.com Holdings, Inc.; Amazon.com International Sales, Inc.; Amazon.com LLC; Amazon.com Payments, Inc.; NV Services, Inc.; Amazon Fulfillment Services, Inc.; Amazon.com@Target.com, Inc.

          You may see a trend there. Wholly owned subsidiaries. That definitely counts as a physical location in that state.

          FedEx, UPS, DHL, USPS, etc do also fall under that category, and shipping is appropriately taxed. They, on the other hand, do not count as a physical location in any given state for a vendor shipping through them. They are wholly owned subsidiaries. They are a service provider.

          If, say FedEx were owned by Amazon, and FedEx only provided services for Amazon, then they would count as a physical location. As Amazon shipments are only a percentage of any distribution carrier's business, no it doesn't apply.

          This is a pretty well understood concept by anyone who does interstate business, with physical locations in multiple states. Otherwise, consider this concept. Say you had shipping facilities in New York and New Jersey. If a customer in New York ordered an item, would you think it to be reasonable to ship the item from New Jersey to avoid the sales tax?

          It doesn't appear to be an issue where Texas is laying claim to taxes on every purchase made through Amazon. If it shipped from a Seattle location, to a Chicago customer, that's not anything for Texas to touch. As far as I can tell, they're only trying to collect taxes on items shipped to Texas customers.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    76. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by _0xd0ad · · Score: 3, Informative

      Amazon DOES do it. Customers living in Washington have to pay sales tax when they buy things on Amazon.

    77. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by I8TheWorm · · Score: 1

      The fact that there are insufficient laws governing taxes on sales of items bought on the internet from a company in another state doesn't at all make it dishonest or tax evasion. You cannot evade taxes that don't exist.

      And I argue those jobs will not reappear, people will still continue to buy from Amazon regardless of the location of a distribution center.

      --
      Saying Android is a family of phones is akin to saying Linux is a family of PCs.
    78. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

          Well, that "contract" is actually with Amazon com kydc,. I know some folks in Texas are pretty dumb, but how did they think they'd fool anyone by tagging 4 extra letters on to the company name, and try to claim it wasn't them. If they wanted to be slick about it, they'd name it "Shipping Cheap Stuff, LLC", or any variety of names that could be thought up.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    79. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Migraineman · · Score: 1

      UPS offers logistics management and order fulfillment services. They're much more than just a common-carrier. So if Amazon had contracted it's order fulfillment process through UPS, would you claim that Amazon has a business presence in Louisville, Kentucky, because UPS has a contract to accept and fulfill orders on behalf of Amazon? Given the same contractual arrangement, but with UPS's call center in Bangalore, India, would you claim Amazon has a business presence simply because UPS hubs it's shipments through Louisville, KY?

      Not so cut-and-dried, is it?

    80. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by vux984 · · Score: 1

      That sounds well and fine, but the difficulty is the mechanics involved. Sure, Amazon and Wal-Mart and other big companies can code their web sites & shopping carts to figure out where the customer lives, and collect sales tax appropriately.

      By "figure out where the customer lives" do you mean look at the "bill-to" and/or "ship-to" address the customer just filled out? Because that is all that is required. Its not difficult, you make 'state' a required field. There are no data subscriptions, nor a lot of coding involved.

      Supporting domestic tax collection is trivial, and most decent off-the-shelf shopping carts already have it built in.

      International tax collection is harder, but its generally only relevant if you have a multi-national presence, and if you are multi-national you can afford to get it right.

      So it is VERY hard on small businesses to make this kind of change.

      1) Most shopping carts systems already support sales taxes, and its pretty trivial to enable them.
      2) mom-n-pop small businesses only have a presence in one state so the logic becomes:
      if shipto.state = ourstate then salestax = yup and salestaxrate= ourstatetaxrate.

      Even mom-n-pop can handle that.

    81. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Brandonski · · Score: 1

      No Offense to Maxo-Texas,
      But, I'm sick of prefacing conservative and liberal with "social" and "fiscal".
      Let's all start using conservative and liberal to reference all things fiscal.
      Progressive and Regressive can be used to reference all things social.

      I'm certainly progressive, but never much cared for the liberal label.

    82. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      Presumably this would become a "value added" service of existing merchant services, leaving mom & pop operations with little or no up front costs. This is either patently obvious, or else I've given merchant services the next big idea, in which case -- money please!

    83. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by jonsmirl · · Score: 1

      How little you know about sales taxes. Take the case of a sales tax on prepared food vs none on unprepared food. Now show me two cities that came up with the same list of what is prepared and subject to tax, vs what isn't. Why is an apple at a grocery store untaxed, when the same apple at a deli is taxed - in the same city? It is fairly easy to figure out the rate, it is very difficult to determine if the tax applies or not. There is total chaos in the definition of what is taxable.

    84. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      there wouldn't be an issues with alcohol sales like this.

      When Alcohol was prohibited, then the prohibition was removed, the amendment to the constitution that removed the prohibition specifically gives the states the rights to regulate it within their boundary.

      the 21st amendment didn't really legalize alcohol again or repeal every aspect of the prohibition (although it specifically states it repealed the 18th amendment), it limited the prohibition to the laws in the jurisdiction the alcohol is in at the time with respect to the commerce clause.

      "The transportation or importation into any state, territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited."

      In essence, the federal government retained the right to regulate alcohol passing through a state to end up in another state, but reserved all rights to the destination state and of course the originating state had the same rights before it was exported.

    85. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by slashdottedjoe · · Score: 1

      Simple? Try again!

      There are over 1500 taxing bodies in the United States. States, counties, villages, cities and special districts all must be accounted for. Guess what? The zip codes don't matchup to those areas, so you end up having to dig into a map to really know what tax to charge. I know for I asked my state and they said there is no way to use the zip codes. It just doesn't work that way.

      Then, we have the fun of figuring out what is taxable. The biggest hurdle to the simplified sales tax has always been all the special favors doled out by the tax code makes all sort of things exempt. Every state has its own list of exemptions.

      My little IT shop has 3 counties in my state I generally cover. Each one has a different sales tax rate. If I sell prepackaged software, I tax it. Software I custom write for a client, I do not. I tax backup media, but need not tax the actual act of data backup or restoration. You would think that since the act of backing up is labor all labor is tax-free. No, all other labor is taxable. It is totally insane.

      To the south, I have another state that does not tax labor as mine does, so I never sell real property there. I just buy parts locally, get reimbursed and just bill the labor. If I did choose to sell stuff, there would be several additional taxing bodies to deal with.

      The only simple interstate sales tax would be you tax EVERYTHING at the SAME rate, EVERYWHERE. That will never happen. Politicians love the knobs and buttons of power, they resist any simplification that limits the favors they can dole out. Without power, there is no reason to grease their palms.

    86. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by david_thornley · · Score: 3, Informative

      A general site is going to be very complicated, and knowing the sales tax is only part of the problem.

      Sales taxes are not necessarily X% on every sale. Different localities have different rules on what gets taxed and what doesn't, or can vary the taxes depending on the type of merchandise. These taxes can also vary from day to day, as some localities have holidays for particular things. It would be necessary to create a taxonomy of merchandise based on the laws of every state, county, city, metro area, school district, or mosquito control district that collects sales taxes. The job of matching address to taxing entities is also large, but that can be handled at the federal website level, with the caveat that shipments to post office boxes are best effort guess for municipality.

      Once joesobscuremerchandise.com has calculated the taxes, and billed appropriately, Joe owes various entities the taxes he has collected. The paperwork on that alone could be prohibitive for a small site.

      The only thing that would make collecting sales tax feasible for the small business is a massive reform effort to make sales taxes uniform, and that will face a lot of opposition.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    87. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Easy. Put the responsibility onto VISA, Novus, Paypal, Google Checkout, etc. What percentage of all online transactions go through one of these big companies who have the resources to implement this? I'd venture it is so close too 100% that the handful orders that don't will be insignificant to the tax collectors.

    88. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      Sounds nice on paper.

      However, my state prohibits-- or tries to-- mailorder booze, especially wine. In theory, wine exported to another area from the state it was manufactured in, is tax-exempt of state taxes (not federal, of course). So, at the destination, no taxes are charged (often).

      The wine maker probably has a distributor of some kind in the state, and perhaps nexus as a result, but often pays no excise tax in the state targeted.

      Therein lays the similarity. I understand and agree with your interpretation of the 21st. Yet only federal excise is collected in this way. Now if a wine maker has a nexus in that state by a distribution site, it's probably not exempt... unless the wine is shipped in from a different state. Perhaps you can understand my logic by reading between the lines.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    89. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by slashdottedjoe · · Score: 1

      As soon as you figure out how to catalog every single address and cross reference that to all the ever changing state and local tax laws, including new jurisdictions be added, let me know.

      BTW, every day new homes are built, so your database will never be complete. I will not have the luxury of claiming you were wrong in tax court. The government will insist that I am responsible for the accuracy of my returns, period.

    90. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by cob666 · · Score: 1

      If Amazon (or it's subsidiary) didn't collect sales tax then isn't the entity that purchased the goods responsible for paying the 'use' tax?

      That's how internet or even mail order sales are SUPPOSED to work, and that is why its called a 'Sales and Use Tax'.

      --
      Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law - Aleister Crowley
    91. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Progressive and Regressive are too positive and negative respectively.

      Change and Stability perhaps.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    92. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by slashdottedjoe · · Score: 1

      The goal of streamlined taxes is not to have other states tax you. It is to make a system clear enough to allow any retailer to tax you for your state.

      The best and most successful argument against Internet sales taxes has been the filing of dozens of state returns. With all the complex laws, it would be truly sadistic to put upon small businesses. Food is not even defined universally across the nation and is a matter of debate within the simplified tax plans. Once you allow any state the option to look at a product or service differently from another state, your plan goes out the window.

      Some sites I see now tend to stop at the state tax for that is the easiest to tax, but if you pay that tax you are obligated to check for local and special tax jurisdictions, too. Like I said before, zip codes will not help you there.

      Plus, if the following catches on, have fun with that.
      http://www.valleycentral.com/news/story.aspx?id=579746

    93. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Business should move to Oregon. No sales tax, so the presence of call centers or distribution centers won't open you up to any online tax liability.

      Well, Oregon has outrageously high property taxes, so there's that bugaboo... but it still might make sense...

    94. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by dadioflex · · Score: 1

      Isn't there at least one reasonably modern field of study they're interested in? Intelligent Design. It even has Intelligent in the name. Not intellectuals? pfft.

    95. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The base rate is 6.25%. Cities have the option to tack on 2% for local purposes.

    96. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by kalirion · · Score: 1

      link?

    97. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by slashdottedjoe · · Score: 1

      As a business owner, I do pay my use tax. The reason is simple, I cannot make the excuse I didn't know.

      It is not that hard. First, all such orders are done online with email verifications. Just throw them into an email folder and add them up at the end of the year. That is usually a single line item that they pretty much take your word on. Hell, I am one of the few that willingly complies. Piss me off and my email folder vanishes!

    98. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      Leaving aside the inherent complications in the actual data, consider the scale here: you have to support well over a billions transactions per day with latency in the neighborhood of 200ms. You also have to be very available - 99.99+ because nobody can buy anything if you go offline. The logistics involved are daunting to say the least.

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    99. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Fulcrum+of+Evil · · Score: 1

      By "figure out where the customer lives" do you mean look at the "bill-to" and/or "ship-to" address the customer just filled out? Because that is all that is required. Its not difficult, you make 'state' a required field. There are no data subscriptions, nor a lot of coding involved.

      So what happens when cities disagree on which tax rate the customer should pay, or when some cities want to charge based on bill-to vs. ship-to?

      --
      "We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
    100. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There is no clear answer here.

      Sure there is a clear answer. Montana, and I think Oregon and New Hampshire have a 0% sales tax rate. It makes the math easy.

    101. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by MDillenbeck · · Score: 1

      Sorry for my bad language. You are correct, they are not paying the tax - they are collecting it from the customer and paying it. My point was this: a brick & mortar business of a state collects the tax and pays it to the state, not the individual. However, when the individual buys from out-of-state in Wisconsin and does not pay the Wisconsin Sales Tax, it is their burden to report it on the income tax form and pay said sales tax. The argument is the object was delivered in Wisconsin and thus that is where it is due.

      Of course, I think sales tax conflicts happen because they are an ill-defined problem. If I go across the border and buy a durable good from an appliance store (or any other good), I will pay the sales tax for Illinois even though I am transporting it back to Wisconsin. I can't say I'm taking it to a different state and not pay sales tax. By this argument, an online retailer should pay taxes based on where they operate from. Conversely, the argument goes that the point of receipt is important. By this argument the sales tax of the location of delivery should be used - thus I pay Illinois sales tax on a durable good because I picked it up there, but if I have it delivered to Wisconsin then I pay Wisconsin sales tax.

      I think we need to define the purpose of sales tax also - but that is a larger social problem. Face it, in the USA no one wants to pay any taxes. They view them as "taking their money" no matter what. There is no thought to the public money that goes into roads to transport goods or the maintenance of waste disposal systems, nor in the municipal water infrastructure that is vital to manufacturing most goods or the maintenance of a military to protect the sovereignty of the nation who's political philosophies allow you to consume in the manner you want.

      Also, I am thinking about the mom-n-pops and small start ups... how does a state ensure that all the little guys are collecting and transferring the appropriate sales taxes to their State? Do they look through the entire web and request complete sales records of every site they find? That is like them evaluating the goods purchased by every individual in the state. So the big guys have no problem setting up a system and the States can easily track them... and they make up a good chunk of the revenue, but the nickles and dimes of the little guys add up. The trick is designing a fair system for all users of the system.

    102. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by patman600 · · Score: 1

      It needs to be harder than that. Sales tax varies by city, and city boundaries and zip codes don't line up.

    103. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But the effort required by Amazon is really not much different from the effort required from doggiechewtoys.com or any other mom-n-pop operation

      I would submit that most mom-n-pop operations have a physical operation in a single state. Even if you have to hard-code the "If state=TX then tax=.06" logic, that is hardly a financial or logistical burden for even the shittiest of web "developers." Also, details like this are handled very well by off-the-shelf shopping cart/payment modules that integrate seamlessly with the pre-made templates available for wordpress or that a mom-n-pop operation is surely using.

      If you are expanding to multiple states and/or for some reason need to roll your own backend payment system, that's the cost of doing business and re-inventing the wheel.

    104. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

      Let's not get abstract.

      We have 100% of the pie to split.

      All the advanced math in the world doesn't change that for the states.

      And it really doesn't change it for the federal government indefinitely.

      Understand, I'm fairly liberal by most standards-- I even support higher taxes on myself to provide better government.

      But it's unwise to spend money you don't have and to play funny money with the books- and EVERYONE can make a good argument why their area shouldn't be cut.

      i.e., I'm glad you want theoretical research. Now, for each researcher, I have to let 400 children go hungry at night. For each grant for equipment, I have to cut wellfare and medical benefits for 1,000 low income families.

      Now... how many researchers and equipment grants do you want?

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    105. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem right now is that the TX legislature got full of a bunch of Retardicans and PeeTardiers who want government to simultaneously provide them cheap everything without being willing to pay for it.

      Do you realize how much you make normal, sensible democrats cringe when they hear you talk like that? It's the same cringe as when a normal, sensible republican hears a rightwing nutjob talking about Obama being a Muslim. You're doing your side no favors by talking like a problem elementary-school child.

    106. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

      This would only work if all states were created equal and all charged the same tax across the board, but I doubt
      that this will end here, as soon as other states see this, they will do the same...

    107. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      You know the best evidence for intelligent design in the bible.

      Angels telling particular humans that they need to breed and have humans.

      The christian god was clearly engaged in eugenics and selective breeding of humans. (See Hager- personally visited by an angel and told she needed to go have children with (Abraham? think so), and other examples).

      However, what gets me... is that we can have huge impacts on dogs in 20-40 generations, yet it took the christian god 2 billion years to breed up humans.

      That is an incredibly ineffective breeding program.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    108. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      By what law? The state's laws trying to claim taxes on interstate commerce are unconstitutional.

    109. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by profplump · · Score: 1

      And who is going to file the individual tax returns for each state, with a frequency between annual and weekly depending on state-specific rules and your estimated or previous sales in the state, some of them requiring electronic filing and the related account setup, etc. And what if I don't ship a physical good -- do I still have to collect their address just to pay taxes on their behalf? What if they order in-store, pay online, and I don't ship anything -- what tax rate applies? Can't we just make people responsible for paying their own taxes, as is already required by law, rather than making every business in the country file dozens of tax returns?

    110. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by MDillenbeck · · Score: 1

      How would you address the difficulty of enforcement? IE, who would be ensuring all the small businesses are transferring the taxes they collected on behalf of other states to the appropriate state? Also, how do I as a state entity ensure that all my collected taxes are properly transferred to me? (I think most states would grumble about the federal government taking away their authority to enforce their state sales tax collection and thus the politics would go *ka-BLOOIE* in our faces.) Thus, the collecting of taxes by businesses is trivial - the assurance that these large and small businesses transfer the collected taxes to the various states is what is not trivial.

    111. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by canajin56 · · Score: 1

      It's cut and dried, actually. Because Amazon.com fully owns Amazon.com Texas, whereas it does not own UPS. Amazon is arguing that they don't own a warehouse in Texas, Amazon.com Texas does, and they own Amazon.com Texas. This is totally bogus, and Amazon knows it. That's why they backed down on actually going to court (though not in the way Texas hoped they would!) Though, I'm not sure how saying "Amazon.com Texas no longer exists lol" will get them out of existing bills, since that Texas property has to go somewhere. And yeah, the other thing, being able to snap your fingers and cause the "independent third party contractor" to vanish entirely is a pretty big fucking clue that it's not very independent after all...

      Think of it like this: A judge sentences a cracker to community service and probation, with a condition that he cannot own a computer, but can use one for work. This cracker, being oh so clever, creates "Clever Cracker LLC" and then has this corporation buy a PC and hire him as a programmer. Now he can have a PC in his home office, and do what he likes, because technically he's his own boss and is telling himself to do things "for work". No judge on Earth would let that slide. Amazon.com is basically doing exactly the same thing. They're trying to say it's not their warehouse, it's the warehouse of a corporation that they happen to own. Not knowing the actual wording on Texas sales tax laws, I can't comment for certain, but like I said, Amazon doesn't appear to have much confidence in their own argument.

      --
      ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
    112. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Maybe. It would solve taxing at the state level completely. Local municipalities are going to be much less likely to cause the trouble that states have been. Remember that it isn't that there are different tax rates for different cities. It is that cities often have their own sales tax that is also charged in addition to the state taxes that are the same no matter where in the state you live.

      This means that the above system would work just fine to determine states sales taxes. Of course, individual cities could use the same scheme for their taxing but have it as instead of . By making it the responsibility of the taxing authority to supply the rates for an address, it would be up to those taxing authorities as to whether they want to ignore collection of those taxes, implement the query system, or simplify their taxing. It places the burden of complexity on the entity that creates the complexity.

      As far as the retailer is concerned, they would do a lookup for state tax, then a lookup for local tax.

    113. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by LearnToSpell · · Score: 1

      But the effort required by Amazon is really not much different from the effort required from doggiechewtoys.com or any other mom-n-pop operation - except that the little guys don't have the transaction volume to dilute the up-front costs. So it is VERY hard on small businesses to make this kind of change.

      Have the government maintain a lookup table. If they want the tax dollars, they can pay for the maintenance. Shopping cart reads address, transmits that to tax site, tax site says "8.65%," transaction completes. Done. Many states do it already. Any larger company (like Amazon, say) already maintains their own tables of that anyway.

    114. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      I'm curious if Musician's Friend and others who have distribution centers (but not sales) in the state also pay taxes?

      And why not just pass the cost on to the customer? It's not like I"m going to stop using Amazon if they tack on 6% sales tax that I already pay everywhere I go anyway.

    115. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that "Change" is either Progressive or Regressive, depending. Consider abortion: Some portion of Americans want abortions to be harder to get, some portion wants abortions to be easier to get, but the majority of Americans want "Stability" as in "it's fine exactly how it is now".

    116. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by geoskd · · Score: 1

      Create a (federal) government run site to manage sales-tax related data, and offer an API that can easily integrate with all major services. The coding required for individual vendors would be minimal - when the user clicks the "checkout" button, create a connection to the API requesting the most recent applicable tax rates for the customers address, and apply them to the total. Even a script kiddie could slap together the required code in about 5 minutes. Larger sites could store a local cache of the entire tax database to minimize latency and unneccessary overhead, while smaller vendors would use the simpler approach. For even easier integration, paypal and similar payment-sites could compute the taxes automatically if the vendor requests it.

      I'm not saying that this is neccessarily the ideal solution, but it's certainly not an insurmountable problem.

      Yeah that sounds like a good idea because everything else That the federal government has become involved in works so well.

      This business solution is a service better provided by the private sector. If that isn't obvious to you, then you don't have a good grasp of history or government.

      -=Geoskd

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    117. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Hasbro (particularly Wizards of the Coast) charge the Texas sales tax when buying "digital trading cards", even though Wizards is in Seattle, and they aren't shipping me any physical goods. My "shipping" address in these cases is my parents' house in Oregon (no sales tax).

    118. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by micheas · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Except, that Dell does it. Toys R. Us does it. Barnes and Noble does it. Amazon can do it. It's not onerous.

      The point wasn't that it was onerous for Amazon, the point is that it is onerous for the part time, virtuemart, ubercart, oscommerce, and zencart distributions.

      If there was a free feed established that every state that wanted the sales tax collected contributed to. Then this would not be unreasonable. As it is now, it requires a small staff just to keep up with the tax information.

      If the states want this tax collected, then need to play ball and put their tax info on line in a standard format.

    119. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by 517714 · · Score: 1

      Getting the Federal government involved is a stupid idea and you have no idea how complex sales tax is. You cannot collect sales tax by zip code, my zip code includes parts of two counties with different tax rates, you need the street address to know which county and whether the address is in the township or unincorporated - one zip with four different rates. You need a damn good database that is updated every time the town expands into formerly unincorporated areas. There are different rates for different products - milk, cucumbers and electronics have different sales tax rates. Do you see how the permutations are starting to make this ugly? Municipalities are not required to notify anyone who has not paid taxes previously of changes in tax rates, and they can make changes at any time, so the first customer in a new town requires checking on the current tax rate, not what your database said it was in January. Then you need to incorporate the new rates for places you have paid taxes in into your database. At the end of the year (quarterly for some places) you must send the money, and an accounting of the collected taxes to the state and sometimes to the municipalities as well, this means hundreds of checks cut and letter sent each year. This is not trivial, and it is not cheap. A Brick and mortar store that does not ship products has it relatively easy, their rates are based on their location, and they only have to deal with the differing tax rates, if any, for different types of products. No one like PayPal would take on the responsibility for mail order or internet vendors since it would put them in the position for paying penalties for failing to charge the correct amount.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    120. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Why should they care if anyone notices? It's a loophole. Legally, they're completely different corporations. It was all perfectly legal according to Texas law, and there's nothing Texas can do, short of change the law. And they absolutely can't retroactively apply the new law and collect taxes on the sales.

      Well... they can try. But they'll fail.

    121. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by PuckSR · · Score: 1

      The tax rate is 8.25% because of local taxes. The state of Texas has a sales tax and then the municipality has a sales tax.
      Property taxes are local taxes as well.

      Texas has one of the lowest per capita tax rates in the country.

      Texas operates much the same as New Hampshire. Give the state govt minimum money and you will prevent growing a larger government. If you give the state a bigger budget, you can't ever take it back(or it is incredibly difficult). This is generally true. Government budgets are typically most strained when the economy is bad, paradoxically employment is typically worst at these times. Politicians don't want to be responsible for increasing unemployment so they don't fire anyone. The best time to trim government excess would be during booming economic times, however it is also the time when their is the least interest in this type of move.

    122. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Texas has no income tax, therefore we have higher sales and property taxes to make up for it.

      I grew up in Oregon, with no sales tax, but a 10% income tax and property taxes.

      All societies need tax revenue--how the get it varies, but the end result is the same.

    123. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am no lover of Bush by any means. However, I have had the opportunity to provide IT services to his former secretary of education, Dr. Rod Paige. Having perused his memoirs of his time in Washington, while I might disagree with certain ideas that Dr. Paige has with regards to politics and the finger pointing that comes with it, I can assure you that he cares *very* much about education in this country, particularly as it applies to the disadvantaged. There are a million things to hate Bush for, but I assure you no one in the Bush admin was "happy to hurt the children".

    124. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Belial6 · · Score: 1

      Well, that is an entirely different kettle of fish though. As it stands, it is not trivial for the state to collect all of the taxes even when everying is happens in a brick an mortar store. Tax evasion is certainly a common problem, and it difficult to prevent no matter where the transaction takes place. The most difficult task would probably be trying to determine who the taxing authority even is. Is it the sellers address, the shipping address, or the billing address? Is it really even legal to collect taxes from other states residents? The reason that taxes tend to only get collected now is that it is clear they should be paid if both the buyer and the seller are in your state.

    125. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by schnell · · Score: 1

      Yeah that sounds like a good idea because everything [amtrak.com] else [usps.com] That the federal government has become involved in works so well.

      I'm about the last one to suggest the Federal government manages much of anything cost-effectively, but the two examples cited above are not a good representation.

      Specifically, that's because Amtrak and the US Postal Service are government-sponsored organizations that lose money because the government is subsidizing them to do things that inherently are money-losers but are seen as in the public interest (inter-city rail service and delivering postal mail, respectively). Amtrak is under a lot of pressure to stop losing money and has basically said "fine, let us focus on our money-making Eastern Seaboard commuter routes and we'll drop all those Seattle-To-Chicago boondogles" but the government has told them no. The USPS has similarly tried to cut losses by proposing things that make business sense such as increased postage rates and reduced delivery days, but has faced a great deal of public/government pressure not to.

      To your point, I believe the place of the government is actually to do those things that need to be paid for by taxpayers as an infrastructure/service because no sane business can make a profit doing them... and USPS/Amtrak qualify in this sense. But if someone else can make money doing something that the government loses money on (I'm looking at you, SpaceX...) then the government should get out of that business to the greatest degree possible.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    126. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We are at almost 20% sales tax in Europe now, on to of the ~42% income tax. Add to that property taxes from everything from houses to all savings and loose change, and I'd wish I could keep a third of my income. To me, 8.25% looks as real as wonderland.

    127. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Texas is it's own little world, and this does not adequately describe what is occurring in other states. Moreover, I think you're planting motives on the likes of Mr. Bush and Rick Perry. That is not to say that either has done an adequate job at representing the best interest of large segments of the population. Rather it is to say, that they acted in the best interest of their constituencies. Politics as normal in the United States.

      California has the opposite problem, corrupt career politicians (often democratic) who use their power base to maintain the status quo. Eventually, California will file for bankruptcy and there is nothing that Jerry Brown can do about that as long as special interest groups dictate public policy. Essentially, we have groups of individuals [large in the case of the teachers union in California, and small in the case of corporations in Texas] who wield enormous power and influence dictating decisions about what is best for the public.

      It'd be nice to have politicians from either side who acted with the public good as opposed to acting in the best interest of the groups who paid to elect them, but that's fantasy land.

    128. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure that's a true statement.

      I think a narrow majority wants it to "change" back to what it used to be... illegal.

      Or to put it another way... to undo the prior change.

      Personally, I can't see a good resolution for the issue and it is ruining the country. The corporations and the wealthy are using it to cause lots of people with a certain morality to vote against their own self interest turning the country corporatist and facist and destroying employment.

      I can see how sincere people can come down on both sides of the abortion issue. It really is a poison pill for our form of government. We almost need to split into two countries and then move on from there. But that's not possible.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    129. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2

      But your basic issue with the particular terms is fine.

      I have to specify myself.

      Socially Liberal
      Fiscally Liberal
      Socially Conservative
      Fiscally Conservative

      That's a lot of typing.

      I wish we could call them
      SL's
      FL's
      SC's
      FC's

      I prefer an FC, SL government.

      Hmmm interesting .. .there could be 8 forms.

      SLFC Social concerns important, and fiscally conservative Aka, benefits then budget.
      SLFL Social concerns important, and also fiscally liberal
      SCFC
      SCFL

      but also

      FCSL Fiscal concerns first, and then socially liberal (Kansas... We have 100 bucks, okay what is the best thing we can do with it and folks are free to have sex and speech)
      FCSC (Hardnosed about budget , and then traditional values, no gay marriage, no government welfare)
      FLSL etc
      FLSC etc

      anyway.. blathering. My preference would be FCSL

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    130. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Texas presently has a 'Rainy Day fund' containing almost $10B that REPUBLICANS WILL NOT TOUCH. Governor 'good-hair' Perry wants to pull Texas up by it's unemployed and drowning ass, over the next 3 years to make a run for the presidential bid in 2016.

      Story goes; show voters how Texas didn't need bailouts, touched it's Rainy Day Fund, or raised taxes to 'survive' the current 'economic downturn' over the next 3 years, and the Conservative Right will praise him to high heaven that he is the 'golden boy', being fiscally conservative. This despite the massive Federal funding this state receives.

      As a Texan, I've watched this crap go on for almost a decade. They're playing bullshit political games simply because they can. Touch the 1 safety net fund that is in place for just this emergency? Does it really get much worse economically than this? If it does, I'm pretty sure there would be wide-spread looting and anarchy! Perry and his whole f&$%ing ilk need to go down in a fire.

    131. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      First you say (para): 'Those are bad examples because the government tells them what to do and the government has it's head up it's ass'

      Then you say (para): 'These are good examples of the government doing something that no sane company could make money at'

      From that I can only assume you support 'government boondogles'. Perhaps Amtrak should drop it's Chicago-Seattle lines and the USPS should go to a 1 day a week delivery mode. It appears you don't even consider the basic broken nature of the Federal government; it's inability to prioritize, bribery by district pork and the broken relationship between government agencies and their employees. Which is the heart of the matter.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    132. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Finally.. some common sense.

    133. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Please read the 21st amendment again. If your state were to outlaw the possession and consumption of alcohol, that mail order would be bared from shipping anything into the state at all or subject to that state's laws. This is completely because of the 21st amendment.

      So if your state says the wine or whatever must be taxed before being sold or imported into the state, them it doesn't allow out of state companies to skirt that by the interstate commerce clause.

      The 21st amendment deals specifically with the destination. It is constitutionally prohibited to import alcohol (spirits) into a state without obeying that destination state's laws in the process.

      Now, it may be that your state's excise tax laws pertaining to alcohol are written to which there is an actual loophole regarding mail order. It may be that the mail order company simply doesn't follow the law too. But the substantial nexus is only applicable to interstate commerce issues that aren't negated by an amended constitution.

      And that is a real stifling point for the commerce clause. The constitution was amended after the commerce clause was put in, so it can only be interpreted within the scope of the amendment. So the amendment takes power over the commerce clause where applicable.

    134. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The funny thing is that about five months ago, Texas governor Rick Perry inserted himself in Washington state politics (the home state of Amazon) by sending letters to about a hundred Washington companies stating how low taxes were in Texas. He did this to prevent Washington from instituting an income tax ballot measure for millionaires and billionaires. Well, that Washington income tax ballot measure failed, keeping Washington state taxes low.

      So, I hope Texans go out and congratulate Governor Rick Perry for keeping Washington income taxes so low that Amazon had no qualms leaving Texas.

    135. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by postbigbang · · Score: 1

      What happens in reality, is that the wine vintners have double distribution, and find ways to try to skirt state excise taxes. They've done this for quite some time now. I won't name names-- but they're a lot like Amazon but with a bigger problem: making UPS or even a mail carrier into an ID checker for compliance with under-age drinking laws. It's a mess, overall.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    136. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by jkauzlar · · Score: 1

      In the end, if you are 29 bllion in the hole and a state not the federal government, you must cut your budget by 29 billion.

      Or raise taxes?

    137. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by fishbowl · · Score: 1

      I used to go to a movie theatre that was in a different county from its box office, a few steps away. This was done intentionally, for tax reasons related to the location of the point of sale, and because a competing theatre across the street would have had an unfair advantage had they not done this.

      --
      -fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
    138. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It must be noted that the maximum sales tax the state can charge is 6.25%. Local sales taxes can up this to a maximum of 8.25%.

    139. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by cheezedawg · · Score: 1

      Its quite a bit more complicated than that. Each state has different sales tax rates. So do many counties. So do many cities within those counties. And at each level, the taxes are applied differently to different products. In some areas, you don't pay sales tax on unprepared food. In other areas, this extends to most daily personal needs. And all of this is subject to the frequent changes from politicians and voters.

      Figuring out an accurate sales tax rate for product X shipped to a particular address is a rather tricky problem.

      --
      "The defense of freedom requires the advance of freedom" - George W Bush
    140. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Moryath · · Score: 1

      Funny.

      Dumbass Dan Patrick also wants to cut school breakfast and lunch programs for kids whose parents are out of work or in the poorhouse.

      Guess you retardicans don't really give a shit about feeding kids, now do you?

    141. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Crikey, 8.25%? Income Tax? No wonder the budget doesn't balance.

      Base rate income tax in the UK is 20%. If you earn £40,000, it's 40%. If you earn £150,000, it's 50%. I also pay National Insurance tax (about £80 + 1% of my monthly earnings over £850) and Council Tax (about £2000 a year, based on the size of my house (a 3 bed terrace)). There's also a collection of various other taxes (VAT, road tax, excise, Stamp Duty, etc.).

      I'm not complaining though- I get an absolute butt load of state-provided freebies out of that. Texas provides some of those freebies to its citizens too (from maintained roads to state schools), but they're not exactly cheap.

    142. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Bassman59 · · Score: 1

      An API that just serves the tax rates when you request them once every month or so is not a big honey pot. What do you anticipate a hacker would do? Raise/Lower tax rates for their jurisdiction and risk going to jail for an extra 6.25% off of online purchases? That's ridiculous. The IRS already has a big online presence anyway, this would be trivially easy to do.

      Am I being pedantic when I point out that the IRS has nothing to do with state, county and municipal income, sales and use taxes?

    143. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Bassman59 · · Score: 1

      Once joesobscuremerchandise.com has calculated the taxes, and billed appropriately, Joe owes various entities the taxes he has collected. The paperwork on that alone could be prohibitive for a small site.

      But Amazon is not a small site! The small retailers who use Amazon's systems do it so that they do not have to deal with the billing and hosting and credit-card details. So the point is that Amazon is one of the few retailers in a position to "do it right" because so much is aggregated through them.

    144. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by GooberToo · · Score: 1

      Why is a factually supported opinion post troll? Why is it so hard for moderators to do such a simple job. Damn the IQ has gone to shit over the last few years here. Holy shit what a stupid moderator.

      If only the moderator could be permanently labeled the idiot he is and prevented from ever moderating again. For the fucking stupid moderator who moderated the above post, read a fucking paper once in a blue moon and you'll see what I said is FACTUALLY ACCURATE. And since you're so fucking stupid I'll point out, moderation does not mean "I disagree." Disagree has absolutely nothing to do with moderation. If it does, you're doing it wrong and likely a fucking idiot like this guy.

      If you can't do such a simple fucking job, don't do it at all.

    145. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Gilmoure · · Score: 1

      If the banks foreclose, they then pay property taxes, right?

      But what happens when folks just walk away from their house/mortgage and it hangs there in limbo until the courts settle things? Any chances of states getting property tax then?

      --
      I drank what? -- Socrates
    146. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Bassman59 · · Score: 1

      Well, personally, I'm for an income tax.

      I think high property taxes are extremely punitive to the retired and anyone who loses their job.

      High sales and income taxes at least only hit people spending money (and sales taxes are tuned to avoid basic needs).

      However, along the same logic... any increase in income tax will apparently lead to massive flight of the wealthy from Texas to Belize or Mississipi or France.

      The wealthy won for a while with the "I'm going to take my ball" argument, but now that EVERYWHERE is running into money problems, I think taxes may flow the other way for a while.

      I agree completely. An income tax is the most progressive option, even if it's a fixed rate (say, 5% for all income) instead of graduated like the Federal income tax.

      Property taxes are inherently regressive -- one has essentially no control over the value of a property. As we've seen in the bubble, home values were doubling and in some cases tripling over a very short time frame, clearly exceeding the change in the owners' incomes. So you might be "house rich" but that's not reflected in your income. In fact, like any object of value, a home's only value to the owner is realized when it's sold. So if your property tax on a $150,000 home is $1,500 a year (which is the case with my house), the homeowner needs to come up with that $1,500 each year. You can't magically pull it out of the home value!

      Sales taxes are regressive, too, simply because everyone, regardless of income level, pays the same percentage on products but if you are on the lower end of the income scale, the amount paid in tax is significant compared with rent and utilities.

      also with a sales tax, people aren't exactly clear on how much they pay in that tax every year. Your income tax is prominently shown on your pay stub and on your 1040 each year.

    147. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      If they are skirting through loopholes in the actual laws, then it's completely fine. If they are skirting because of some reliance on the commerce clause, they will lose if it ever goes to court.

      And I believe in most states, UPS and other delivery agents would be in the same boat regardless of what the wineries do. In most states, even if you buy the alcohol, it's illegal to give it to someone under the legal age that isn't your own offspring. Even if you are giving it to them to give to their parents. well, there are a few exceptions like serving unopened containers to "of age" people where a clerk or waitress is under age but the final recipient is going to off age. but those are limited in context. Generally, if you give someone alcohol under the legal age, you are probably violating some state law in most situations.

      So they would likely be carding these people anyways.

    148. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Bassman59 · · Score: 1

      The simple answer is to cancel all sales tax and just have income tax. That way people can directly see what taxes they pay, none of this hidden tax crap. Or make one sales tax for everything.

      This is the correct, and obviously so, solution.

    149. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Bassman59 · · Score: 1

      The thing I want to know is if Amazon settled and paid the taxes how could they recover this money from the customers who were supposed to pay it?

      This is why they should have been collecting the taxes all along.

    150. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think there is a class of Republicans who hate government enough to get in power, purposefully screw up, and force things like this because of the damage they deliberately inflict and then blame on "big government" which they created in the first place.

      There should probably be a variant of the "never assume malice when ignorance would suffice" rule that runs something along the lines of "never assume evil genius when stupidity or greed would suffice".

      The simplest explanation for Republican practices is that they say whatever they need to say to get elected, then, once elected, do whatever they want. (You could explain many politicians in many governments the exact same way, too). A very common leadership trait seems to be - to paraphrase Nixon - "it's not wrong if I'm the one doing it".

    151. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by mysidia · · Score: 1

      I know some folks in Texas are pretty dumb, but how did they think they'd fool anyone by tagging 4 extra letters on to the company name

      The question is not if the company has the same name... it's Are they the same company? Just because companies have similar names does not make them the same. If my dad happens to have the same first, middle, and last name as me, and we live in different states: mine has no income tax, and his does, I can basically guarantee the state he lives in cannot bill me their tax rate on any of my income; even if the federal government allowed states to tax resident income earned in other states. If the state tried to take me to court, and they declared I was the same person (based on my name or relationship), their declaration to the court would essentially constitute fraud.

      Trying to assume companies are the same just because the names are similar IS dumb.

      LOL.... If having a similar name makes another company liable for your debts, I suppose I could in theory name my company Awmazon, setup a distribution center in texas, contract with an online vendor to distribute stuff they sell, and point the state at Amazon.com for any collection for sales tax purposes (EG)

    152. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Ihmhi · · Score: 1

      On the one hand, failing to provide for so many of our people can indeed be an issue.

      On the other hand, some of that "pie in the sky" research might, say, end up making food or power cheaper. For the most part I agree that it doesn't relate to any practical problems regarding basic necessities, though.

    153. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Random+BedHead+Ed · · Score: 1

      Pretty much all states have this tax. You have a physical presence in the state you pay sales tax. Dell does it. I have no clue why Amazon thought they could skirt it.

      Because they think they can skirt any tax. It's why they do business where they do business - why they create separate companies to handle some of their shipping operations so they won't have a tax liability in that state. And they can threaten to close shop and move across state lines if states consider taxing them. Texas is calling their bluff, but they have no choice. Amazon uses the state-maintained roads to ship things to us; they would call the police or fire authorities in an emergency. Clearly they should pay the taxes that support these amenities.

    154. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Zencyde · · Score: 1

      I work in education in Texas. And let me tell you, there are budget problems up the ass. I work as a TA in a physics department. There used to be two of us. We lost a guy and I lost 33% of my hours for a 66% cut overall. Considering all of our current problems, seeing Amazon pull out really hurts. Also, our sales tax is 8.25%

      --
      What day is it? Could you please tell me?
    155. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Are you capable of actually discussing a subject at all?

      Let's start with the basics.

      Did I vote for Dan Patrick?

      Am I republican.

      Is it pointless to enter a discussion using terms like "retardicans"?

      Let my try one without an insult.

      You could have voted or perhaps you did but you didn't get enough of your friends to vote.

      YOU LOST. You LOST and "Retardicans" are running the show now.
      You could have gotten more democrats or green or libertarians out to vote, but you didn't.

      So now all you can do is sit around looking pathetic and posting bad words about the WINNERS who have the power.

      Better luck next time.

      Tho to be honest, the PTB have things so locked up that in over 15 years of voting, my vote has only mattered once (then barely). The rest of the time I'm either with the 65% winning side or the 35% losing side. Gerrymandering at it's finest.

      But if you feel so strong, DONATE. Not just your money- but also your time.

      In the end, the states can't spend money they don't have.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    156. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I think we should have more government benefits, but in that environment, it amazes me that you work at all.

      Unless everything is relative and if you have 31k after taxes, then you are much better off than someone with 27k after taxes or the poor sod with 22k and benefits on the dole.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    157. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      All fixed state taxes are regressive (car tax, cell phone tax, etc).

      Google "Whopaystaxes.pdf" and you'll see that the fixed taxes weigh in on the poor at over 10% of their income (12.3% in texas) but only hit the wealthy for .3% of their income.

      That's why you see such a big "push" for fixed fees and user fees.

      The park fee of $40 is punitive to the poor and keeps them out of the public park, but it's nothing to the wealthy person.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    158. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by commodore6502 · · Score: 1

      >>>The goal of streamlined taxes is not to have other states tax you.

      Yeah actually it is. For example New York State wants to collect sales tax from my Amazon purchases, even though I don't live there. They don't have any right to tax me, a foreign citizen, anymore than Canada can tax me.
      .

      >>>It is to make a system clear enough to allow any retailer to tax you for your state.

      That already exists. If I buy online from a company that is in Maryland (example: jcpenney.com) then I get taxed. If I buy from a company not inside Maryland (amazon.com), then I don't get taxed. Simple as that.

      --
      Information wants to be expensive AND wants to be free. So you have Value vs. Cheap distribution fighting each other.
    159. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      So, as long as the Texas DC was:

      1. Only ever used to ship Amazon product to Amazon customers OUTSIDE Texas, and
      2. Not owned by Amazon or shares a parent company with Amazon. ...it may be true that neither company owes Texas jack shit.

      It sounds logical but has nothing to do with legal reality.

      Reality is simple: Company A Sells a product, but they contract to Company B to do their distribution. Company B is not selling anything, so it is not in charge of collecting any sales tax, all they have to pay is income tax from the contract. It does not matter who owns what - as long as these are separate companies and are run as separate companies. It's a loophole, but a very established and known one. And it is very hard one to close down, as it would pretty much screw every public company - after all they are owned by a lot of people in a lot of states. Plus same people own lots of other company stocks, so by your logic they would all have to be treated as one company.

      The only way out of this is by just flat taxing everything shipping to your state, like NY does. But really, that just screws the people of your state. Meanwhile Texas already screwed its people out of thousands of jobs and millions in taxes that the distribution center WAS paying. Go Texas!

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    160. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by natehoy · · Score: 1

      Well, it might not any more. As I said in another post, I did this a decade ago. The laws may have changed since then. But back then, intrastate shipments and being too close to the distribution center in terms of ownership or management could bust Nexus protections in a hurry.

      In this case, Amazon ran this warehouse through a subsidiary. This is not a case of a separate company doing distribution, it's a separate division of the same company. That's not arm's-length, that's married with kids.

      Meanwhile Texas already screwed its people out of thousands of jobs and millions in taxes that the distribution center WAS paying.

      The Distrbution Center has an unknown number of employees, but Amazon claiming that they are avoiding hiring "up to 1,000" new employees when they canceled plans to open multiple DCs. So I doubt this one DC had "thousands of jobs". Still sucks to be Texas on this one, but they'll probably make more in this sales tax revenue suit than the jobs will ever make them in income tax.

      Most DCs don't employ thousands of people - by the time you reach the point where that many people are necessary you'll have put in significant automation systems because there won't be enough room for all of them. Amazon's an efficient company, and they know distribution. If that DC had 250 employees I'd be surprised.

      PS: Just looked it up. http://www.statesman.com/business/119-to-lose-jobs-when-amazon-closes-texas-1248784.html 119 jobs lost.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    161. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      I know you're playing stupid, but that's what the defense will do too. At least I hope you're playing stupid. Lets follow this through.

      AMAZON.COM.KYDC LLC, the owners/operators of the facility in question in Irving, Tx, is a corporation registered in the states of Kentucky and Texas.

      KYDC is "Kentucky Distribution Center". If you look for other names of corporations they're using for their distribution centers, you'll see the common theme.

      In the state of Texas, you will Find this information

      Entity Information: AMAZON.COM.KYDC LLC
      PO BOX 81207
      SEATTLE, WA 98108-1207

      And they list 21 vice presidents as the officers of the company, all PO BOX 81226 SEATTLE , WA 98108

      VICE PRESI ALLEN PARKER
      VICE PRESI BEN SUMRALL
      VICE PRESI BRIAN W CALVIN
      VICE PRESI CHRISTOPHER S YETMAN
      VICE PRESI DAVE ALPERSON
      VICE PRESI DAVE H CLARK
      VICE PRESI DAVE NIEKERK
      VICE PRESI DAVE SEITELMAN
      VICE PRESI GIRISH S LAKSHMAN
      VICE PRESI JASON M BRISTOW
      TREASURER JASON M BRISTOW
      VICE PRESI JAY LITTLEPAGE
      VICE PRESI JOHN TAGAWA
      VICE PRESI MICHAEL D DEAL
      SECRETARY MICHAEL D DEAL
      VICE PRESI MICHAEL J PASSALES
      PRESIDENT MICHAEL T MCKENNA
      VICE PRESI RITESH CHATURBEDI
      VICE PRESI ROB ROBINSON
      VICE PRESI ROBERT C WEGNER
      VICE PRESI ROBERT D COMFORT
      ASSISTANT SARAH DODS
      VICE PRESI SEAN BOYLE
      VICE PRESI TIMOTHY C COLLINS

      Allen Parker - VP Finance, WW Operations & Customer Service, Logistics and Supply Chain - Amazon.com
      Ben Sumrall - Finance Director - Amazon.com
      Brian Calvin - Director- NAFC ACES - Amazon.com
      Chris Yetman - VP, Infrastructure Operations - Amazon.com
      David Alperson - General Manager - Amazon.com
      Dave Clark - VP of North American Operations - Amazon.com
      David Niekerk - VP Human Resources for Global Operations and Customer Service - Amazon.com
      David Seitelman David - Regional Director of Fulfillment, Director of Manufacturing - Amazon.com
      Girish Lakshman - Vice President - Transportation - Amazon.com
      Jason Bristow - Vice President & Treasurer - Amazon.com
      Jay Littlepage - VP, Infrastructure - Amazon.com (no longer with Amazon)
      John Tagawa - General Manager - Amazon.com
      Michael Deal - Vice President and Associate General Counsel - Amazon.com
      Michael Passales - Regional Director, North American Fulfillment - Amazon.com
      Michael McKenna VP Legal at Amazon Europe, Legal Director at Amazon.co.uk
      Senior Financial Analyst - Amazon.com
      Ritesh Chaturbedi - Operations Manager - Amazon.com
      Rob Robinson - General Manager - Amazon.com
      Robert Wegner - unknown
      Robert Comfort - unknown (AWS engineer?)
      Sarah Dods - Attorney - Securities & Corporate Finance - Amazon.com
      Sean Boyle - Vice President, Amazon Web Services Finance - Amazon.com
      Tim Collins - Director - Amazon.com

      Do you see a trend there? 20 of 22 people listed as officers are employees at Amazon. One worked at Amazon, but is no longer employed, but I'd suspect that will be fixed on the corporation listing at the next filing. One is simply unverified.

      But lets overlook that, and skip on to the Kentucky company. Surely, if it's just a name resemblance, this one couldn't be remotely similar also. Kentucky actually has 5 corporations listed, 3 of which are active, including the one in question.

      AMAZON.COM BABY, INC. 0618308 I-Inactive FCO-Foreign Corporation
      AMAZON.COM, LLC 0618515 A-Active - Good FLC-Foreign Limited Liability Company
      AMAZON.COM.KYDC LLC 0723455 A-Active - Good FLC-Foreign Limited Liability Company
      AMAZON.COM.KYDC, INC. 0475949 I-Inactive FC

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    162. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>You see, there's no talking sense to these people, they cannot keep anything abstract in their heads for longer than a gnat's attention span.

      Better than liberals that think that money can be created by fairy wands and unicorn wishes.

      OBAMAs gonna buy me a CAR

    163. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of Colorado do you live in and how do you like it?

    164. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by mysidia · · Score: 1

      Michael Deal - Vice President and Associate General Counsel - Amazon.com Robert Eldridge - Vice President, Investor Relations at Amazon.com Dave Clark - VP of North American Operations - Amazon.com [snip]

      Now you are playing dumb. Either that, or you just do not understand what a corporation is. Each different corporation is a separate legal person

      The Officer lists can be identical. The names can be highly similar. They can even have the same customers. That does not mean that they are the same corporation. Each corporation has its own papers, its own separate assets and business activity.

      Identical management personnel does not mean the corporations are the same legal entity.

      The state of Kentucky cannot force a corporation incorporated there to merge with a corporation incorporated in Washington.

      Each corporation also has some constitutional rights that prevent any state from arbitrarily assigning their property to another corporation that happens to have similar name and the same management.

      I'm really amazed that people on here will play fanboi for Amazon. Their whole business model is to shuffle physical locations to shop for the lowest taxes, and incentives to move in.

      I'm not discussing whether Amazon is being good or not here. Amazon.com Inc is clearly attempting to structure their business in a way as to minimize any unnecessary tax liability, however, which is their management's responsibility and fiduciary duty to their shareholders, to maximize profit.

      So, they were given an incentive to move *TO* Texas, took advantage of the deal, didn't pay the legally required sales tax, and now that their sweet deal is ending, and the state wants them to pay up, they're making a stink about how unfair Texas is to them.

      Well, standard negotiating tactics; get the best deal you can. If you cannot get a good deal, then leave. Amazon wants the best tax deal they can get for wherever they decide to locate their distribution facilities. If they can't get it anymore, they should move to a place where they can, if it makes financial sense to do so. The folks in Texas got dollar signs in their eyes, thinking they could end the deal that brought Amazon there and work on finding creative ways of trying to sneakily end-run around the constitution and try to get tax money for their out-of-state operations anyways. The problem is, given the amount of money at stake, it's worth Amazon's while to ship out.

      I am not really being a fan of Amazon here, but the antics Texas is trying to attempt are much worse. Obviously Amazon has gone to lengths to avoid having any physical presence in Texas legally speaking, so the larger company's core business won't be paying sales taxes for mail order sales. Texas wants to grasp for straws and find any way possible to make big Amazon pay sales tax due to its subsidiary having a distribution center in their state.

      Amazon is only able to pull this off in the first place, because they are an internet company, and they don't need a physical location in Texas to sell to people in Texas. There are probably a thousand of different ways they could make the same thing happen, for example, they could make a separate amazon.com.tx.us site out-of-state owned by another company (with technology integration and 'strategic partnership'), for sales to Texans, or separate corporations for making separate sales to various states, but the end result is the same. They avoid the selling company having a physical presence. The result is there is no tax liability -- unless Texas simplifies their insane tax code and creates new tax laws taxing the fulfillment of sales/distribution of goods on behalf of another company.

      Anyone can sell through Amazon, much like selling through eBay, except they take a 30% off the top.

      If you don't like it, then don't sell on Amazon. It should still be possible to profit selling through Amazon;

    165. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by WorBlux · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter if they actually collect it. Sales tax is a privilege tax on the business for doing business. The business is "liable" weather or not they actually collect anything from the buyer.

    166. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by AK+Marc · · Score: 2

      Sufficiently advanced stupidity is indistinguishable from malice.

      Couple that with the fact that they take actions in opposition to their stated goals (growing the budget for years) then taking one consistent with their stated goals (cutting education and social services while increasing business subsidies), and I couldn't care less if the 9 years of growing the budget was incompetence or a master plan, it all worked out in the end very conveniently for him to do what he wanted to do.

    167. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by bytesex · · Score: 1

      Isn't the delivery address good enough ?

      --
      Religion is what happens when nature strikes and groupthink goes wrong.
    168. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We were forced out of a state because the insanity of its tax system. Never do business in Louisiana. It is insane. We operate in Portland, OR, NJ, and Pennsylvania. None of which make collecting sales taxes difficult. In Louisiana for one area we had to collect several different sales taxes and distribute it to different entities. It was ridicules. No wonder New Orleans isn't recovering. It just doesn't have any $$$ and then you have an insane tax system. We had some thing we had to collect taxes on and some things we didn't. And some days you had tax holidays and other days you didn't. We only provided one freaken service in one city for all practical purposes.

    169. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Patch86 · · Score: 1

      Believe it or not, high taxes are not a deterrent to working. You still pick the best paying job, and you still save your money for things you want to buy, and you still invest or save or spend what you have.

      Further, tax rates like that are common around the world. The rates are similar throughout the EU, for example, and taxation in China or Russia or India is little different (when they're collected). A low tax regime is not a necessity for a country to be competitive- it's about the whole package.

    170. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh. This isn't an onerous business tax. Pretty much all states have this tax. You have a physical presence in the state you pay sales tax. Dell does it. I have no clue why Amazon thought they could skirt it.

      They don't have a physical presence in the state in terms of performing transactions, what they have is a local distribution facility. They are already paying the proper taxes for those types of business shipping operations through direct taxes and fleet vehicle taxes.

      The problem here is that if a person in TX conducts a transaction with a person or a server in WA you're now dealing with an Interstate transaction no matter how you try to twist and pretend otherwise. So the person in WA would be required to collect/pay any taxes demanded under WA or Federal law, and it would be up to the person in TX to collect/pay the taxes in TX. Why? Simply put, because TX has no authority to pass laws which regulate anything in WA. They can't get around this by suing a company even if they do have a physical presence in the state, because they can't regulate what that company does outside of TX.

    171. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Ginger+Unicorn · · Score: 1

      A huge deficit coming up? Jesus, hasn't the US gvt started doing anything about this yet?!? In Britain we've been slashing the guts out of public services and raising sales tax for a year or two now, at the moment they're talking about scrapping the national postal service and the majority of public libraries. For the next five years this country is going into a mini dark ages in an attempt to save its economy. Europe has been a maelstrom of imploding economies. The longer it takes for the shit to hit fan, the harder it's going to hit, by the sounds of it, the US will be like Mad Max by the time your politicans get round to admitting everything is seriously fucked.

      --
      (1.21 gigawatts) / (88 miles per hour) = 30 757 874 newtons
    172. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by gtall · · Score: 1

      Bad form, but I misdated Galois, he bit the bullet in 1832.

    173. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Geminii · · Score: 1

      Everything's bigger in Texas. :)

    174. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > The services I receive have improved too.

      What services are these? Do they deliver hookers, BBQ, and portable shooting ranges?

    175. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Colazar · · Score: 1

      Companies don't PAY sales tax, they COLLECT it. The people in Texas that order from Internet retailers like Amazon are the ones who pay, or don't pay, sales tax. Amazon just collects the tax from the customer, and then pays it to Texas.

      Except if a company doesn't collect sales tax on a taxable sale for some reason (they forgot, or made a mistake and thought it wasn't taxable) they are still responsible for paying the tax. You do a calculation to figure out what portion of the payment that was made was tax, and pay that. But what is true is that any sales tax that a company collects has to be remitted to the state, even if it's more than what should have been charged. That keeps companies from 'accidentally' charging too much sales tax and pocketing the difference.

      --
      He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
    176. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Colazar · · Score: 1

      Of course, I think sales tax conflicts happen because they are an ill-defined problem. If I go across the border and buy a durable good from an appliance store (or any other good), I will pay the sales tax for Illinois even though I am transporting it back to Wisconsin. I can't say I'm taking it to a different state and not pay sales tax..

      Interestingly enough, that's not even true in every state. In Washington state, if you are buying a durable good, have ID from a state that charges 3% sales tax or less, and say that you will be using it in your home state, then the retailer is not required to charge sales tax. (They may not be *allowed* to charge sales tax, I don't remember precisely.) They do this because they have so many neighboring states with low sales tax rates (OR, ID, AK) that retailers would lose too much business otherwise. (Yes, I know Alaska isn't technically 'neighboring' but when Alaskans want to go down to the lower-48 and do some shopping, they generally go to Seattle.)

      --
      He decided to just watch the government, and kind of scale it down to size, and run his life that way. --Laurie Anderson
    177. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by FtDFtM · · Score: 1

      Link "Last year the Texas comptroller’s office sent Amazon a demand for $269 million in uncollected sales taxes, plus penalties and interest, from 2005 through 2009." Amazon opened the distribution center in 2006.

    178. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by wwphx · · Score: 1

      If the facility is not a point of sale, then does Amazon have any points of sale? They have a web site, and as far as I know no brick and mortar, so all they have is a virtual presence. Do they pay any tax anywhere?

      This "owned by a subsidiary" is a ludicrous argument.

      --
      When you sympathize with stupidity, you start thinking like an idiot.
    179. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by kalirion · · Score: 1

      From your link: "The notice from Amazon arrived at the workforce commission about 9:30 a.m. today, and said that the Irving facility â" which opened in 2005 and is known as a fulfillment center â" will close on April 13."

      So the article says that the facility opened in 2005 and the uncollected taxes start in 2005. Your 2006 date is from a difference source. So you're picking and choosing which dates to trust from which sources?

    180. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Yeah and the ordering process slows to a crawl because government isn't smart enough to purchase AWS...

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    181. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I like lamp. (Wait, should that be, I like LAMP?)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    182. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      Well, it might not any more. As I said in another post, I did this a decade ago. The laws may have changed since then. But back then, intrastate shipments and being too close to the distribution center in terms of ownership or management could bust Nexus protections in a hurry.

      In this case, Amazon ran this warehouse through a subsidiary. This is not a case of a separate company doing distribution, it's a separate division of the same company. That's not arm's-length, that's married with kids.

      I suggest looking up the difference between "division" and "subsidiary". Subsidiary is by definition a separate company, so yes, it is a case of a separate company. Having tangled with Amazon's lawyers (not a very pleasant experience), I know for sure those guys do not leave anything to chance - so I am sure they crossed the T's and dotted the I's when it came to this sort of thing.

      Meanwhile Texas already screwed its people out of thousands of jobs and millions in taxes that the distribution center WAS paying.

      The Distrbution Center has an unknown number of employees, but Amazon claiming that they are avoiding hiring "up to 1,000" new employees when they canceled plans to open multiple DCs. So I doubt this one DC had "thousands of jobs". Still sucks to be Texas on this one, but they'll probably make more in this sales tax revenue suit than the jobs will ever make them in income tax.

      Most DCs don't employ thousands of people - by the time you reach the point where that many people are necessary you'll have put in significant automation systems because there won't be enough room for all of them. Amazon's an efficient company, and they know distribution. If that DC had 250 employees I'd be surprised.

      PS: Just looked it up. http://www.statesman.com/business/119-to-lose-jobs-when-amazon-closes-texas-1248784.html 119 jobs lost.

      Well, they CLAIMED to be creating up to a thousand new jobs in planned expansions, though you are probably right, the real number would have been smaller (thus "up to" claim). Still, thats 119 REAL jobs slashed, still sucks for 119 families that have to either loose jobs or move out of state.

      Really, Texas should get off their ass and just tax every internet purchase, like NY did. It'll save a lot of headaches to everyone involved instead of trying to trying to do weaselly and shady back-billing that even their own Governor disapproves of (as per the article you linked).

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    183. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      It's not pie in the sky research as much as which pie in the sky research.

      If the budget is 85 billion dollars, what amount is a reasonable amount for pie in the sky research? 85 milllion? 81 billion?

      By the name, it's speculative so anything over 1% seems unreasonable to me. You'll probably just bid up the price of pie in the sky research or attract a bunch of lunatics to the field looking for free cash.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    184. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Em+Ellel · · Score: 1

      I suggest looking up the difference between "division" and "subsidiary".

      For the Google challenged: http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/subsidiary

      --
      RelevantElephants: A Somatic WebComic...
    185. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Chowderbags · · Score: 1

      It's the "starve the beast" philosophy. (Some) Conservatives since Reagan have believed that if you institute tax cuts then the resultant deficit will eventually force future cuts in government. Of course, this sort of seems like someone saying that they'll max out their credit cards so they can learn to live frugally. Yeah, you might get that effect, or you'll bankrupt yourself and quite possibly have creditors taking whatever they can.

    186. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by FtDFtM · · Score: 1

      I have been corrected that the taxes date to the opening of the facility and not before as I had previously understood. Thank you kalirion. The jist remains (as stated in many other comments): Texas is defining its own rules for taxation and back-dating them - how would you like the fed to re-interpret "home office" and go after 6 years of back taxes?

    187. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by hab136 · · Score: 1

      if shipto.state = ourstate then salestax = yup and salestaxrate= ourstatetaxrate.

      Most (all?) states don't have a single statewide sales tax rate (except the states that have 0%). Sales tax can vary by city and county within a state. You can't rely on ZIP codes either, since they span city and county borders.

    188. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by JimFive · · Score: 1

      What I mean is that it pretty much involves keeping track of the receipts yourself and then there has to be some way of sending the money and the receipts in to the state.

      When ordering from out of state you are likely to use a credit card or other third party payment system; keeping track of the purchases is pretty easy. You don't need to send the receipts to the state, just a statement and money.

      I'm not aware of any state that actually advertises the process or enforces compliance.

      In Michigan there is a line/worksheet to fill out as part of the state's Income Tax filing.
      --
      JimFive

      --
      Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
    189. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by hab136 · · Score: 1

      Actually Fedex/UPS/USPS used the state-maintained roads, and paid for it through fuel taxes and vehicle registration taxes.

      For police and fire, Amazon's subsidiary paid via property taxes.

    190. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Most (all?) states don't have a single statewide sales tax rate (except the states that have 0%). Sales tax can vary by city and county within a state. You can't rely on ZIP codes either, since they span city and county borders.

      That's interesting. I did not know this. As a Canadian, we have a national sales tax "gst", and in most cases a provincial sales tax (variously called PST / RST / QST) In a number of provinces, for simplicity the GST and provincial tax is 'harmonized' into a single tax "HST".

      So determining what tax jurisdiction the shipper and receiver is in is pretty trivial.
      The tax collection rules are pretty simple:

      When shipping to an HST province, collect HST.

      When shipping to a GST+provincial tax province you have a presence in collect both.

      When shipping to a GST+PST province you don't have a presence in: collect GST.

      (And its up to the buyer to self declare and pay provincial taxes if applicable.)

      The US system quite frankly is ridiculous.

      You can't rely on ZIP codes either, since they span city and county borders.

      Right, but a database of "city-state-salestax" would be feasible, and wouldn't be much more painful to maintain than a zip-code database of tax rates. But I agree either case would be an inordinate amount of work to maintain.

      Canada is easy with 13 provinces/territories to track. 50 states would be entirely manageable as well... but tracking tax rates for every city individually in either country is ludicrous.

    191. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by hab136 · · Score: 1

      Right, but a database of "city-state-salestax" would be feasible, and wouldn't be much more painful to maintain than a zip-code database of tax rates.

      Nope. Some people live outside city boundaries in unincorporated areas, but their mailing address is the nearest city. So your address might be "123 Happy St, Podunkville, TX" even though you don't live inside Podunkville's boundaries (and thus aren't subject to its sales tax). Even better, some streets are partially inside a city and partially out - so 123 Happy Street would be outside Podunkville, but 122 Happy Street might be inside it.

      You need a full database of every address in the country, and its applicable taxable jurisdictions (city, county, state). Such databases do exist, but they're not free, easy to use, or always up to date. For example I bought something last week and had it shipped where it incurred sales tax, but to a relatively recently built neighborhood. The shipping system couldn't figure out where the destination was, exactly, so it popped up an additional dialog which was something like:

      * County A (inside city X)
      * County A (outside city X)
      * County B
      * County C (inside city Y)
      * County C (inside city Z)
      * County C (outside city Y or Z)

      Ludicrous, ridiculous, etc - yes. Yes it is.

    192. Re:Texas Budget Deficit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Europe has this. If amazon sell to germany, uk, etc - they have to collect sales tax at the appropriate rate and pass it on.

      The technology and processes are presumably annoying, but they are a solved problem.

  2. 87 comments on the newspaper page by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    87 comments on the newspaper page as of a minute or two ago.

    How fast before Slashdotters push it over 200?

  3. They still owe texas money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Even if the move out they still owe texas $269 million.

    1. Re:They still owe texas money. by Mechagodzilla · · Score: 2

      Yes, but the Amazonian lawyers (ooh, what a visual) will make Texas burn at least that much to get the money...

      --
      Fast, cheap, correct. You get to pick two.
    2. Re:They still owe texas money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True but it will be a lump sum deal and they will never get it again. Now they will have to possibly pay unemployment for all or most of Amazon's former employees. Taxes Amazon did pay for operating in the state are lost. etc. Texas is the loser in this deal.

    3. Re:They still owe texas money. by Dan+East · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yes, but Amazon will no longer have a physical presence in the state, thus Texas will not be able to collect on any future sales tax. Texas needs to cut some sort of compromise deal with Amazon or they will lose out in the long run, but in lost revenue from jobs and physical infrastructure, as well as potential future sales tax.

      See the problem is Amazon did not collect sales tax for Texas from those past sales, thus this money has to come out of their bottom line, instead of literally just taking money from the state population and giving it to the state government when sales tax is tacked on as normal.

      --
      Better known as 318230.
    4. Re:They still owe texas money. by ColdWetDog · · Score: 2

      Yes, but the Amazonian lawyers (ooh, what a visual) will make Texas burn at least that much to get the money...

      One breast, a bow and and a briefcase sends my brain some very mixed messages.

      Segfault.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    5. Re:They still owe texas money. by Dunbal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Not only that, but it will make other businesses think twice about Texas, too. There's a law about taxation: the more you try to get, the less you actually get. Bankrupt and irresponsible countries, states and municipalities should correct their spending binges instead of looking for creative taxation.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:They still owe texas money. by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Texas needs to cut some sort of compromise deal with Amazon or they will lose out in the long run

      No, if every state stood up to parasites like Amazon, they'd go out of business, leaving the field clear for thousands of small businesses to spring up. That's the long-term win, not kowtowing to corporate bastards.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    7. Re:They still owe texas money. by hedwards · · Score: 3, Insightful

      You mean like we in WA have been doing with MS? Right now MS owes our state just about enough money alone to plug our deficit. What we really need is for the federal government to step in and start doing something about the mess that is interstate commerce. States aren't going to be able to negotiate when they're faced with what is typically handled like the prisoners dilemma

    8. Re:They still owe texas money. by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      I bet you are the same sort of person that complains about outsourcing to other countries, even thought what you suggest will cause exactly that.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    9. Re:They still owe texas money. by Duradin · · Score: 1

      Did Amazon collect the sales tax and not give it to Texas or did Texas not bother to collect the use tax from Texans who ordered though Amazon?

    10. Re:They still owe texas money. by guyfawkes-11-5 · · Score: 2

      Yes, but Amazon will no longer have a physical presence in the state, thus Texas will not be able to collect on any future sales tax. Texas needs to cut some sort of compromise deal with Amazon or they will lose out in the long run, but in lost revenue from jobs and physical infrastructure, as well as potential future sales tax.

      See the problem is Amazon did not collect sales tax for Texas from those past sales, thus this money has to come out of their bottom line, instead of literally just taking money from the state population and giving it to the state government when sales tax is tacked on as normal.

      They should put a lien on the property and the physical assets for the full amount of the taxes due. Wake them latte drinkin' Internet types up real quick.

    11. Re:They still owe texas money. by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      No, if every state stood up to parasites like Amazon, they'd go out of business, leaving the field clear for thousands of small businesses to spring up. That's the long-term win, not kowtowing to corporate bastards.

      Meanwhile, the parasites in the Civil Service will go out for lunch. It's Friday. Make it a long lunch. And to hell with those small businesses. We'll tax 'em under.

    12. Re:They still owe texas money. by CharlieHedlin · · Score: 1

      Amazon didn't collect but they had a legal obligation to do so. Texas has never bothered to collect the use tax, so no one pays it.

    13. Re:They still owe texas money. by gtall · · Score: 1

      "There's a law about taxation: the more you try to get, the less you actually get." So, if a state drops its tax rate to 0%, it gets the most? I'm surprised they don't see this, maybe you could tell them?

    14. Re:They still owe texas money. by dachshund · · Score: 1

      Bankrupt and irresponsible countries, states and municipalities should correct their spending binges instead of looking for creative taxation.

      The problem is that these bankrupt countries, states and municipalities were not binging. Most had balanced budgets in an "ok" economic time. The problem is that the economy suddenly cratered, bringing tax revenues down by as much as 1/3rd in some cases. It's very hard to cut government spending that quickly while actually having an effective organization.

      Worse, if states do have to dramatically reduce their spending, it means huge layoffs and cuts in projects, which can easily cause further economic damage and loss of revenue.

      We need a way to deal with situations where states can lose revenue this quickly. Maybe that means a mandatory rainy day fund, maybe it means borrowing. But what it does not mean is moralizing about "binges" when the problem is sudden losses in revenue.

    15. Re:They still owe texas money. by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Excellent idea. Then all of Amazon's warehouses and data centers will go to Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon.

    16. Re:They still owe texas money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So? Then you throw tariffs on their products. You have to stand up to biz or they will race you to the bottom every single time.

    17. Re:They still owe texas money. by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      No, if every state stood up to parasites like Amazon, they'd go out of business

      Erm, what? How do you figure? Amazon is still going to be doing business with customers in Texas. They're just having a warehouse shut down.

      That warehouse was owned by a corporation that isn't Amazon, in fact, so they shouldn't have to pay sales tax in Texas. But Texas claimed that the warehouse gave them physical presence in Texas, so Amazon had to collect sales tax on all of its sales to people in Texas.

      Without that warehouse, Amazon can continue to do business with internet customers in Texas and ship there, and they won't have to collect Texas sales tax by any interpretation of the law. Texas is the only one getting screwed...

      In fact the online customers are still supposed to be paying taxes in Texas on all of their online purchases, but according to interstate commerce laws, Amazon doesn't have to collect any taxes for Texas if they don't have a physical presence in the state of Texas. According to those laws, it's up to Texas to figure out how to collect that tax from the people living in Texas who buy online from out of state, if the vendor doesn't have in-state presence.

    18. Re:They still owe texas money. by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      No, they didn't. There's a loophole in the law that allowed Amazon to operate its warehouse by technically having the warehouse be owned by a different company that didn't have any sales in Texas.

      Texas has basically said no, anybody who used that loophole can't anymore, AND you have to pay us back taxes on all the stuff you sold here. Well, nice try, but it doesn't work that way. They can close the loophole, but they can't claim that they're owed any back taxes. Just like if they catch you counting cards in a casino, they can throw you out, but they can't confiscate your winnings.

      And since Amazon is shutting down the warehouse that Texas claimed was Amazon's physical presence in the state of Texas, Amazon can now freely do business with residents of Texas and collect no sales taxes whatsoever, free and clear according to interstate commerce law. If Texas wants to collect that use tax, it can now go ahead and try, because under no possible interpretation of the law is Amazon obligated to collect it if they have no physical presence in the state of Texas.

      Texas is getting screwed.

    19. Re:They still owe texas money. by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Ha! I'd like to see how well that would hold up, since the property and physical assets are owned by a corporation that isn't Amazon.

    20. Re:They still owe texas money. by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me - you can't get fooled again.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    21. Re:They still owe texas money. by MarkRose · · Score: 1

      Or fix the mess by not having sales taxes in the first place. And reduce government sufficiently to not need them.

      --
      Be relentless!
    22. Re:They still owe texas money. by Svartalf · · Score: 1

      Oh, no... They'll end up PAYING that back to the state because the law's explicit and the amount exceeds the $75k floor on Diversity. They don't want to be drug into a Federal Court and face off against Texas using the State's laws there- lose the case and the loser pays legal fees... This is posturing to get them to back down from the demand for sales tax. If they start to carry through with it, the premise is that the people will lean on the state to back down.

      --
      I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
    23. Re:They still owe texas money. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd kind of like this. Everyone complains about the paperwork involved with income tax, but have you ever tried to calculate how much you've paid in sales tax? If you're reasonably average, you make hundreds or thousands of purchases a year. The fact that some items are exempt merely makes the problem worse, some receipts have sales tax some don't.

      I strongly prefer income tax, even though the paperwork is a PITA, at least I only have to deal with it once a year. Plus, unlike sales tax, income tax doesn't make all the prices you see in stores lies.

  4. Enough of this by schnikies79 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I can't blame Amazon at all for this.

    This whole tax from the state it comes from/tax from the state you live in needs to be decided (federally) and set in stone once and for all. Same goes for who collects it and when.

    --
    Gone!
    1. Re:Enough of this by chispito · · Score: 1

      I can't blame Amazon at all for this.

      This whole tax from the state it comes from/tax from the state you live in needs to be decided (federally) and set in stone once and for all. Same goes for who collects it and when.

      You mean a sensible use of the Commerce Clause? Unheard of!

      --
      The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
    2. Re:Enough of this by curmudgeous · · Score: 1

      "...it would shutter its Irving distribution facility April 12..."

      Sounds like they have a storage/distribution center in Texas. If so, they owe the state sales tax. That's pretty much how it's done everywhere.

    3. Re:Enough of this by natehoy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      IANAL, but I've done a lot of tax programming for major retailers over the years.

      While I agree that sales taxes are ridiculous and hard and all that, I feel it's important to point out that Amazon actually has a presence in Texas, and therefore when they sell product to Texans they actually do need to be collecting sales tax and remitting it to the State of Texas. This is commonly known as "nexus" in sales/use tax circles. This is what Texas is asking for - sales/use tax from sales to Texans from Amazon (who has a presence in Texas and is therefore subject to the laws of Texas with regards to their sales in Texas).

      If Amazon was being told they needed to collect on behalf of, for example, Maine, they have the absolute right to tell Maine's comptroller to go straight to hell. In fact, as a citizen of Maine, I'd love to be able to listen to that conversation. I'll never be able to tell our comptroller to go to hell, so it'd be great to be able to hear someone else say it.

      Amazon has no presence here in Maine, therefore they have no obligation to follow Maine's regulations surrounding sales/use taxes, which are intrastate law, not interstate. The sales/use tax on things I buy from Amazon is my responsibility to track as a Mainer doing business with a company outside the state, and I owe that money to Maine at the end of the year (and we have a system called "Alternative Use Tax" where I pay a small stipend based on income tax to cover any incidental out-of-state purchases I happen to make if I don't want to track them all, which I use).

      But Amazon has a presence in Texas. In the same way that the company I currently work for has to start collecting and remitting State sales taxes every time we open our first store in each State (or call center, or warehouse, or business office, or whatever), Amazon really does owe that sales tax to the State of Texas, whether they have been collecting it from their customers or not.

      Now, they can certainly choose to pull out of Texas in order to avoid having to collect taxes there, that's within their rights. But they still owe the State of Texas $269 million (plus whatever other sales they make before they finish the pullout), because they were supposed to be collecting that money from their customers who live in Texas for the entire time they've had a presence there.

      Note to Amazon: Please come to Maine. We could use the jobs. I'll happily pay sales tax on purchases made from you.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    4. Re:Enough of this by Wovel · · Score: 1

      It is certainly the law in Texas and Amazon should have started collecting Tax from Texas Residents they day they opened it. I wonder if they remember to register in Texas and pay their Franchise tax too.

      I love Amazon and spend tons of money there. They were wrong and will have to pay the bill.

    5. Re:Enough of this by billcopc · · Score: 2

      The crux of this argument is that Texas is demanding taxes which were never collected. Amazon cannot go back in time and collect 6.5% from every item shipped to a Texan over the years, so the state is effectively asking for a handout.

      Ultimately this plays into the greater debate about sales tax being a regressive tax, which then plays into an even greater debate over the fact that government is just a collection agency for the obscenely wealthy.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    6. Re:Enough of this by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      "Sounds like they have a storage/distribution center in Texas. If so, they owe the state sales tax. That's pretty much how it's done everywhere."

      But I think the legal thing here is..the storage/dist. is supposedly owned by another company..not by Amazon directly.

      I think this is the thing TX is trying to get at...but if it has been legal to do this in the past, and no law has been passed changing this (I don't see that it has yet)..then Amazon is right in saying they don't legally own sales tax because they don't have a direct presence in TX.

      If TX wants to change the law..go ahead, but from what I understand Amazon is playing by the existing rules...

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    7. Re:Enough of this by scamper_22 · · Score: 1

      Precisely... and this is the kind of thing the federal government should be handling. It's amazing how government ignores the issues it should be handling... and is always venturing into areas it has no business in.

      The federal government... gosh... has a right to regulate interstate commerce. This is something they need to workout. A simple federal law would be... if you are shipping to an address, you charge and pay the sales tax in that state. To keep it simple, you do it by state... no municipal or county variations within a state.

    8. Re:Enough of this by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      Look at the article tho..from what I understand..legally..the facility is NOT directly owned by Amazon...that is how they were getting by with not having a direct presence there.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    9. Re:Enough of this by lgw · · Score: 1

      Do they owe the state sales tax for a book sold to a customer in Ohio? Does it matter whether the book was shipped from Texas, shipped from Ohio, or shipped from Texas to a facility in Ohio, which then shipped it to the customer? What about a customer in Texas, when the book shipped from Ohio?

      This stuff really needs to be standardized at the Federal level - one state should get paid for each sale, but only one.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    10. Re:Enough of this by mysidia · · Score: 1

      This whole tax from the state it comes from/tax from the state you live in needs to be decided (federally) and set in stone once and for all. Same goes for who collects it and when.

      The Federal government needs to just assert its authority, apply a flat 1% tax to all inter-state transactions and a 10% tax to inter-state transport of goods, and prohibit the states from further taxing the sale, use, transportation, or possession of goods exchanged through interstate commerce.

      The Federal government can then distribute a portion of the proceeds of this indirect tax to the states involved in the transaction.

    11. Re:Enough of this by Mr+Z · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Failure to collect taxes doesn't absolve you from the liability of paying for them. I live in Texas, and I occasionally sell products to Texans. I collect sales tax for those purchases. But even if I didn't, I'd still owe just as much to the state based on the total amount I sold to Texans, pure and simple.

      Just because Amazon did the wrong thing doesn't mean Texas is "asking for a handout."

      Imagine if your employer didn't withhold federal income tax from your paycheck. Now it's tax time, and you owe all that tax plus penalties because you didn't pay your income tax throughout the year. Is the federal government "looking for a handout?" No. You have unpaid tax liability, plain and simple.

    12. Re:Enough of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The way I'm reading it (could be wrong since I can't read the tax bill and no desire to read Texas tax code) Texas is asking for the taxes on all things shipped out of that facility. Most online retailers I've done business with only add the tax when they sell the item to a resident of a state they have a physical presence.

    13. Re:Enough of this by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Ultimately this plays into the greater debate about sales tax being a regressive tax, which then plays into an even greater debate over the fact that government is just a collection agency for the obscenely wealthy.

      Actually, sales taxes are one of the most efficient taxes around - they encourage people to save (to avoid sales taxes) and invest that money for other purpoess, growing businesses and the economy.

      Income taxes, though, are regressive - they take money away from you directly, and once that money's gone, it can't be saved nor invested.

      There are many studies showing every dollar taken as income tax costs the economy more than a dollar in lost economic benefits. For sales taxes, it's well under a dollar. Those who buy more, pay more. An exception can be made for necessitites like basic groceries (one has to survive, after all).

      The ideal situation is of course no taxes, but that's no realistic short of reverting back to anarchy and the stone ages in technology.

    14. Re:Enough of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about, taxes are stealing?

    15. Re:Enough of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Note to Amazon: Please come to Maine. We could use the jobs. I'll happily pay sales tax on purchases made from you.

      It is really too bad that Maine is not positioned to be a useful distribution center, because this would be idea! Low population which means amazon remains competitive with the vast majority of its customers, and we net more jobs for the state!

      PS I think your Dad was my highschool english teacher.

    16. Re:Enough of this by MHolmesIV · · Score: 1

      I agree, living in Washington, I've always paid sales tax on Amazon.com.
      In this particular case, Amazon tried to game the system by incorporating their distribution center in a subsidiary company that had no sales. They're essentially using a loophole to get out of the "physical presence" requirement. I'm with Texas on this one. They gamed, they lost.

    17. Re:Enough of this by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Yeah, doggone it. They spent extra money to set up a tax dodge scheme, and by golly they should get credit for that.

    18. Re:Enough of this by geekoid · · Score: 1

      It's a state issue. The state decides who is taxed, the state determines Use Good tax.

      And there really isn't any confusion. You pay the tax on goods when you buy the goods in state. If the product is 'mail order' then you pay the tax on goods when you normally pay your taxes. It's not hard.

      It's not a federal issue.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    19. Re:Enough of this by geekoid · · Score: 1

      This has nothing to do with the commerce clause.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    20. Re:Enough of this by DMeans · · Score: 1

      I think it was decided, a long time ago, around about the time of the birth of the nation. It's wrapped up in the sovereignty of the State. By way of example, I live in Georgia. My state does not have a right tax goods and services which do not come under the jurisdiction of Georgia. Which means, when I buy products in Florida, Georgia has no rights to collect taxes from that Florida business owner, nor from me. Conversely, should I make a purchase at business in the state of Georgia, then Georgia has a right to collect a tax from that Georgia business. This is true whether the purchase is made online or not. However, when I purchase from Amazon, a company that is not based in Georgia, then Georgia does not have the right to collect taxes from that non-Georgia business. Which means they have no rights to collect taxes from me - for I have already paid taxes to the other state. Amazon is not based in Texas, rather they're based in Washington and pay Washington taxes - as do you, when you purchase from them. Whether or not Amazon publishes the fact that you are helping them pay their state taxes with every purchase is irrelevant - when you buy from them, you help pay their bills. Therefore, when Texas (or any other state) obtains the rights from Washington to collect taxes in their state, then Texas will have a solid argument.

    21. Re:Enough of this by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Now, they can certainly choose to pull out of Texas in order to avoid having to collect taxes there, that's within their rights. But they still owe the State of Texas $269 million (plus whatever other sales they make before they finish the pullout), because they were supposed to be collecting that money from their customers who live in Texas for the entire time they've had a presence there.

      Actually, in cases like this I don't think any liability should start accruing until the matter has been decided in court. Otherwise, you get ridiculous situations like the folks in New Haven, CT who had their homes taken away via eminent domain after fighting it for ~5 years. After they lost, the city promptly billed them for 6 years back-rent, on the premise that the city retroactively became the legal owner of the properties as of 5 years ago.

      Because the law wasn't clear, more than likely Amazon didn't collect any sales tax from Texans on purchases during the time this was being contested, so there is no tax money paid by Texans for Amazon to turn over to the state. If you want to insist Amazon pay, what really should've happened was that Texas should've asked the court to require that Amazon immediately begin collecting sales taxes from Texans, and put the money into an escrow account. If the decision went in Texas' favor, the money in the escrow account could be given to Texas. If the decision went in Amazon's favor, they could refund the money to their Texas customers who paid it.

    22. Re:Enough of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon does not deserve any breaks on this. Amazon built a distribution center in Texas in 2005. They tried to get cute by creating a wholly-owned subsidiary as the owner of this distribution center. They then claimed that because it was a subsidiary, Amazon was not obligated to collect sales tax on Texas purchases.

      This nonsense that companies use to avoid their obligations is not doing anything to help anybody but greedy people like Jeff Bezos who have little sense of honor or business ethics. (Jeff Bezos did sell $800 million worth of AMZN shares and paid 15% capital gains taxes on it in 2010. What percentage did you pay in payroll taxes last year?)

    23. Re:Enough of this by CharlieHedlin · · Score: 1

      I live in Texas, I'll happily pay the sales tax too (as long as it's collected with my purchase).

    24. Re:Enough of this by Relayman · · Score: 2

      Amazon surely claims that the subsidiary doesn't establish nexus for the corporate entity making the sale. Thus, the corporate parent doesn't need to collect in Texas for Texas customers.

      --
      If I used a sig over again, would anyone notice?
    25. Re:Enough of this by CharlieHedlin · · Score: 1

      Texas has been demanding that Amazon collect taxes for a long time. They willfully disregarded. I bet if they were willing to put future taxes on the table Texas would settle to keep the jobs.

    26. Re:Enough of this by painandgreed · · Score: 4, Interesting

      While I agree that sales taxes are ridiculous and hard and all that, I feel it's important to point out that Amazon actually has a presence in Texas, and therefore when they sell product to Texans they actually do need to be collecting sales tax and remitting it to the State of Texas.

      The main issue seems to be that the states are changing the definition of "presence", sometimes seemingly retroactively. It used to be if your headquarters was situated in the state, then people buying from you needed to pay income tax. Then it was if it was shipped from that state. Then if the company had any offices whatsoever, so even if Amazon had some offices serving only internal customers, then they would have to collect tax on everything bought by the state. Now, states like NY and Texas are saying that if any company they are "partners" with are in the state, then the partner company has to collect tax. Amazon hires a company in NY to do some coding, then Amazon has to collect taxes on stuff bought by New Yorkers.

      Really, this is all just mail order and things should have been settled and stabalized with Sears back in the days of the wild west. However, states are looking for more money and changing the agreements and telling companies to pray they don't change them any more.

    27. Re:Enough of this by JustNilt · · Score: 1

      Imagine if your employer didn't withhold federal income tax from your paycheck. Now it's tax time, and you owe all that tax plus penalties because you didn't pay your income tax throughout the year. Is the federal government "looking for a handout?" No. You have unpaid tax liability, plain and simple.

      Yeah, but it's you that pays the tax, not your employer.

      --
      You know the thing about UDP jokes? I don't care if you get it or not.
    28. Re:Enough of this by cdrudge · · Score: 2

      One state and only one state does get the sales tax. It's determined by where the seller has a nexus and where the buyer is at. If the seller has a nexus in the same state as the buyer, the order is taxed at the local and state sales tax rate.

      The gray area here seems to be that it wasn't Amazon itself that has the nexus in Texas, but rather a subsidiary fulfillment company. The "sale" is between the customer in Texas and Washington-based Amazon.com, not with the fulfillment company. Or at least that's what Amazon is arguing.

    29. Re:Enough of this by sessamoid · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I collect sales tax for those purchases. But even if I didn't, I'd still owe just as much to the state based on the total amount I sold to Texans, pure and simple.

      Just because Amazon did the wrong thing doesn't mean Texas is "asking for a handout."

      From what I understand, Texas is asking for $250M in taxes from before Amazon had a presence in the state, during which time they were absolved of being required to collect them. In that case, it's just like any other mail order business where the purchaser is required to report those taxes and pay the taxes himself. So, no. It's not the same thing.

      --
      "No, no, no. Don't tug on that. You never know what it might be attached to."
    30. Re:Enough of this by gtall · · Score: 1

      "government is just a collection agency for the obscenely wealthy." Care to make that argument to people totally dependent on social security and medicare? I will admit that SS and Medicare should be phased out for retirees who have enough income to cover themselves, but government is what we use to so that our society is not entirely dog-eat-dog.

    31. Re:Enough of this by Solandri · · Score: 1

      Just because Amazon did the wrong thing doesn't mean Texas is "asking for a handout."

      But Amazon didn't do anything which was wrong at the time. The court just now decided that what Amazon was doing was the wrong thing. I don't see how anyone should be liable for past actions based on ambiguities in law which a court has just now clarified. If you make that the precedent, everything is going to go to hell as everyone will have to act in accordance with the most strict and most disadvantageous interpretation of the law just so they aren't retroactively found liable for violating it in the future.

      What should have happened was that when Texas filed the case in court, they should've asked the court to require Amazon to begin collecting sales taxes from Texans immediately, placing the funds into an escrow account. If the court decided in Texas' favor, the money could be given to Texas. If the court decided in Amazon's favor, they could refund the money to their Texas customers. Since Texas failed to do this, I can't agree with forcing Amazon to pay.

    32. Re:Enough of this by gtall · · Score: 1

      The federal government had this debate, and decided that internet commerce was too fragile at the time and they wished to see it increased. So they agreed not to tax it. Now that is has grown up, government should look again at a solution. Except that now with Tea Twits squeezing the balls of the Republicans, don't expect any support for any new taxes any time soon.

    33. Re:Enough of this by HangingChad · · Score: 1

      >tax from the state you live in needs to be decided (federally) and set in stone once and for all.

      Like a VAT. I'd go along with that. Although I'm sure it would start out fair, each state getting a return based on how much they spend, I'm willing to bet it would turn into welfare for deadbeat states. Like almost every other federal program.

      --
      That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
    34. Re:Enough of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It already has been decided. From the very beginning even:

      States can not tax commerce from another state.

      "Use" tax is discriminatory, protectionist and highly debatable as to weather or not it is compensatory.
      There is a reason why it is called the "Use" tax: calling it a SALES tax would be OVERTLY illegal.

    35. Re:Enough of this by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      The general rule is if they have a "substantial nexus." A distribution facility acting as Amazon (not a third party) is a nexus. The only question is whether it is substantial enough such that they would be required to collect the taxes in question. It doesn't seem like a clear-cut issue. Amazon obviously knows the rules and is purposefully skirting them. But did they get too close to the line and accidentally cross it?

    36. Re:Enough of this by NetSettler · · Score: 1

      But they still owe the State of Texas $269 million

      I was looking for a comment by someone noting this. It seemed unlikely someone (corporations are people, too) could just leave and be absolved of taxes.

      they were supposed to be collecting that money from their customers

      Thanks for making this point, too. I wonder, though, if this is just posturing to create negotiating room for special treatment in exchange for protecting some jobs. It could even be an orchestrated bit of theatre to offer foundation for some politician's "government overhead is hurting business" claim.

      What's most troubling to me is that there is little harm to businesses for such temper tantrums. It may seem good to their bottom line to make such threats, but at the end of the day even if it improves their bottom line it comes at great cost to communities. And they did sales, should have known this was a cost, were permitted to pass the cost visibly to customers, so I just don't see how they were wronged and why this tantrum is righteous.

      --

      Kent M Pitman
      Philosopher, Technologist, Writer

    37. Re:Enough of this by Miamicanes · · Score: 1

      > This whole tax from the state it comes from/tax from the state you live in needs to be decided (federally) and set in stone once and for all.

      It was. The Supreme Court ruled that states have the authority to tax their own residents, but can't make companies from other states/countries be their unpaid tax collectors and do the job for them, nor can they compel those same companies to cooperate with their own tax-collection efforts.

      Here's an example to illustrate it. Suppose that in 2000, Russia passed a law establishing a fine of 1 Euro for each use of the phrase, "In Soviet Russia" in a post to any internet forum, and made the forum's owner responsible for paying it. Ten years later, CmdrTaco opens a satellite office for Slashdot in Moscow, and starts sending checks to Russia for uses of the phrase made after that date. A few months later, he gets a tax bill demanding 400 million Euros for all the posts made after 2000, but before the office was opened and payments started to be made (and before they had a legal way to force compliance going forward). At the end of the day, Russia is no more or less entitled to fine/tax American companies with no business presence in Russia than Texas is entitled to do to a company incorporated in Washington, California, Delaware, or New York.

    38. Re:Enough of this by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Sales tax is paid by citizens to the retailer who collects it on behalf of the state, then sends it to the state.

      The retailer acts as a middleman for the state in this case. If the retailer doesn't charge you taxes, whether accidentally or on purpose ("tax-free" weekend sale, etc.), they still owe the state the taxes they were supposed to collect. You may have got off scott free on having to pay those taxes, but Amazon owes the state for the taxes they were obligated by law to collect.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    39. Re:Enough of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the situation is that Amazon set up the distribution center as being owned by an intermediary company, and not by Amazon itself, and is arguing that because it is not Amazon itself that has the Texas presence, it is not liable to collect the sales tax. The Texas comptroller's office disagrees.

      I think Amazon's use of this loophole here is not uncommon and is taken advantage of by other companies as well, in other states.

      If Amazon collects sales tax from Texas customers while other online companies do not, it is a huge competitive disadvantage in a very populous state.

    40. Re:Enough of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure why only having "internal offices" in a state should not count as having a presence in that state. A presence is quite literally that: you're present, and therefore subject to the state's laws. For example, if I go on a vacation in Texas, I'll have to adhere to Texas's laws during that time even though I don't have permanent residence there. I'd even be bound if I just snuck across the state border for five minutes.

      "Partner" companies are a different matter, perhaps, but if the partner company is really just a shell company set up by amazon for the explicit purpose of not technically having a presence in Texas, I would find it fair if a judge ruled that said "partner" company was in fact not a company of its own but rather part of amazon and that as such, they do owe taxes in Texas. It'd be different if it was an existing independent contractor serving multiple customers, for instance.

    41. Re:Enough of this by metalix · · Score: 1

      I feel it's important to point out that Amazon actually has a presence in Texas, and therefore when they sell product to Texans they actually do need to be collecting sales tax and remitting it to the State of Texas.

      Are you sure the company that sold you the product has a presence?

      I work for a company (not in Washington) that drop ships for Amazon. In other words, Amazon.com, LLC buys the product from us and we ship it to whatever address they want. In this case, it seems the "brick and mortar" argument is easily arguable to not apply because we have no ties with Amazon.

      Now, what if Amazon warehouses were considered to be owned by a different company legally? I'll pick a name, say "Amazon.com KYDC, LLC". ;)

      Amazon.com, LLC does the same thing where they buy from this secondary company and have them ship it to the customer. Does Amazon.com, LLC still have a presence?

    42. Re:Enough of this by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      I live in Georgia. ... when I buy products in Florida, Georgia has no rights to collect taxes from that Florida business owner, nor from me .

      On the contrary, Georgia has every right to collect taxes from you... if they can. (Yeah, good luck with that.)

      Texas in fact has a law specifically stating exactly that. Any out-of-state purchase that isn't subject to sales tax is subject to a "use tax" which the resident of Texas owes to the state. The people of Texas should have been paying the state every time they bought something online. The state is, of course, completely unable to collect these taxes. This is just an underhanded attempt to shift that bad tax debt over to Amazon, plain and simple. Maybe they thought Amazon would be too vested to just pull their flag down and leave, but apparently not.

      And without physical presence in the state (which shutting down the warehouse is just a way to unarguably settle), Amazon is under no obligation to collect state taxes for Texas (as you correctly stated)... but it can continue to make online sales to people living in Texas and ship through USPS/UPS/FedEx.

    43. Re:Enough of this by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Bullshit.

      They played by the rules, to the letter. Now Texas is saying "no, that was a loophole, you owe us $big-amount."

      They can't do that. You can't change the rules, mid-stride, because of a "loophole", and then say that the rules retroactively applied to everyone.

      If they could do that, they could call anything they wanted a "loophole" and send out a letter telling you that you owe a few thousand dollars in back taxes due to the "loophole" that they found.

    44. Re:Enough of this by cayenne8 · · Score: 1

      "Yeah, doggone it. They spent extra money to set up a tax dodge scheme, and by golly they should get credit for that."

      Well, there's nothing wrong with following the letter of the law, is there? Nothing wrong with trying to keep as much of your money legally from the tax man as possible, is there?

      I mean...YOU take every deduction you possibly can on your state and federal income taxes..don't you? What's the difference?

      Until they basically rip up the current tax code...and get something as simple, flat and basic as they can get....the tax code is set up for them to initially get as much as they can from you, and then it is up to you to find the deductions and holes they've legislated in there for yourself.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    45. Re:Enough of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Instead, please come to New Hampshire! We have no sales tax and no income tax and we'll be happy to let you continue to tell Maine's comptroller to go to hell.

    46. Re:Enough of this by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      That would overstep the boundaries of the federal government.
      State governments govern their own taxes, constitutionally.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    47. Re:Enough of this by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      ... and conversely, unemployment payment is theft, on that note.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    48. Re:Enough of this by arkane1234 · · Score: 1

      So "getting cute" is when the legal boundaries are followed and the outcome is not to your liking?
      While I believe states need funding as well, when a law is in effect and it is followed to the letter, there is nothing else to be done aside from changing said laws.

      --
      -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
    49. Re:Enough of this by Heretic2 · · Score: 1

      I agree. Interstate commerce laws were written in times when no one envisioned the Internet or Fed-Ex.

    50. Re:Enough of this by PraiseBob · · Score: 1

      The law is absolutely clear, and written in black in white. No court in Texas will side with Amazon, I can assure you. Amazon has been violating state law, defrauding the citizens of Texas, and probably will be hit with a massive additional fine.

      I have worked with the Texas State comptrollers office, because my company has been audited by the TX state comptrollers office several times, and I was heavily involved in the process. Audits are not fun. They aren't my favorite people, and I love ordering from Amazon.

      However, Amazon is very blatantly breaking state law. The company needs to pay this fine, or it's executives will end up going to jail. It really is that simple.

    51. Re:Enough of this by PraiseBob · · Score: 1

      I live in Texas. On my order from Amazon from last week, I can see quite clearly on this receipt that they did not collect sales tax which they have a legal obligation to do. Your argument might hold weight if they were collecting taxes now, but they never have, and still aren't.

    52. Re:Enough of this by John_Sauter · · Score: 1

      Note to Amazon: Please come to Maine. We could use the jobs. I'll happily pay sales tax on purchases made from you.

      Better yet, come to New Hampshire. We don't tax sales of the things that Amazon sells. Your employees will also benefit: we don't tax wages either. Don't buy any property, though: there is a high property tax to make up for the lack of taxes on wages and most sales.

    53. Re:Enough of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Amazon was being told they needed to collect on behalf of, for example, Maine, they have the absolute right to tell Maine's comptroller to go straight to hell. In fact, as a citizen of Maine, I'd love to be able to listen to that conversation. I'll never be able to tell our comptroller to go to hell, so it'd be great to be able to hear someone else say it.

      Oh, that's an easy one.

      Amazon: Go to hell!
      Maine Comptroller: Can't get theah from heah.

    54. Re:Enough of this by natehoy · · Score: 1

      I'm still hoping some major shipper will decide that Brunswick Landing (soon-to-be-former BNAS) would be an awesome distribution point. Lots of cheap land, plenty of local labor, relatively easy highway access, low population, and two frakking HUGE runways that aren't going to see a whole lot of use other than General Aviation.

      PS I think your Dad was my highschool english teacher.

      Nope, but I've heard that one a few times before. I know of a highschool English teacher with the same last name as me, but we're not related. :)

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    55. Re:Enough of this by natehoy · · Score: 1

      A DC is enough of a presence to subject them to state law. I'm not saying it's right, but it's how it works.

      The DC is subcontracted, but it looks like they didn't really honestly subcontract it, they tried to invent a new division that only distributed product. I don't know the legal term for it, but the technical term is "shenanigans".

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    56. Re:Enough of this by natehoy · · Score: 1

      So, wait, I can break the law and not get penalized as long as I pull out of the state the instant I get caught?

      Look, the CT case sounds like a raw deal, but I've also worked with a few people who tried to subcontract to CT and ended up not getting paid (the tax-collection department he worked for in CT cancelled all payments to out-of-state contractors that year to balance the budget, just washed the liability off the books and told them to get the fuck out), so I've come to the conclusion that living or doing business in CT is criminally insane anyway.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    57. Re:Enough of this by natehoy · · Score: 1

      A subsidiary is not sufficient arms-length for Nexus avoidance. Trust me, I worked for a company that tried that. It did not go well. Thankfully our own lawyers stopped us before the company got too batshit crazy trying it, because it would have hurt. Real bad.

      The law may have changed in the intervening decade. But I very much doubt it.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    58. Re:Enough of this by geoskd · · Score: 1

      Just because Amazon did the wrong thing doesn't mean Texas is "asking for a handout."

      Ahh, but the crux of the problem is this: When amazon starting doing business with Texans, they did so under the belief (for which there is precedent and case law) that they had no responsibility to collect or subsequently remit sales tax to any state they were not incorporated in (i.e. where the home office is). They did everything in good faith, and Texas has every right to change the laws in this regard, but not without first giving Amazon the opportunity to adjust their business model. That is called bait and switch, and is unethical, and out and out illegal when anyone except the government does it. Texas has every right to pass new laws to enact taxes as they see fit within Texas. What they have no right to do is claim unpaid back taxes when no such taxes were due to be collected in the first place. Some sleezeball politician in Texas is simply trying to pull a fast one. Instead of actually working to balance the budget, they are looking for any way to avoid making politically painful cuts, apparently even if it means playing fast and loose with tax law. This is exactly the behavior that made the Tea Party possible in the first place.

      -=Geoskd

      --
      I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
    59. Re:Enough of this by hurfy · · Score: 1

      If they don't own it then how are they able to close it.........

      If they have that much control then it will count as a presence in the state!

      If only i had that much control over my typing in these new 286-emulated comment boxes,sigh.

    60. Re:Enough of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In your example, asking Amazon to pay the unpaid sales tax would be akin to making your employer pay for the owed income taxes. This is a bad analogy. As an employee, the taxes are owed by me, not my employer... and in Amazon's case, the taxes are actually owed by the consumer, not by Amazon. It would be different if Amazon had taken sales taxes and kept them, but that doesn't appear to be the case.

    61. Re:Enough of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you RTFA, you'll see that the Texas facility was owned by a third party. Amazon contracted out the distribution work to them. Ergo, Amazon themselves did not have a presence in Texas.

    62. Re:Enough of this by mysidia · · Score: 1

      That would overstep the boundaries of the federal government. State governments govern their own taxes, constitutionally.

      This would not overstep the boundary, and states do govern their own taxes, with the exception that the states cannot tax or otherwise regulate the event of interstate commerce in any way whatsoever, as the right to regulate interstate commerce in any way is specifically reserved for the federal government by the constitution.

      The purchase of goods from another state, the transportation from a place in one state to a place in another state, and transfer of ownership from a person in one state to a person in another state, and the right to use goods in one state that had been purchased from a person/place in another state, are all interstate commerce.

      A state can tax and regulate sales that do not cross state lines, in just about any way they please. They can even impose conditions on what goods residents are allowed to buy/sell/own, as long as they don't attempt to create additional conditions based on whether goods were obtained through interstate commerce.

      For example: a state can forbid any resident from buying a drug it determines to be illegal. A state cannot allow a resident to buy sugar from someone in Louisiana and ban them from buying Connecticut sugar; even if the state that wants to pass the ban is one of those two states, they do not have the power to do so.

      A state can charge a property tax on an item owned or used in the state, because that is within their power. A state cannot choose to charge a property tax on an item owned or used in the state obtained through interstate commerce, and waive or credit the fee if purchased in-state.

      For example... Florida cannot charge a 'bottled water tax', and waive/exempt bottled water purchased from a seller inside the state from that tax.

      A state can tax a seller for a sale made in state, because that's within a state's power. A state cannot tax a sale where the seller is out of state, because that's within the federal government's power.

      For example: A merchant in Alaska sells a bottle of water to me in New York.

      New York has no legal power to obligate the seller to pay any tax, because the seller is outside their jurisdiction; no presence in New York, therefore, not subject to the laws or jurisdiction of NY.

      New York has no legal power to obligate the company that transports the item to the buyer pay any tax on the sale of the item, because it is an interstate commerce transaction.

      New York has no legal power to obligate the buyer pay any kind of tax on the sale of the item, because the seller is out of state and it is an interstate commerce transaction.

    63. Re:Enough of this by swalve · · Score: 0

      The court didn't make a new law. They just interpreted a law that was already on the books, because there was confusion. Amazon bet that the law didn't apply to them, and lost.

    64. Re:Enough of this by natehoy · · Score: 1

      There's a huge legal chasm between hiring a true third party, and inventing one by creating a subsidiary.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    65. Re:Enough of this by natehoy · · Score: 1

      And (no offense) don't send your kids to school there unless you shop around carefully for a town with a wealthy tax base and can afford the property taxes there, or can afford a private school.

      I lived in New Hampshire for about a decade. Lovely state, great job market, wonderful tax system (as long as you're healthy, young, and not a parent, and I met all three qualifications at the time).

      But the town I lived in (north of Concord) had a high school that was struggling to regain accreditation (in other words, when kids graduated from that high school, they had to go for a GED in order to have their graduation mean anything). I served on their volunteer IT Committee for a while, and there was absolutely no money for anything.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    66. Re:Enough of this by natehoy · · Score: 1

      I did RTFA, and I don't think you really understand the issue. A subsidiary is not a separate company.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
    67. Re:Enough of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I The sales/use tax on things I buy from Amazon is my responsibility to track as a Mainer doing business with a company outside the state, and I owe that money to Maine at the end of the year (and we have a system called "Alternative Use Tax" where I pay a small stipend based on income tax to cover any incidental out-of-state purchases I happen to make if I don't want to track them all, which I use).

      Despite piles of propaganda to the contrary, that is simply not true.
      Sales tax is a tax ON THE SELLER.

    68. Re:Enough of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But Amazon has a presence in Texas. In the same way that the company I currently work for has to start collecting and remitting State sales taxes every time we open our first store in each State (or call center, or warehouse, or business office, or whatever), Amazon really does owe that sales tax to the State of Texas, whether they have been collecting it from their customers or not.

      It's not quite that simple.
      The current standing on Interstate Sales tax comes from Quill Corp vs. North Dakota, but I'm pretty sure the current deal with Amazon vs. TX will end up setting new precedent.
      If you're interested, here's a link to it (Quill Corp. v. North Dakota (91-0194), 504 U.S. 298 (1992). )
      http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/91-0194.ZO.html

    69. Re:Enough of this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The main issue seems to be that the states are changing the definition of "presence", sometimes seemingly retroactively. It used to be if your headquarters was situated in the state, then people buying from you needed to pay income tax. Then it was if it was shipped from that state. Then if the company had any offices whatsoever, so even if Amazon had some offices serving only internal customers, then they would have to collect tax on everything bought by the state. Now, states like NY and Texas are saying that if any company they are "partners" with are in the state, then the partner company has to collect tax. Amazon hires a company in NY to do some coding, then Amazon has to collect taxes on stuff bought by New Yorkers.

      Amazon said (at least according to the Fine Summary), that they were shuttering a distribution center in Texas, which involved not only canceling plans for new Texas based hires, but firing existing workers in the state.

      That sure sounds like a presence to me, but hey, I Am Not a Tax Lawyer.

      Ironically, the capture is "muddied"

  5. Normally by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Good. Sales tax is a regressive tax, meaning poor people pay more than rich people. Even if you want to stick it to Amazon, in a very real way, sale tax is passed on to the consumer. The sooner we can get rid of that awful tax and move to a more equitable tax system, the better.

    (Note: it is true you can soften the blow of a sales tax somewhat by exempting things like food, things that poor people buy; but then it's a hump tax, where the middle ends up paying the highest percentage. That's not equitable either).

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    1. Re:Normally by funwithBSD · · Score: 1

      the middle class always gets humped, sans lube.

      --
      Never answer an anonymous letter. - Yogi Berra
    2. Re:Normally by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 2

      >> hump tax

      Called such because the middle class is getting fucked.

    3. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good. Sales tax is a regressive tax, meaning poor people pay more than rich people.

      Yeah, cause the poor buy SO much more than the rich...

    4. Re:Normally by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

      Income Tax is a Hump Tax.

      The poor have some neat credits, so they do okay, and we know the rich have even neater tricks, so they do great.

      --
      My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
    5. Re:Normally by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Good. Sales tax is a regressive tax, meaning poor people pay more than rich people. Even if you want to stick it to Amazon, in a very real way, sale tax is passed on to the consumer. The sooner we can get rid of that awful tax and move to a more equitable tax system, the better..

      I assume you're speaking as a relative percentage of entire income, because if you mean that in absolute terms, it's a pretty silly statement. I think it's a pretty safe bet that "rich" people purchase a good bit more than "poor" people do, and thus pay significantly more money in sales tax. In the unlikely event that such a statement isn't true, and that rich people aren't buying more than poor people... well maybe that's why the poor people are poor, maybe they should spend less?

      I know, I know, rich man keeping the little man down, blah blah top 10% of the population has 80% of the wealth, etc. whatever. all I know is that I've met many "poor" people in my life who when they get that income tax refund or birthday gift of cash etc, go out and buy a couch or a tv instead of paying their credit card bill.

    6. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      (Note: it is true you can soften the blow of a sales tax somewhat by exempting things like food, things that poor people buy; ).

      Yeah cause those rich bastards got that way by not eating.

    7. Re:Normally by markass530 · · Score: 1

      poor people may pay a higher percentage of their income, but not more then rich people. (for the record I'm very much poor)

    8. Re:Normally by initdeep · · Score: 1

      yes, the person who spends $40k a year and pays an average of X% of sales tax (based on exempt and non-exempt items purchased) will pay more than the person who spends $100k a year and most likely has a a higher average tax rate because they purchase MORE of the non-exempt items (you know, more luxury items and fewer food items per dollar spent).
      Oh wait.

      sales tax is a set percentage.
      every one pays the same percentage on non-exempt items.
      if you want to argue that "poor people" spend a larger percentage of their total income than "rich people" then you may have a point (depending on your definition of rich).

      Personally, I would wonder how Amazon is supposed to forward the sales tax amount to the state since they did not collect it in the first place?
      So in reality, I have no sympathy for the State of Texas as they are trying to retroactively collect taxes that were never collected in the first place.
      If they need the money, they need to start on a date and allow Amazon to charge the tax to customers as necessary so it can be collected and then forwarded.

    9. Re:Normally by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      So what? In what world is "poor people pay a higher percentage of their income in tax than rich people" even remotely fair? And whether they want to pay off their credit card or buy a couch is their decision. It may seem like a bad decision to you (and it does to me also), but it is their decision, and it's not an excuse to take MORE money from them.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    10. Re:Normally by somersault · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They might. When I buy a £100 pair of trail running shoes, they last until the sole wears through - but cheaper shoes I've had in the past have sometimes only lasted a few weeks. I'm sure this applies to more than just shoes. When you can afford quality products, you don't have to buy stuff so often. Being rich means you can buy stuff more often if you wish to of course, but then again, I'm sure some rich people are now rich because they have saved, then invested wisely.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    11. Re:Normally by Dunbal · · Score: 0

      Sales tax is a regressive tax, meaning poor people pay more than rich people

      What? Run that by me again? Poor people, who by definition have very little money to spend and hardly ever buy anything, pay MORE sales tax than rich people, who are spending money all the time? Wait, did you work at Enron or a dot-com?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    12. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think it's a pretty safe bet that "rich" people purchase a good bit more than "poor" people do, and thus pay significantly more money in sales tax.

      "The reason that the rich were so rich, Vimes reasoned, was because they managed to spend less money.

      Take boots, for example. He earned thirty-eight dollars a month plus allowances. A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. Those were the kind of boots Vimes always bought, and wore until the soles were so thin that he could tell where he was in Ankh-Morpork on a foggy night by the feel of the cobbles.

      But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet.

      This was the Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness."

    13. Re:Normally by Dunbal · · Score: 2, Funny

      The middle class deserve to be humped. They're rich enough to consider themselves "better" than the poor, and not rich enough to realize that they're not.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    14. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Amen to that. It amazes me how some people think a flat tax is worse for the "poor". Um, if taxes were higher for the rich they would likely buy a little less. Less goods sold = less jobs provided. It's called trickle-down. And that kind of thinking does hurt the poor as they are the class usually employed in production lines.

    15. Re:Normally by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2, Interesting

      All taxes are regressive. The lie of the left is taxes can be progressive at all. Everyone pays all the taxes. Hiding taxes among the 'rich' doesn't help people realize this, as the taxes just get hidden, and passed down to the little guy in the form of higher prices, lower wages and so on.

      But this suits the "progressives" because it creates class warfare upon which to win elections. And when you pit the 'rich' against the 'poor' the people in the middle get screwed the most. If everyone were to realize how much of what they buy is "tax" they throw a fit and toss all the bums out of the legislature and executive branches of government.

      Here's a picture: We're taxed when we earn money. We're taxed when we spend money. We're tax openly and we're taxed in secret (hidden). We're taxed to stick it to the other guy without realizing we are the "other guy".

      You want my solution to taxes, spending, and so on? It is simple. Vote on things you don't want society to promote, make it legal and tax those things. Legalize drugs, tax them. Legalize Prostitution, tax it. Legalize whatever you think is a "victimless crime" and tax the activity. You'll end up with far more revenue, far less crime (by definition) and the problems of society become controlled.

      You can see this with Cigarettes. Legal, taxed to death, and we don't have nearly the problem with second hand smoke as we used to.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    16. Re:Normally by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, you would suggest that rich people should pay sales tax in relation to their income? So if the poor person buys a pair of shoes and pays $3 sales tax on them, the same pair of shoes should rack up $300 for the rich person? In what world does that seem fair to you? That's massively penalizing success and encouraging failure. how is anybody supposed to succeed if success is penalized?

      The whole idea of making more money is that you get to keep more of it, so your expenses are lower relative to what you earn. it sounds to me that you want to arbitrarily raise expenses based on what you earn, which of course defeats the entire purpose of attempting to better one's place in life. Maybe that's the idea comrade?

    17. Re:Normally by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      But thanks to the magic of inflation, even the poor eventually get moved into higher tax brackets over time. No new legislation required. Why do you think the Fed is printing money like mad again? Devaluation of the currency 1) devalues the debt and the interest on the debt, 2) destroys the value of savings, forcing people to make risky investments which "stimulate" the economy (efficiency be damned), 3) shoves people into higher tax brackets thus increasing government revenue. The down side of course is that the value of the currency is destroyed, but barring a revolution, all they have to do is replace the dollar with the New dollar and start again. Of course everyone becomes poor again except the Friends of the Fed, but then again what's new? So enjoy your million dollar houses, soon they will be billion dollar houses. That way you can feel you can afford your $10,000 toilet paper roll.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    18. Re:Normally by msauve · · Score: 1

      Sales tax is a regressive tax, meaning poor people pay more than rich people.

      Only if poor people buy more than rich people, which I very much doubt. Sales tax is completely blind to a person's income - it's as equitable as a tax can be, unless you want to get rid of all current taxes by dividing the cost of government by the number of citizens, then passing out an equal bill to each. But, I suppose you consider it "equitable" when people are discriminated against on the basis of their success.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    19. Re:Normally by Galestar · · Score: 1

      In proportion to their income, yes actually they do. Some states had various "Luxury Taxes", or eliminate sales tax on "essentials" to offset this, but in general, sales tax is a regressive tax.

      --
      AccountKiller
    20. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You got modded insightful, which shows the mods are as ignorant as you are. Rich people buy more things and more expensive things a sales tax is the only fair tax there is.

    21. Re:Normally by gearsmithy · · Score: 1

      True but... if you're neither poor nor wealthy, you're screwed.

    22. Re:Normally by Nadaka · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes actually. the poor spend near 100% of their income on basic goods and necessities and outnumber the wealthy 10 to 1.

      A wealthy person only buys so much crap. A hypothetical 10% sales tax takes ~10% of a poor persons income while the same 10% sales tax may take 0.01% of a wealthy persons income.

      The only way for sales tax to be close to "flat" is if you charged it on the purchase of financial instruments like stock.

    23. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in Philadelphia, PA. Living in the city there is a 2% sales tax, plus the states 6%. Both times the city sales tax was raised, it was supposed to be a temporary for x amount of years, but the city depends on that money, and when does state or local government give back money? However not everything is a taxable item, clothes and groceries are non taxed. Over all it isn't too bad and it could be worse, I may be mistaken but I believe the overall sales tax in NYC (state and city together) is around 12%, and I believe their clothes are taxed, not sure about groceries.

      I have to say though I am a bit confused by the statement that poor people pay more than rich people on sales tax. Sales tax is sales tax, when you go to a store, some computer some where doesn't go and search your bank records and determine that because you have seven figures in your account versus some one like myself who only has three, maybe four figures in my account. Maybe some one could explain it to me?

      I can see a statement like, well the sales tax hits the poor and middle class harder as they don't have the finances of the rich.

    24. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the problem is that the poor spend 100% of their money, so all their income is taxed with the sales tax. A rich personal will only pay sales tax on say 20% of their income, and the other 80% is used to get richer (investments, etc).

    25. Re:Normally by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      Very true. Income tax needs to have its high level exceptions completely excised and the whole thing made much simpler. It would not only lead to higher revenue by reducing the ability of the ultra rich to game the system, but it would save money because the IRS could be much smaller as well.

    26. Re:Normally by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      So, what you're saying is, maybe the poor should start investing as well?

    27. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      poor people pay a much larger percentage of their networth in taxes, whereas rich people pay a much smaller share of their hoard in as taxes.

    28. Re:Normally by phantomfive · · Score: 3, Interesting
      I see the problem with your logic. I'm not even going to address your ideology (so don't assume you understand my position), I'm going to just address your logic.

      You can see this with Cigarettes. Legal, taxed to death, and we don't have nearly the problem with second hand smoke as we used to.

      As opposed to when cigarettes were illegal? Except they weren't. In your theory, the higher the taxes, the lower the smoking, but this is just another form of punishment. Empirically, if your theory were correct, European countries with high taxes on cigarettes would have low smoking rates, and yet they don't.

      If everyone were to realize how much of what they buy is "tax" they throw a fit and toss all the bums out of the legislature and executive branches of government.

      Ultimately around 20% of the GDP goes to the federal government in taxes. I'm paying around 30% of my income, that means someone else is not paying their fair share.

      Hiding taxes among the 'rich' doesn't help people realize this, as the taxes just get hidden, and passed down to the little guy in the form of higher prices, lower wages and so on.

      It's a fallacy to think that 100% of a tax gets passed down. If that were true, in 1946, when the top tax rate was 94%, then the government would have gotten around 94% of the money. And yet, it only got 20% of GDP or so. Check it out, these figures are easily available on the web.

      Vote on things you don't want society to promote, make it legal and tax those things. Legalize drugs, tax them. Legalize Prostitution, tax it. Legalize whatever you think is a "victimless crime" and tax the activity. You'll end up with far more revenue, far less crime (by definition) and the problems of society become controlled.

      This is an interesting idea, but if you think it would close the federal budget deficit, it's probably because you don't understand the magnitude of the problem. Start here, look at the numbers until you understand them, figure out how much your proposals would save/generate in income, and then come back to me. In fact I wish everyone who has a method for fixing the budget would do that. There are far too many dumb ideas out there that don't take reality into consideration. In short, the problem with your logic isn't a logic problem at all: it's that you spend too much time thinking and not enough time gathering data.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    29. Re:Normally by Wovel · · Score: 1

      Interestingly the Texas Sales Tax even with food and medicine exemptions appears to remain regressive. http://www.cppp.org/files/7/pop_226.pdf The organization is clearly left leaning, but their numbers are sound.

    30. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And when you're paying 5% tax, those 3 pairs of $30 dollar shoes still cost less than one pair of well made $100 shoes. Thus the reason it's typically a percentage.

    31. Re:Normally by lgw · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I know is that I've met many "poor" people in my life who when they get that income tax refund or birthday gift of cash etc, go out and buy a couch or a tv instead of paying their credit card bill.

      Like Hell they do - they get an income tax loan in January with a 30% effective interest rate, and buy a new big screen or pair of running shoes long before that refund check arrives!

      It's amazing how financially ignorant people can be - my younger self definitely included. There's just no educational system to teach better ways: if you don't learn from family, you're stuck learning the hard way.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    32. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, no, no! Pfft! This is Slashdot. Rich people all got to be rich by [1] criminal behavior and raping every living thing or [2] inheriting their wealth from parents who made it via criminal behavior and raping every living thing. The /. Manifesto does not allow for economic mobility or wrongthink that suggest ordinary people can be successful. We are all living in ramshackle slums, working for sub-minimum wage IT jobs and are the rag tag rebel fleet against THE MAN! Now get in line!

    33. Re:Normally by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Please look up the definition of a regressive tax and understand it before commenting again. You will understand a lot more.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    34. Re:Normally by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Amen to that. It amazes me how some people think a flat tax is worse for the "poor". Um, if taxes were higher for the rich they would likely buy a little less. Less goods sold = less jobs provided. It's called trickle-down. And that kind of thinking does hurt the poor as they are the class usually employed in production lines.

      No, not really. Rich people don't buy very much stuff, in proportion to their income, as it is. There's a limit to how many things a person wants, or needs, or is prepared to deal with. A rich person might have a nice tv or two, but they won't have a thousand of them; a billionaire could afford a different car for every day of the year, but will likely only drive one on a day to day basis. No one really needs more than one cellphone or PC; some people might have more than one, but it really becomes a hassle to deal with. Even if you could afford to buy a thousand iPhones, you'd only ever carry around one, so why bother?

      In short, give wealthy people more money, and they probably will not spend it on goods, because they already have all the goods they want. And trickle-down economics have never, ever worked. (Well, except to benefit the wealthy at the expense of everyone else, but that's not a good thing)

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    35. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The whole idea of making more money is that you get to keep more of it

      So the converse of your implication is that the less money you earn the more you'll keep? Are you seriously making that argument? That's what I never got about all these "taxes discourage people from working hard and becoming rich" evangelists. Aside from the fact that working hard and becoming rich are increasingly disparate realities in this country.

    36. Re:Normally by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 1

      I think the poster means they spend a larger percentage of their income.

      But this is /. so who knows.

      --
      If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    37. Re:Normally by DerekLyons · · Score: 1

      When you can afford quality products, you don't have to buy stuff so often.

      Yeah. It would never occur to poor people to save up and buy quality goods. They're all lemming and stereotype like and buy the cheapest stuff possible.

    38. Re:Normally by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 1

      Poor people remain poor through, well, poor decisions. They do poor stuff. It's their poor way.

      Heretic!

    39. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Good. Sales tax is a regressive tax, meaning poor people pay more than rich people. Even if you want to stick it to Amazon, in a very real way, sale tax is passed on to the consumer. The sooner we can get rid of that awful tax and move to a more equitable tax system, the better.

      I somehow doubt Amazon's customer base is the same as Dollar General so if anything, there refusal to pay ultimately does more damage than help.

    40. Re:Normally by trickyD1ck · · Score: 1

      In what world is "poor people pay a higher percentage of their income in tax than rich people" even remotely fair?

      Poor people also get more from the government (as a percentage of their income). Looks fair to me.

    41. Re:Normally by DigiTechGuy · · Score: 0

      I think a sales tax as the only tax could be a good idea. Do not tax necessities (food, clothes, etc.) so the truly poor don't have to pay taxes. Technically no one would have to pay taxes, but buying nice things, luxuries, etc. would be taxed at a heavy rate. No more income tax, no slavery as that is waht an income tax is... The presumption that government owns you as they own the fruits of your labor and allow you to keep wahtever percentage of it.

      So yes, I think a relatively high adn flat sales tax would benefit all of us as well as help to keep government in check. If government overspends, people can decide to buy fewer luxuries, or buy used "not as nice" things instead in private party deals. People can truly vote with their wallet and not be enslaved under a system like this.

    42. Re:Normally by MozeeToby · · Score: 1

      Congratulations, you've just rediscovered Captain Samuel Vimes 'Boots' theory of socioeconomic unfairness."

      "A really good pair of leather boots cost fifty dollars. But an affordable pair of boots, which were sort of OK for a season or two and then leaked like hell when the cardboard gave out, cost about ten dollars. [...] But the thing was that good boots lasted for years and years. A man who could afford fifty dollars had a pair of boots that'd still be keeping his feet dry in ten years' time, while the poor man who could only afford cheap boots would have spent a hundred dollars on boots in the same time and would still have wet feet."

    43. Re:Normally by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      Obviously if you think that you don't choose to live in a state like Texas that has no income tax but does have a sales tax. They don't have soldiers at the state lines stopping people moving to a state which uses an income tax instead.

    44. Re:Normally by butalearner · · Score: 3, Insightful

      So, you would suggest that rich people should pay sales tax in relation to their income? So if the poor person buys a pair of shoes and pays $3 sales tax on them, the same pair of shoes should rack up $300 for the rich person?

      Hey, way to take it to the logical extreme there! Let's look at this from another angle. Under our current system, the economy has grown by about 20% in the last ten years. And yet, the wages of the lower and middle classes have been virtually unchanged. Guess where all of that wealth is going? Tell me, how is that fair for the middle class, to whom this country owes most of its productivity gains? And you want to make it *worse* by lowering taxes on the rich and raising them for everybody else? That's what these so-called Fair Tax proposals do.

      I'll tell you what, when taxes on the rich are increased to a point where the country's increase in wealth is distributed properly to the people responsible, you go right ahead and quit trying to be productive. I'll gladly step in and take the raise.

    45. Re:Normally by DarkOx · · Score: 1, Insightful

      First off let me start by saying I reject the implicit assumption that a regressive tax is some how unjust. I don't accept that anyone should be required to contribute a larger amout of their production just because they produce more. Infact I would say progressive taxation is unjust!

      A pure sales tax hower as you say could exclude basic needs,

      *food purchased in a gorcery store where the number one ingredient is not water or sugar,

      *real-estate or rent where the buyer or renter will use it as a primary residence,

      *passenger automobiles

      *fares for ground transportation services

      Everthing else should be taxed at a flat rate, and yes financial instruments as well, no capital gains, you buy 50 shares of ABC for $1000 and the tax rate is 10pct you owe $100 in taxes! you owe no more taxes when you sell it even if you sell them for $10000, but who ever it is you sold them to owes $1000.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    46. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Could you imagine the uproar and backpedalling on a flat tax by conservatives if that was part of a "flat tax"?

    47. Re:Normally by sorak · · Score: 1

      So, what you're saying is, maybe the poor should start investing as well?

      Let them invest in cake!

    48. Re:Normally by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      "my old man worked hard. all they ever did was give him more work".
      - weekend at bernies

      "work smarter, not harder"
      - ducktales

      It's amazing how much knowledge was stored in the entertainment of our youth.

      Also, I can't understand your point. Either you aren't saying what you mean, or you don't know what you're saying. "Converse" means "opposite" or "reverse of". So yes, the statement "the less money you earn the more you'll keep" IS in fact the opposite of what I was saying.

    49. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it's the exact opposite of what you said. Nobody can avoid the sales tax, the more you spend the more you pay and there aren't any deductions and loop holes. We need to eliminate all forms of taxes except sales tax.

    50. Re:Normally by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So if the poor person buys a pair of shoes and pays $3 sales tax on them, the same pair of shoes should rack up $300 for the rich person? In what world does that seem fair to you?

      A world I can only hope for.

      That's massively penalizing success and encouraging failure. how is anybody supposed to succeed if success is penalized?

      Oh, yes; let us rend our clothes and beat our breasts, mourning for the now-extinct American Multi-Millionaire.

    51. Re:Normally by Solandri · · Score: 1

      The only way for sales tax to be close to "flat" is if you charged it on the purchase of financial instruments like stock.

      That would defeat the original purpose of sales taxes though - to encourage people to save/invest their money for the future instead of spend it on transitory and consumable goods. You can't really have the government giving bonuses to people who save/invest to encourage it, so instead you have them tax spending to discourage that.

      If you want to charge wealthy people more taxes, do it in the obvious place - income taxes. It would be horrendously inefficient to turn every purchase into something where you have to pull out last year's 1040 showing your income level so you can be charged the proper sales tax rate. The only way sales taxes make sense from an efficiency standpoint is if everyone pays the same amount of sales tax for a particular good. Which just reinforces what I first said - the real purpose of sales taxes is to encourage people to save/invest their money instead of spend it. (Besides which, sales taxes are already skewed in favor of less-wealthy people since necessities like food, clothing, and houses are not subject to sales tax in most places.)

    52. Re:Normally by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      How can you not get that simple claim?

      I'm far more likely to work more if I'm being paid $30/hour than if I'm being paid $20/hour. The less I'm paid the more likely I'll choose to play video games instead.

    53. Re:Normally by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but on the plus side the middle class doesn't pump out innumerable children they can't take care of who then proceed to do the same thing.

    54. Re:Normally by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      So, you would suggest that rich people should pay sales tax in relation to their income?

      Maybe he is suggesting that we abolish the sales tax, and increase income taxes in the high tax brackets, while also closing loopholes on personal and corporate income taxes.

      A progressive sales tax seems like it would be pretty difficult to manage if it were implemented per person. I suppose we could have bracketed sales taxes, or different sales taxes on different goods.

      So if the poor person buys a pair of shoes and pays $3 sales tax on them, the same pair of shoes should rack up $300 for the rich person? In what world does that seem fair to you?

      In the world where $3 to a poor person is an equal proportion of wealth to $300 to a rich person. A person who only makes $3000 a year (number chosen arbitrarily for ease of math) is paying 1/1000th of their annual income in sales tax right there. If you have $300,000 in income, and pay 1/1000th of that, the pain felt is no better and no worse. That seems pretty fair. Why would it be more fair for the wealthy person to pay so little in taxes, compared to his wealth, that he doesn't even notice, while the poor person has to be extremely conscious of their tax situation, because it is so big to them? If anyone should have to worry more about taxes, it should be the rich; they can afford to pay someone to handle the worry for them.

      The whole idea of making more money is that you get to keep more of it, so your expenses are lower relative to what you earn.

      What are you, a miser? Holding on to money without doing anything productive with it does no good for anyone. It's prudent to save some money away in case it's needed, but generally money should either be spent or invested.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    55. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes it's a bad decision, but it's THEIR CHOICE! If they CHOOSE to buy the couch, then they are CHOOSING to pay more tax. Or are you suggesting that there should be no repercussions for making bad choices? People who default on their loans/credit end up costing everyone else money.

      General Electric paid no US taxes last year, despite making billions. And their CEO is a financial/jobs advisor to Obama. Funny how the President is rewarding an evil corporation who avoided paying US taxes. Amazon needs to learn how to do the same thing.

    56. Re:Normally by somersault · · Score: 1

      Actually I suppose I just adapted it. Love Discworld :)

      --
      which is totally what she said
    57. Re:Normally by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 2

      Most people don't understand debt. they don't know what "17% APR" actually means. They don't understand that compound interest works against them if they owe money just as strongly as it works for them if they invest money. It's easier to blame "the man" than learn simple math. Really this stuff is based on like 7th grade math.

      I got my first credit card at age 33, solely because I needed to build a credit rating in order to purchase a house. I had a "0" credit score until age 32. Apparently the idea that "I've gotten this far in life without living beyond my means, so when I need to pay for something I've always got the money to do so" is lost on modern lenders. Otherwise, I'd still be credit card free. I use mine to buy gas simply so it has some history on it.

    58. Re:Normally by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      If they could afford to invest, they wouldn't be "poor" for some arbitrary definition of "poor".

    59. Re:Normally by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Why didn't Amazon collect the sales tax in the first place? They had a physical presence in Texas. There is a long established precedent that if you have a physical presence in a state you can be obligated to collect sales tax from people you sell to in that state. My understanding is that they are collectng sales tax in New York, even though they don't really have a physical presence there because New York law says that because they have afiliates in New York they are obligated to collect sales tax. They didn't pull out of New York over that, a much more questionable practice.
      The money the state of Texas is trying to collect from Amazon is not from some new tax that Amazon did not know about. This tax was in place when Amazon opened its facility in the first place. Oh yeah, the fact that Amazon says they will close the facility over this indicates that it is not a separate entity as they tried to claim to avoid paying the tax they were supposed to collect. If it was actually run by a separate entity all Amazon could say would be that they would no longer use the facility.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    60. Re:Normally by jank1887 · · Score: 1

      "Personally, I would wonder how Amazon is supposed to forward the sales tax amount to the state since they did not collect it in the first place?"

      Most states impose sales tax on the buyer, but it is the sellers responsibility to collect this tax at the time of sale and remit it to the state government once per quarter. So, they're not charging the seller for it, but as the central player, the seller is responsible for reporting all in-state sales to the state, and sending them the collected sales tax that matches that sales number. In MD, you even get a 'timely filing discount' of up to a couple hundred dollars. Kind of the states way of saying, thanks for collecting this for us, here's a little back for your time and effort.

      So, if the seller does business in the state, and is subject to state laws, selling incurs the responsibility of collecting and remitting the sales tax. Doesn't matter if you're parent company is in another state, or your main sales office is in another state. You have nexus in the state, you sell into the state, you pay sales taxes in the state. You're very act of operating a business in the state implies consent to the laws of the state. Thus, it was Amazon's job to collect those taxes. They didn't, but they still owe the remission of those taxes to the state. Technically, the state could go to every Texas customer and demand they remit payment of sales tax owed, but that's not how it works. Amazon could go back to each texas customer and send them each a bill for past sales taxes not collected. That would be funny to see.

      They goofed. No interstate issues about it.

    61. Re:Normally by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      so you're defining "poor" as "the inability to invest"?

      There isn't a "poor" person in the country who couldn't manage to set aside say, 5% of his income to invest? I'd say that multitudes of employer-based 401k plans beg to differ.

      The money is there. People choose to spend it on beer, dvds, magazines, clothes, gadgets, what-have-you. it's a well known phenomenon that "your expenses rise to meet your budget". you can see it again and again, as soon as people make more money, they find a way to spend it.

      It's a failure of the individual, not the system.

      or to put it more succinctly: "YOU RACK DISCIPRINE".

    62. Re:Normally by operagost · · Score: 0

      Sales tax is a regressive tax, meaning poor people pay more than rich people.

      I'm going to grovel before the progressive modgods by suggesting that PERHAPS this is a matter of debate. Sales tax is a proportional tax by definition, since it is a percentage. A flat fee tax, like $1 per sale of any amount, would be regressive. Even a flat fee tax wouldn't cause poor people to "pay more", obviously-- they would pay the exact same amount per sale. Claims of regression rest on the hypothesis that somehow the tax has a greater impact on a person with less money to spend. The solution indeed, is to waive the tax on essentials like clothing and food. This is already the case in most states. In addition, I believe that in all of them it is already not allowed to tax rent.

      Per your "hump" tax, I'd like to see one example where a wealthier person pays a lower percentage of tax than a poorer person. You made the assertion, you back it up.

      Mod me down and I will become more powerful than you could possibly imagine.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    63. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, of course, I live in Oregon, one of the few states with no sales tax and a punishing income tax. As a high income earner I've calculated it and I come out thousands of dollars ahead on a 6-8% sales tax and no income tax versus the situation I currently live in. The only way to reach something even close to parity is to add a 30,000 dollar plus car purchase every single year to my budget.

      The low income earners don't pay hardly any income tax and come out far ahead as much more of their income gets spent on goods and services (as a high income earner you typically plow more money into things that don't have sales tax, e.g. rent/mortgage and savings).

      Our bedroom communities typically have very high property taxes here and one county actually had an income tax for awhile as well (I think they actually failed to extend it, but I'm not sure).

    64. Re:Normally by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      This is a regressive tax. Poor people spend all of their money and will end up paying a higher portion of their income as tax. This idea is tantamount to just not taxing the rich. Income tax is not slavery, you are free to leave the USA. Income tax in the USA is already slanted against workers vs investors as capital gains is taxed at a lower rate than the income of a worker.

    65. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Social security is a regressive tax because it is capped at 108k or so. sales tax is a flat tax. Its the same rate for everyone. the rich buy more so they pay more. but its neither progressive nor regressive. At least as I understood these things.

    66. Re:Normally by Nadaka · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I accept your rejection of the implicit assumptions. Many people make those implicit assumptions. But I have reason behind my perspective.

      The accumulation of wealth is supported and enabled by a well run society respecting personal property. The wealthy are those who reap the greatest benefits of society as a whole. Progressive taxes are (or at least can be) fair for this reason.

      Regressive taxes place an onerous burden upon those least capable of bearing it. Taken far enough and it recreates the state of slavery where a person no longer works for their own gain, but for the gain of a master.

      When you add categories for exception to a flat tax based on necessity, you are creating a system that is in effect progressive in relation to income. It is merely a matter of implementation.

      Personally I would prefer a limited exemption flat income tax (including all income, capital gains, etc). Exemptions would be limited to a fixed multiple of household size.

    67. Re:Normally by operagost · · Score: 2

      IAWTP. Being poor has much to do with one's mindset. Continuing to do things the way the poor do keeps one poor. If no poor person ever became wealthier, I would agree with the progressives, but the freedoms we have here make class mobility possible-- although not easy.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    68. Re:Normally by butalearner · · Score: 2

      All taxes are regressive. The lie of the left is taxes can be progressive at all. Everyone pays all the taxes. Hiding taxes among the 'rich' doesn't help people realize this, as the taxes just get hidden, and passed down to the little guy in the form of higher prices, lower wages and so on.

      And this is the lie of the rich: conflating "rich" with "businesses." We know what happens when taxes on the rich (not businesses, just the rich) go down: they save more. In President Bush's first term, the highest tax bracket went from 39.6% to 35%. The percentage of income the rich put into savings in the same time from went from 2.2% to 7.6%.

      You want my solution to taxes, spending, and so on? It is simple. Vote on things you don't want society to promote, make it legal and tax those things. Legalize drugs, tax them. Legalize Prostitution, tax it. Legalize whatever you think is a "victimless crime" and tax the activity. You'll end up with far more revenue, far less crime (by definition) and the problems of society become controlled.

      You can see this with Cigarettes. Legal, taxed to death, and we don't have nearly the problem with second hand smoke as we used to.

      Now sin taxes, I fully agree with. I have no problem helping out the poor with more progressive mandatory taxes, but if they want to waste their extra money on entirely unnecessary stuff like cigarettes and booze, that's their problem. But yeah, it's not hard to imagine how huge of a positive impact legalizing and taxing marijuana would have, even considering that there would be a large number of people that grow it on their own. Alcohol and cigarette lobbies and various conservative groups have been powerful enough to thwart these efforts in most states, but I think we're inching toward it.

    69. Re:Normally by guyfawkes-11-5 · · Score: 1

      You got modded insightful, which shows the mods are as ignorant as you are. Rich people buy more things and more expensive things a sales tax is the only fair tax there is.

      Not necessarily. Warren Buffett has always stated his secretary pays more taxes as a percentage of income than he does. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/27/AR2007062700097.html Also a poor person by definition lives from paycheck to paycheck, spending 100% of any take home pay, which is then taxed. A rich person, may save 20% of their take home salary, negating any sales taxes collected on the portion saved.

    70. Re:Normally by operagost · · Score: 1

      A percentage is, by definition, a proportion. Please give me an example where a "poor" person buying necessities pays a greater proportion of sales tax (let's assume 6%) than a "rich" person buying necessities and/or luxury goods.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    71. Re:Normally by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      In the world where $3 to a poor person is an equal proportion of wealth to $300 to a rich person. A person who only makes $3000 a year (number chosen arbitrarily for ease of math) is paying 1/1000th of their annual income in sales tax right there. If you have $300,000 in income, and pay 1/1000th of that, the pain felt is no better and no worse. That seems pretty fair.

      Please explain how, in that world, there is any difference between making $3000 a year and $300,000 a year, besides the number of zeros you have to put in every monetary transaction. If everything costs the same as a percentage of total wealth, then everybody makes the same, relatively speaking. There is no such thing as "a raise". There is no such thing as "being a success". There is no success. No matter what you do, you can never get any better. You can never advance. There is nothing better to advance to. How bleak.

      Additionally, as I keep pointing out, society has already tried that economic system many times, and it keeps failing as it is contrary to human nature (on the large scale). It's called communism. It hasn't worked, and it never will work until technology has advanced to the point where all material wants and goods, as well as services, can be conjured from thin air at will.

      What are you, a miser? Holding on to money without doing anything productive with it does no good for anyone. It's prudent to save some money away in case it's needed, but generally money should either be spent or invested.

      How exactly do you think the rich became rich? The money fairy didn't appear out of thin air, tap them on the head, and say "you're now rich" (not counting lottery winners), the vast majority saved their money instead of spending it, and invested it. Since when has spending less than you make been viewed as a BAD thing?! No wonder you're champion of the poor, you're defending the #1 mistake poor people make, spending more than they should!

    72. Re:Normally by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      That should teach 'em. Drive 'em into poverty, so they'll join The Revolution.

    73. Re:Normally by somersault · · Score: 1

      Not all, but probably quite a lot. Even a lot of "middle class" types would balk at buying £100 shoes. How many poor people do you know that buy high quality food, expensive shoes and well made clothes? How many poor people do you know that waste lots of money on cigarettes, lottery tickets and booze, or worse?

      You could apply the same logic to anyone buying a car. I bought an old car that died after a couple of months, wasted me a lot of money. Maybe not even as much as I'd have lost in depreciation if I had bought a new car, but still, if I could have afforded to buy a car that was in better condition, I'd have been better off. (I don't like being in debt though so I don't take out loans to buy cars, and thankfully my current car is much more reliable).

      --
      which is totally what she said
    74. Re:Normally by Lord+Ender · · Score: 2

      As a percentage of their incomes? Yes, yes they do.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    75. Re:Normally by geekoid · · Score: 1

      You need to lokoa t total taxes, and you also need to understand how taxes must work. It's not about having the same tax rate on evryone. That is a bowl of fail.

      Its about taxing appropriately where the majority of the money is.

      If the money is reasonable equally spread around, then people will pay the same percentage, OVERALL.*
      When it was weighted towards the middle class, then that groups would pay a higher percentage. Now that the majority of money is owned by a few people, then THEY should be taxed at a higher rate.

      Feel free to put forth a different system, but please understand how the money must be taxed in order for the government to maintain it's social responsibilities.

      *Meaning all taxes. fed, state,payroll, and so on.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    76. Re:Normally by operagost · · Score: 0

      Again, the burden of truth lies with you. Please look up the definition of a logical debate and understand it before commenting again.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    77. Re:Normally by shaper · · Score: 2

      I pulled myself up by my bootstraps from about as far below the poverty line as you can be and still live in the USA

      All it takes is one catastrophic medical problem to put you right back down there, irretrievably. Yes, lower economic status people can tend to make poor economic decisions. But the number 1 primary cause for individual bankruptcy in the US for a number of years has been catastrophic medical bills. Maybe instead of sneering at all those lazy and stupid poor people, you should be a little more thankful that your health and native abilities gave you the necessary tools to allow your hard work to pay off. It is good that you were able to better yourself but your attitude could stand for some considerable improvement.

    78. Re:Normally by pnuema · · Score: 1

      The only truly fair tax is a transaction tax. Every time money moves electronically, it is taxed. Exempt cash transactions. This allows the poor to remain free of tax (because you can buy food with cash), the middle class to elect whether or not to be taxed on minor purchases (you can buy your food with cash, but not pay your mortgage), and the rich and corporations pay the most tax because their money moves the most. It's seamless, all done by the banks (so you will never fill out another tax return again) and therefore would reduce costs, and is truly progressive - and no one can argue it isn't fair, because everyone pays the same, no matter what. You can stick your flat tax in your ass. http://www.apttax.com/

    79. Re:Normally by geekoid · · Score: 1

      See, that the problem. People like you don't understand the purpose of taxes nor understand the underlining financial process involved.

      It's about the percentage tax v. where the largest pool of money is. and yes, that's a very simple explanation.

      There are other issues as well. Like poor people having to by the same items more often then rich people.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    80. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No dummy, it's almost impossible to make sales taxes progressive, that's why you use a progressive tax system in place of a regressive one (e.g. state income tax).

      When people say "punishing success" I always see it as envy. I'm coming to you from the other side of the success fence, buddy. There's no fiction where I lose thousands more due to simply earning a dollar more income (though you can actually lose a deduction or credit you might have been entitled to beforehand, the only serious one well off people lose is being able to deduct IRA contributions, that's why we contribute to different instruments).

      I'm only moderately well off and honestly I wear kind of cheap clothes and drive a shit little car (because I don't care, I have real toys I waste my cash on). We need to get away from this whole, "I don't want to screw myself in case I ever win life's lottery" attitude, we tax too little in this country and we need to tax rich people more (me too). And no, I won't just write a check for extra to the IRS, I know it's possible and it's stupid, it will only make a difference if everyone does it.

      Before Regan the rich paid 90% tax rate and they still did decadent stuff. I'm all for simpler tax codes (they had tons of loopholes/deductions back then) so I'm not advocating that, but I am advocating we prepare for 2017 when SS goes upside down. If that doesn't happen this year or next, I'm not waitng around for everyone to start eating each other. See you all later.

    81. Re:Normally by pnuema · · Score: 1

      http://www.apttax.com/ This is the way and the light. Check it out.

    82. Re:Normally by CharlieHedlin · · Score: 1

      And as a matter of fact Texas doesn't tax 3 of the 4 items on your list.

    83. Re:Normally by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      The problem with that scenario, is that the poor man went out and spent $18 Friday night getting drunk. And did the same the last two Fridays in a row.

      Really, it's no coincidence that stupid people are often poor, nor that poor people often make pitiful choices that lead to them... continuing to remain poor.

    84. Re:Normally by Arccot · · Score: 3, Informative

      The whole idea of making more money is that you get to keep more of it, so your expenses are lower relative to what you earn. it sounds to me that you want to arbitrarily raise expenses based on what you earn, which of course defeats the entire purpose of attempting to better one's place in life. Maybe that's the idea comrade?

      Do you seriously believe raising taxes on the wealthy is going to make them say "Well, that didn't work out. I guess I'll try being poor now?" Of course not.

      You know why a graduated tax system is used just as much as I do. Because the people who need services can't afford them. They aren't being paid enough by the people you seem to admire.

      Pure socialism may not work, but pure capitalism is nothing more than a pyramid scheme.

    85. Re:Normally by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

      Are you implying that Zeke's weekly investment in Crown Royal* isn't a good one?

      (*here in the region where I live, the Crown Royal is kept up behind the counter by the cash registers. The regular booze is out on the shelves. Crown Royal is the white trash beverage of choice)

    86. Re:Normally by operagost · · Score: 0

      Looks like you got modded down. I'm afraid that the progressives are the "man" now, and they don't like being told the truth.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    87. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if the poor person buys a pair of shoes and pays $3 sales tax on them, the same pair of shoes should rack up $300 for the rich person? In what world does that seem fair to you?

      A world I can only hope for.

      That's massively penalizing success and encouraging failure. how is anybody supposed to succeed if success is penalized?

      Oh, yes; let us rend our clothes and beat our breasts, mourning for the now-extinct American Multi-Millionaire.

      My head just exploded from this statment, I really hope you're joking... You would rather bring all the rich down to the level of the poor rather than have something to strive for in life? If this is true, I would have to rethink that 75k/year job offer I just got and stick with my 25k/year help desk position. A sales tax is a fair tax because it taxes a person on how much they consume.

    88. Re:Normally by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Or maybe you can take time to understand the actual realities of taxation, and financial implications.

      Under the flat tax, the tax everyone would need to pay would be be around 40% IF you taxed everything. Taking out what you list from the exceptions means poor people would be taxed on very few things. The means the tax rate would go up another 20%.

      Fair is about taxing the most where the largest amount of money is. Right not, 95% of the wealth is owned by the very rich. That's why they need to carry more of the burden. When the middle class had the majority of the money, they carried the heaviest part of the burden .

      Do the math. The flat tax can not work in any practical manner.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    89. Re:Normally by pnuema · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bullshit. You worked your ass off, AND GOT LUCKY. You didn't get sick, or have to take care of a relative. You had no financial misfortune to overcome. You were born intelligent enough to take advantage of opportunity when it came. I'm also willing to bet you are white, and a native English speaker. Working your ass off is not sufficient. Not everyone is as smart or as lucky as or as white as you, and to suggest that poverty is their fault ignores your own good fortune. Yes, it is possible to pull yourself up by your bootstraps. But it is also possible to work just as hard as you did, and have bad things happen to you. The whole "the poor are poor because they are not as good as me" idea was rejected with the rest of Victorian ideology. You sir are a throwback.

    90. Re:Normally by dreampod · · Score: 2

      When you are living paycheck to paycheck it is often impossible to save up that extra money even when you recognize that in the long term it may cost less. You can however usually manage to scrounge together enough for a cheap item by doing something like not eating lunch for a week or two.

      It is the same principle behind outrageous check cashing fees and similar financial charges that affect the poor more than the people who have savings. Sure it may cost you a significant percentage of your income but the alternative is that you and your kids can't buy food for a week (and typically don't have reserves) while it clears the bank traditionally or you can't pay your rent.

      It isn't a matter of stupidity but desperation and limited options.

    91. Re:Normally by operagost · · Score: 1

      It's a fallacy to think that 100% of a tax gets passed down. If that were true, in 1946, when the top tax rate was 94%, then the government would have gotten around 94% of the money. And yet, it only got 20% of GDP or so.

      OK... was the 94% the only rate, starting at $0? This is so ridiculous I can't believe I'm even responding. Obviously, unless 100% of the citizens are paying 94% tax on 100% of their earnings, the revenue is not going to be 94% of GDP.

      --

      Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
    92. Re:Normally by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      I understand perfectly why there is a graduated tax scheme, but that is not what GGP is advocating at all. re-read it. He is for abolishing any concept of rich vs poor.

      A graduated tax scheme is not really fair to the rich of course, but the assumption is that the perks of being rich make up for it (which they probably do).

      And a big problem, something I really wonder about, is why people would sneer (and don't think some didn't) at the phrase I used above "not really fair to the rich". Why should having a large bank account relative to someone else inherently mean you don't deserve to be treated fairly?

      assuming of course you believe that life is fair, which is of course an assumption that is quite suspect.

    93. Re:Normally by CharlieHedlin · · Score: 1

      None is saying 90% gets passed down. Taxes have been 20% and will probably stay that way. If one person's incremental rate is 90% and another is 5%, the person paying 5% pays more and earns less. The person paying 90% is compensated that much more (and the costs shifted around).

      Certainly this isn't 100%, but that's how it is going to usually work out.

    94. Re:Normally by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2

      There is no such thing as "a raise". There is no such thing as "being a success". There is no success. No matter what you do, you can never get any better. You can never advance. There is nothing better to advance to. How bleak.

      You think that success can only be measured in terms of money? That advancement is strictly a matter of one's pay? I don't think that most people would agree with you. We need some money to live reasonably on, and luxuries are nice, I'll grant you. But there's a lot more to life than money.

      Additionally, as I keep pointing out, society has already tried that economic system many times, and it keeps failing as it is contrary to human nature (on the large scale). It's called communism.

      No, communism is considerably different. All we're talking about is a tax system implemented on a fairly generic regulated capitalist economy.

      And in any event, you seem to think that I'm in favor of a seriously progressive sales tax. In fact, I think it would be unworkable. I'd rather abolish the sales tax altogether, and have a seriously progressive tax on wealth and income.

      the vast majority saved their money instead of spending it, and invested it.

      Which is fine with me.

      Since when has spending less than you make been viewed as a BAD thing?!

      I think that spending less than you make is a good thing. But I think that it's a bad thing to save more money than is reasonable and responsible to save. Excess saved money, stashed in a mattress or buried in the backyard, does no good for anyone. It should be used in some sort of productive manner.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    95. Re:Normally by somersault · · Score: 2

      Oh, I forgot the most obvious example: the one that applies to me.

      If I were rich, I could easily afford the deposit on getting a loan to buy my own house (or just buy the house outright if I were really rich of course). But as it is, I've not been saving as wisely as I could, and so it's taking a while to get the deposit. Plus, I just hate the idea of having the responsibility of having a large loan hanging over my head. Anyway, in reality all of this time, I'm bleeding money in rent that I could otherwise be investing in my own property (and paying interest of course, but it's still saving more money than just paying rent..). When you're rich, there are more ways to save and make money than if you are always struggling to even pay the bills. You can buy multiple properties and rent them out to people, so you're not even paying the mortgage, basically making free money.

      --
      which is totally what she said
    96. Re:Normally by shaper · · Score: 1

      well maybe that's why the poor people are poor, maybe they should spend less?

      The fundamental definition of "poor" is that most of their spending is non-discretionary: food, clothing, shelter, medical care, etc. The defining aspect of "not poor" is having money left over after the necessities are covered, discretionary money that can be invested for the future. Basically, your argument here is that the poor should stop being so poor.

      I've met many "poor" people in my life who when they get that income tax refund or birthday gift of cash etc, go out and buy a couch or a tv instead of paying their credit card bill.

      I agree, individuals who "waste" such opportunities rather than investing bear the responsibility for poor choices. I can only say that it can be hard to fight the natural tendency to want to enjoy temporary unexpected gain while it is there.

    97. Re:Normally by DigiTechGuy · · Score: 0

      My point is it's a tax you choose to pay, it's not forced on you. It's only regressive for those middle class folks who choose to live beyond their means. You can be lower to median income and not buy new things. Don't buy new cars, don't buy new TVs and gadgets and gizmos and such. Under this method of taxation everyone pays as much tax as they are willing to pay since you can choose not to pay it. If it's entirely a voluntary tax it becomes a moot point who pays how much, but even considering that, actor in the taxes the rich will pay... Significantly more in dollars certainly, if not in percentage of income. Rich people buy more expensive things more expensive things while taxed at the same rate (perhaps 15% - 20%) will cost a lot more in taxes.

      Income tax is essentially slavery. Slavery is ownership of your labor. Income tax is the assumption that government owns the fruit of your labor, and thus your time spent laboring to produce.

    98. Re:Normally by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      The problem with sales tax as an incentive to save is that it just does not work. For the already wealthy? It won't matter because they already have enough that a couple extra percent spent wont make an appreciable difference on what they can save. However for people who spend most of their income on necessities, it actively prevents them from saving at all. For people who already spend ALL of their income just to survive, you place them into a debt crisis.

      I am not suggesting that sales taxes should be made into complex progressive taxes. If sales taxes really are for the stated purpose, they are fundamentally flawed. I know some places have exceptions for necessities, but everywhere that I have lived has had sales tax exemptions only for financial instruments and not necessities.

    99. Re:Normally by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1

      How is sales tax regressive?? Someone making 40k/yr can only spend (not counting credit) $40k per year. Assuming half of that is on taxable items, a 6.5% sales taxs works out to a total of $1,300. Now, those with less income are going to spend a larger proportion of their salary on untaxible items (food, medicine, etc.) and less on taxible (car, tv, services, etc.). So for someone making $60k, assuming even 30k (half again as much) is on tax exempt items, that works out to an annual tax burden of $1,950. Last I checked $1,950 is more than $1,300.

      Furthermore, from my own experience as the "Keeper of the Checkbook" in my house, The total amount of Tax exempt purchases made each year is not increasing as proportionaly with my salary. My salary doubled since last year (new job), but my tax exempt purchases only increased by around 10%, so I'm paying quite a bit more in both real dollars, and as percent of my gross salary on sales tax this year than I did last year.

      The wealthy on the other hand will spend a MUCH larger proportion of their annual salary on items for which they can be taxed (Homes, boats, nicer cars, bigger TV's, etc.) there by paying a much larger quantitative amount (6.5% * a larger amount on purchases), and a much larger true percentage after accounting for tax exempt items.

      Sales taxes are the MOST equitable means I've seen. Income taxes and corporate taxes can always be dodged via loopholes, but you pay sales tax at the time of purchase, making it much harder to insert a loophole.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    100. Re:Normally by EdIII · · Score: 1

      So if the poor person buys a pair of shoes and pays $3 sales tax on them, the same pair of shoes should rack up $300 for the rich person? In what world does that seem fair to you?

      A world I can only hope for.

      That is not even remotely fair. You are severely punishing the rich by 100 times. So I think you would do better to just admit that you don't want taxes at all.

      What you want is the elimination of the poor, middle class, and the rich. It's okay to say it. You want Communism, or some form of Utopian society like what is on Star Trek where the accumulation of wealth and physical materials is not the driving force for all of our actions.

      I dream of it too. However, we also live in the real world here right now. What you propose is not fair. Not even close. I would never agree to your proposal, but moving a to a resource based economy is something I would consider participating in.

      What you need to understand though, is that a world like that requires intelligent people with a specific mindset. People that are dedicated to working solely for the betterment of their family, community, and all sentient people's everywhere (you never know what is out there).

      Sadly, that does not represent our world. Not even close. So if you want to make that happen we would need to leave for another planet, or pull some James Bond evil villian type shit and kill everyone here. I'll let you work out those plans, I got work to do over here.

    101. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. Futhermore, My wife is not the issue here. I hope that my wife will someday learn to live on her allowance, which is ample, but if she doesn't, sir, that will be her problem, not mine, just as your rug is your problem, just as every bum's lot in life is his own responsibility regardless of whom he chooses to blame. I didn't blame anyone for the loss of my legs, some chinaman in Korea took them from me but I went out and achieved anyway. I can't solve your problems, sir, only you can.

    102. Re:Normally by pz · · Score: 1

      Sales tax is a regressive tax, meaning poor people pay more than rich people.

      Um, WTF?

      How could sales tax be regressive? I suppose it could be regressive if you claimed somehow that the total out-of-pocket tax paid by an individual poor person was higher than an individual rich person. For that to be true, the poor person would have to be buying more stuff than the rich person. What with the rich person having more money and all, that seems, um, backwards. Or maybe you're actually claiming that the total out-of-pocket sales tax when normalized by income is a higher percentage for poor people than for rich people. By that twisted logic even a dead-straight fixed tax of $10 per head per year is regressive. Or maybe you're normalizing by the local cost of living which is lower in poor neighborhoods, and thus the percentage paid in sales tax is higher. But, hey, go ahead and normalize by whatever figure makes you feel good.

      Fixed percentage sales tax is the very definition of a flat tax. Anyone who claims it's regressive is trying to pull something.

      --

      Put my fist through my alarm clock with its ding-dong death inside my ear. - The Blackjacks.
    103. Re:Normally by Ichijo · · Score: 1

      Empirically, if your theory were correct, European countries with high taxes on cigarettes would have low smoking rates, and yet they don't.

      You need to provide more information before you can make that conclusion. For example, would their smoking rates be higher without the high taxes?

      It's a fallacy to think that 100% of a tax gets passed down. If that were true, in 1946, when the top tax rate was 94%, then the government would have gotten around 94% of the money. And yet, it only got 20% of GDP or so.

      Let me direct your attention to the Laffer Curve which explains this.

      --
      Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
    104. Re:Normally by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, cause the poor buy SO much more than the rich...

      The wealthy buy more services, which are not subject to sales taxes.

      An example is yard maintenance. The wealthy hire a gardener, and thus don't pay sales tax. The not-wealthy buy a lawnmower and pay sales tax.

      Yes, the gardener has to buy a lawnmower too, but that sales tax is spread over all his customers, resulting in a lower effective tax rate.

    105. Re:Normally by dmgxmichael · · Score: 1

      Not having health insurance falls under the heading of "poor decisions."

      Taxes are a revenue mechanism. Not a class warfare mechanism. The failure of the income tax is that it has become nothing more than a class warfare tool - and the class it is aimed at is the middle class - that means most of the people on this board. The poor don't pay income tax and the rich pay lawyers to cheat their way out of the system entirely. The middle class, unable to afford the lawyers, bites the bullet and carries the tax burden. It's little wonder that people are either falling back into poverty or the lucky few get wealthy enough to escape the no man's zone the government has created in the middle.

      A sales tax, with exemptions on necessary goods (food, clothing, etc) is balanced, fair and impossible to game into a class warfare tool. The rich can't escape it with obscure right offs either. Or go to the fair tax where everything is taxed but everyone is issued a prebate check against what the tax would collect against someone on the poverty line in the course of normal expenditures.

      Health care costs are out of control because of the insanely high cost of malpractice insurance, and the pharmaceutical companies need to make enough money to pay the class action suits when drugs get through reasonable testing measures and do harm no one could have foreseen in order to prevent. This stems back to this insanely stupid idea that the government somehow has an obligation to make life fair and compensate people for their misfortune. Institute proper Tort reform and you fix the healthcare system. Congress, a body of 535 filthy lawyers, will never on the coldest day in Hell consider any action that might endanger the livelihoods of their peers and supporters. So we're screwed.

    106. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use mine for 100% of all purchases. Paid 100% every month. I also have a stupid high credit limit. Something if I maxed it out I would never be able to pay off. If you max it out then make min payments it will take you 60 years to pay it off. People think the bank will help you. HA. Help themselves to your wallet is more like it.

      Discover and Visa both have 'money back' plans. So you can actually shave about 1% off your purchases in the long run using them. The *ONLY* reason I use it this way. If these plans were not on there I would use cash like you.

    107. Re:Normally by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      How 'bout an example of accomplishing the same goal?

      Wealthy homeowner needs to cut his grass. Hires a gardener. Pays no sales tax because he's buying a service.

      Not-wealthy homeowner needs to cut his grass. Buys a lawnmower. Pays sales tax because he's buying a good.

      (Yes, the gardener will be paying sales tax on his lawnmower, but that expense is spread over all his customers, resulting in a lower sales tax bill)

    108. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you'd care to learn what a regressive tax is before spewing nonsense. Wikipedia actually has your back on this one: "In terms of individual income and wealth, a regressive tax imposes a greater burden (relative to resources) on the poor than on the rich". Check it anywhere, that's pretty textbook.

      Oh, wait, I'm sorry, let's all replace what the term regressive tax means with what "you" think it should mean...

      Seriously what is it about taxes that makes a bunch of otherwise bright people turn their brains off?

    109. Re:Normally by dmgxmichael · · Score: 0, Troll

      Life isn't fair you fucking baby - deal with it. The government has no role whatsoever in trying to make it fair.

    110. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could be smart, and pay for as much as possible with credit cards, pay the bill in full, since you aren't living beyond your means, and earn some free airplane tickets. Just because your card comes with a 15k limit, doesn't mean you have to max it out.

    111. Re:Normally by pnuema · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Says you. That's easy to say when you are on top. I say the government does have a role in making it fair, and since my vote counts just as much as your does, you can kiss my ass. What a dickhead.

    112. Re:Normally by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      It's amazing but not really, that most of /. participants have not a clue about economics.

      The only correct way to fund a government is through consumption taxes. What exactly is taxed, how much, whether there is a formula to figure out how much you make and REFUND you because you do not make enough, etc., that's all fine.

      But funding government from PRODUCTION or INCOME taxes is going to lead to a total disaster (and people are observing it now,) because taxing income is taxing money that is not consumed by the earner, but instead is used for something else, that is not consumption. However this also allows the government to grow very rapidly and to become very large (always bigger than the economy can afford.)

      What economy needs is production, not consumption.

      Consumption is a consequence of production. Without production there is no consumption. iPads first had to be created before they could be consumed and it was a risky move on Apple's part - they didn't know if there was a market for it, but that's how it's supposed to be with all products. Unlike what the governments do: Obama saying that he is going to make sure there WILL be consumers for Orion Energy (which just happens to be mostly owned by GE, ex-CEO of which just happens to be in government now.) Obama and Biden are just going to build 'high speed rail' even though US has no money and in fact USA used to have rail system that was the biggest in the world and that system was destroyed during the New Deal because of all the new roads that were put, while the rail was torn down and airlines were taxed - gov't made sure to totally annihilate profitability of those 3 modes of transportation, making sure it's all subsidized forever and thus controlled forever. Now they are going to build rail? With what money? Where is the profit that would at least indicate that the endeavor is the right move? They are going to build rail in US with all parts and all railroad cars built in US. USA has no production capacity for this, USA made rail road will be extremely expensive if compared to just buying the parts and cars from countries that already manufacture them. The end user tickets will have to be subsidized, they'll be monstrously expensive.

      Anyway, economy is about production. Production only takes place if there is a profit motive and there is capital. Capital is money saved. It could be money borrowed (after all, USA used to borrow money in 19 century) but today all the money that's borrowed by US gov't goes directly to spending - military, SS, EI, welfare, corporate subsidies and bailouts, Medicare - none of this is investment. Doing huge projects like rail, while in debt for medical insurance and social security is a joke.

      USA needs more capital. USA needs government to stop spending. USA needs gov't to stop collecting income taxes. USA needs to allow debt to restructure instead of monetizing it and destroying US dollars.

      With the government like US has had since the last sane president - Harding, US is not going to restructure debt, it's not going to stop spending, it's not going to stop taxing, it's not going to stop printing/inflating. So USA is not going to see any economic growth and instead it will see a huge disaster when US dollar is printed to buy all the debt back and then some is printed to build this rail, etc.

    113. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't understand math or debt too well either then. I get 1% back on my purchases and up to 5% back on groceries and gas. One year my wife and I got $600 back between 2 credit cards. We always pay our bills on time so no interest/fees/etc.. So you've lost thousands (or hundreds at least) of dollars over the years for personal pride. Niice...

    114. Re:Normally by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      There isn't a "poor" person in the country who couldn't manage to set aside say, 5% of his income to invest? I'd say that multitudes of employer-based 401k plans beg to differ.

      The poor don't work at places that offer 401k plans.

      The money is there. People choose to spend it on beer, dvds, magazines, clothes, gadgets, what-have-you. it's a well known phenomenon that "your expenses rise to meet your budget". you can see it again and again, as soon as people make more money, they find a way to spend it.

      Clearly you've never actually been poor then.

      or to put it more succinctly: "YOU RACK DISCIPRINE".

      No, you lack experience. Poverty can reach up and grab anyone. Would you be alright if your boss was frogmarched out of the building today for stealing your 401k, and after a year you still couldn't find a job? And no, Wal-Mart or McDonalds won't hire you for a crap job, because they know you'll flee as soon as you find real work. And Mom doesn't have a basement you can move into...in fact she's sick and needs you to support her as well as your own family.

      Shit happens. To claim shit happens due to a lack of discipline just indicates you've lead a very sheltered life.

    115. Re:Normally by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      Sales tax is an evenhanded tax that charges all people equivalently based on their purchasing power.

      As a percentage of income it may not be equal, but that's only because the very rich don't spend all of their income each month, at least not locally.

      That said, people who earn $30,000 a year do not typically get taxed on $100,000 a year in purchases, as they do not have access to that amount of money to spend. Meanwhile, the local CEO may spend well in excess of $100,000 a year, and is taxed equivalently on those purchases.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    116. Re:Normally by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      The other respondent addressed your math, so I'll hit the ideology -

      I used to think sin taxes were a decent idea - but think deeper about what would get sin taxed by the majority of Americans as things they don't want society to promote. So, here's a new picture: No taxes on gasoline because we love our big cars. Big taxes on gay couples, because that's not how God wants them to be. Taxes on drugs, maybe alcohol, probably not fatty processed foods (since that's what most people eat...). You'll end up with a mishmash of arbitrary taxes on arbitrary goods simply because enough people think they are good or bad, and really not significantly different from making them illegal in the first place. Sin taxes do not significantly effect the use of the goods taxed, it's just another form of punishment (vs fines or jail time). I do not want to live in a society where everybody gets to directly vote on behaviors that they feel should be promoted or suppressed.

      You can see this with cigarettes. Legal, taxed to death, and common in public *until* laws came into place restricting where you can and cannot smoke.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    117. Re:Normally by dmgxmichael · · Score: 1

      Me? On top?? Hardly. I haven't crossed the 6 figure line yet. And you can vote all you want, but no amount of misguided legislation by bloated governments in all the world can violate the laws of nature baby. Life. Is. Not. Fair.

      But you can certainly bankrupt the country trying.

    118. Re:Normally by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      The fun one is when you buy your car on your credit card because it has a better interest rate than the car dealer is offering (on used cars; I would never purchase new).

      First lesson of having a credit card: call the company and ask for a rate reduction.
      Second lesson: do it again.

      Credit cards can be very cost-efficient for long term purchases, such as when buying a car or appliances.

      I do however cringe at friends who have 29% rates and carry a balance.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    119. Re:Normally by NiteShaed · · Score: 2

      Only if poor people buy more than rich people, which I very much doubt.

      Individually, probably not, but how about collectively? How many "rich" people are there? How many "poor"? Depending on the metrics used, there could be something on the order of 50:1 poor/rich. How many pairs of shoes does that 1 rich person have? How many dinners does he eat a night (probably not 50)? How many rolls of toilet paper does he use? Keep on going. If we stick with reasonable items, staples rather than luxuries, then yes, it's pretty fair to say that poor people pay more than rich people, by virtue of the fact that there are far more of them.

      But, I suppose you consider it "equitable" when people are discriminated against on the basis of their success.

      Success doesn't exist in a vacuum. That success was made possible by the society that it took root and grew in. So, no, it's not unreasonable to ask those who reap the biggest benefits from that society to pay more back in than the people who didn't reap such huge rewards. I pay far more in taxes than quite a few people I know. I have no problem with that. I worked hard to get where I am, but without the rest of society, including the people who work at the stores I shop in, the restaurants I eat at, those who clean my office, maintain my yard and the other million little things that need to get done, that success may not have come (nobody to buy my products) and it would be pointless (nobody to do those jobs I mentioned). Given the choice, I'd rather be me and pay those taxes every time instead of being them, making less, and paying lower taxes.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    120. Re:Normally by MikeBabcock · · Score: 1

      I know people who live "in poverty" and have bigger televisions and nicer furniture than I do.

      There are certainly people who have chosen not to get out of their circumstances due to bad financial choices instead of external factors.

      --
      - Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
    121. Re:Normally by jeff4747 · · Score: 2

      You describe the situation of a young adult with little in the way of responsibilities. Once you finish growing up, the reverse happens.

      If you are making $30/hr, you will feel less pressure to make money, because your basic needs are already met and you're able to save more money for a rainy day. So you will give yourself leisure time.

      If you're making $15/hr, your basic needs might be met, but you'll be more inclined to work extra so you aren't living paycheck-to-paycheck.

      Substitute whatever numbers and budget necessary to get the point across - if your income increases, you will do more leisure activities because you don't have to do more paying work to keep food on your family.

    122. Re:Normally by Rolgar · · Score: 1

      The poor people pay a larger percentage of their income in sales tax not because they are unfairly taxed, but because they spend more of what they make. If Mike Millionaire makes a million and spends a million, assuming a 10% sales tax, and Paul Poorman makes 20,000 and spends it all, and pays the same 10% sales tax, then they pay the same percentage of their income. If Paul spends 75% and Mike spends 100%, then Mike pays a higher percentage than Paul.

      If you consider tax exempt sales like medical expenses, rent (I've never been told that rent included tax, if it does, exempt this), possibly food (I think my state might refund food sales tax for low income individuals), then Paul might even pay less tax despite both spending equal percentages of income since more of his income would probably be spent on the tax free necessities.

    123. Re:Normally by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Why didn't Amazon collect the sales tax in the first place? They had a physical presence in Texas

      Because they didn't have a physical presence in Texas. Their argument is that another company, which they happen to own, has a physical presence in Texas. That company ran a distribution center. It did not sell any goods.

      The taxes were supposed to be paid by the residents of Texas. However, sending the revenuers around to collect these taxes tends to result in losing the next election. So they went after Amazon.

    124. Re:Normally by ErikZ · · Score: 2

      You worked your ass off, AND GOT LUCKY.

      You didn't get sick,

      This is normal, not luck.

      or have to take care of a relative.

      This is normal, not luck.

      You had no financial misfortune to overcome.

      Again, normal.

      You were born intelligent enough to take advantage of opportunity when it came.

      This is also normal.

      These are all normal traits that that vast majority of people have.

      --
      Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
    125. Re:Normally by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Poor spend more of their income (aka all of it). Also, the rich tend to buy services instead of goods. Such as paying a gardener instead of buying a lawnmower. Services are not subject to sales tax.

    126. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think the rioters will see things your way? :)

    127. Re:Normally by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 2

      This is one reason I always buy from Land's End. I've bought 8 shirts from them, and 3 pairs of pants, and several pairs of socks. One of the shirts started to fray and really break down after about 2 months; I didn't know Land's End had a "Guaranteed, period" policy and would replace the shirt because, frankly, it just didn't hold up like every other fucking shirt I got from them.

      Three years in now, I have some slightly yellowed socks that are identical to the brand new ones I just bought, albeit much older. Still fluffy, still not fraying, no holes, nothing. The fabric may be slightly matted, like lost 5% of its volume, I can't really tell; it hasn't been pounded into a little hole-filled paper card like socks I get from Wal-Mart after 2 washes. The other shirts are mostly in brand-new condition; they never fade, but occasionally they get stolen (I live in Baltimore City, in an apartment, with a shared laundry room). One pair of pants frayed at the bottom: I was kicking my shoes off, and it happens that constant wear against the rubber sole will grind fabric right off. Oops. They're not jeans. Pants otherwise brand new.

      These cost about 1.5 times as much as Wal-Mart shit clothes that don't hold up to a fucking washing machine spin cycle. The Wal-Mart chinese specials lose buttons, develop holes, and tear at the seams-- or wear holes where there's no seams! All in a matter of a month or three! And they fade on washing number one.

      That's reason number two why I buy Lands' End. Value. The price is not $50 designer Ambercombie shirt; it's $25 shirt vs $18 Wal-Mart shirt. $40 pants vs $25 pants, but the $40 pants are always on-sale at Sears (who owns Lands' End now) for $30, along with Polo Ralph Lauren and Doc Martin and a few other higher end non-super-designer clothes. Yet the clothes are high quality.

      Reason number 3 is pure aesthetic preference. I could go for Polo Ralph Lauren, but I hate their style. Lands' End really lands the biz-cas scene pretty hard, nice and mellow without looking too casual. Polo looks too much like shit you'd wear on your yacht during a sailing trip; they're nice, decent really, but not my personal self-image and I feel off trying to present that kind of image outward. I'll dress like Dave from Homestuck when I feel like presenting an altered image for self-amusement; otherwise I feel like a huge poser trying to look "relaxed" and "easy-going" in the way Polo's clothes present me. I'm not that social, really; I'm not the chatty business executive that looks out for his employees and will tell you off for being a dick, but basically wants to hang out on the golf course or on a boat or something. I'm approachable, but tone the outgoing-ness down a degree or two.

      Whatever you buy, you have the choice. Cheap Wal-Mart stuff that falls apart in under a month; designer $50-$150 shirts that fall apart in a month; or cheap stuff that costs a tad more than Wal-Mart but lasts a reasonable year or three. A good discount designer store can get you into that last category easily, and save you some money.

    128. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes I agree his evaluation was a bit shallow but; The indirect costs of say recreational drugs are HUGE (law enforcement mainly, border control ...) and
      the same goes for Hookers girls. In spite of the ironic ""victimless crime" label
      the enforcement of these types of Laws is counter productive and self defeating.
      There is a good argument that treating drug use as a medical problem and not
      a police/armed forces problem would be much less expensive and less socially disrupting.

    129. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's why I just buy a $11 handle of vodka and it lasts me all week.

    130. Re:Normally by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      Taxing production rather than consumption destroys economy. I left a comment about that here, I don't want to repeat, but the gist is this:

      It is production that must be encouraged. Consumption is easy, production is hard. Wealth of an economy depends on what the economy produces and whether there is profit in it. Profit is direct signal that consumers like the product. Lack of profit is the signal to STOP doing whatever the investor is doing, because it's not the right thing.

      Taking profit out of any product/service means taking out the measuring stick by which the product/service can be evaluated to see whether it's needed or not, whether it is the right thing to do and in which direction it is better to move.

      Income taxes are the worst for economy in totality, they are the worst for poor as well and more so, because the rich can take capital and move it, which then makes some other place more wealthy and the place that lost capital becomes poorer. Poorer places means - fewer jobs, less manufacturing, less production.

      Consumption levels do not go down if there is any way to consume, so if gov't puts out money (however it got that money) that money will be spent. But it will be spent on consumables rather than on investment and building production capacity. Poor subsidized people do not build production capacity, as you said, they spend everything they have on food/energy/shelter. Which is why they are hit the hardest of all things by lack of production but especially by inflation.

      Government is the one that suffers from deflation the most, not poor people. For poor people deflation (shrinking of the money supply) is a good thing. As the money is more scarce, it gains more value and it becomes profitable to save it, which allows savings to be formed and savings are what capital is derived from. Savings = capital, and capital allows investment into production capacity. More production capacity and more efficiency brings prices down.

      On the other hand governments prefer inflation, because governments always spend more money than can be provided by the economy (gov't is a spending itme, it's a luxury spending item, and as a spending item it must be cut when cuts are made because of slowing economy. Instead gov't is expanded by promises of improving the economy. But gov'ts can do nothing to improve economy except one thing: shrink. That's why Harding's cuts to gov't in 1921 stopped that recession quickly. But he cut gov't by 70%. He fired 70% of gov't, allowed capital to restructure, lowered income taxes. This is the only good thing a gov't can do - go away.)

      Poor people need lower prices, but lower prices can only be brought about by decrease of monetary supply relative to size of production. So either increasing levels of production without printing more money, or decreasing the amount of money relative to existing production, or decreasing amount of available money faster than the decrease of production. In any case, the prices go down when there is more production (value) than money.

      Gov'ts prefer inflation and rising prices, which is bad for poor people and bad for economy in general. It's clear why it's bad for poor people - they spend most money on food and energy and shelter. But why is it bad for economy in general? Because it destroys the value of money, and there is a potential for total destruction of value of money - hyper inflationary depression. This is achieved by excessive spending and borrowing and then by monetizing the debt without any relative increase of production capacity.

      The production taxes are the worst, because they give incentives to move production out. They are also the worst because they remove capital FROM the productive private sector and put it INTO unproductive government hands, who spend it on consumables - wars, subsidies, bail outs, welfare, SS, etc.

      Consumption taxes - that's the only correct way to fund governments. This prevents gov't from gro

    131. Re:Normally by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      I've met many "poor" people in my life who when they get that income tax refund or birthday gift of cash etc, go out and buy a couch or a tv instead of paying their credit card bill.

      SUVs here. Everyone has an SUV for 3-4 months starting in March-April.

    132. Re:Normally by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      Where is this quoted from? It's brilliant.

    133. Re:Normally by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Certainly better than having them join my country club...

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    134. Re:Normally by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Their argument is BS. Amazon wants the advantages of having a physical presence in Texas (speed of delivery) without the obligation of collecting sales tax. If Amazon wants to avoid collecting sales tax on goods sold to people living in Texas, they should ship those goods from outside of the state. The problem with Amazon's argument is that the distribution center is just as much a part of Amazon as the affiliates that are the reason they have to collect sales tax in New York. I would be more sympathetic to Amazon's position if they had shut down their affiliate program in New York when they lost that case.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    135. Re:Normally by msauve · · Score: 1

      So, "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." That sounds familiar.

      --
      "National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
    136. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Quick, what's the inflation rate been for the past three years?

      Yeah, I thought so. Try again next year, Chicken Little.

    137. Re:Normally by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      And this is the lie of the rich: conflating "rich" with "businesses." We know what happens when taxes on the rich (not businesses, just the rich) go down: they save more. In President Bush's first term, the highest tax bracket went from 39.6% to 35%. The percentage of income the rich put into savings in the same time from went from 2.2% to 7.6%.{fact}

      [citation needed]

    138. Re:Normally by BZ · · Score: 1

      Everything else? For what it's worth, many states treat clothing (below a certain per-item cap) as not subject to sales tax, on the premise that it's a basic need.

      (And some states treat alcohol and religious books the same, which just goes to show that on person's basic need is not necessarily another's.)

    139. Re:Normally by BZ · · Score: 1

      You do realize the tax brackets are inflation-indexed, right?

      Now there's the issue of trusting inflation measures, or not, but inflation does not automatically move people into higher tax brackets. Except for the AMT debacle, of course.

    140. Re:Normally by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      If Amazon wants to avoid collecting sales tax on goods sold to people living in Texas, they should ship those goods from outside of the state.

      Which is what they are now implementing. However, that's not terribly good for Texas, since they'll still have to go after their residents for the sales taxes, and now they've lost some jobs.

      The problem with Amazon's argument is that the distribution center is just as much a part of Amazon as the affiliates that are the reason they have to collect sales tax in New York

      Different states have different laws. From what I've read, Amazon's argument isn't that terrible under Texas law. Of course, I'm not a lawyer.

    141. Re:Normally by Schadrach · · Score: 1

      But that tax unfairly penalizes automated high volume traders, you know the guys who make the stock market slightly more liquid by guaranteeing themselves returns on stocks held for no more than minutes, and sure you and demand the trades reverted if you make money off of them instead? I mean think of them, why don't you?

    142. Re:Normally by RussellSHarris · · Score: 1

      So? The fact that somebody has $x billion in some financial account means nothing if they'd be taxed 8% if they wanted to use it. In fact it means they have $x billion - 8%.

      Taxing purchases of stock would be double-taxation. You'd tax the money going in, and you'd tax it coming back out again, when it was spent. And while I'm sure a lot of socialist commies would love to be able to do that, it ain't gonna happen.

      Worst case scenario, the rich guy just dies with a whole lot of money he never got a chance to spend, so the government never got a chance to get its filthy paws on it. Yet. And guess what happens then? Then the government gets to tax the estate. And then whoever inherits it has to pay sales tax if they spend it. Ain't it wonderful? You're taxing the same money like half-a-dozen times!

    143. Re:Normally by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      The wealthy are those who reap the greatest benefits of society as a whole.

      So your saying the advent of well trained and organized police, fair court systems and judges with well pay salaries so they are harder to buy, infrastructure so workers are more mobile and not tied to the land are all things that benefit the rich the most as opposed to how they have helped the working class people compared to society in the middle ages when none of these things existed? Sure, these things help wealthy people to in some ways, but if your looking at society as a WHOLE I think there's no doubt on which side benefits and quality of life have increased the most since society has advanced.

    144. Re:Normally by NiteShaed · · Score: 1

      Ah, so you quote Marx and that's supposed to be some kind of auto-win? He also said "Democracy is the road to socialism", does that mean you'd like to get rid of democracy? Must be bad, since Marx thought it was a key to his ideal state. How about "Social progress can be measured by the social position of the female sex"? Holy shit, we've got to roll back women's suffrage, IT'S MARXIST!!!!!! Not everything Marx said was wrong, evil or even remotely incompatible with American society. I don't advocate a Marxist system, but I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss an idea just because he espoused it.

      Now, onto your quote itself. It isn't applicable. While I suggested that those who reap the biggest rewards owe the biggest debt for the opportunity, I didn't suggest that taxes should in some way flatten income so that everyone is economically equal. I pay more in taxes than many of my friends, but I also still have more after those taxes than they do. If you make $10 million, and the tax rate was applied at, lets say 60% (far lower than the 90% percent that has been applied to that bracket years back, but nearly double the highest bracket now), you'd still have $4 million left. You're still far better off than the person making the median $50k or so (or $500k for that matter), you're still amply rewarded for your efforts. Nobody is going to say they'd rather make $50k than $10 million because of a 60% tax burden. So while superficially that quote may seem like it applies, if you know what the quote actually means, which is that everyone contributes what they can, and takes back only what they need, you can see that no system of taxation ever practiced, or seriously proposed in the U.S., would ever be accurately described by that quote.

      --
      Some bring out the best in others, some the worst. Some bring out far more.
    145. Re:Normally by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      I use a credit card for everything I possibly can, because it's free (actually, it's 1% cash back), and it's extremely convenient, and a single transfer at the end of the month pays the entire balance for everything I spent. Actually - no - it's an automatic transfer for the card I normally use, come to think of it.

      It's win-win-win. You might as well take advantage of it.

      I'm well aware that it's still profiting the credit card company because they're skimming their 3% off everything I spend, but as long as the merchant isn't tacking that on extra, I don't care - i.e. even if the merchant had to raise its prices by 3%, if they wouldn't discount me the 3% if I paid in cash, then why bother - the credit card is easier.

    146. Re:Normally by fredmosby · · Score: 1

      They're so downtrodden with their wight collar jobs, SUV's, houses, swimming pools, and health care.

    147. Re:Normally by stdarg · · Score: 1

      The accumulation of wealth is supported and enabled by a well run society respecting personal property. The wealthy are those who reap the greatest benefits of society as a whole. Progressive taxes are (or at least can be) fair for this reason.

      In societies that are not well run, the rich achieve great power. That is why poor countries have war lords, drug lords, terrorist networks, and rich dictators who operate with impunity. In those countries the poor are very scared of the rich. The rich are not at all worried that some poor family is going to squat on their land -- they would have their guards shoot them.

      Regressive taxes place an onerous burden upon those least capable of bearing it.

      I believe in having some level of welfare, but it's just as important that everybody in society contribute. And they must do it in a way that affects others beyond themselves and their small circle. The idea that the government has infinite money and exists to help one group at the expense of another has got to stop. We can't afford it. If you are too poor, pay with service.

    148. Re:Normally by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      It's a fallacy to think that 100% of a tax gets passed down. If that were true, in 1946, when the top tax rate was 94%, then the government would have gotten around 94% of the money. And yet, it only got 20% of GDP or so. Check it out, these figures are easily available on the web.

      Continuing the trend of simply arguing faulty logic, your argument here doesn't make sense to me. If you tax person A 75% and person B 25% no matter how much of the amount person A owes that he passes on to person B through price increases of goods/services the amount the government collects from the entire population can never reach 75%. And as you end up with more and more "Person B" to pass the tax on to the less and less it is felt. Hence the idea of it simply being another way to "hide" the true taxes they are paying.

    149. Re:Normally by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Because they didn't have a physical presence in Texas. So it was a loophole in the law - so what? If Texas wants to change the law to close the loophole, that's fine, but they can't go and say that the new law retroactively applies to all of Amazon's past sales in the state of Texas.

    150. Re:Normally by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Yes... it was the company who owned the warehouse's obligation to pay taxes on all sales it made in the state of Texas.

      But the company wasn't Amazon. The company made no sales in Texas.

      Amazon made the sales, and Amazon didn't have physical presence in Texas, so it didn't have to collect sales tax.

      Call it a loophole, but that's how the law was written and it was all perfectly legal.

    151. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sales taxes are regressive. As you point out, low-income households pay more in sales tax than high-income households. There is a very easy way around this, if in fact the goal of your tax system is to move from income-based taxation to consumption-based taxation. Are you ready for it? Simply, give people money! Technically you'd call it a rebate. At tax time, or any other schedule as you see fit, the government reimburses low-income households (or individuals) some dollar amount based their income. The rebate offsets the regress nature of consumption taxes, and you've got yourself a tax system that doesn't focus on taxing income.

      This is good for a few reasons. Consumption taxes are less distorting than income taxes. It removes the dis-incentive to work because of tax rates. And the best part, in my opinion, is once all the boomers have retired and aren't necessarily bringing in a bunch of income, we can still get some tax revenue from their consumption. Of course, they may be included in the low-income households, but not all of them will be.

    152. Re:Normally by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      Poor people are poor because they make consistently bad economic decisions. I have to question your fascination with race and bizarre knowledge of obsolete ideologies.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    153. Re:Normally by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      on a 6-8% sales tax and no income tax

      What dream-world does that exist in?

      I pay 6-8% sales tax and income tax. How does that stack up against the situation you currently live in?

    154. Re:Normally by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      you buy 50 shares of ABC for $1000 and the tax rate is 10pct you owe $100 in taxes! you owe no more taxes when you sell it even if you sell them for $10000, but who ever it is you sold them to owes $1000.

      Which comes right out of the amount they are willing to pay you for them, so I am not sure what you've accomplished there.

    155. Re:Normally by Nadaka · · Score: 1

      I was speaking exclusively from an economic perspective.

      Without subsidized infrastructure like phone, electricity, roads, airport and internet many modern businesses are impossible. Walmart could never exist, google could never exist, etc.

    156. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few highlights for the TLDR crowd:

      "In relative terms, from 2003-2007 the government spent roughly $1.20 for each $1.00 it collected in taxes. This increased to $1.40 in FY2008 and $1.90 in FY2009."

      "The U.S. Federal Government collected $2.52 trillion in FY2008, while budgeted spending was $2.98 trillion, generating a total deficit of $455 billion.

      However, during FY2008 the national debt increased by $1,017 billion, much more than the $455 billion deficit figure. This means actual expenditure was closer to $3.5 trillion. The national debt represents the outstanding obligations of the government at any given time, comprising both public and intra-governmental debt, which was $12.3 trillion as of January 18, 2010."

      "The U.S. budget situation has deteriorated significantly since 2001, when the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) forecast average annual surpluses of approximately $850 billion from 2009-2012. The average deficit forecast in each of those years as of June 2009 was approximately $1,215 billion. The New York Times analyzed this roughly $2 trillion "swing," separating the causes into four major categories along with their share:

      * Recessions or the business cycle (37%);
      * Policies enacted by President Bush (33%);
      * Policies enacted by President Bush and supported or extended by President Obama (20%); and
      * New policies from President Obama (10%)."

      "Peter Orszag, the OMB Director under President Obama, stated in a November 2009 that of the $9 trillion in deficits forecast for the 2010-2019 period, $5 trillion are due to programs from the prior administration, including tax cuts from 2001 and 2003 and the unfunded Medicare Part D. Another $3.5 trillion are due to the financial crisis, including reductions in future tax revenues and additional spending for the social safety net such as unemployment benefits. The remainder are stimulus and bailout programs related to the crisis."

      "According to the CBO, the U.S. last had a surplus during fiscal year (FY) 2001. From FY2001 to FY2009, spending increased by 6.5% of GDP (from 18.2% of GDP to 24.7%) while taxes declined by 4.7% of GDP (from 19.5% of GDP to 14.8%). The drivers of the expense increases (expressed as % of GDP) are Medicare & Medicaid (1.7%), Defense (1.6%), Income Security such as unemployment benefits and food stamps (1.4%), Social Security (0.6%) and all other categories (1.2%). The drivers of tax reductions are individual income taxes (-3.3%), payroll taxes (-0.5%), corporate income taxes (-0.5%) and other (-0.4%). The 2009 spending level is the highest relative to GDP in 40 years, while the tax receipts are the lowest relative to GDP in 40 years. The next highest spending year was 1985 (22.8%) while the next lowest tax year was 2004 (16.1%)."

      So, the problem we face is that we must cut this:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Spending_-_FY_2007.png
      and/or increase this:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:U.S._Federal_Receipts_-_FY_2007.png
      until we go from a 1.9/1.0 spending to income ratio, to 1.0/1.0 spending to income ratio.

      The sensible thing to do is make flat percentage reductions/increases across the board. The easiest means of effecting change is to leave the status quo as is, and share the burden equally.

      Since we are in a recession, 1.0/1.0 may not be achievable. 1.9/1.0 is clearly too much. My proposal?

      1.Gradually increase tax revenues by 17% over the next 4 years.
      2.Gradually decrease spending by 17% over the next 4 years.
      3.Debase the currency by 17% over the next 4 years.

      This doesn't resolve the problem that an economy cannot sustain perpetual growth with finite natural resources. So long as birth rates exceed death rates, while national borders remain unchanged, it is inevitable that the total slice of pie per person get's smaller.

      I would like to make an observation about this chart:
      http://en.wiki

    157. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My point is under a tax all transactions except a few basic needs and no, nobody needs retail alcohol, though I should add pharma to my basic list of exceptions, then the system is fair.

      One poster pointed out that this leaves the poor paying almost no tax. If you like progressive taxation you should be for that, and that is pretty much how the system works today.

      As to taxing financial instruments I just wanted to point out that they should not be a special case b/c so many people think they ought to be. You are right in that the tax liability will directly discount the sale price. I don't think that matters. I just wanted to point out that to keep the system simple, its buyer always pays, and show the government is not missing out on revenue when the asset appreciates. In fact it will alow taxation when the asset depreciates as well.

      Finally the difference between this system and current system is that while the poor are still excused from most taxation because they don't engague in many taxable transactions under such a system, its implicitly more fair becuase the rich have a choice as to if they wish to engage in taxable transactions.

      You can make all the money in the world and if you want to save it or say donate in a cause you support rather than supporting our governments police actions some place, you could do that. You'd live the same life style a poor person does but you could keep your money outa the hands of looters.

    158. Re:Normally by h4rr4r · · Score: 1

      No, it is regressive because people with less money are forced to spend a larger portion of it if they want to even live much less have a little fun. Income tax is a relatively fair way to split the cost of having society as a higher burden can be placed on those who have more.

    159. Re:Normally by darkmeridian · · Score: 1

      "Hiding taxes among the 'rich' doesn't help people realize this, as the taxes just get hidden, and passed down to the little guy in the form of higher prices, lower wages and so on."

      That's the incorrect assumption that you make. The incidence of a tax (i.e., who actually feels the burden of the tax) varies but not all taxes are spread amongst the entire population. For instance, the payroll tax on employers is borne entirely by the employee. However, sales and income taxes have a strong incidence on whoever is being taxed. For instance, if I have a business that's making X million dollars, and my income taxes go up, I can't easily increase the cost of my products because that would not necessarily maximize my company's profits; I'd probably have to grin and bear it.

      Furthermore, the poor and middle class are more likely to consume the public goods supplied by taxes. Rich people tend to drive to work so they subsidize the public transportation for the middle class and poor. The rich also tend to send their kids to private schools so they subsidize the public schools and universities. So pretend that taxes are cut and as a result, public transportation and free health clinics are cut. Well, that affects the poor and middle class a lot more than the rich! But the poor don't necessarily understand that. They'll be happy with a $300 tax cut but don't realize that they had to give up $1000 in services so the rich guy can have his $5,000 tax break!

      Anyway, that's why tax policy is hard to set correctly. You can use it to set policy, but how are you going to avoid massive tax fraud? A hooker already is pretty hard to bust on Craigslist, but are you really going to go after her for tax evasion?!

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
    160. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except he is talking about state budgets and not the federal budget. His proposals would help by a large margin state income.

      "In short, the problem with your logic isn't a logic problem at all: it's that you spend too much time thinking and not enough time gathering data."

      Your problem is too much writing and not enough reading.

    161. Re:Normally by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Just because Amazon claims something is so, doesn't make it so. It is clear that Amazon is convinced they will lose this battle in court, or they would not be closing the facility.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    162. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OK... was the 94% the only rate, starting at $0?

      By the logic that "everyone else is secretly paying for that 94%", yes.

    163. Re:Normally by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Rich people pay more sales tax than poor people, because they spend more money. Notice I didnt' say they spend a higher percentage of their income. Just total money they spend and total amount of taxes they pay is higher than poor people.

      The sales tax probably affects a poor person more, though.

    164. Re:Normally by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      Yes, check cashing places and sales taxes *affect* the poor more, but poor people don't *pay more sales taxes*. Rich people still pay more in sales taxes because they spend more money.

    165. Re:Normally by Solandri · · Score: 1

      As opposed to when cigarettes were illegal? Except they weren't. In your theory, the higher the taxes, the lower the smoking, but this is just another form of punishment. Empirically, if your theory were correct, European countries with high taxes on cigarettes would have low smoking rates, and yet they don't.

      I did some googling on this after reading your post and this was the first hit (PDF warning). Figure 1 shows a pretty clear inverse correlation between tax rate and cigarette consumption. Other studies say the same thing. I think your error may be in that you're comparing smoking rates between countries - countries which undoubtedly have different social views of smoking. So their smoking rates are inherently different for reasons other than tax rate. Most of the studies I found which saw no decrease in smoking rates from increased taxes only found this to be the case for older smokers who already had a habit. The higher taxes were successful at deterring younger people from starting to smoke, thus lowering the overall smoking rate.

      It's a fallacy to think that 100% of a tax gets passed down. If that were true, in 1946, when the top tax rate was 94%, then the government would have gotten around 94% of the money. And yet, it only got 20% of GDP or so. Check it out, these figures are easily available on the web.

      It took me a while to figure out what you were trying to say because it didn't make sense. You're conflating a percentage with the amount that's passed down. OP's claim was that when the top tax rate was 94%, then only 94% of the income of top taxpayers would be passed down as extra expenses for everyone else. This works out to a lot less money than 94% of GDP. If the 94% rate applied to (say) just the top 1% of income earners who earned (say) 10% of the country's income, then their taxes would amount to just 9.4% of GDP.

    166. Re:Normally by stewbacca · · Score: 1

      But it doesn't matter. A rich person who spends 1,000,000 and pays 85,000 in taxes has spent more in taxes than a poor person makes in 4 years of working.

    167. Re:Normally by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Or they might just be doing it to give Texas the shaft and move their future business to less litigious regions.

      In effect - "Sorry about all those income taxes you were collecting on those workers, Texas. *snigger* not really. I'm sure somewhere else would be happy to have it."

    168. Re:Normally by 517714 · · Score: 2

      30% of your income has a very tenuous connection with 20% of the GDP, but I would conclude you are paying significantly less than your fair share if that is your net tax rate. Unless you can provide a much better connection between these numbers, I conclude that both your logic and math are incorrect. You do not demonstrate any understanding of the data, you simply say the problem is too complex and accuse your opponent of not understanding the data. You are relying on bullying rather than logic to promote your opinions.

      --
      The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
    169. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All taxes are regressive. The lie of the left is taxes can be progressive at all. Everyone pays all the taxes.

      Right. Because someone who makes 50x what I do buys 50x as much toilet paper.

    170. Re:Normally by Whorhay · · Score: 2

      I seem to remember seeing somewhere that 1/3 of the US population will be diagnosed with Cancer at some point in their life. Given that I can't see how it's seen as abnormal that you or a dependant would get cancer. And that single illness could easily bring most families to the brink of indentured servitude..

    171. Re:Normally by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      The problem with your logic is that you ignore something considered "harmful" to the point of making it illegal that did take place. That would be alcohol and prohibition. Making Alcohol illegal altogether was one of the worst ideas in history, and one of the reasons why I'm Libertarian, even though I was born well after both Prohibition and its repeal.

      You cannot legislate against vice. It doesn't work. You legislate against crime (murder, stealing, etc), but not against vice (drinking, smoking etc). You can control vices only if people willingly chose not to do them, and the easiest way is to tax them.

      On the other hand, we tax things we want people in society to engage in, such as employment and so on. Taxation is, by its very nature, punitive. In essence, we are punishing people for working when we tax income. We want people to work, and be productive, so why are we taxing it?

      I do understand the magnitude of the problem. The problem is that we think we can control people by taxing and spending us into oblivion. ALL the taxing and spending and social programs and whatnot have produced VERY change. It is an utter failure and has instead created a whole class of people dependent upon money and services given to them by government. And we're no better off because of it. In fact I would suggest to you that we're worse off, because we cannot possibly change course at this point without a great deal of pain. And that pain is coming anyway, we're just postponing it for as long as we can, making it worse in the long run.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    172. Re:Normally by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 2

      It's amazing but not really, that most of /. participants have not a clue about economics.

      Neither do a lot of economists. Practitioners of the dismal science never seem to come to much agreement about anything.

      The only correct way to fund a government is through consumption taxes.

      I.E. you want government to be funded by the poor and the middle classes, who not only consume far more than the wealthy do, but who also consume a larger proportion of their overall income, keeping them in their place. The wealthy only consume a small proportion of their income, and you'd allow them to not only enjoy their wealth, but by freeing up the bulk of it from taxation, they can grow it further for their own benefit.

      We've more or less been doing this in the US for several decades now, and if we continue, we will wind up without a middle class, without class mobility, and if those come to pass, hopefully a bloody revolution so that the wealthy can enjoy the terminal fruits of their, and your, agenda.

      Personally, I'd just as soon avoid that end by avoiding its beginning, and by having a society without great wealth disparity.

      But funding government from PRODUCTION or INCOME taxes is going to lead to a total disaster

      Well we've been doing it for nearly a century now. That must be one very slow disaster.

      Obama and Biden are just going to build 'high speed rail' even though US has no money and in fact USA used to have rail system that was the biggest in the world and that system was destroyed during the New Deal because of all the new roads that were put, while the rail was torn down and airlines were taxed - gov't made sure to totally annihilate profitability of those 3 modes of transportation, making sure it's all subsidized forever and thus controlled forever. Now they are going to build rail? With what money? Where is the profit that would at least indicate that the endeavor is the right move? They are going to build rail in US with all parts and all railroad cars built in US. USA has no production capacity for this, USA made rail road will be extremely expensive if compared to just buying the parts and cars from countries that already manufacture them. The end user tickets will have to be subsidized, they'll be monstrously expensive.

      Rather than break that up, here's six points:

      1. If you mean the US economy as a whole, we've got plenty of money. A lot of it is being sat on right now, because investments are being viewed as risky, but it could be freed up were the government willing to rattle its saber at the financial sector in order to bring them into line. Or if you mean the federal government, they also have plenty of money. We could finance construction by diverting some of the funding for the military, for example. (It's not as though they're capable of winning any of the wars we find ourselves actually fighting any more, anyway, so the money is wasted on them)

      2. The New Deal didn't dismantle the railroads. In fact, the biggest years for rail ever were WW2, just afterward. Unfortunately, they suffered from the lack of investment and maintenance during the war (e.g. rationing and labor shortages preventing them from building anything new of note), from our ill-conceived, ill-fated national love affair with the automobile which was mostly realized after the war, and from the longstanding general hostility toward the rail industry, as they had been some of the biggest and baddest businesses around for decades. The rise of domestic air travel also didn't help much.

      3. We've had transportation infrastructure subsidies in this country since before we were a country. The Constitution expressly granted the federal government the power to create roads for the postal service (which obviously could be used by anyone), though a number of them had been created by the various colonies before independence. George Washington himself was in

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    173. Re:Normally by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I do lead a sheltered life, but I contend that what you describe is the exception, not the rule. Some people really do get the shit end of the stick, but most people in my experience wallow in it instead of trying to get up again. This country does NOT keep you down. YOU keep you down. most people aren't REALLY down to begin with. They just don't aim high. They are content (maybe not happy, but content) with their lot in life.

      I lived in a trailer park for 3 years while I worked (omg, bad word) my way up and out of it. You know what I saw time and time again? Exactly the things I said previously. I saw people wasting their money, their time, and their lives. Before I was in the trailer park, my wife and I rented a single room in an apartment. I've done time shopping at aldi (bargain grocery store) and I've counted my coupons.

      Today I'm two weeks away from closing on a 2600 square foot house in an upper middle class neighborhood (standard morgage with a healthy down payment). I have a job that pays me a healthy amount that I like. Nobody dropped any of that in my lap. I just went through the process of working your way up.

      Am I lucky? I don't know. I did all the things you're financially "supposed to do to succeed", and I am succeeding. I don't see how that means "lucky".

    174. Re:Normally by nedlohs · · Score: 1

      I don't think it's quite so linear.

      Sure once you have a certain amount of money you will do more leisure, but given a large enough monetary incentive you'll choose work.

      If you offered me $100 to do some yard work one Saturday I would likely say no and instead play with the kid. If you offered me $1,000 to do the same yardwork on the same Saturday it's much more likely I'd say yes. Offer $10,000 and the kid can entertain himself. The job I have pays more than enough to keep the family in food and housing, and yet an offer of more money can get me to do work I otherwise wouldn't do.

      So the "more money" part doesn't change. It's just that when I have enough money already the cutoff for an amount to be enough to bother with is higher.

      You just need to look at the crazy Lawyers and Wall Streeters for examples of people who will work a lot for big money even though they already have "enough".

    175. Re:Normally by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Two ways to become "rich". Inheritance or earning it. Business is one way of earning it. You earn a living right, you're in "business" by definition. You're confusing "business" with "corporations", they aren't the same, just related. Businesses incorporate to avoid penalties society places on earning a living. One of those penalties is Taxes.

      You want to fix the problem with corporations? Stop Penalizing people for working in anything other than a corporation.

      I have my problems with Corporations, so don't get me wrong. However much of it has to do with legal rulings that make Corporations the same as people in way too many areas (ie, 1st Amendment). And I'm probably closer to your views on those than you think.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    176. Re:Normally by Skarecrow77 · · Score: 1

      as a matter of fact I do pay it off every month, but that's beside the point.

      I didn't get a credit card because I knew myself. I knew I would WANT to go out and get the fun toys. I didn't need the temptation.

      It wasn't personal pride so much as not putting the cake on the table because I knew I'd just be torturing myself by not eating it but looking at it.

      It's hard now that I've got one, but not nearly as hard as it would have been 10 or 15 years ago.

      also, I trust credit card companies about as far as I can throw them. They have a history of engaging in accounting practices that would make hollywood cringe. They'll find some way to combine two months and shave another off to explain why your payment is still somehow late and you owe them money. I'm pretty sure that recent legislation in the past few years was enacted specifically to combat that sort of thing. I don't doubt that they'll find another loophole in the future to do the same sort of crap.

    177. Re:Normally by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Ahahahahahahahahahaha what wait, you believe the CPI? OK - have fun. I remember when a coke was 10 cents and a Cadillac was under $5000. Do you? The CPI is a number made up by the government to convince the feeble-minded, like you. But wait - first they even take out things like energy and transport (because who uses those, right?) before they even start. Then they use little tricks like hedonic regression to pull numbers out of their asses so that in case someone with a brain gets put in charge, they can convince him that nothing is wrong. I forget who it was that said that the CPI is no longer a measure of inflation, but of survival.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    178. Re:Normally by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      But there is no inflation. The fed is even concerned about deflation which is why they're printing another $600 billion. GOTO step 1: trusting inflation measures.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    179. Re:Normally by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      I think I should be able to kill my wife, since she is my property. You think that behavior should be suppressed? So, in your world, how would we arbitrate this difference in opinion?

      I'm making the case that we ALREADY do directly vote on things to make them legal or illegal. That is how society actually is civil about things. This is as opposed to a dictator, making all the rules for everyone.

      As for your last point. You can still smoke. You just can't do it anywhere you want. Kind of like peeing isn't it? I don't want to have to go to a designated area to pee, I want to pee wherever I want. Funny thing is, we don't have to smoke, but we all have to pee. I find your suggestion dangerously silly.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    180. Re:Normally by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      My assumption isn't incorrect. Your assumption that taxes stay with the person paying them is incorrect. I didn't say spread evenly. I said it makes all products and services more expensive.

      Want to see my point fully? Let say, I want to provide a service, website design. Let us say that I want to earn $20 hour for such a website design service. I can earn a living, pay my bills etc working at $20 hour. Taxes, state, income, fees, licenses etc all add up. In order for my "business" to allow me to "earn" $20/hr, how much do you think I need to charge? I can tell you, by the time I'm done paying the tax man I have to charge somewhere between 60 and 75 / hour.

      Of course, I could do this kind of work, under the table and keep all the money, and charge $20 hour like the college kid next door. One of us passes the taxes we pass onto the customer, one does not (because they don't pay taxes). You tell me, where is my assumption wrong?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    181. Re:Normally by roman_mir · · Score: 2

      Neither do a lot of economists. Practitioners of the dismal science never seem to come to much agreement about anything.

      - only the Keynesian shamans don't get it. Look at the video in my signature for an example of a real economist. He ain't no Keynesian, that's true. The problem today is that Keynesians are all over the place and gov't loves them, because their 'solution' is what gov't loves: print more money.

      I.E. you want government to be funded by the poor and the middle classes

      - if it's about fairness for you, then the most fair thing is to tax everybody the same percentage wise. Why are those who create more wealth and make more money doing it are taxed more via this progressive ladder? It's unfair! They are already adding MORE to the economy than your average 9-5 worker. They are adding MUCH more - organization of capital and labor that the society obviously needs, otherwise they wouldn't be rich.

      However note, that I do not think what US has now is fair from the get go, it's a huge gov't monopoly driven system, very corrupt and bails out failures and punishes savers, so this has been out of whack for a long time now, it must be reset. Gov't giving money to failing companies - nothing is fair or good about it.

      Also realize that your real problem is that with current spending levels of gov't, it is impossible to fund it with income taxes at all, half of gov't spending comes out of debt given to USA by China etc.

      Another point is though that today, US 'rich' already pay most of taxes. Taxes come to 50% for many, who have to pay highest brackets in federal, state, municipal, FICO, medicare, etc. This is before various consumption taxes, property taxes.

      50% tax for 'rich' - is that fair? I don't think so. It should be no more than anybody else in terms of percentage rate. Are the 'rich' using many times the resources? More water or more air?

      If they use more water then they are paying for it, right? Utilities. If they use more electricity - they are paying for it.

      But what exactly more of are they using from governments that they must directly subsidize a bunch of poorer people?

      Again, they are already providing products and services - which IS WEALTH of SOCIETY that society needs. They are working much longer hours, if they EVER forget about their jobs, and many people live and breath their businesses, it's not a 9-5 deal, that's the way to survive in competitive world.

      The wealthy only consume a small proportion of their income, and you'd allow them to not only enjoy their wealth, but by freeing up the bulk of it from taxation, they can grow it further for their own benefit.

      - If they INVEST IT instead of consuming it you are saying it is only for THEIR BENEFIT?

      Do you understand the concept of investment? Investment is about profit. Profit does not come from nothing, it comes from society ENJOYING the products/services provided. Profit is the measuring stick for business success and that means that the more profit business is making (assuming this is not a government monopoly) the more wealth the business is creating for the society.

      You fail to see that success of a business and profit from investment and underconsumption is what society profits more from than the person doing the investment in the first place - this person takes a RISK and society rips the reward IF he succeeds.

      We've more or less been doing this in the US for several decades now, and if we continue, we will wind up without a middle class, without class mobility, and if those come to pass, hopefully a bloody revolution so that the wealthy can enjoy the terminal fruits of their, and your, agenda.

      Personally, I'd just as soon avoid that end by avoiding its beginning, and by having a society without great wealth disparity.

      - you are failing to see the forest for the trees. The culprits of your grievances are governments, not bus

    182. Re:Normally by jeff4747 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps I do lead a sheltered life, but I contend that what you describe is the exception, not the rule.

      You can thank decades of marketing for that. Reagan spoke of the evils of welfare queens...but you'll note that nobody ever identified a real one.

      This country does NOT keep you down. YOU keep you down. most people aren't REALLY down to begin with. They just don't aim high. They are content (maybe not happy, but content) with their lot in life.

      If you look around, you'll rapidly find places you can never reach unless you have the correct connections. And you'll note all the people at those levels who somehow keep getting employed as executives while having a terrible track record. Meanwhile, those lower on the totem pole find themselves fired for much smaller failures.

      You know what I saw time and time again? Exactly the things I said previously. I saw people wasting their money, their time, and their lives.

      From your perspective. Perhaps things looked a lot different from the inside. Often the 'dumb' decisions become much more rational when you have the rest of the information. Ex: They bought a new couch instead of paying off the credit cards....'cause the old one's been broken for 4 years and they have nowhere else to sit. Plus, a lot of banks will stop charging interest once they've written off your CC debt - making a payment in that situation will cost you more in the long run.

      Am I lucky? I don't know. I did all the things you're financially "supposed to do to succeed", and I am succeeding. I don't see how that means "lucky".

      You are lucky, because doing all those things you're supposed to do does not guarantee success. You could have been in the middle of doing all those things and something happens that smacks you down. And no, it's not nearly as rare as people think. Think about all the events in the past 2 years where you suddenly had to shell out significant money. Car broke down, washing machine exploded, needed a root canal, the wife became pregnant, whatever. It's not really a big problem for most of us because we have been able to build ourselves up some. But it is crippling when you haven't built up your safety net yet.

      Of course there are people who are poor because they are dumb. But for most poor people, you'll find there's a story behind their situation. And if you get to know them, what appears to be stupid decisions become more reasonable.

    183. Re:Normally by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Or they might just be doing it to give Texas the shaft and move their future business to less litigious regions.

      In effect - "Sorry about all those income taxes you were collecting on those workers, Texas. *snigger* not really. I'm sure somewhere else would be happy to have it."

      Perhaps, however, if the yare they are really poor business people, because Texas wasn't collecting income taxes from those workers. Texas does not have an income tax.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    184. Re:Normally by BZ · · Score: 1

      Well, it's quite possible to not have inflation even if you print money like mad if people immediately hide the money under their mattress.

      Our inflation measures have some quirks, but they're not that bad. As long as you don't mistake inflation for changes in cost of living, of course... But that starts getting back to how you define "inflation".

    185. Re:Normally by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      if it's about fairness for you, then the most fair thing is to tax everybody the same percentage wise.

      No, that sounds fair, but it isn't fair in practice. A poor person can't afford to pay even a small percentage of his income for taxes; a wealthy person could easily afford to pay even a very large percentage. If your annual income is $10,000, a mere 1% of that -- $100 -- could mean that you don't get to eat. If your annual income is $10,000,000, you could probably spare a good 90% of that before your lifestyle was severely impacted, and you'd still be living luxuriously.

      It's more fair for everyone to pay an amount that is reasonable and which they personally can afford, even if this happens to differ from person to person due to their individual circumstances. Otherwise the amount taken will always be an unfair burden on the poor, while to the rich it's but a trifle.

      Why are those who create more wealth and make more money doing it are taxed more via this progressive ladder? It's unfair! They are already adding MORE to the economy than your average 9-5 worker. They are adding MUCH more - organization of capital and labor that the society obviously needs, otherwise they wouldn't be rich.

      Oh, I very much doubt that. The heart of our economy in this country is the middle class, and small business. There are certainly some areas where economies of scale make a big business useful, but just as often large businesses can be so large as to be unwieldy and dangerous to a competitive market. Most jobs and most of our GDP come from small businesses and farms.

      Also, there are ways of getting rich without contributing a damn thing. Or would you support a 100% inheritance tax, so as to ensure that an heir doesn't get rich from the labor of some industrious family member, and can only achieve material success on his own merits?

      Another point is though that today, US 'rich' already pay most of taxes.

      Though that doesn't mean that they are paying their fair share.

      Are the 'rich' using many times the resources?

      Yes, actually. They've got more to lose, and they consume resources in protecting those things. If I own nothing more than the clothes on my back, I can get by on my own pretty well. But if I own a lot of money in bank accounts, a lot of publicly traded stock in businesses, a lot of real and personal property, I need an entire society and orderly government to make sure that the banks don't go under, that the stock market isn't full of people engaging in fraud, police to safeguard property, courts to handle dispute resolution, an army to keep someone from invading, etc. Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society. If we followed your suggestions, and suffered through the societal and governmental breakdowns that would assuredly result, what would stop us from just killing wealthy people and taking their stuff? It's happened before. If we hadn't had the New Deal, it could've happened here in the 30s. It could happen again.

      this person takes a RISK and society rips the reward IF he succeeds.

      The trick is to limit the amount of the tax to the absolute maximum amount possible while still encouraging the investor to take more risks like that in the future. Any more than than that would diminish investment; any less would be wasteful.

      Given that we had much higher amounts of taxation in the not-too-distant past, and nevertheless had a great economy, it seems likely that we're undertaxing the wealthy (and probably overtaxing the poor and middle classes).

      eventually end up with HUGE disparity of wealth between the rich and poor

      And yet there was a greater disparity during the Gilded Age, before we had a nationwide progressive income tax, and less disparity afterward. Of course, we've been moving toward more disparity again for a while, thanks to bone-headed conservative polici

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    186. Re:Normally by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Right, so I feel like you're discussing something different.....certainly making drugs etc. legal and taxing them would make a difference, and may solve some problems, but it isn't going to solve the problem of taxes, or the problem of regressive taxes.....at best it can be part of a solution. Now it seems you really like that part of the solution, but unfortunately it is still only part of a solution.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    187. Re:Normally by kevinNCSU · · Score: 1

      Without subsidized infrastructure like phone, electricity, roads, airport and internet many modern businesses are impossible. Walmart could never exist, google could never exist, etc.

      And neither would modern lifestyle. You only wish to look at one half of the equation here. Without the subsidized infrastructure like roads, electricity, water, airport and internet you'd find yourself farming land tied to one area. Who uses and benefits from the roads more? Wall-mart that sends out a bunch of trucks with goods or the millions of workers (including one driving each one of those trucks) that drive to and from work each day? Personally I see a hell of a lot more personal vehicles and small time construction/plumbing/contractor/service vehicles using the roads then I do wall-mart tractor trailers.

      Let me put it this way. Say I'm a crappy software engineer and make $40k a year and drive 10 miles to work. Now say I'm a really really good software engineer and I make $150k a year and also drive 10 miles to work. I'm using the exact same resources (roads, electricity, ect) as the lower paid engineer, and without those resources neither of our jobs would exist. Your justification for taking a greater percentage from the higher salary breaks down here. The only justification I can see being made is that because they make more, the perks will outweigh being forced to pay a greater percentage. If that's what your argument really is just say so, but I think justifications about them "owing" more or using society more don't hold water.

    188. Re:Normally by swalve · · Score: 0

      So the problem is, you don't WANT a mortgage. Not that you couldn't afford one.

    189. Re:Normally by gnujohn · · Score: 1

      Skarecrow77 is really hitting the nail on the head, here. I and many of my pals are not rich, and many of us are poor. It is a real pain in the butt to have to navigate in my little flat, because I have about a hundred and fifty couches. I can barely pick my nose, I have so many damned couches. I no longer can use a desktop computer, because of all the couches I have bought; I have to write code with a laptop. I can't afford to drink or to do drugs, but the couches, ach!

    190. Re:Normally by Shihar · · Score: 1

      Consider it this way. Lets say I am poor and I spend 80% of my income on things I need to live (shelter, food, gas, heat, etc). Lets say that sales tax increases the cost of those things so that I spend 90% (a roughly 12% income tax) of my income on things I need to live. The amount of extra disposable income I have is cut in half by the sales tax.

      Now consider someone who is rich. They spend 5% of their disposable income on things they need to live. That same sales tax increases the total amount they spend on things they need to 5.6%. It essentially has no impact on what they have left for luxuries.

      So for the poor person, the tax has a drastic impact on the amount of luxuries they can consume. What they can consume suddenly gets cut in half. For the rich person, it has a negligible influence. While they might be technically be paying the same rate, it is going to have a disproportionate impact on the life of someone who is poor than someone who is rich.

      You can argue about the justice of such a thing, but clearly, a sales tax is going to hurt someone who is poor much more than someone who is rich.

    191. Re:Normally by roman_mir · · Score: 1

      A poor person can't afford to pay even a small percentage of his income for taxes; a wealthy person could easily afford to pay even a very large percentage.

      - first, Mr. Robin Hood Marx, whatever somebody can or cannot afford doesn't give anybody the right to take it away.

      Everybody is rich compared to somebody else. Should you be paying twice as much for all the goods/services as somebody who is making half your wages? Should you also be paying half for the goods/services as somebody who is making twice your wages?

      If we don't discriminate on how much bread costs to a person based on his income, why do we discriminate how much government costs based on income?

      I am saying: government costs too much. Especially government that decides economic outcomes for companies and people. That kind of government should not exist, it is immediately too costly to the economy - it immediately raises prices and those who are poor are hit hard because of food/energy/rent prices.

      Of-course during the 19 century, when gov't was paid for by excise/luxury consumption/alcohol taxes, the poor had a very simple choice not to pay taxes: do not import things from other countries, do not drink alcohol. And this is FAIR because if you can't afford to pay taxes you have a very simple choice: do not CONSUME things that have taxes in them.

      The same thing can be accomplished by tax refund based on means testing of-course, and this allows somebody to pay consumption taxes without giving up their FREEDOM of doing business, without having to tell the government every single thing they actually do to make their living.

      On the other hand if you are poor and you can't afford to pay the taxes, you would then sacrifice this freedom, tell the government that you are poor by explaining what you do and how much you make and then the gov't would give you your tax refund. But you must keep the receipts or you get some average refund back.

      It's more fair for everyone to pay an amount that is reasonable and which they personally can afford, even if this

      - NO IT IS NOT. I completely disagree. Your definition of what's fair does not at all correspond to my definition to what's fair, so how is THAT fair if we have different definitions to go by YOURS and not by MINE?

      It's UNFAIR I am telling you, UNFAIR AT ALL to tell somebody: you have to pay 2x for this bread. You have to pay 2x for this government. It's because you make whatever somebody decided was 'too much'.

      So coming with this perspective, what would be the point of me arguing with you any further, when we have such completely different definitions of such simple ideas?

      Oh, I very much doubt that. The heart of our economy in this country is the middle class, and small business.

      - small business person is already and would be (under your definition of fairness) paying much more than somebody working 9-5.

      And by the way, when I talk about business, I do not discriminate between 'small' and 'large' but I do discriminate between government sponsored and independent.

      When it's government sponsored - it's a monopoly or at least it is protected and has fewer obstacles on its way in terms of competition. Gov't sponsorship removes competition, causes monopolization, destroys market, raises prices, hurts those 'poor' people you seem to be so fond of.

      And yes, businesses, regardless of their size (as long as they are NOT government protected monopolies, that KILL competition by government regulations) do provide much more to the economy than any one particular individual. But the founder of the business is the person directly responsible for this and as the person directly responsible he/she is providing much more to the economy and society in total than any one 9-5 worker (and I use the term 9-5 loosely).

      Also, there are ways of getting rich without contributing a damn thing. Or would you support a 100% inheri

    192. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I quite agree on the regressive nature of sales taxes.

      As an example, I could afford to wipe my ass with Benjamins. I choose not to (they're scratchy), and my effective "bathroom supplies" tax spend is probably about the same as the elderly widow next door. Even a greedy capitalist oppressor like me can see the iniquity in this.

    193. Re:Normally by izomiac · · Score: 1

      So... rich people don't pay taxes on money they don't buy tangible goods with? Say you're taxing stock purchases at 10%, with a 30% income tax:

      John earns $100, so $70 left after taxes. He's able to buy $63 of stock with it. He sells that stock, and is able to buy something worth $56.7. So, rather than paying 37% tax, like the person who doesn't buy stocks, he pays 43.3% tax. Now, suppose that $63 worth of stock changes ownership a total of ten times, that's $70 in tax revenue on $63 dollars worth of stock. I doubt that's even a stable system, since it seems like it'd asymptotically approach the government having all of the money.

    194. Re:Normally by bobzaguy · · Score: 0

      Nah. They are rich because they can buy online and don't pay any taxes. The poor don't have a computer or a credit card and sometimes no phone service. So they don't get to buy without paying taxes.

    195. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Be thankful you don't own a house, its not 2005 anymore.

    196. Re:Normally by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      All of what you suggest is predicated on the idea that the "rich" can pay taxes, that don't affect anyone else, ever. This is flawed in premise because it is overly simplistic. All taxes are regressive.

      When the government set up the progressive "luxury tax" on things like Boats and what not, it just didn't "soak the rich" like the progressives thought. It closed several boat building firms and laid off a bunch of average guys who built them, because the rich stopped buying boats. Tell me, how progressive that was in the end?

      My solution is to REALIZE and use taxes for regressive purposes and shape society, like we do with cigarettes. The war on drugs is turning out like the war on Alcohol of the late 20's last century. Gangs and war lords rule the illegal marketplace, costing society in the end. Legalize it, Tax it, Control it rather than Make it illegal, lose money chasing bad guys, and ultimately never have any control what so ever.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    197. Re:Normally by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      My solution is to REALIZE and use taxes for regressive purposes and shape society, like we do with cigarettes. The war on drugs is turning out like the war on Alcohol of the late 20's last century. Gangs and war lords rule the illegal marketplace, costing society in the end. Legalize it, Tax it, Control it rather than Make it illegal, lose money chasing bad guys, and ultimately never have any control what so ever.

      This may work as a solution to the problem of organized crime and gangs (at least, a large chunk of it), and even too much drug use. It would be interesting to see it implemented in a few states, to see how it results (test on a small scale first, then expand). If it works out, then obviously we should implement it across the country. However, it won't solve the revenue problem of the federal government.

      When the government set up the progressive "luxury tax" on things like Boats and what not, it just didn't "soak the rich" like the progressives thought. It closed several boat building firms and laid off a bunch of average guys who built them, because the rich stopped buying boats. Tell me, how progressive that was in the end?

      Certainly a dollar spent in taxes is a dollar not spent elsewhere, but I think you will have trouble arguing that a dollar taxed to a rich person is hurting a poor person just as much as if you'd taxed the poor person directly.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
    198. Re:Normally by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      I didn't know that. Still - unemployment goes up and Texas loses a bunch of money that was coming in from out-of-state to pay Texas workers, who naturally would have to buy a lot of stuff in Texas which would be subject to the sales tax. So they're still losing.

    199. Re:Normally by Galestar · · Score: 1

      Those making more money have a higher "propensity to save" - they put more of their income into savings than do the poor (they can afford it while the poor can't). As a percentage of income, the poor spend more than the rich. Sales tax is only applied to money spent, not money saved.

      For example:

      Income: $25,000
      Spending: $22,000
      Savings: $3,000 (usually actually $0 but I'll give you this)
      Sales tax based on spending (@ %6): $1320
      Sales tax as %income: 0.053%

      Income: $250,000
      Spending: $150,000
      Savings: $100,000 (sometimes a lot higher)
      Sales tax based on spending (@ 6%): $9,000
      Sales tax as %income: 0.036%

      --
      AccountKiller
    200. Re:Normally by Galestar · · Score: 1

      Also, for this example, "savings" also refers to investments (incl. stocks). Yes, there are capital gains taxes, but these are only on _further_ income generated by the investments, so can only help this argument as their income increases.

      --
      AccountKiller
    201. Re:Normally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Boo hoo. If being poor is so bad why don't they do something about it? I grew up poor too, and made something out of myself. Fuck lazy people. That's exactly what they are. Most are pot smoking, beer drinking losers. Pay your fucking taxes and stop bitching about it. While you are at it put a fucking rubber on and stop breeding.

      If you want more money, do something about it.

    202. Re:Normally by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      At least we aren't going to extremes or anything like that. After all, by your own method (taken to the same extreme), its A-OK to kill your wife as long as you pay the kill-your-wife tax.

      I'm not arguing about big stuff that should or should not be illegal, but talking specifically about sin taxes. There is no sin tax on killing your wife, it's already illegal. What I'm arguing is trying to influence society through taxes rather than laws - it's an underhanded way to go about it. What you will end up with is folks voting taxes on activities they don't do, whether or not they object to it ethically - simply as a revenue source. Say you like doing something not a lot of other folks enjoy? Tough tuckus, pay your video game tax!

      --
      +1 Disagree
    203. Re:Normally by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 2

      Certainly a dollar spent in taxes is a dollar not spent elsewhere, but I think you will have trouble arguing that a dollar taxed to a rich person is hurting a poor person just as much as if you'd taxed the poor person directly.

      You missed the point then. Again the point is that taxes are regressive, to society. They are necessary to raise funds for government operations, but ultimately always impact everyone across the board. Yes, some are impacted more than others. The rich avoided taxes on boats by buying them elsewhere or not at all. Government didn't raise any funds, the progressives didn't get the feather in the hat they thought, and a bunch of people lost their jobs. In my case such an action didn't affect me directly. Instead, it affected everyone indirectly (Unemployment payments), and probably ended up costing more than it ever raised.

      It was regressive, and all taxes are. If we realize taxes are regressive then we can create more sane taxation policies and outline our goals for society better. Do you think that the rich pay their fair share of taxes? Do you think they ever will? And if they do, do you think it won't negatively affect other aspects of the economy?

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    204. Re:Normally by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Again the point is that taxes are regressive, to society.

      Ah, you are using an alternate definition for 'regressive.' Please mention that next time we talk.

      --
      "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  6. Taxes by MDillenbeck · · Score: 2

    All I know is my state's law (Wisconsin) - basically, with most online sales it is the burden of the purchaser to report the purchases/sales taxes of items bought on the internet at the end of the year with your state income tax filing. However, I believe if you maintain a brick & mortar business in the state then it becomes the burden of the business to file the taxes (probably because they already must pay in their state taxes).

    Unfortunately, there is no good solution with state sales taxes. If you put the burden on the purchaser, then the state will have to scrutinize every citizen (which is not practical/possible) - but this problem doesn't go away if you require businesses to collect them. There are thousands of small retailers who would have to file forms with every state they sold in, and the individual states would have to scrutinize every online business for sales (also not practical/possible).

    Hmmm... maybe if we did away with a sales tax and made it a disposal tax....

    1. Re:Taxes by jgtg32a · · Score: 1

      Yeah it's referred to as a Use Tax, and it doesn't only affect online stores it also affects stuff you bought in another state, you are suppose to pay the difference between their sales tax and you state's use tax. Naturally you don't get a refund if that value is negative.

    2. Re:Taxes by nametaken · · Score: 1

      It seems like the doable solution is actually for the state to collect sales tax from the business on all sales, regardless of purchasers place of residence. I suppose the problems there are that you'd have to make this mandatory at the federal level (which could be overstepping it's authority on the issue), figure out how to handle businesses that call one state home but do fullfillment out of another state (Amazon, et al), and then all states would have to compete on "business friendliness" to be able to collect sales tax. Now you have to figure out how to handle localized tax code, etc. Yikes.

      I'd guess that no matter how you handle that, places like Chicago would be looking at a mass exodus at about 11% sales tax.

    3. Re:Taxes by hedwards · · Score: 1

      There's three problem, online retailers like being able to offset some of the costs of shipping with savings on tax, companies don't want to deal with the complicated system necessary to assess the correct sales tax for the numerous localities and lastly the federal government is the only part that can resolve the issue. The federal government doesn't really care because most states have an income tax and are more interested in other things.

    4. Re:Taxes by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      If you put the burden on the purchaser, then the state will have to scrutinize every citizen (which is not practical/possible) - but this problem doesn't go away if you require businesses to collect them.

      Why does government feel the need to burden the people for anything? The government is here to help society, not put unreasonable burdens on it.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    5. Re:Taxes by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      What you are suggesting is taxation without representation. We've had a problem with that sort of thing in the past, leading to some serious shit where many people died.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    6. Re:Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      What nonsense, any business that sells over the internet already has computer systems that can trivially track each states sales tax. The software is probably $100 from Quicken.

    7. Re:Taxes by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      One option would be to do the following

      1: standardise a list of comodity categories that can have sales tax applied. This means that retailers only need to categorise each item once. Federal courts should be given jurisdiction on disputed classifications to reduce inconsistencies.
      2: give each sales tax jurisdiction a code number that residents enter when buying online
      3: create an official, publically available and machine readable list of sales tax jurisdictions, their rates for each commodity category and details of where to send the reports and money to (maybe even have a central collection agency or at least a maximum of one collection agency per state).

      The overhead on retailers would be relatively low with this system, they would just have to figure out what categories their products were in and feed the official list into whatever processing software they used.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    8. Re:Taxes by bk2204 · · Score: 2

      Technically, Texas has a use tax as well which is identical to the sales tax. Unlike other states, though, we don't have an income tax, and the state constitution makes it practically impossible to impose one. So most Texans don't end up paying the use tax because we have no paperwork to file for income tax, which is how most states collect it.

      Texas sales tax is also tricky because the state collects a 6.25% sales tax, and other governmental entities (such as the City of Houston and METRO, the Houston-area transit authority) can collect up to an additional 2% total. Therefore, it's pretty difficult to tell how much sales tax a given Texan is going to pay.

    9. Re:Taxes by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Just make it an easier process for the online retailer. The state just creates an database people can reference to get the sales tax for that address.

      All the information already exist electronically, and I would be surprised if there was a database like that already created.

      Small retailer could access it directly, and larger retailer like Amazon can have a copy in their cloud.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    10. Re:Taxes by fermion · · Score: 1
      Like so many quaint customs the conservatives are attached to, state and local sales tax is an idea that worked well in 1950 but is unsuitable to the 21st century. Of couse new ideas have never been top on such agendas, so we will not see it go very soon.

      The rational person who wants sales tax to succeed would set up an inland spending service. This service would monitor bank and credit cards, look at the purchases, look at the sales tax, and send a bill to residents of texas for difference. Individuals can show how the difference is non taxable, and occasional audits would keep everyone honest. There would probably be a net gain after the bureaucracy is paid for. The benefit of such a service, like NCLB and Homeland security is that it provides many opportunities for corporations who are dependent on the government purse. That such a system like sales tax hurts the small and local business is inconsequential.

      Texas needs to do something new. Sales tax generates about 21 billion a year. The drag on the economy, which generates about 1 trillion dollars a year, is a unknown yet certainly non trivial quantity. What we know is that works out to about $2,500 a household. With a median income of 50K, a flat tax of 5% would generate that income. This is less than 6.25. While it would certainly put a significant additional burden on the low income, it would also impose a inescapable burden on the wealthy. we could help both by deducting the first, maybe, 10K of income.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    11. Re:Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Most people pay for online purchases with credit cards. Credit card companies have your address, so the credit card company should be the one to collect sales taxes and submit them to the states. They can use the merchant codes to see which businesses are online and add the "tax charge" as a separate item on your statement.

    12. Re:Taxes by swalve · · Score: 0

      Huh? Purchaser lives in Texas, taxes go to Texas.

    13. Re:Taxes by Rockoon · · Score: 1

      Huh? Read what he wrote.

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
  7. Texas asked for it in the beginning by Stumbles · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Amazon just out of the blue did not decide to start operations in Texas. No, they had incentives, you know like tax cuts and the like. This is not an uncommon thing. The point here is this; many states have decided to suck the dicks of companies just so they will bring "tons-o-jobs" to their area. Companies have gotten used to this notion. The fault falls squarely on the states shoulders by allowing companies to expect no taxes.

    --
    My karma is not a Chameleon.
    1. Re:Texas asked for it in the beginning by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These tax breaks are the great folly of our time. They can bring in a large-looking number of jobs to an area and make a politician look good for a limited amount of time, then the companies bail and often the taxpayers got very little for their money.

      It's amazing that everyone thinks that big business is what drives jobs. That's a joke. The real job growth comes with small business. Big businesses will soon just be only the elite people at the top ordering all their stock from the 3rd world sweatshops. They aren't going to save the economy of the U.S. Why aren't we spending our money to support these small businesses that actually care about their communities instead of giving these huge breaks to companies that will leave at the drop of a hat. My guess it all has to do with who have the most lobbyists.

    2. Re:Texas asked for it in the beginning by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Sales taxes, and tax breaks, are two different things.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    3. Re:Texas asked for it in the beginning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I look for things made in the US whenever I go shopping. I buy local produce at the farmers' markets (at local farms, sometimes pick your own food right off the plant). I look for as much locally produced goods as I can. There is almost nothing now, and what is made locally I cannot afford. I would love some cabinets made from local wood by a local craftsman, but instead of $6k I would have paid $15 (I shopped around). I would love a counter top of local granite made by the guy a block away who does custom counter tops, but it would have been $4k instead of $1k. The last set of drinking glasses I went to buy I paid twice as much for some made in the US. I went to buy some more now that we are hosting more holiday gatherings, and couldn't find anything in the same store made in the US. Every set I checked was made in China. Give me affordable products made in the US, or even better, Colorado and I am happy to buy them. I am fine paying more for local products, but only if I can actually afford them.

    4. Re:Texas asked for it in the beginning by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      Well , yes and no. See, when a large corporation comes into an area (town/state), they bring "jobs," aka hire locals. If you were to hire 1000 locals at (on average) 50k a year, that's $50,000,000 a year, every year, that comes into the state from somewhere else. If it takes $5,000,000/year in to get those people in, the state will probably break even in taxes, presuming that most of that money will get spent 3-4 times throughout the year, generating sales or income taxes, less deductible things and non-taxed payments.

      But they've also put 1000 people on the roles as workers, taken them off the un-employed list, reducing the strife that comes with an idle population.

      It's not a magic solution, but if the result is a net positive, it may make sense locally to make the deal. What is debatable is whether it is worthwhile for states to be racing each other to the bottom to attract these corporations.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    5. Re:Texas asked for it in the beginning by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      They can bring in a large-looking number of jobs to an area and make a politician look good for a limited amount of time, then the companies bail and often the taxpayers got very little for their money.

      For what money? Did Texas actually give Amazon money, or did they simply not collect the taxes that they would not have received if Amazon open up shop there in the first place? Amazon likely paid a metric buttload in payroll taxes, and their employees certainly into the local treasury. So I'll give you the opportunity to clarify your point: in what way did Amazon remove money from the Texas economy?

      If my state had unemployed citizens, and a company offered to give them taxable income, I would tend to see that as a good thing.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    6. Re:Texas asked for it in the beginning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were to hire 1000 locals at (on average) 50k a year, that's $50,000,000 a year, every year, that comes into the state from somewhere else.

      How is that money entering the state "from somewhere else"? If the company is doing business in the state, then it is generating revenue from within the state. In other words, at least some, but more likely most, of that $50,000,000 is just being moved around within the state. Someone paid it to the company for a product or service, and the company paid it to the employees.

      But they've also put 1000 people on the roles as workers, taken them off the un-employed list...

      Assuming they were all unemployed in the first place. Some of those jobs will be taken by people who shift from another job.

    7. Re:Texas asked for it in the beginning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't get it. If a company comes in to your state, even if it pays zero taxes it provides jobs and salary for all its employees in your state and then you get taxes either from income tax or sales tax or the myriad of other ways states collect tax. Still seems like a win to me.

    8. Re:Texas asked for it in the beginning by minorproblem · · Score: 1

      1000 people working for a big business means a lot of extra money is being spent by those workers in the local economy.

  8. Other States by dunezone · · Score: 5, Informative

    Amazon thinks Texas is bad? Illinois is trying to get about 6 years back-taxes from online shoppers They want everyone who purchased goods in the past 6 years online to pay back-sales-taxes on those goods. How that is considered legal is amazing.

    http://archive.chicagobreakingnews.com/2010/12/state-to-offer-sales-tax-amnesty-for-online-shoppers.html

    1. Re:Other States by Locke2005 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How that is considered enforceable is even more amazing.

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    2. Re:Other States by thatskinnyguy · · Score: 1

      How many dollars will they spend per dollar they collect?

      --
      The game.
    3. Re:Other States by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thing is, they probably want that even if those sales had nothing at all to do with Illinois. That whole State is crooked. They charge people who have never been there with unpaid toll violations.

    4. Re:Other States by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trying? The state of Illinois is demanding 6 years of back taxes from everyone. The usage tax is on the IL 1040 and everyone is required to pay it, whether or not one bought stuff online or in another state for use in IL. If a tax payer has zero receipts for stuff bought online or out of state for use in IL, the least they can get away with paying is $3 (per year).

    5. Re:Other States by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazon thinks Texas is bad? Illinois is trying to get about 6 years back-taxes from online shoppers They want everyone who purchased goods in the past 6 years online to pay back-sales-taxes on those goods. How that is considered legal is amazing.

      Of course it's legal. Normally when you buy something in person you pay the applicable sales tax. This is collected by the merchant and remitted to the government.

      But when you buy by mail (or online) from an out-of-state company, the out-of-state company does not have to collect & remit sales tax. The reason is that under the US Constitution a state government has no legal or tax authority over the residents of other states.

      Instead, YOU are supposed to self-assess and remit the applicable sales tax to your local government. This is sometimes called the use tax.

      Of course, nobody does that, but that doesn't change the fact that you are legally obligated to do so.

    6. Re:Other States by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Getting people to obey the state laws is quite legal.

      You didn't pay what you owe, now they are coming after you. not much of a story, really.

      During my divorce, I didn't pay my taxes. 6 years later they came after me for not filing. How can that be legal~

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    7. Re:Other States by dunezone · · Score: 1

      We were never asked to pay taxes on them before. Nor is it on the books to pay these taxes. Nor were the businesses I did business with required to collect sales tax. These laws were just enacted. I have no problem going forward them asking for the sales tax, but telling me I owe back taxes is a load of crap.

    8. Re:Other States by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Enforceable? What does a state with large voting rolls of the dead care about enforeability?

    9. Re:Other States by drainbramage · · Score: 1

      You live in Washington?

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    10. Re:Other States by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

      Intentional tax evasion has statue of limitations of about 7 years, unintentional about 3 years. Intentional and unintentional are defined and they aren't what you think. If you it said on the tax forms/books you had to pay sales/use tax and you didn't you are an intentional violator. If you failed to declare and pay sales/use tax in your community with your annual taxes you are a tax violator and could be sentenced to prison. Tax evasion is a big deal and the penalties are very severe. 10-20% interest from the day it was due, penalties that exceed the actual value by 3-4 times and interest accumulates on the penalties as well. It's a common occurrence for the interest and penalties combined to be in excess of 10 times the value of the original evasion.

      All the state needs is an online retailer to turn over the records and they can hit all the purchasers in their state with back taxes, penalties and interest. If you think buying online avoids taxes you are VERY wrong. In about a year or two I expect the states will work together and go after everyone who hasn't paid, people are going to get a real eyeopener when it happens.

    11. Re:Other States by nzap · · Score: 1

      Well, they can't find people who didn't pay, so it's basically just a donation box. If you want to clear your guilty conscience (yeah, right) or get a certificate or something, you can donate to the government.

    12. Re:Other States by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is considered legal because that has been the law for a very, very long time. This predates the Internet and dates back to the days of mail-order catalogs.

      If you are buying things in another state without sales tax, bringing those things home, and thinking that this exempts you from sales tax, you are VERY wrong. Most states have something called "Use Tax", which you are expected to pay on items that you bought in another state but weren't sufficiently taxed on. You must pay taxes on things that you bought in another state and didn't use in that state. (I.e., buy food in another state and eat it, you're fine; buy a car in another state and bring it home, pay the use/sales tax to your home state or else.)

      So if you buy something online and didn't pay sales tax on it, you have two choices: 1) Pay the use tax to your state; 2) Accept that you are breaking the law.

    13. Re:Other States by baKanale · · Score: 1

      New York is demanding sales tax for all out-of-state purchases of goods or services. Since they know nobody is going to remember to save their receipts, they set it up so you can elect to give them a percentage of your income based on your tax bracket. I guess they're relying on random audits to keep people from just claiming they made no out-of-state purchases.

      The most ridiculous part is that you owe taxes on every out-of-state purchase, be they via online, via catalog, or even in person. If you drive to another state and fill up your gas tank while you're there you owe New York State sales tax. You can get a tax deduction for the sales tax you already paid in the other state, but that assumes you kept your receipts.

  9. What's the dispute? by hawguy · · Score: 1

    The article doesn't say what the nature of the dispute is -- is Texas asking for use-tax owed by all Texas purchasers that were shipped from that warehouse? Tax for all Texas purchasers shipped from any warehouse? Tax for all purchases from that warehouse?

    If they are asking for taxes owed by all Texas purchasers, I think Texas has a point -- Amazon has a presence in their state, so probably should be collecting sales tax. Though I'm sure Amazon feels differently. I thought Amazon only put distribution centers in states without a sales tax exactly for this reason.

    Did Texans really purchase over $2 billion of goods from Amazon?

    1. Re:What's the dispute? by Esospopenon · · Score: 2

      According to an article at Reuters the dispute is "uncollected sales taxes for purchases that its residents made" from December 2005 to December 2009. The $269 million figure also includes interests and penalties.

    2. Re:What's the dispute? by Raxxon · · Score: 1

      Sales Tax is collected for entities that have residence in state. The "sale" may happen in Washington, but because they have a presence here in Texas they are required by state law to collect and account for sales tax for purchases made in the state of Texas. The issue is they have a fulfillment warehouse here in Texas. Orders are processed and shipped from here. That means they have a presence here. Dell pays these taxes, Blizzard pays these taxes (WoW account subscriptions), Sony, Microsoft... I could go on. Why does Amazon think they should be exempt?

    3. Re:What's the dispute? by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that legally it is the residents' responsibility to pay the sales tax, not the merchant's. Amazon should simply turn over their sales records of all items shipped to Texas residents during that time period and tell the state, "Go ahead... collect it from them!"

      --
      I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    4. Re:What's the dispute? by compro01 · · Score: 1

      It's also legally the merchant's responsibility to withhold the proper tax if they have a physical presence in the state, which Amazon does, but they're arguing it's isn't really theirs, but Texas doesn't buy that so they're removing that presence.

      --
      upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
  10. It's working for Twitter by denshao2 · · Score: 1

    Why not do the same?

  11. Typical by Beelzebud · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Another corporation that doesn't want to pay its share...

    1. Re:Typical by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      Er, those sales taxes are passed on to you, the consumer. Amazon doesn't get to keep sales taxes you know. How about "another corporation that is trying to avoid the ocean of red tape involved in collecting sales taxes for the government in exchange for, well, absolutely nothing at all except audits and more red tape".

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    2. Re:Typical by ttimes · · Score: 1

      It can also be argued that Amazon can offer its often much lower pricing because of lack of sales tax. If you make people in any state pay taxes its regressive and yet....Amazon caused a lot of book stores and such to go out of business- I'm certain not only is that the greater loss but it was nigh impossible to compete with since any local store has to pay local taxes.

    3. Re:Typical by rbayer · · Score: 1

      No, they don't get to keep them, but they do get to get your business by having prices that are automatically 7-10% lower than the store down the street.

    4. Re:Typical by Dunbal · · Score: 2

      And what do you do with that extra 7-10% you saved? Spend it on something else, in Texas. What you are implying is that states should not allow any trade outside their state? Because after all, if Amazon can't get you that 7% "discount", you will (google click click) buy it from someone else that can. So how about banning online purchases altogether... /sarcasm

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    5. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No...Amazon is giving the people of Texas a $269 million tax cut by not collecting tax from them.

    6. Re:Typical by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      The point is why should Amazon not pay taxes when local bookstores in Texas have to? It's unfair competition, which is what large corporations want. How many local businesses went under because they couldn't compete? Just pay your damned taxes, like everyone else and STFU. No taxes = no modern society. That is just a basic fact.

    7. Re:Typical by Beelzebud · · Score: 1

      And running how many local businesses out of business, because of unfair competition? No surprising that an anonymous coward would back the huge corporation, in favor of small business owners in Texas.

    8. Re:Typical by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Except in many case, of not all, Amazon prices are cheaper by more then the sales tax.

      Amazon is about volume, and total control of the chain.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    9. Re:Typical by Mr.+Arbusto · · Score: 1

      It's called, "Collecting Sales Tax". You are required to Collect a certain amount of a transactions or goods or services and pass it on to the state. It isn't the company paying their fair share, it's the company collecting on behalve of the government and then passing it on the government.

      Look at a receipt next time. You'll see the amount you paid then, the amount the state required be charged and collected for the transaction....

    10. Re:Typical by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Well, the basic premise of the Amazon business model is that you don't pay sales tax. Thus you just pay for the cost of the books plus shipping, which is roughly the same cost as going to the local book store and paying for the books plus tax but with more convenience. This doesn't mean that Amazone is not paying taxes, it means that the customers are not.

      The only reason they and other online retailers get away with it is because the laws have been very slow in keeping up with this new trend, and governments were reluctant early on to put any speedbumps on the runaway dotcom boom.

    11. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not Amazon's fault Texans are choosing to buy goods from a company that doesn't support their state.

    12. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The "share" that they didn't pay, was passed on to the consumer with lower prices.

      When the government get ANYONES money, the people loose. These dollars are much better kept in the private sector, where they will promote economic growth, than in the hands of some bureaucrats who will piss it away on their ridiculous socialist programs and favors for their buddies.

      This is a win for Amazon and a win for the United States.

    13. Re:Typical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Another corporation that doesn't want to pay its share...

      Correction: Another corporation that doesn't want to pay more than it's share...

  12. So what's the penalty? by dkleinsc · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Last I checked, that makes Amazon tax evaders. They broke the law, and are now fugitives from justice. So I assume the state of Washington will be aggressively tracking them down and extraditing them to Texas for trial. Or maybe the state of New York will seize their assets on Wall St to pay the bill. Or maybe the feds will be getting involved and garnishing their profits.

    Oh, wait. Sorry. That would be if a real person didn't pay a $269,000 tax bill. This is a corporation not paying a $269,000,000 tax bill, so they might get a slap on the wrist.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    1. Re:So what's the penalty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, no. Maybe you should RTFA first. What texas is attempting to do is clearly against the law.

    2. Re:So what's the penalty? by DCFusor · · Score: 1
      Or, Sony would be doing jail time for rooting all those boxes, instead of suing GeoHot for finding out how to turn on "other opsys" after Sony stole back the functionality.
      .

      The fault is giving corps the rights of people, but without the liabilities in my view. We poor humans have to die at some point, they don't. We go to jail when we break the law, they pay a fine that is usually far less than the ill gotten gains they made doing it, so to them there's no rational reason to obey the law.
      .

      Best law money can buy, but for who?

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    3. Re:So what's the penalty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You should do some research. Texas at one time had exempted internet retailers in their state from the physical presence tax as long as they didn't actually have a physical store front (they also exempted manufacturing facilities from the physical presence clause). It was ended more abruptly rather than being gradually phased out as promised so companies like amazon were more or less blindsided.

    4. Re:So what's the penalty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And aren't corporations the same as a person according to our Supreme Court?

    5. Re:So what's the penalty? by varmittang · · Score: 1

      Um, I read it, and it clearly shows Amazon is trying to use a loop hole in the local laws of TX. Amazon is using a shell company as the owners of the facility, so they can claim they don't have a physical presence in the state. Because of this they believe they don't have to pay sales tax, but its obvious they are running the facility and have employees in TX. So a Judge will decide if owning the facility constitutes having a presence, or having employees working at a facility. Thats what needs to be figured out.

      --
      -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
      12345
      -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
    6. Re:So what's the penalty? by hedwards · · Score: 1

      MS does the same sort of thing here in WA, they claim that they are selling all their items in Nevada, and so they don't have to pay any taxes on those sales here in WA. Unfortunately, that's not how that works, but the state legislature has been hesitant to tell Steve Ballmer that MS has to pay up for violating our tax laws.

    7. Re:So what's the penalty? by thefixer(tm) · · Score: 2

      That sums it up nicely.

      Welcome to the corporate oligarchy.

      You can look forward to a designer jack-boot on your neck in the not too distant future. And just remember, it's comfortable because Fox news says so, and any chaffing you may feel is in your own best interest. That firm pressure on your neck is there to keep you safe.

    8. Re:So what's the penalty? by nlawalker · · Score: 1
      I don't think that's quite right, and I blame the article for what I believe is misleading wording:

      "The online retailer said Thursday that it would shutter its Irving distribution facility April 12 and cancel plans to hire as many as 1,000 additional workers rather than pay Texas what the state says is owed in uncollected sales tax.

      I could be wrong, but I don't think "rather" is the right word there. Whether or not they pay the bill is up to the negotiation and appeal process. I believe what Amazon is saying as part of the negotiation/appeal is "fine, if you make us pay the tax, we'll pack up and take our business to another state that isn't going to charge us such taxes in the future, and you can forget about the 1000 jobs we were going to add to your economy. Oh, and have fun dealing with all of our soon-to-be unemployed Texas staff."

    9. Re:So what's the penalty? by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Because of this they believe they don't have to pay sales tax, but its obvious they are running the facility and have employees in TX.

      So you'd rather they didn't have employees in Texas? I'm sure there are plenty of other states who'd be more than happy to have those jobs there.

    10. Re:So what's the penalty? by ScottMcD · · Score: 1

      So many posts that really do not understand sales tax.

      Sales tax is a tax to the end consumer (consumption tax). If sales tax was not paid to the retailer, the end consumer is responsible for paying it.

      Amazon does not owe this money if it did not collect it.

      Right now the laws are unclear as to when companies should collect sales tax, how much, and for which taxing authority.

    11. Re:So what's the penalty? by chemicaldave · · Score: 1

      What I don't understand is why Texas allowed Amazon to do business in their state in the first place without first filing for a sales tax permit. Amazon never charged it's Texas consumers a sales tax. So I would be hesitant to call this tax evasion. Ultimately, the sales tax would have come from consumers anyway, but you sure as hell won't find the Texas legislature raising income tax on its consumers.
      Don't be so quick to blame the retailers for something the Texas govt. should have gone after long before they ran into a deficit.

    12. Re:So what's the penalty? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      God shut up. I call rabble rousing fail, you didn't use the phrase "fat cats" or "megacorps".

      Amazon isn't evading any taxes, asshole, and will pay when required to by a court. In the mean time they're telling Texes to fuck off and they're pulling out of the state.

    13. Re:So what's the penalty? by iniquitous · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that the company that accepts your order at Amazon.com is the same that fulfills it?

      You bought from Amazon Seattle, not Amazon Texas. Amazon Texas is doing business with Amazon Seattle and not you. Why would Amazon Texas have to remit sales tax on your behalf? It has no business with you.

    14. Re:So what's the penalty? by corbettw · · Score: 0

      Last I checked, that makes Amazon tax evaders.

      Last I checked, you didn't know what the hell you were talking about.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    15. Re:So what's the penalty? by amxcoder · · Score: 1

      I agree, if the State Controller/IRS will treat Amazon like they treat a normal citizen, then they would seize the entire Amazon warehouse, and all goods/equipment within it, and put a lien on it for their back taxes. I'm sure the warehouse facility and all the goods inside would be worth quite a bit. Do they have a bank account in the state, if so, that would be frozen too. I know if I owed even a couple thousand dollars, they wouldn't hesitate to seize my house, cars, and personal property if they couldn't get a withholding directly from my income source (which in my case, they can't).

    16. Re:So what's the penalty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Did you read the article? Amazon is not "evading" paying the tax; they are currently appealing the tax bill. Amazon argues that because it does not directly own the Texas distribution center it does not have corporate prescence in TX and so isn't obligated to collect sales tax there. They are withdrawing from the state because being forced to charge sales tax for its Texas customers is a competitive disadvantage online.

      Remember, this is not tax on Amazon profits, it's sales tax that Texas insists customers in Texas should have paid (but Amazon failed to collect). And now Texas says Amazon has to pay it retroactively from its own pockets.

    17. Re:So what's the penalty? by Mr.+Arbusto · · Score: 1

      It's called, "Collecting Sales Tax". You are required to Collect a certain amount of a transactions or goods or services and pass it on to the state. It isn't the company paying their fair share, it's the company collecting on behalve of the government and then passing it on the government.

      Look at a receipt next time. You'll see the amount you paid then, the amount the state required be charged and collected for the transaction....

    18. Re:So what's the penalty? by Rolgar · · Score: 1

      To protect shareholders, who can't all individually know every activity that the businesses engages in, the government has chosen this method to protect the shareholders from litigation, although they can be hit with a loss in value of the stock if the company loses a case. Whether this is the best method for that, the individuals working for the company are not exempt from the law, and should be held accountable when necessary.

    19. Re:So what's the penalty? by bluefoxlucid · · Score: 1

      From the other comments here, I garner that the dispute is texas showed up and said, "HERE. BILL. PAY." And Amazon said, "Bill for what?" "SALES TAX, BITCH!" "What sales tax? For who? What audit?" "SHUT UP AND PAY THE NUMBER WE WROTE DOWN. WE CAME UP WITH IT, YOU DON'T NEED TO KNOW HOW."

    20. Re:So what's the penalty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last I checked, that makes Amazon tax evaders. They broke the law, and are now fugitives from justice.

      No, they are not. Texas claims that Amazon owes them money; Amazon is not moving out of state to avoid paying that bill. They are moving out of state to avoid future tax bills from the state of Texas.

      Individuals can do the same thing. If I move from Chicago to Detroit before April 15th, an Illinois state trooper doesn't immediately show up at my door. I just mail my previous state a check. Sheesh, hysterical much? Paying a tax bill late, on the other hand, might earn Amazon a fine and interest.

      Interestingly, your argument for Amazon's "tax evasion" hinges not on Amazon skirting the tax laws (which could go either way), but on fleeing after legal action was taken against them. How does a corporation, as a legal fiction, flee? Not that it's impossible, I'm just curious how it would go down without leaving the United States. When a process server shows up at Amazon's headquarters, do they turn off the lights and pretend no one's home? Does Jeff Bezos hide in his underground bunker, afraid to order a pizza?

    21. Re:So what's the penalty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      your tax bill can be accounted fairly meticulously. it's my understanding this 269mil$ bill is basically an estimate of uncollected sales taxes that can't be proven true via a record of receipts. at least in my state it's on the purchaser to correctly report their out-of-state-yet-taxable online purchases to the state, but since that's evidently not the case in texas, they're approaching the problem from the other direction. I thought I had read something recently about how the courts had recently denied another state the privilege of ordering amazon to account for them who and how much was bought by their citizenry, but honestly i forget the details of why, nor can i find the article again now that i want to refer to it.

      i'd be pretty pissed if the state was trying to demand an undocumented estimate of what it thought i owed it too.

    22. Re:So what's the penalty? by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      So you'd rather they didn't have employees in Texas?

      That's what Amazon is threatening, we'll see if losing 1000 jobs is enough to force Texas to change the law just for Amazon.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    23. Re:So what's the penalty? by BBTaeKwonDo · · Score: 1

      Do you really think that the company that accepts your order at Amazon.com is the same that fulfills it?

      Sometimes not, but when an item's description says "Ships from and sold by Amazon.com", then yes.

      Amazon "Seattle" is able to close the Texas facility because they fully own and control it. Amazon has a physical presence in this state, like it or not. If this facility was owned by a truly independent entity, then Amazon HQ would not be able to move it.

      If Amazon wins this case, then I'd bet you'll see lots of businesses pull the same trick - there's no reason brick-and-mortar stores couldn't do it, too. The store owner could just set up a website where a customer can order items from the 'sales office' in another state and pick them up at the local, "independently operated we don't sell the stuff we just fulfill the order" store.

    24. Re:So what's the penalty? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Last I checked, that makes Amazon tax evaders."

      You honestly believe everything that some mouthpiece for the state of Texas says?

      I wish Amazon would stand up to NY and TX and CO and whichever Carolina.

  13. Where's Obama? by Dishwasha · · Score: 1

    This is exactly the kind of behavior that I thought the Obama administration was going to crack down on. Business using shelters and practices to avoid fairly contributing their taxes. I'll be interested to see if this gets any traction with the administration since I personally believe this is one of the biggest economic failures in America.

    1. Re:Where's Obama? by nomadic · · Score: 1

      Not Obama's job to collect state taxes.

    2. Re:Where's Obama? by MickyTheIdiot · · Score: 0

      In terms of corpratism, Obama is only slightly less rabid than Bush of Clinton.

      He's a huge disappointment in this area and I won't vote for him again.

    3. Re:Where's Obama? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Obama's "solution" isn't going to work. Those companies will just in turn move over-seas to different countries who have a less oppressive tax system (e.g. BP). Think of it from the company's perspective: they have a financial responsibility to maximize the profits for their shareholders. Otherwise, people would not invest in Amazon, which in turn would mean there would be no Amazon in the first place. States (and the current administration) needs to have a more realistic take on how free-market economies work, and not just take a stance that sounds good to the left-leaning ears. Also, keep in mind "fairly contributing their taxes" is solely defined by the Texas lawmakers, so there's a little circular reasoning with that argument.

    4. Re:Where's Obama? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Riight... Even Amazon can't avoid taxes on interstate commerce, rest assured they are paying that... so you still want the Federal Government to intervene in state affairs, or is this just blaming Obama for anything you can think of? Get a civics degree you maniac, or just read the 10th Amendment.

    5. Re:Where's Obama? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      The only thing Obama is interested is inviting movie stars, pop singers and sports celebrities to the White House. Oh, and getting re-elected in 2012 because after all, HE fixed the economy (which is why house prices are still in the shitter, 30% of mortgages are under water, unemployment is still at 9%, the Fed is still pumping money into the economy like mad, interest rates can't be any lower, and the US is breaking new debt records daily).

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:Where's Obama? by billcopc · · Score: 1

      The blame lies not on Amazon, but on the State of Texas for extending certain tax incentives to attract large businesses. Particularly in this case, only businesses with an actual in-state retail store, accessible to the public, were required to collect sales tax. Amazon obviously does not have retail stores, so they were exempt. And then the law was changed, and Texas is trying to screw Amazon out of back taxes.

      What Texas is doing is of questionable legality, as they are demanding tax money that they explicitly told Amazon not to collect.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    7. Re:Where's Obama? by ikey11 · · Score: 1

      House prices are exactly where they should be. People were overpaying to start with.

    8. Re:Where's Obama? by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Heh no, I think they need to fall another 50%, to be honest. But they won't because the bubble is being propped up. Otherwise how is grandma going to pay for her funeral?

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    9. Re:Where's Obama? by trickyD1ck · · Score: 1

      A bigger economic failure is using the word "fair" in economic arguments.

    10. Re:Where's Obama? by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Wait, you mean a junior senator nobody from Chicago who talked a good game _wasn't_ a good vote?! Color me surprised!!!

      I bet it sure felt good voting for him, though. Showed yourself and the world what a forward-thinker you were!

    11. Re:Where's Obama? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think Obama cares? Take a look at General Electric. They made billions in 2009, but paid $0 in US taxes. They shifted all their "income" oversees, and their "losses" to the US. Who is the CEO of General Electric? Jeffrey Immelt. Why does he matter? He was a financial advisor to Obama, and will be the chairman of the Council on Jobs and Competitiveness. If you thought Obama really wanted to crack down on businesses using shelters, you've probably been watching a little too much NBC. (Did I mention, until recently, NBC was owned and operated by...General Electric?)

      Big businesses using tax loopholes? Guess that gets you an important role in the President's administration. Which is funny, because I thought siding with big business was a Republican thing. Perhaps nothing has "changed".

      http://money.cnn.com/2010/04/16/news/companies/ge_7000_tax_returns/

    12. Re:Where's Obama? by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      You mean aside from the fact that he wanted to eliminate federal tax loopholes and this is a state tax condition over which has has zero authority?

      It looks, by the results of the 2010 election cycle, that most Americans are all for keeping the tax loopholes. Or, at least, that's what the people they elected are saying.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    13. Re:Where's Obama? by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Hopefully he's in Washington dealing with *federal* matters rather than in Texas getting involved in *state* matters.

      --
      +1 Disagree
  14. Taxes from within the state or across the state??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    one thing the article fails to mention is if the taxes Amazon owes are for purchases made that were within state lines. That large figure could mean across the state, in which Amazon does not have to pay that at all and this is all sensationalist news.

    Take for example, Newegg.com. I have a friend who pays sales tax when he buys something from newegg because he lives in Tennessee. And i know another person who pays sales tax because they live in California. So, if Amazon has a distribution center in Texas, then they have to pay sales tax for purchases made within the state!

    If I buy from tigerdirect, I pay sales tax because their HQ is located in Miami, FL.

  15. Re:Normally - Equity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    You got it wrong.... sales taxes are the only legitimate tax since it is broad based, not avoidable, and needs no IRS and no government intrusion into personal privacy.

    You can completely exempt all sales taxes on the poor by a prebate of the amount of sales tax up to the poverty line to everyone, so no one pays sales taxes on the basic necessities.

    It is the Fair Tax -- fairtax.org.

  16. The beginning of the end for the US by guruevi · · Score: 2

    With millions being added to the US debt in minutes now I wonder how long it will take for foreign countries to stop extending credit. Will it be when the debt to gdp ratio reaches over 100% (it's currently 97%) meaning we have about as much debt as product. US governments at all levels are currently bankrupt and it's companies like Amazon, Google and others that are the only thing that's left of the US, they can basically foreclose and take over the US government unpunished.

    --
    Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
    1. Re:The beginning of the end for the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even with all that the U.S. has one of the lowest debt to gdp ratios in the G8.

    2. Re:The beginning of the end for the US by santax · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Let me put it this way, as a business-owner in Europe I don't let American companies buy on credit any more. It's just to dangerous, the US is printing dollars to make up for foreign debts and thus increasing it's debts and inflation. Combine that with the debt that is already out there... and I just know that if I want to see my money from US companies, they have to pay up front, because it won't be long before that whole system in the US will collapse. And I can see a lot of other companies doing the same at this point. Not just yet with the really big deals (MS and Google are good partners on a financial level) but I do believe that if the US keeps this up (printing money) it won't take 5 years before those big companies will have to pay up front also. It's just getting very risky doing business with the US... next to all the lawsuits you can get involved in, the unfair protecting of US manufacturers, and now this.... Man, the US should get it shit sorted before it's to late.

    3. Re:The beginning of the end for the US by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

      We actually went up to 120% back during WWII.

      As to who's fault it is that we're inching back up to those kind of levels, I'll refer you to this graph.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
    4. Re:The beginning of the end for the US by billcopc · · Score: 1

      And since when does the GDP mean anything ? Debt actually increases the GDP, because you're counting the same amount twice: once for the debtor, and once for the creditor - unless the creditor is out-of-country.

      A more meaningful metric would be to look at what that debt buys you. If the other G8 nations are more indebted due to things like national healthcare and public services, then you either have to put on your "socialism is bad" hat or STFU.

      --
      -Billco, Fnarg.com
    5. Re:The beginning of the end for the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the name of your company?

    6. Re:The beginning of the end for the US by Overzeetop · · Score: 1

      It's unlikely that the system will collapse, or even have a hyperinflationary reset. That said, I am very selective about extending even minor credit (I'm in the US). I know several companies in my industry which have gone under. Although my losses due to bankruptcy are very low, I want to make sure they stay that way.

      I am not in the financing industry, and I don't expect my clients to put me into that business. I regularly ask for funds up front. If they can't handle 50% of the job cost to get me started, they won't have the money to pay me 100% when I'm done.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    7. Re:The beginning of the end for the US by Just+Some+Guy · · Score: 1

      Will it be when the debt to gdp ratio reaches over 100% (it's currently 97%) meaning we have about as much debt as product.

      What's magical about that number? When I bought my house, my debt:income ratio was well over 1:1 for several years.

      --
      Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
    8. Re:The beginning of the end for the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except one of the biggest expense that drove us to that point was defense spending. You know, like guns and stuff.

      While it may not be pleasant, the alternative to extending the US credit indefinitely is running the risk of military force.

      Yesterday, it was unstable regimes in the middle east. Whose to say tomorrow it isn't small, poorly run governments of Europe or Asia?

      There are only half a dozen real threats if it comes to a shooting war, and really, I would be surprised if anyone else got involved. This isn't the League of Nations anymore. NATO is (and has been) a military joke for years.

    9. Re:The beginning of the end for the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Will it be when the debt to gdp ratio reaches over 100% (it's currently 97%) meaning we have about as much debt as product.

      And yet it is not considered outrageous for someone who makes around $100k/year to buy a $200k house . . . just because there is as much debt as we make in a year does not mean it is the end of a whole country.

      However there is also a difference - that person is not expected to keep adding more and more debt, as a government does with constant deficit spending. But if the US government does begin reducing the federal deficit and eventually get back to spending only the money collected, then this large debt is will become very manageable and will eventually be paid off.

      Then what happens to the economy when the US no longer needs to borrow money from anyone? IANAE(conomist), but that sounds good for me and other Americans, and I am generally curious about the implications of this, for me and for the world in general.

    10. Re:The beginning of the end for the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL--hilarious post. I can't tell if you're just a troll or completely retarded. Do you realize every country in the Euro zone has a higher debt to GDP percentage than the US? Some are even pushing 200%, and it's not just Greece and Ireland, but also places like France and Spain.

    11. Re:The beginning of the end for the US by santax · · Score: 1

      Eh no, the US really has the highest debt... % don't say nothing anymore when put next to the concrete numbers. The US really has a very very large debt. More so than france, greece, hell, more than the Europe combined. Besides, in Europe they don't print money to pay of that debt. You should look into this a bit further, because it's important to you and not only if you happen to be from the US.

    12. Re:The beginning of the end for the US by toddestan · · Score: 1

      I don't get the government debt-to-GDP ratio either. The GDP is a measure of the output of the entire country, whereas the national debt is the money the government owes. To me, that would be like comparing a business owner's personal debt with the amount of revenue his business brings in, which doesn't really make sense. We're long past where the debt could be paid off with 100% of one year's worth of money the government brings in (mostly from taxes). That would take a decade or more.

      As for your house, that's a bit different, as generally you could sell your house, take the money you get from the buyer, pay off the bank, and walk away debt free. So while you're technically in debt, your net is still above zero. Unless you meant to say that you're underwater on your mortgage to the tune of one year's worth of income, in which case, ouch.

  17. Somewhere in Texas ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... a mayor is tearing apart a freshly printed out budget report.

  18. Great news for local business! by DogDude · · Score: 1

    This is great news for local business. The massive advantage that online retailers get for being able to get by not charging sales tax needs to end. Most consumers are too short-sighted, and too greedy to consider that when they buy online, they're short-changing their own community. Let's hope there's a blanket solution from the federal government in the works to permanently solve this very real issue.

    --
    I don't respond to AC's.
    1. Re:Great news for local business! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely. I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and I'd rather support my neighbor than Amazon. Nothing against Amazon, but they don't live next door to me.

      Oh, yeah, and I heard something about those fleets of brown trucks delivering everything I being bad for the world or something.

    2. Re:Great news for local business! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Small businesses like Walmart?

    3. Re:Great news for local business! by Even+on+Slashdot+FOE · · Score: 2

      I don't save 5% or 10% online, I often end up saving 30% or more even after taking shipping and handling into account. Remember, the cost to send it via UPS is offset at least partially by the cost of going to the store and picking it up myself.

      Charging sales tax won't make physical businesses any more attractive outside of situations where I want the product right now, all it will do is ensure I buy less things from brick and mortar shops to make up the difference.

      If local governments want to save money, they should actually shop for low prices instead of taking kickbacks. Or just giving the money to contractors who don't do the job and refusing to fine and/or prosecute them.

    4. Re:Great news for local business! by jgagnon · · Score: 1

      First, get states to simplify their tax codes to make it easier for companies to work with multiple states. Second, pick a direction to tax and standardize on it instead of states constantly bickering with companies and individuals. Third, there are MANY reasons to purchase something online versus in a local store, most of which have nothing to do with whether you are paying sales tax or not. My big reason? Convenience. I can find what I'm looking for much faster and get it shipped to my door without the hassle of parking spaces, crowded isles, and irritating people

      --
      Remember to maintain your supply of /facepalm oil to prevent chafing.
    5. Re:Great news for local business! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would be great if local businesses bothered to specialize or even carry much of what they sell is in stock. Problem is, most brick and mortar stores are so terrified to keep too much on hand that everything outside the bestseller list turns into a special order. If I have to pay retail price, sales tax, and then wait for it, then what's the advantage for the consumer to support local stores? If local stores want to compete with the online stores they have to better on service and selection.

    6. Re:Great news for local business! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was agreeing with you up to the "when they buy online, they're short-changing their own community". You may not be helping your community, but your helping other communities. Hopefully, people in their communities will be buying things online from yours as well. That way, each community can focus on doing what they do best. I'm happy buying cheese from Wisconsin, potatoes from Idaho, and teddy bears from Vermont, and I hope they're happy with the computers they get from Austin.
      As for "Let's hope there's a blanket solution from the federal government in the works to permanently solve this very real issue.", just remember that you can't shake hands with the devil and say you were only kidding.
      What this really boils down to is that if a product is purchased by a Texan from a company that operates in Texas, they need to pay the Texas sales tax. This isn't rocket science, it's just people trying to get away with not paying. It's good that the Texas govt isn't letting them get away with it.

  19. Amazon won't be missed in Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I can't imagine people read too many books in that state anyway.

    1. Re:Amazon won't be missed in Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have an underdeveloped imagination, eh? Reading some books should help fix that! (Texan here)

  20. Woot too? by elhondo · · Score: 1

    Does this mean Woot is pulling out of TX too?

    1. Re:Woot too? by metallurge · · Score: 1

      Woot collects tax from Texas residents. There used to be an available discount code for Texas residents to use which helped compensate Texas purchasers, but the tax was still levied, you just got a discount on the cost of the product.

    2. Re:Woot too? by modf · · Score: 1

      I was wondering that myself, but they have always been based in Dallas.

    3. Re:Woot too? by b0bby · · Score: 1

      That was my first thought too. Maybe they're an independent subsidiary or something; as the poster above noted, they always collected Texas tax, but gave it back so the customer was paying the same in the end.

    4. Re:Woot too? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Woot already charges sales tax on orders shipped to TX.

    5. Re:Woot too? by bzipitidoo · · Score: 1

      No. Woot collects sales taxes from TX residents. Always has.

      --
      Intellectual Property is a monopolistic, selfish, and defective concept. It is "tyranny over the mind of man"
  21. From a business owners position by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well I for one applaud Amazon for sticking with their position. In states where there are burdensome taxes laws (Ohio I'm looking at you where every county / intersection has different tax rates) its just the state putting the labor/effort for taxes on the business owner. So I have to staff additional people just to keep up with the additional tax laws, rates, and changes - how does this bring value to my company or customers? It doesn't - I have to raise my prices to cover the overhead. I'd be lying if I said I didn't want to leave the states where I'm having to spend so much time/effort collecting taxes and providing audits and proof that I've collected taxes from individuals to the state/county. Its also not exactly fun arguing with my customers why they should be paying the taxes or tax rate (some are for profit some are not).

  22. Quit the melodrama by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazon continues to appeal the tax bill through an administrative process, Spelce said, “and it’s going to be a while” before a decision and potential appeals are completed.

    Texas courted them with tax breaks and such and then all of a sudden they changed their mind and handed over a huge bill. Of course Amazon is going to contest it. If the court decides that they owe the money, then they will pay, but it will also be the last sales tax they ever pay to Texas.

  23. Re: Crazy Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks for sharing your nuanced, informed take on the matter. I'm sure you live in Utopia.

  24. Corporation rights! We decide when&how much we by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This just shows that more tax cuts for the rich and above is needed, we can't let them pay like poor people! Oh the horror for an equal free and fair society! We need less gavurnament intervention! Let the free market decide!

    Maybe its time to make these sort of companies pay what is due like anyone else following the law or nationalise them and remove the business licenses from the group involved and re-sell them if it makes sense.

  25. Stupid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seems like Texas would make more in the long run in property tax and taxes from the stuff the 1,000+ employees would be buying.
    Seems like in the long term Texas would make more money by having Amazon there then chasing them out.

    I can only see Amazon growing and as it grows they will open more which means more employment for Texas residents.

    The insistence on doing this is just a bad long term decision on Texas's part.

  26. US Constitution : States cannot tax exports by rcb1974 · · Score: 0

    Section 9: "No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State." Are these taxes Texas wants to collect on stuff that Amazon exported to another state?

    1. Re:US Constitution : States cannot tax exports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is not an export tax. It is a sales tax (paid on goods purchased by residents of Texas).
      Absolutely constitutional.

    2. Re:US Constitution : States cannot tax exports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My understanding: they are taxing items sold to texans originating from Amazon's presence located in Texas, purely intrastate.

    3. Re:US Constitution : States cannot tax exports by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      These taxes are on sales from Amazon to Texas residents. There are three main sales/use tax scenarios:

      1. "Local" retailer. The business is subject to State law and MUST collect sales taxes for the State.

      2. "Out of state" business with a physical "point of presence" (in this case, Amazon's distribution center). The Supreme Court has ruled that in this case, States may force the business to collect sales tax, as if it were a local retailer.

      3. "Out of state" business with no physical "point of presence" in the buyer's state. Here, the Supreme Court has ruled that a State has NO right to force the business to collect sales tax for it. Most or all States try to collect an interstate sales tax anyway, under the euphemistic name of "use tax" payable and reportable by the buyer. (That this "use tax" appears to violate Constitutional restrictions on State-imposed import taxes doesn't seem to bother the States. Some State courts have even ruled the tax to be Constitutional!).

    4. Re:US Constitution : States cannot tax exports by Megane · · Score: 1

      Way to pay attention, guy. These are taxes Texas wants to collect on stuff that Amazon imported from another state (mostly, anyhow), and sold in Texas to Texas residents.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    5. Re:US Constitution : States cannot tax exports by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      Most or all States try to collect an interstate sales tax anyway, under the euphemistic name of "use tax" payable and reportable by the buyer. (That this "use tax" appears to violate Constitutional restrictions on State-imposed import taxes doesn't seem to bother the States. Some State courts have even ruled the tax to be Constitutional!).

      Of course it's constitutional. They live there, they're subject to the laws.

      If you go to Mexico and buy a bunch of stuff because it's really cheap there, the US can't tax your purchases there. But they sure as hell can charge you import duties on the goods when you come back. This is no different.

  27. Fuck Amazon by nysus · · Score: 1

    Pay your fucking fair share, assholes!

    --

    ---Technology will liberate us if it doesn't enslave us first.

    1. Re:Fuck Amazon by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 1

      Pay your fucking fair share, assholes!

      It's also the citizens of Texas who did not pay use tax, as they are lawfully required, who are "assholes". Anyone who buys anything from anyone, anywhere, is required to pay tax on the transaction, unless you live in one of the few states with no sales tax.

      Have you paid sales or use tax on everything you've purchased? No? Then you're an asshole, too.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    2. Re:Fuck Amazon by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck yourself moron. Amazon didn't collect sales tax, people in Texas are the ones not declaring it and paying it to their state, as they are required to do by their own state's law.

    3. Re:Fuck Amazon by MattW · · Score: 1

      Creating a separate shell company to run your distribution center so you can claim your parent company does haven't Nexus is bullshit. Who wants to track their purchases to know what to file? What a pain in the ass.

      Sales tax is just a shitty concept on a state-by-state level.

  28. Every state but one has a 'budget deficit' by nido · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only state that's NOT having budget problems is North Dakota. Ellen Brown says North Dakota is sitting pretty because they own the Bank of North Dakota.

    See How the Nation’s Only State-Owned Bank Became the Envy of Wall Street.

    All the other states are slaves to their financiers on Wall Street. For example, the City of Phoenix (Arizona) borrowed a billion dollars over the past 5 years to build out the water system. Now the water department wants to raise an extra $24million a year by raising water fees... 'Cause the usury always gets paid first.

    I calculate that the interest charge on a billion dollars a year (at 5%) is $50million. If Arizona owned a bank like North Dakota, the Bank of Arizona would have financed the Phoenix water expansion (at, say, 3%). Most of the $50million the city is now bleeding out to Wall Street would instead be flowing into the state's treasury.

    The financial crisis is easily fixable, with the right solutions. Money and the Crisis of Civilization, and ... Richard Clark's A Bailout for the People are also on my recommended reading list.

    --
    Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
    www.teslabox.com
    1. Re:Every state but one has a 'budget deficit' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      From someone who actually lives in ND: It also helps that we're in the midst of the largest oil boom in the US.

    2. Re:Every state but one has a 'budget deficit' by blakelarson · · Score: 2

      NoDak is doing well because of the tiny Bank of North Dakota? I thought it was because of several great years of farming combined with a huge ramp-up of oil drilling.

    3. Re:Every state but one has a 'budget deficit' by DerekLyons · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The only state that's NOT having budget problems is North Dakota. Ellen Brown says North Dakota is sitting pretty because they own the Bank of North Dakota.

      And who is Ellen Brown and why should we believe her? (And I note you link not to her - but to an article that lays North Dakota's solvency on an entirely different cause.)
       

      All the other states are slaves to their financiers on Wall Street. For example, the City of Phoenix (Arizona) borrowed a billion dollars over the past 5 years to build out the water system. Now the water department wants to raise an extra $24million a year by raising water fees... 'Cause the usury always gets paid first.

      What does raising more money have to do with having borrowed money? (I.E. correlation is not causation.) That could be just as easily explained by unexpected costs (as is the case with my local water department, heavier than normal winter storms caused damage), or by poor planning (as I've also seen with my local water department).
       

      I calculate that the interest charge on a billion dollars a year (at 5%) is $50million. If Arizona owned a bank like North Dakota, the Bank of Arizona would have financed the Phoenix water expansion (at, say, 3%). Most of the $50million the city is now bleeding out to Wall Street would instead be flowing into the state's treasury.

      Maybe they could have, maybe they couldn't have - interest rates are a function of the cost of the money the bank loans to the water dept, not a function of numbers you've pulled out of your ass.
       

      The financial crisis is easily fixable, with the right solutions. Money and the Crisis of Civilization, and ... Richard Clark's A Bailout for the People are also on my recommended reading list.

      The only interesting thing there is that you didn't link to a gold bug site as well.

    4. Re:Every state but one has a 'budget deficit' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nebraska has no budget problems on the state level. Now Omaha and other cities at the city level? That's a different story.

    5. Re:Every state but one has a 'budget deficit' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The only state that's NOT having budget problems is North Dakota. Ellen Brown [webofdebt.com] says North Dakota is sitting pretty because they own the Bank of North Dakota [wikipedia.org].

      Ummm, no. North Dakota is sitting pretty because they manage well.

      If the Bank of North Dakota was mismanaged you would have been saying that states shouldn't be in the banking business & pressuring their bank to engage in risky activities with favored political cronies.

    6. Re:Every state but one has a 'budget deficit' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3.8% unemployment and a flush budget has more to do with the Bakken Formation than the Bank of NoDak

    7. Re:Every state but one has a 'budget deficit' by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1

      North Dakota is doing well for a variety of reasons, paramount being that they've got oil. Money from the oil companies is being poured into the state coffers as they get licenses and permits to drill, as well as all the normal tax revenue from the new jobs.

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    8. Re:Every state but one has a 'budget deficit' by Bazar · · Score: 1

      So explain to me how a goverment bank, lending money to a goverment entitiy, is saving money.

      Sure the goverment overall might make large savings in low interest repayments. But at the same time, the goverment bank with its billion dollars is getting a terrible rate of return on its investment.

      So lower expenses with lower income, or normal expenses with normal income.
      Out the left pocket and into the right, it makes little differance.

      Or is there something i'm missing, like the bank can print its own money?

      --
      To avoid criticism; Say nothing, Do nothing, Be nothing.
    9. Re:Every state but one has a 'budget deficit' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The reason ND is "sitting pretty" is because of a Texas sized oil and natural gas boom in the region and, due to a traditionally lower cost of living, pay rates that would seem like slave-wages most other places in the country. The state-owned bank is a correlation, not a causation. Let's also not forget that Amazon's got a non-tax paying distribution center here in ND too, and the only reason that's not getting attacked is because we DO have a surplus for now.

    10. Re:Every state but one has a 'budget deficit' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Speaking as an Arizonan, if Arizona owned a bank all of its assets would be passed to developers who are friends of congressmen and the bank would either go bankrupt or school funding would be cut to make it solvent.

    11. Re:Every state but one has a 'budget deficit' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That and a lack of heavy spending. The state didn't get into the habit of spending large amounts of money on various projects or programs that would continue to need ongoing support.

    12. Re:Every state but one has a 'budget deficit' by swanzilla · · Score: 1

      Try $100+ / bbl oil, huge reserves, loose regulation, and few people.

    13. Re:Every state but one has a 'budget deficit' by radtea · · Score: 1

      North Dakota is doing well for a variety of reasons, paramount being that they've got oil.

      And Texas doesn't?

      "They've got oil and it hasn't had time to corrupt the political process to the point where Big Oil pays almost no taxes" I could maybe believe. But just "they've got oil" as if that was the key to a low deficit when the storiy is (in part) about the need for new sources of cash in Texas is a little too naive.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    14. Re:Every state but one has a 'budget deficit' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a former North Dakota resident of just a couple years ago, I think it is obvious that the real reason North Dakota is not having budget problems is the same reason why Saudi Arabia is doing well, a relatively small population and a lot of oil.

    15. Re:Every state but one has a 'budget deficit' by nido · · Score: 1

      the goverment bank with its billion dollars is getting a terrible rate of return on its investment.

      Governments currently get terrible rates of return on their slush-fund deposits with the commercial banks:

      ... the investments of government entities can be found in official annual reports (CAFRs), which must be filed with the federal government by local, county and state governments. These annual reports show that virtually every U.S. city, county, and state has vast amounts of money stashed away in surplus funds. ...

      I got a chance to ask [about the slush funds] in April [2010], when I was invited to speak at a conference of Government Finance Officers in Missouri. The friendly public servants at the conference explained that maintaining large âoerainy dayâ funds is simply how local governments must operate. Unlike private businesses, which have bank credit lines they can draw on if they miscalculate their expenses, local governments are required by law to balance their budgets; and if they come up short, public services and government payrolls may be frozen until the voters get around to approving a new bond issue. This has actually happened, bringing local government to a standstill. In emergencies, government officials can try to borrow short-term through âoecertificates of participationâ or tax participation loans, but the interest rates are prohibitively high; and in todayâ(TM)s tight credit market, finding willing lenders is difficult.

      To avoid those unpredictable contingencies, municipal governments will keep a cushion of from 20% to 75% more than their budgets actually require. This money is invested, but not necessarily lucratively. One finance officer, for example, said that her city had just bid out $2 million as a 30-day certificate of deposit (CD) to two large banks at a meager annual interest of 0.11%. It was a nice spread for the banks, which could leverage the money into loans at 6% or so; but it was a pretty sparse deal for the city.

      -The Mysterious CAFRS: How Stagnant Pools of Government Money Could Help Save the Economy (emphasis added)

      Or is there something i'm missing, like the bank can print its own money?

      That's what banks do, you know. They take money in on deposit, and loan it out the same day. Their books say "Bazar has $20k on deposit with us, nido owes us $18,000 (paid back over 4+ years). Hopefully Bazar doesn't want all his money back tomorrow, 'cause we'd have to go borrow it from the inter-bank market or the Federal Reserve if he did..."

      Meanwhile, I've taken my $18,000 loan and purchased a sweet-ass 20-year-old NSX on the used car market. The recipient of the funds goes and deposits that money at his bank, which promptly makes a new loan for $16,200.

      If the states owned banks, they'd profit from the shell game too. The plutocracy wouldn't be happy, of course, but they can go fuck themselves.

      --
      Learn the rules so you know how to break them properly.
      www.teslabox.com
    16. Re:Every state but one has a 'budget deficit' by crmarvin42 · · Score: 1

      Texas has very little "New" oil. The oil discovered in North Dakota is recent. They're still determining the size of the deposits and drilling far more wells than are currently producing. In Texas, the oil fields are pretty well known, and have been worked for generations. The number of wells going dry or tapering off of production is far more substantial than in North Dakota (if any are old enough for that).

      --
      Bureaucracy expands to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy.-Oscar Wilde
    17. Re:Every state but one has a 'budget deficit' by Joreallean · · Score: 1

      North Dakota isn't having problems because they are going through an oil boom. When the oil dries up they will be back to being a 2nd rate rural state with little no sway over anything in the country.

    18. Re:Every state but one has a 'budget deficit' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The financial crisis is easily fixable, with the right solutions."

      Yeah right. All solutions are easy. That's why we never have any problems.

    19. Re:Every state but one has a 'budget deficit' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I agree the original poster was a bit loose with the links. But, really, Ass? I thought he was just using 3% and 5% as examples. Well, nice way to squelch discussion anyway, right?

    20. Re:Every state but one has a 'budget deficit' by Bassman59 · · Score: 1

      For example, the City of Phoenix (Arizona) borrowed a billion dollars over the past 5 years to build out the water system. Now the water department wants to raise an extra $24million a year by raising water fees... 'Cause the usury always gets paid first.

      I calculate that the interest charge on a billion dollars a year (at 5%) is $50million. If Arizona owned a bank like North Dakota, the Bank of Arizona would have financed the Phoenix water expansion (at, say, 3%). Most of the $50million the city is now bleeding out to Wall Street would instead be flowing into the state's treasury.

      Speaking as an Arizona resident (Tucson), I would just like to point out that if Arizona owned a bank like North Dakota, the idiots in our legislature would fuck it up beyond belief, and it would require a federal bailout. This is inarguable.

    21. Re:Every state but one has a 'budget deficit' by PCM2 · · Score: 1

      As for the Phoenix example, I fully believe the outcome is the result of mismanagement. This is Arizona we're talking about. Read Ken Silverstein's article in Harper's for a full exploration of the many mind-boggling choices that state's legislature has made in recent years.

      --
      Breakfast served all day!
    22. Re:Every state but one has a 'budget deficit' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The state didn't get into the habit of spending large amounts of its own money

      FTFY. ND is one of the bigger recipients of Federal dollars compared to what they contribute. Perhaps if ND is running a surplus, they should pony up for their own projects rather than expecting donor states to subsidize their spending, especially given the large deficits most of these states are facing.

    23. Re:Every state but one has a 'budget deficit' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some would argue that there are other reasons for North Dakota's prosperous time.

  29. Amazon, welcome to Oregon! by Locke2005 · · Score: 1

    We don't have any sales tax here, and we need the jobs! Where would you like to build your new warehouse, right next to PDX? We'll make it happen.

    Dear Texas, does the phrase "Aim at foot. Pull Trigger." mean anything to you?

    --
    I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
    1. Re:Amazon, welcome to Oregon! by StevenMaurer · · Score: 1

      Thanks to Washington State law, Oregon residents do not have to pay Washington State sales tax. I order from Amazon all the time, and never am taxed a penny in sales tax. So there is no incentive for them to move their operations south.

      On the other hand, when I buy a gift for my uncle who lives up on Washington, and have it shipped directly, I pay Washington sales tax, even though I am the one doing the purchasing. Amazon's systems appear not to be sophisticated enough to handle that situation.

      In terms of your comment "Aim at foot. Pull trigger.", it is very clear that Amazon is trying to cheat on their taxes, pretending that they don't do business in Texas when they clearly do. I'm not sure why some people think it's fair that corporations get to cheat on their taxes, when I don't.

    2. Re:Amazon, welcome to Oregon! by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure why some people think it's fair that corporations get to cheat on their taxes, when I don't

      While I wouldn't condone tax evasion, corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do. Every penny Amazon has to pay out in new taxes will be added to the price that their customers pay for their products.

    3. Re:Amazon, welcome to Oregon! by MachineShedFred · · Score: 1

      Actually, if they could use that parcel of land between PDX and the Ikea on the corner of NE Alderwood and NE Mt. St. Helens Ave, that would practically be the perfect distribution center for Amazon - a grey water port that does a ton of business with Japan and Korea just down Marine Drive / Columbia Blvd, easy access to two different rail lines that run east / west via the Union Pacific yard in North Portland, and FedEx, UPS, and DHL air shipping next door at PDX.

      The Port of Portland would love to toss some of that mountain of money they have at a win like this too, but the City of Portland has their head so far up their ass that they wouldn't get it done. They mayor is way too busy on poorly planned junkets to Spain to try to save tens of windmill manufacturing jobs, rather than approach something like this for thousands of jobs - Amazon isn't 'green' enough.

      --
      Slashdot still doesnâ(TM)t support Unicode after it was added to the HTML standard in 1997.
    4. Re:Amazon, welcome to Oregon! by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

      it is very clear that Amazon is trying to cheat on their taxes, pretending that they don't do business in Texas when they clearly do

      No. What is clear is that Texas had a law that said if you aren't physically present in the state, you don't have to collect sales taxes on your sales.

      Sales tax is NOT a tax on Amazon. It's a tax on the people living in Texas who buy from Amazon. Amazon was operating under the impression that it didn't have to collect sales taxes from people in Texas. It didn't.

      Now Texas pulled a fast one on Amazon and wants them to pay a few hundred million dollars in taxes that they never collected. If they had collected it, they would have paid it... but as they didn't, they can't. Amazon doesn't have the money. The Texan customers still have it, because they never paid it to Amazon. Texas can collect its own fucking taxes, since it tried to be clever and didn't inform Amazon that it was supposed to be collecting them.

      A neat trick by Texas, too... transferring some of its citizens taxes over to Amazon! Make Amazon pay... they have big pockets... and Texans needed a tax break anyway...

    5. Re:Amazon, welcome to Oregon! by b0bby · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, when I buy a gift for my uncle who lives up on Washington, and have it shipped directly, I pay Washington sales tax, even though I am the one doing the purchasing. Amazon's systems appear not to be sophisticated enough to handle that situation.

      I don't think that it's their systems not being sophisticated, it's that sales tax is based on where the good is shipped. If they have a physical presence in a state, and are shipping to that state, they need to collect the tax.

    6. Re:Amazon, welcome to Oregon! by hurfy · · Score: 1

      Tax is based on destination. or where the item will be used as they say.

      If he buys and has it shipped to you it should not be taxed.

      Oh, the horror stories...i did our taxes for WA and ID which have entirely different ideas of what items should be taxed :/
      $50,000 accounting system and $1000/month support and they were clueless. Very few systems handle SOMETIMES very well as an answer to TAXABLE?.... Don't even think about a normally nontaxable item (syringes or injectables ) that needs to be taxed (sold to vet instead of a people dr)

      I think Amazon blew it. They admit they have a presence in TX if they say they have the power over it to remove it. Ooops, should have skipped that threat.

  30. Re: Crazy Texas by SrJsignal · · Score: 1

    Care to state an example of a "whacked out law"? Oh, that's right you're just blowing smoke up everyone's ass pretending like you know anything about Texas or our laws.

  31. Re:Normally - Equity by phantomfive · · Score: 1

    You can completely exempt all sales taxes on the poor by a prebate of the amount of sales tax up to the poverty line to everyone, so no one pays sales taxes on the basic necessities

    OK, you are obviously blind-mentally since you didn't see where I addressed this point in my first post, but if you set up sales tax this way, inevitably the middle class ends up paying the highest percentage of their income as taxes. How is that fair? A real fair tax is built in such a way that the wealthy pay the same or a higher percentage of their income.

    Some fairtax schemes are really fair. Abolishing income tax and replacing it with sales tax is a scheme by unscrupulous rich people to reduce their taxes under the name of fair. Also, if you think using sales tax will get rid of the IRS, you are ignorant. That's like saying, since our taxes are deducted automatically from our paycheck, we have no need of the IRS. No, the IRS will always be there.

    --
    "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
  32. Re:Normally - Equity by hedwards · · Score: 1

    If you believe that, I've got a bridge I'd like to sell you. A sales tax in excess of 20% would kill the economy. That's not something which I say lightly. Taxing consumption by that much in what's become a consumer oriented country isn't good at all. And it's rather perverse to put up that amount of tax on something that you're trying to encourage.

  33. Re: Crazy Texas by dino2gnt · · Score: 1

    [citation needed]

    --
    Future events such as these may affect you in the future!
  34. Sales Taxes as implemented are anti business. by LWATCDR · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They way that sales taxes are collected are really a pain for any online business.
    The sales tax varies not just state by state but even county by county. And for an online order where to you charge from? I work in one county and live in another. I if I buy something online at my office do they charge the sales tax of the place where I order or where it is delivered to?
    What about when I use my cell phone and I am on vacation and I buy an app or a song?
    Should it use the GPS and decide?
    If I buy a gift for my mother in law from Amazon should I pay Florida or Texas sales tax?
    Sales tax and online sales just don't work well. And if it is a pain for someone like Amazon which probably could deal with it but a nightmare for any small company trying to do business on the internet.

    --
    See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    1. Re:Sales Taxes as implemented are anti business. by DogDude · · Score: 1

      It may be a "pain" for small online companies, but consider those companies already have massive advantages over brick and mortar businesses, I wouldn't lose any sleep over it.

      --
      I don't respond to AC's.
    2. Re:Sales Taxes as implemented are anti business. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They it works in my state is you either charge the sales tax for the county the business operates in OR the sales tax for the county the person resides. The business must have the option of collecting the amount owed for the county they operate (used for out of state and i'm sure some of their customers live in the same county) and then may optionally allow you to pay the rate of the county you live in. This can be big for things like car sales. Dealership in high tax county advertise lower prices for people in low tax countys and promise they'll pay that sales tax rate. Dealership in low tax counties try to convince people in high tax counties to buy their cars. Its rather amusing, but not very green.

    3. Re:Sales Taxes as implemented are anti business. by maxume · · Score: 1

      It doesn't seem super difficult to have the purchaser either choose the jurisdiction or simply use the billing address (with the presumption that it provides the correct tax jurisdiction). States could work to harmonize laws regarding the selection of jurisdiction.

      Figuring the tax shouldn't be that hard, and it is likely that small businesses would be able to purchase it as a service, at reasonable rates (if Amazon had to set it up for themselves, they would likely decide to sell it as a service, among others).

      So it is a little bit messy, but it seems like it is perfectly workable, and it would probably be nicer to listen to people bitching about the sales taxes that they have to pay, rather than listening to them bitch about the sales tax businesses don't pay while they quietly fail to pay their use tax.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    4. Re:Sales Taxes as implemented are anti business. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I understand it the EU has a reasonable way of doing it, as long as an online shop is below a certain annual amount to a country the shop just charges and pays the sales tax to the country where it is located. When they get over the limit they have to collect and pay sale tax to the country when the customer is.
      So a shop doesn't have to figure out the rules and taxes for a specific country untill it has a decent amount of sales there. And it cannot be abused by shops
      moving to a low sales tax country just to avoid a higher tax where its customers are located

    5. Re:Sales Taxes as implemented are anti business. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are correct. They just need to make a 6% federal interstate sales tax and be done with it. The little fiefdoms that want to add additional tax are out of luck to the benefit of all.

    6. Re:Sales Taxes as implemented are anti business. by sribe · · Score: 1

      The sales tax varies not just state by state but even county by county.

      That's a rather common misconception I hear repeated. The reality is much worse than that. It varies county by county, city by city, and by special taxing districts within counties and cities. There are actually 10s of 1000s of different tax rates around the country, and of course those rates can also vary by the product sold as well, multiplying the rates even further.

      Last year in Colorado there was a proposal to charge a higher sales tax on candy in order to "combat the obesity epidemic". So how would they define "candy" vs anything else that might be kind of sweetish or desserty? Why, the absence of flour of course! So, that's right, had this gone through, a Snickers bar would have been taxed at a higher rate than a Twix bar!

      The variations are endless; in many areas it is actually quite difficult for a local operation to keep up with sales tax rates in their own local area.

    7. Re:Sales Taxes as implemented are anti business. by sribe · · Score: 1

      It doesn't seem super difficult to have the purchaser either choose the jurisdiction or simply use the billing address (with the presumption that it provides the correct tax jurisdiction). States could work to harmonize laws regarding the selection of jurisdiction.

      Figuring the tax shouldn't be that hard, and it is likely that small businesses would be able to purchase it as a service, at reasonable rates (if Amazon had to set it up for themselves, they would likely decide to sell it as a service, among others).

      No, there are 10s of 1000s of sales tax districts with different rates (and different rules about what's taxed). There are services that try to provide this information, and they are expensive, and they are not completely accurate--which results in customers complaining when we're overcharged.

    8. Re:Sales Taxes as implemented are anti business. by DanielRavenNest · · Score: 1

      The answer is to collect sales tax at the point of shipment wherever the seller is. Then they only have one rate to worry about. Amazon and other internet retailers get away with not paying at either end for interstate sales, which is unfair. They want to continue that break.

    9. Re:Sales Taxes as implemented are anti business. by maxume · · Score: 1

      I expect a big factor in the expense is that they are a niche service. If there were thousands of online businesses demanding sales tax rates based on location, I would expect the cost of such a service to plummet.

      That isn't to say that I particularly advocate such a thing, I just think that most the talk about how hard it would be is wailing.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    10. Re:Sales Taxes as implemented are anti business. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is called a computer and a database.
      Sears, Macy, Target, Walmart, ect do not have an issue. Order from them and low and behold they charge the correct sales tax ( Use Tax).
      Amazon does not want to collect the tax because it cuts in to their price advantage.

    11. Re:Sales Taxes as implemented are anti business. by FranTaylor · · Score: 1

      It is actually quite simple. Tax is charged for the transaction when the item is handed to its final destination whether it is is a gift or whatever. The tax is charged for the transaction of handing over the goods. It happens in some jurisdiction and that jurisdiction is owed the taxes. If you buy a ringtone or some such where there is no handing over of goods, well they have no choice but to assume that it is delivered to your residence.

      And if the appropriate sales tax is not charged by the vendor then it is your responsibility to pay it.

      It is really not much pain for amazon to figure out your taxes. They just use a big look-up table. They have to pay someone to maintain it but that is a rather small task for them. Look at all the other stuff they have to figure out in order to sell you something.

    12. Re:Sales Taxes as implemented are anti business. by dkf · · Score: 1

      It is called a computer and a database.

      Now that's really quite arrogantly disassociated from reality! Quite apart from the fact that the rules are byzantine (due to the number of layers of government with tax-raising powers) it takes a lot of time and effort to encode those rules, especially as there's going to be a lot of edge cases (e.g., special temporary tax breaks by a particular city). Even I, a foreigner who lives abroad, know that this is not at all simple. (By the time it gets to "a computer and a database", the hard part is done; it's just running a program.)

      Sears, Macy, Target, Walmart, ect do not have an issue. Order from them and low and behold they charge the correct sales tax ( Use Tax).

      And I can guarantee that it costs them a lot to be able to do that. Of course, if they're operating a physical store in a large fraction of the US then they have to deal with the complexity anyway, but it's certainly not free!

      Amazon does not want to collect the tax because it cuts in to their price advantage.

      That may be true, but you show an astonishing ignorance of the way either computers or local tax codes work.

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    13. Re:Sales Taxes as implemented are anti business. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Oregon, Montana, New Hampshire and, Delaware will love that idea.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    14. Re:Sales Taxes as implemented are anti business. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      thanks for clearing that up. Way too many people think it is an easy solution.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    15. Re:Sales Taxes as implemented are anti business. by guspasho · · Score: 1

      They shouldn't do business somewhere if they can't obey the law. It's not the fault of the multiple various tax districts that so many companies are trying to market everywhere simultaneously.

    16. Re:Sales Taxes as implemented are anti business. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It would be a nightmare for anybody let alone small businesses. Lets stop acting as if this is a practical thing. Sales taxes put companies out of businesses. Abolish the sales tax and put out an income tax. The property tax should also be abolished. Those taxes just get pushed on the backs of hard working Americans wanting to own a home and to people who rent. If you taxed purely based on income you can push the income tax to those with the most money. 95% to the top 1%. 10% to the middle class and 0% for the poor.

    17. Re:Sales Taxes as implemented are anti business. by sribe · · Score: 1

      Way too many people think it is an easy solution.

      Also, certain people who should and I think do know better (governor of New York comes to mind) are in the habit of standing in front of TV cameras and telling the bald-faced lie that it would be trivial for companies to comply :-P

    18. Re:Sales Taxes as implemented are anti business. by LWATCDR · · Score: 1

      Actually it is very hard it goes by county, city, and state. Zip codes can span counties or overlap. Now instead of Amazon make the website a single person shop selling candles or tee shirts. Then you have the odd rules. In some states you have sales tax holidays for things like school supplies and clothing or hurricane supplies. Then you have the different rules on what gets taxed what. For instance in on place they decided to tax candy. What is candy? Well if it has flour in it then it isn't candy. So a twix bar is taxed at a different rate as a Babyruth! Some places have a rate of x on the first y amount and then it goes to z!

      No it is just a disaster. If it was limited to the state it would be workable but the way that it stands is a mess. Maybe just a national 4% sales tax on mail order would be workable. Trust me your big look up table is one big honking mess.

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
  35. Good. Maybe they'll expand their Delaware shop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Amazon has a huge facility in Delaware now, where there IS no sales tax. Maybe this will get them to expand it. (Sales tax is unlikely ever in Delaware because the surrounding states have such tax, and lack of such is a draw for merchants in Delaware. Everyone realizes that putting in even a small sales tax would mean many of those businesses would move elsewhere or fail.

  36. Re: Crazy Texas by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

    I suspect he's referring to the fact that patent trolls always seem to file in East Texas.

    --
    XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  37. Shipping to Texas by tepples · · Score: 1

    Political corruption and whacked out laws are a very good reason for avoiding Texas either for businesses or for people.

    If your business lacks a storefront or warehouse in Texas, does "avoiding Texas" include not even shipping to Texas?

  38. Re: Crazy Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    State your sources and examples. From here it looks like California is the state of poorly thought out public policy

  39. That's How it Works in General by SaroDarksbane · · Score: 0

    "Yeah, f*** those corporations! Right on! Tax those greedy assholes right into the ground! Also, do you have any jobs? I can't seem to find anyone hiring . . ."

  40. It's About Retail Taxes and the Texas Tax Audit by ideonexus · · Score: 1

    The dispute apparently is about unpaid taxes on retail sales in the state, and Amazon claimed $34 billion in sales last year, so it's very possible that between 2005 and 2009 the company did $2 billion in sales in the state.

    It sounds like both sides aren't playing nice in this. In my state of North Carolina, Amazon has been very accommodating about paying up retail taxes from the same period (they have had a dispute with our state about maintaining customer privacy in the audit however). Amazon's dispute with Texas is that they want to see the audit that produced the final back-tax figure, which Texas has not done or has refused to produce.

    --
    i ~ Celebrating Science, Cyberspace, Speculation
  41. They are not doing anything illegal. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They have a fulfillment center in Texas. The fulfillment centers are an entirely separate corporation. They don't sell you anything, they just ship you goods from the place you purchased.

    Is it a loop hole? Yes, but why single Amazon out? Close the loop hole, then we can talk. Until then, Texas just lost a lot of other tax money and jobs by illegally demanding payment of taxes. It's illegal because of the loop hole.

  42. Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sales tax is a regressive tax, meaning poor people pay more than rich people.

    Isn't it interesting though, when I'm running through my working class neighborhood (houses +/- $120K), I constantly see boxes on the side of the road for pickup that was for: big screen tvs, gaming consoles, high end stereos, and I see luxury cars in their driveways (all luxury cars are a waste of money - no exceptions).

    I think sales taxes on consumption is good for poor and working class people because we have a tendency to blow our money on shit.

  43. Good to see Amazon pulling out by twoears · · Score: 1

    Too bad George Sr. didn't.

  44. Nice Stuff ! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice Stuff on this Site. Many greetings to Damenjeans

  45. You win dumbest word of the week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    PeeTardiers

    You realize anyone with more than an ounce of intellect will hit this word and just stop reading, and assume everything else you have to say will be also be on the level of a mentally challenged toddler?

    Texas was trying to collect tax from *before* Amazon was in the state. You don't even grasp a single molecule of the basic parameters of the issue. You're just a blithering ideologue who needs mental counseling.

    1. Re:You win dumbest word of the week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      One more thing...You also smell of poop.

    2. Re:You win dumbest word of the week by AK+Marc · · Score: 0

      Yeah, at least call them Teabaggers as they once called themselves. Too bad at least one of them learned how to read and write and found out what it meant. Then, in traditional Conservative manner, re-wrote history to claim that nobody in the party ever claimed such a moniker.

    3. Re:You win dumbest word of the week by KlomDark · · Score: 1

      Or some have programmed their brains to not flag an issue when 'strong or creative language' is used, and instead breeze over it.

      I saw the term, silently chuckled, and then I kept reading, and noticed he added to the conversation by discussing the 1:1 ratio. And then deconstructed it to where I also don't think a 1:1 ratio is a bad thing. In fact, that's a pretty good ratio. Not that I'd ever really thought about it before, but I find it a pretty good number and surprised it's not more like 1(Teacher):4(Other staff), usually govt jobs are full of lazy leeches sucking off the work of other lower paid types.

      Creative wordsmithing is the sign of a thinker, not a sheep. Even if you don't agree with their point of view fully. Shutting down your input stream because a word bothers you will really limit the depth of your reading.

    4. Re:You win dumbest word of the week by JWSmythe · · Score: 1

      Amazon has been in Irving, Tx since 2005. What date do you think the State of Texas is trying to collect from?

          Unfortunately, the article doesn't state that, and it appears that the listed income for Amazon is in total reported sales, not sales to Texas consumers. I did find this article, dated June 2005, which should give some insight into the situation.

      http://www.bizjournals.com/dallas/stories/2005/06/27/daily41.html

      Amazon.com to locate massive distribution center in Irving
      Dallas Business Journal
      Date: Thursday, June 30, 2005, 3:00pm CDT

      Amazon.com will open a massive distribution center in Irving in what is Dallas-Fort Worth's largest industrial lease this year, the Irving Chamber of Commerce said Thursday.

      Seattle-based Amazon (NASDAQ: AMZN) will locate in the DFW Freeport area at 2700 Regent Blvd. near Dallas/Fort Worth International Airport.The center is expected to open by September.

      The deal has been one of the most closely guarded deals in the Dallas-Fort Worth market this year.

      The Irving City Council cleared the way for the distribution center on May 26, by approving an economic development incentive agreement. The agreement provides tax rebates to the company for six years, with options to extend the agreement up to 10 years.

      The Irving fulfillment center will house larger, non-conveyable items from the company's home and garden, electronics and kitchen stores.

      --
      Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
    5. Re:You win dumbest word of the week by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your mother was a hamster and your father smelt of elderberries!

  46. federal fix?? by scharkalvin · · Score: 1

    Congress has debated how to solve the problem of interstate sales taxes. One idea would be a federal sales tax on consumption (VAT) but that would have to be a replacement for part of the federal income tax and still wouldn't solve the states issues. I think that states should NOT be allowed to collect taxes on inter-state commerce unless ALL states had the SAME rate of sales tax. But do you want a federal department to collect this for the states (you'd have to split the tax between the states where the sale was made and where the goods were delivered)?

    Sales taxes are regressive and hurt the lowest income consumers the most. Income taxes are progressive and bite the highest incomes the most.

  47. Texas doesn't want them anyway by Fujisawa+Sensei · · Score: 0

    Texas doesn't want those Seattle liberals doing business in their state anyway.

    They carry all sorts of nonsense they fly in the face of the creationist agenda. Everybody of any consequence in Texas knows that God created around 6000 years ago, and to say otherwise is heresy, unpatriotic, unchristian, and downright untexan.

    --
    If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
    1. Re:Texas doesn't want them anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like somebody, probably from texass, doesn't understand sarcasm.

  48. Why they "thought they could skirt" by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    You have a physical presence in the state you pay sales tax.

    Because consumers don't buy anything at an Amazon warehouse?

    I know you say Dell does this but I don't see why this is required.

    I hope Texas enjoys the lost revenues and the lost jobs. Perhaps Wyoming will be the new growth center for the U.S.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Why they "thought they could skirt" by toastar · · Score: 1

      You have a physical presence in the state you pay sales tax.

      Because consumers don't buy anything at an Amazon warehouse?

      Well Maybe Texas should charge UPS too. I mean the goods went through their warehouse too, right?

    2. Re:Why they "thought they could skirt" by eyrieowl · · Score: 1

      Dell has stores, so it's really not an equal comparison at all. Someone doing the lion's share of their business online isn't the point. And you're right...a warehouse isn't a store. Sucks though...as someone in Texas, this means my shipping delays when I order from Amazon are set to get a lot longer. :(

    3. Re:Why they "thought they could skirt" by CharlieHedlin · · Score: 1

      Dell did this LONG before they had stores. The rules are clear, you ship from within the state, you are considered to have a presence.

    4. Re:Why they "thought they could skirt" by MDillenbeck · · Score: 1

      Its not a matter that the goods went through there, it is a matter of the goods being sold from there. UPS does not sell the contents of the package, so you don't charge them - Amazon is selling the contents of the package, so who pays the sales tax? ...or are you implying all goods sold online should be exempt from taxation, and thus stores can make everything a web-based ordering system where people are merely picking up their goods (doing an end-around of the sales tax system and causing its de facto abolishment)?

    5. Re:Why they "thought they could skirt" by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      The rules are obviously not clear if Amazon was not following them to this point and the state only now thought to go after them.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  49. Helped the consumer. by MaWeiTao · · Score: 2

    And States do what they can to attract corporations not merely because of whatever tax revenue they can bring in but all the other things they bring. Corporations draw in an educated labor pool. That means more people spending money locally, paying taxes and generally improving the quality of life. And the fact is, for a lot of companies setting up a corporate office is a big commitment, so usually they're in it for the long haul.

    A perfect case study is the city where I live. All the neighboring cities are booming because they keep attracting companies. My city despite being centrally located for a lot of people has struggled for years because of ineptitude and corruption. They proclaim victory every time some second-rate retailer or some small-time industrial company opens up shop. But all they do is keep drawing from the same unskilled labor and keep getting screwed when many of these businesses fold or move out within a few years.

    So there's a real incentive to keep Amazon around.

    I find it amusing that there are those claiming Amazon hasn't paid it's share when it's us, the consumers, who have benefited from this. No one who's bought anything on Amazon has had to pay sales tax. However, if states force Amazon into paying sales taxes then rest assured we will be the ones paying them, not Amazon. The only expense Amazon will incur is from the extra work involved in handling sales tax. It's not like we're talking about tax dodging here; if that had been the case I'd be totally behind screwing them to the fullest extent of the law.

    Amazon's prices have been going up for a few years now and in many cases they aren't much better than retail. Outside of hard-to-find items a sales tax would erase any real advantage they currently enjoy.

    I can appreciate the value sales taxes provide. However, States also love to device all kinds of schemes to squeeze a bit more money from individuals and businesses. Back when I had my own business I got to learn about the world of charging sales tax for services. It was completely arbitrary what was assessed sales tax and what wasn't. It was very clear that certain industries were able to successfully lobby for no sales tax.

    1. Re:Helped the consumer. by geekoid · · Score: 1

      really? there hasn't been a case I can think of where the price is not a lot cheaper.

      Of course, I don't look for everything.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    2. Re:Helped the consumer. by Noren · · Score: 1

      No one who's bought anything on Amazon has had to pay sales tax.

      This is false. I pay sales tax on every purchase I make from Amazon. I believe they have always charged Washington State residents sales tax for purchases. It's the other states expecting Amazon to enforce their laws for them that is the issue.

    3. Re:Helped the consumer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is specifically about Texas. Amazon is in Texas. Customer are in Texas. Texas was tax on purchases made in Texas, BY Texans, from a business operating in Texas.

      Hope that clarified the article. This is not about everyone who has ever used amazon.

    4. Re:Helped the consumer. by Noren · · Score: 1

      Amazon.com is in Washington State. A separate company in Texas that is legally distinct from Amazon.com has been hired by Amazon.com to run a distribution center in Texas. Texas wishes charge a company in Washington State a tax on the import of goods into their state.

      The US Constitution, Article 1, section 10 includes: "No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's [sic] inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress." Texas appears not to wish to follow the US Constitution.

      Hope that clarified the article.

  50. Re:Normally - Equity by molog · · Score: 1

    Umm, you've got a bit of a problem. The wealthy don't make their money through income. They make it through dividends, and business income, where they do not pay the 15% to social security, and all their expenses are pre-tax. The national sales tax would avoid this issue as all consumption would get taxed and the wealthy actually would pay a share, unlike now where their share is pathetically low.

    Those who pay the most are high wage earners, like athletes, doctors, lawyers and the such. I do not consider those people wealthy as most of them still have to work to maintain their standard of living.

    --
    So Linus, what are we going to do tonight?
    The same thing we do every night Tux. Try to take over the world!
  51. More Texas BS by chemicaldave · · Score: 1
    FTFA

    “Amazon.com was asked to play by the same rules and has responded by eliminating hundreds of Texas jobs,” said Danny Diaz, a spokesman for the Alliance for Main Street Fairness in Washington, D.C. “Amazon could have chosen to collect the sales tax as Texas retailers do, but instead they opted to protect their special sales tax loophole to the detriment of hardworking families.”

    Yes, the same families who would have been paying that sales tax in the first place.

  52. Re:Normally - Equity by AvitarX · · Score: 1

    Completely Fair tax argues a couple things.

    1) Consumption tax is the least damaging tax for the economy (Capitol Gains is the most), this is part of the justification for what some may call a less fair tax.
    2) Existing fortunes will be taxed (this could be called double taxing I suppose)
    3) the rich already pay lower taxes, as they earn their money through capitol gains.

    I would personally support it if I didn't think it would open up a huge black market (they are talking about what we think of as a 30% sales tax).
    I also suspect there will be loopholes to buy an extraordinary yacht and keep it somewhere else most of the time, killing the argument that at least the rich are getting taxed more than they do now.

    Things I like about completely fair tax are:
    1) prebates allow thrifty poor to have capitol once a year, and perhaps start a small business. Basic landscaping equipment could be withing the reach of many hard-working poor.
    2) Every extra dollar earned is kept. The marginal benefit of an extra hour of work never goes down, and if it is savings, it actually goes up vs the base 40
    3) less costly to keep tract of, this is an overall boost to the economy, small, but probably in the billions saved on broken windows
    4) The most beneficial forms of spending are tax free.

    It should also help skew the economy towards one with a savings rate by taxing spending, this is important in the US at the very least (other companies could be argued to have too high a savings rate, and taxing consumption could make things worse, though the early predictions I heard about the risk of a high savings rate in early '09 did not pan out).

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  53. Re:Oregon does not have sales tax. by Technician · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Oregon does not have sales tax. They do have an inventory tax. The inventory tax is not only on your product, but on your furnishings and equipment. States to provide incentives to attract businesses. A couple of the largest businesses in the state are Nike and Intel. Nike distributes shoes mostly made overseas. Their inventory is relatively low and their inventory value is relatively low.

    On the other hand, Intel does manufacturing in Oregon as well as a good portion of R & D. If Intel was taxed at the same rate for inventory as Nike, they would not be in Oregon at all. The equipment for manufacturing IC's is several million dollars each. Intel negotiates with Oregon for a break on the inventory tax and brings to the table the rates they pay on other locations such as New Mexico, Ireland, Israel, etc. Oregon is well aware if they didn't offer this incentive, Intel would no longer be in Oregon.

    http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2010/10/oregon_intel_inside.html

    Oregon is well aware that Intel contributes way more to the state of Oregon than Nike. Trying to "Tax them fairly" will result in the loss of Intel in Oregon. Intel is by no means getting no taxes. Intel contributes heavily to the local infrastructure and education.

    It sounds to me like Texas has attracted Amazon with a temporary deal and it has expired. Amazon has not been able to extend the deal. Now the party is over.

    Amazon may owe Texas a quarter billion dollars, but this is the last year. They are not remaining as Texas expected them to.
    Texas expected they were too big to fail. Surprise..

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  54. Let's just kick TX out by rinoid · · Score: 2

    TX Gov. Rick Perry wants to succeed anyway. The state he bragged (a typical texas behavior, I know, was born and raised there but I got out) was doing so well.

    If Texas succeeds the U.S. will save a lot of money after we close the ~15 military bases there, rescind the federal subsidies going to (partial list to make the point): the oil drilling/wells/pumping, processing facilities, natural gas facilities, major airline hubs, highways and roads!, schools, universities and colleges, and god knows what else.

    Corporations are greedy. Amazon should buck up, pay the stupid tax and find another way to play after that.

    1. Re:Let's just kick TX out by WrongMonkey · · Score: 2

      The word you're looking for is 'secede'. All states want to succeed.

    2. Re:Let's just kick TX out by TheABomb · · Score: 1

      Most politicians want to succeed. It generally helps them get reelected.

      Indeed, much of America's economic success comes directly from Texas's. So what's the big problem here?

      --
      MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
    3. Re:Let's just kick TX out by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Texas can not succeed for the US. It lost that ability a long time ago.
      If they did, it would be awesome. We would have a border patrol to keep those job stealing illegal Taxans out of the country.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Let's just kick TX out by Megane · · Score: 1

      If Texas succeeds

      I don't think that word means what you think it means.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    5. Re:Let's just kick TX out by rinoid · · Score: 1

      What a bunch of Frances's here.

      Create some value here instead of over correcting a simple mis-spelling of a of a word. Sure correct it but that's all you 4 can bring?

    6. Re:Let's just kick TX out by Grizzley9 · · Score: 1

      You do realize those military bases will just be moved elsewhere? So you then add the cost of movement to the bill. And last I checked, TX is a revenue producing state for the federal government, meaning they don't receive as much federal funding as they give. Face it you just don't like TX .

    7. Re:Let's just kick TX out by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How does Frances own a "here"? Does she possess a deed that specifies her ownership of a mutable plot of land defined in the deed as extending in 10-foot radius from anyone who ever speaks of relative locations?

      This is America we're talking about. If you don't like the English language, go back to New York.

  55. Re:Normally - Equity by Symbha · · Score: 1

    No, you simply don't tax basic necessities. You don't tax utilities, food, and public transit. Things people need to function in modern society, and take part in democracy/government.

    You sales tax everything else, and things with a social cost, like drugs and alcohol more.
    (I would also argue luxuries at a higher rate, but that's the commie in me.)

  56. Riiiight by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    I'm sure the current House of Reps will get right on that - after they ensure every poor person in the US is killed by policy and budget.

    1. Re:Riiiight by hedwards · · Score: 1

      I realize that, but it doesn't change the fact that this is where the fix needs to be applied. It's a shame that the Republicans are more interested in fighting the will of the people on health care and banking reform than actually trying to make America a better place to live in.

  57. Numbers don't add up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or do they?

    Sales tax: 6.5%
    tax owed: 269000000

    Meaning gross sales = 269000000 / 0.065
    Equals: 4.138 billion

    Has Amazon really sold 4 Billion dollars of stuff to texans? Seems wrong to me

  58. Re:Normally - Equity by AvitarX · · Score: 1

    Our savings rate was negative, and is still very low.

    We have a weak pension system to boot.

    Consumption needs to be discouraged. Though I agree 20% would be terrible.

    I'd like to see future tax increases (and there will be some, as we under-collect buy something like 30%) in the form of a VAT, with a refundable income tax credit to make it not hit those under the poverty line.

    Something like 3% VAT, with $500 per a dependent (a somewhat generous 15k * .03).

    Or even boil the frog, and do it 1% or .5%/year until it hits 3-5%. I don't think it wants to go too much past 5%, as this starts getting the total up around 10-15% in some states.

    People need to save some more and spend some less. The trade deficit will not be supported by lending and investment forever.

    --
    Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
  59. Re: Crazy Texas by faedle · · Score: 0

    By most First World democracies standards: the use and application of the death penalty is a great example.

  60. Not just ND by mu51c10rd · · Score: 1

    Utah runs with no deficit as well. There are 4 or 5 states who run in the black. Perhaps the other states should see how they run things?

    1. Re:Not just ND by Lucidus · · Score: 1

      Don't know where you heard this, but it's not true. The Utah state legislature is in session now, grappling with ways to close the budget deficit, including an across-the-board 7% cut in agency funding, and early release for large numbers of convicts in state prisons.

    2. Re:Not just ND by Bassman59 · · Score: 1

      Utah runs with no deficit as well.

      And I'm sure that this has nothing to do with the 10% wealth tax imposed on all of the citizens who are members of a certain church.

    3. Re:Not just ND by Bassman59 · · Score: 1

      Don't know where you heard this, but it's not true. The Utah state legislature is in session now, grappling with ways to close the budget deficit, including an across-the-board 7% cut in agency funding, and early release for large numbers of convicts in state prisons.

      Raise the tithe to 20% problem solved, with a surplus!

    4. Re:Not just ND by mu51c10rd · · Score: 1

      Utah Constitution requires that they have a balanced budget each year. That is why they are looking at proposed cuts...before they have to start borrowing. I suppose my original post was not quite right...Utah operates in the black as do other states. That is mandated by their respective laws. That doesn't mean they won't have to make cuts when revenues are down. That just means they will need a balanced budget and borrow their budgets every year.

  61. To hell with Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just a bunch of steers and queers.

  62. Sales taxes properly applied can soak the rich by Shivetya · · Score: 1

    Which is why Congress won't go for a national sales / consumption tax in place of an income tax. With an income tax they can carve out little rules and such to support all their big donors. All those 100k lobbyist aren't up there to tell Congress what a good job they are doing, they are there to either get money directly out of our pockets or to avoid paying into that pocket.

    A sales tax can be used to great effect to tax those dodging the system through income tax loopholes.

    All you need to do is figure how much sales tax a family living at the poverty level (you can place it above the poverty level to provide even more buffer) and then refund that proactively to everyone in the taxing district. With the computer power today it would not be a big deal. So say the government determines that the first 10k you spend yearly should be tax free, well they can refund the $500 you would have to pay through debit cards or direct deposit and in worst case a check. Beyond that and you don't get a refund.

    I know, but what if Mr. Big Shot buys something out state. Well if he keeps it out then its up to the locality where its located.

    Yes I know about the fair tax, the flat tax, and others. Sales taxes are only regressive because we don't connect all the payouts to the poor that have to be made through other programs to make up for taking it from them on the front end. It all is so the big guys can play funny with taxes.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
  63. Re:Normally - Equity by operagost · · Score: 0

    You made the assertion, "the middle class ends up paying the highest percentage of their income as taxes." Therefore, the burden of truth lies with you. Also, no ad hominems allowed.

    --

    Gamingmuseum.com: Give your 3D accelerator a rest.
  64. Re:Normally - Equity by Terwin · · Score: 1

    If I pay ten times what you pay in taxes:
    Will the army defend me from invasion ten times as hard?
    Will the roads I use get ten times as much service?

    While the very rich can lobby the government to get a disproportionate cut of taxed benefits, that is not a direct consequence of the taxes they pay, but instead is a consequence of political corruption.

    If I do not get anything more for my taxes, why should I pay more than you do?
    Why should I pay even a percentage of my income as opposed to a flat rate?

    It is not at all fair to charge some people more for the same service.
    If I wanted to charge more for my services when bought by a protected minority I would end up in jail.
    Why should the government be entitled to more money from me just because I happen to have more?

    A few statistics: (according to 2005 IRS tax data)
    The top 1% of wage earners pay 39% of all collected income taxes
    The top 25% of wage earners pay 86% of all collected income taxes
    The top 50% of wage earners pay 97% of all collected income taxes

    This is hardly fair unless you believe that the rich only have money because they took it unfairly from those with less.
    I personally believe that the poor only stay that way because of poor fiscal decisions and the rich mostly get that way by wise fiscal decisions and hard work.

    Your intention to take more(aka punish) those that make wise fiscal decisions will only encourage more people to make poor fiscal decisions and thus make more people poor. If you want to encourage more people to demonstrate fiscal responsibility, then the logical method would be to punish poor fiscal decisions, not reward them.

  65. Interesting Strategy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anytime I've ever tried to pull out to prevent problems it hasn't worked out well for me.

  66. Corps should pay their taxes; by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that said, I have some sympathy for them.

    My firm was selling goods to a prospering customer.
    My customer's biz was going well, so we started stocking goods locally so that we could cope with sudden spikes in demand without running our customer out of stock.

    Fast forward a year.
    We suddenly start getting TAX bills and inquiries from the city we'd happened to end up warehousing in. It seems that they have a little clause in their city code that allows them to tax goods stored in their jurisdiction, even if those goods are ultimately moving onward for delivery elsewhere.

    Even dumber, the calculation was based on what was stocked in the property Jan 1. (Yes, if we'd moved it all into trucks, and parked them in the lot that day, we'd have completely avoided the tax.) The warehouse firm I was using was also apparently surprised at this little clause...they fear that once news of it gets out, they may lose every customer they have.

    In my view, this is absurd. This is tantamount to every little burgh on the highway asserting that they can tax the value of goods sitting in trucks as they roll past on the highway.

    So we negotiated a settlement with the city, paid it, and immediately moved our warehousing 2 counties over, giving THEM the jobs, business, and economic benefit of our ongoing need for storage. That first place we were will never, ever see our business again. I've told this story as widely as possible, to warn others in the same situation.

    WELL DONE, CITY COUNCIL OF SAVANNAH GEORGIA!

  67. How much by TheABomb · · Score: 1

    ... was Texas making off payroll taxes from the Texans who *were* employed, but are no longer? Probably not even close to the supposed sales tax bill, but hey, zero sources of $270-million income are always better than 1000 sources of *any* income, right?

    --
    MSIE: The world's most standards-complaint web browser.
    1. Re:How much by PuckSR · · Score: 1

      Ummm...no! Texas was not making "payroll tax" Texas doesn't have income tax.
      They have to pay unemployment and that is it.
      they also make franchise tax (.5%)

      Lets see?
      $250 million in sales tax per year or 1000*$50,000(salary)*2.7%(unemployment)= $1.35 million(and that is simply unemployment) + $17.5 million for franchise tax

      So, they are risking $18.5 million in unemployment and franchise tax for $250 million in deserved sales tax. That seems like it makes perfect sense to me.

      ***Note***
      They may not have been paying that high of a franchise tax either. That would assume that the Texas branch is doing 50% of the revenue of all of Amazon. Since Amazon claimed the facility was owned by a contractor, the actual revenue for the branch might be significantly less. All in all, it will take 10 years minimum for Texas to be losing tax revenue.(and probably more like 20)

  68. RTFM by geekoid · · Score: 2

    The tax Texas want's is for good sold to people in Texas, not other states.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  69. Must be quite a lot of sales... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...at 6.25% sales tax rate, that would mean that Texas believes Amazon made some $4.5 Billion (with a 'B' ) in sales from Texas to Texans,

    I would propose that Texas state is rather overestimating their presence in the overall scheme of things.

    1. Re:Must be quite a lot of sales... by natehoy · · Score: 1

      If they have a presence, that would be $4.5 Billion in sales to Texans. Whether the products were shipped from Texas or not is irrelevant. If you have a presence in the state, you need to collect and remit sales tax for ALL sales to residents of that state, regardless of where you shipped it from.

      Agreed that the number still seems pretty high, though.

      --
      "This post contains words, known to the State of California to cause thought. Wash brain thoroughly after reading."
  70. I really hate to say this, but... by hey! · · Score: 1

    I'm with Texas on this one.

    Gah! Those words taste bad! ;-)

    --
    Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
  71. Re:Normally - Equity by shaper · · Score: 1

    You can completely exempt all sales taxes on the poor by a prebate of the amount of sales tax up to the poverty line to everyone, so no one pays sales taxes on the basic necessities.

    It took me a lot of thinking to come around to the idea of a prebate being a good idea. As a check from the government, it echoed in my mind with the concept of "welfare check" with all its attendant welfare state issues. I had to work through the process of realizing that a prebate, like an income tax refund, is just giving people back their own money that was taken in the form of a tax, rather than giving them someone else's money that was redistributed through taxation. All you're doing with the prebate is acknowledging that there is a minimum level of living below which it is just plain immoral to tax. And since everyone gets the prebate, it is agnostic to income level in that everybody, whether wealthy or poor, gets a pass from taxation on basic necessities. I really like the fairtax.org idea but I doubt it will ever get passed in the US. Far too many monied and powerful interests like the current broken system for the ways in which it can be manipulated.

  72. Tennessee by Xian97 · · Score: 2

    Along these same lines, Amazon is opening new distribution facilities in TN near Chattanooga and are trying to avoid having to collect tax from TN residents. They are claiming that the center is just for distribution, that the actual sale takes place elsewhere. It will be interesting to see if the state goes along with this definition of a business presence since the new centers are expected to bring in 1,500 jobs or so. New Egg also has a distribution facility near Memphis and they have to collect tax, so I have to wonder what kind of outcry other distributors will raise if Amazon is allowed to avoid collecting taxes.

  73. they should just pay their taxes by paulsomm · · Score: 1

    The timing of collection is irrelevant. If I have to pay, and you have to pay, they should have to pay. The fight seems to be over loopholes/kickbacks they felt entitled to use.

  74. DIfferent, perfectly reasonable situation. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Sounds like IL is using the same method that other states have used -- make it the buyers responsibility to own up to their unpaid taxes. I'm not sure why you would think the legality here is questionable.

    This system actually benefits Amazon, and e-commerce in general. They don't have to deal with the pesky accounting of calculating, collecting and remitting local sales-taxes. Under such a system, Texas would be going after Texans who are evading taxes to fill the hole in the Texas budget. Perfectly fair. Moreover, they would keep jobs (and income tax revenue) in Texas.

    The problem here is consumers who ignore the law, period. If you owe sales taxes, pay them. Forcing the government to come after you only wastes money and drives up the amount you owe.

  75. More petty than that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The corporation isn't expected to pay a nickel of that tax. They just can't be arsed to collect it and send a check. If the corner bodega can muster it, I'd think they could manage.

  76. Re:Oregon does not have sales tax. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Another comment on Intel is that Oregon has a relatively high income tax of 9%. Most Intel employees are well compensated. One could argue that the tax burden shifted from Intel to its employees. Washington county where Intel is located at one point considered increasing the property taxes by not renewing a tax abatement, the state intervened and brokered a deal to give the county more money to renew the property tax discount. During this time it was estimated that the income taxes generated by Intel employees accounted for 15% of the state's total tax revenue (unfortunately I can't source it)! If Intel were to leave, the state of Oregon would be in significant trouble.

  77. c'mon... by bjk002 · · Score: 1

    "the vast majority saved their money instead of spending it, and invested it"

    Nonsense. The vast majority either inherited it, or gained it through some means of exploitation of the very same "poor people" you are deriding through your naive comments.

    Note that I am NOT supporting the GP and his/her position regarding taxation, only pointing out your error. My own view on taxation involves the wholesale removal of the sales tax entirely, in place of an earnings tax (note I said earnings, not just income).

    --
    Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
  78. Congress: fix the tax system already! by Mike_K · · Score: 1

    I'm sure I'll be a minority here, but I strongly believe that Congress should change the system. It should always be the responsibility of the retailer to collect and pay the tax to the State, even if the sale is across state borders (which is why Congress needs to get involved - cross-state-lines commerce).

    The situation as is, is a ridiculous race to the bottom: Amazon operates in my state, so I'll buy from Newegg. Newegg operates in my state, so I'll buy from Best Buy. I'm supposed to pay taxes for online purchases, but who remembers in April what they bought online in January of previous year?!

    Such a change would decrease transportation costs for online purchases (warehouses in any and all states that have a big enough market), increase local jobs (more people would go to their B&M stores and buy things so you need sales staff, plus warehouse jobs), bring more money to the states (which are bleeding almost uniformly) and make the market in a state more uniform (no penalty for having an office, warehouse, or B&M store in one state or another).

    The retailers might complain about having to collect taxes, etc, but if it is too difficult for them to collect tax for a particular state, they are free to not ship to that state.

    It is time to straighted out the whole sales tax situation. And yes, I am an eastern, over-educated, arugula-eating elitist.

    Mike_K

    1. Re:Congress: fix the tax system already! by Aquitaine · · Score: 1

      over-educated, arugula-eating elitist.

      You might want to re-over-educate yourself about how sales tax works. Congress has got nothing to do with it - it's State sales tax.

      Even if you say 'Congress should enact a VAT that would replace State sales tax,' you still have the same problems. I live in state A, work in state B, and buy geegaws to have shipped to state C. Which state gets a share of my VAT?

      And that's assuming that Congress could somehow forbid states to enact sales taxes, which they can't.

      As a small business owner, if you made me file sales tax returns to every single state with whom we did business, I'd just stop running my business. We already spend a ton of time and $$$ on taxes. The 1099 reporting law that recently got repealed would have been a nightmare. A sales tax bill due to every state is unimaginable. Maybe Amazon could figure out a way to do it, but your average small business sure as heck can't.

      And yes, I am a Western, moderately-educated, arugula-eating capitalist. Hey, at least we got the arugula in common.

    2. Re:Congress: fix the tax system already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe we should tie our spending to our taxes. And our taxes to our shipping rates. A 10% sales tax is crazy. Why exactly are taxes more expensive than shipping? What we need is a cap on taxes. In order to cap taxes, we need a cap on pensions and all the other big budget items in a states budget. In order to that you need to learn from Wisconsin and make it so that the people working for government don't have such an exorbitant amount of say in paying themselves.

      People who work for the State should not get to vote for State officials. People who work under the Federal Banner should not get to vote for president.

      Otherwise it's just a conflict of interest.

  79. really? by bjk002 · · Score: 1

    "Society owes no one anything"

    Then want exactly is the point of Society? Why not just pure anarchy? How about you read the definition of Society before you go about casting aspersions without credence. If you are a contributing member of a Society, then that Society DOES owe you something.

    Oh you like police protection? How do we pay them? Oh you benefited from that low-interest government subsidized loan to start your business? How did that loan subsidization occur?

    The truth is that Society implies a mutually beneficial relationship between its membership. Why not come down from your horse and realize that even you in your, I'm sure, masterful march to success had at one point relied on Society for one thing or another.

    --
    Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
  80. You clearly don't understand bankrupcy by just+fiddling+around · · Score: 1

    Debt to GDP is like comparing what you owe Vs your income. If 100% debt to income was the bankrupcy limit, most people would become eligible by buying a car. What is important is Debt service Vs gov't budget aka payment Vs income. As long as the government has enough money coming in to pay it's interest and capital, it's still OK.

    Still, it's always better to owe less (or nothing at all). Perpetual war is a costly venture, and the US decided to finance by credit instead of keeping it to avaliable funds.

    --
    You're not old until regret takes the place of your dreams.
  81. Re:Normally - Equity by Byzantine · · Score: 1

    A sales tax in excess of 20% would kill the economy.

    It would kill the legal economy. The shadow economy would blossom. Say I'm a widget vendor, and the tax is 20%. You want to buy a widget. So I tell you, "Sure, hedwards, tell you what: if you pay cash, I'll only charge you 10% tax." I then, of course, keep no record of the transaction and pocket the 10%. Calls for some creative bookkeeping, but nothing out of the ordinary as these things go.

  82. Re:Oregon does not have sales tax. by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    Considering Amazon's response was 'we were going to spend 10s of millions and hire 1000 people' ... I'm pretty sure the 269 million is far more beneficial than a new building and insignificant reduction in unemployment claims that Amazon is trying to use as a negotiating point.

    Eventually every state will force them to pay and they'll have no where to run and it'll be over.

    Right now, states simply haven't adjusted to the Internet business model. They will, and you want them too, unless you don't like the infrastructure your state provides.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  83. Re:Normally - Equity by _0xd0ad · · Score: 1

    You sales tax everything else, and things with a social cost, like drugs and alcohol more.

    And the government then has a fairly high monetary interest in ensuring that people continue to consume lots of those things.

    Sort of like the traffic light cams... no matter how well-founded some of the intentions may have been, it's just another piggy-bank by the time it gets to the politicians, and they squeal if it starts running dry. Oh my gawd, people aren't smoking as much as they used to... and then they just have to raise taxes on everyone else to try to get that money, which their budget has grown to depend on.

    Taxation is habit-forming.

  84. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  85. Re:Oregon does not have sales tax. by nutshell42 · · Score: 1

    Oregon is well aware that Intel contributes way more to the state of Oregon than Nike. Trying to "Tax them fairly" will result in the loss of Intel in Oregon. Intel is by no means getting no taxes. Intel contributes heavily to the local infrastructure and education.

    Maybe, just maybe, the Glorious State of Oregon should just get rid of stupid taxes and replace them with more sensible ones. Applying taxes fairly is in our best interest because I'm pretty sure we couldn't negotiate with the state to lower our taxes.

    If applying a tax lawfully, equally and fairly leads to disastrous outcomes then you should get rid of the tax and pass a new one.

    --
    Don't think of it as a flame---it's more like an argument that does 3d6 fire damage
  86. Look at a Sears Roebuck catalog by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

    The front matter of an old Sears Roebuck catalog clearly states their business model and how they are able to deliver products throughout the country for competitive prices. It is exactly the same as for online retailers today. Nowhere in the catalog is taxation mentioned. The states new enough not to try to violate the constitution with illegal taxation 100+ years ago. They need to be reminded of the same today.

    --
    I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
  87. Maybe YOU should read it by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    Because what Texas is trying to do is pretty clearly NOT against the law. Texas's claim is that Amazon's warehouse operation constitutes a physical presence in the state, which seems pretty uncontroversial. Amazon's claim is that the warehouse doesn't belong to them, it belongs to... their wholly owned subsidiary. It's ludicrous.

  88. UPS is their business partner by wytcld · · Score: 1

    Doesn't the "It's an independent distribution center, it's not us" argument go like this?

    * When we ship by UPS, despite UPS having a physical presence in each state, that's them, not us. Note this doesn't change if the merchandise sits in a UPS warehouse while in transit, either.

    * When we arrange for a wholesaler to drop ship (directly ship to the customer) the customer's purchase from us, that's the wholesaler, not us, who has a presence in the customer's state, not us.

    * So the general rule is: Sales are attributable to the location of the sales office, not to the location of wholesalers, shippers, or warehousers, when they are separate firms from us.

    Seems like a decent argument, just if the center in Texas is no more owned by Amazon than UPS is. Of that, I've no idea. The story reads like it's Amazon's decision to remove the center, which would make it theirs. Maybe that's wrong, maybe they just won't give it their business any more. That would be equivalent to choosing FedEx - there should be no sales tax consequences.

    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
  89. If by "suddenly they changed their mind" by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    ... you mean "the special tax deal expired, and now Texas wants them to pay what they owe", then you'd be correct.

  90. Because... by hackus · · Score: 1

    They spend money like drunken sailors and need more cash to pay for their "I am better than you." lifestyles.

    I guess they can always raise taxes by 67%!!!!

    I mean everyone is too Snookie Stupid and wondering about Lindsay Lohan's trial date to give a sh*t!

    I wonder if Texas government people hang out with Illinois government people?

    -Hack

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
  91. He's in Washington by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    Minding the federal government's business. Which does not include collecting state taxes.

  92. This is kind of a ridiculous argument by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    Have you checked the interest rates on Treasury securities lately? The US government is borrowing money at interest rates barely above zero... which means the bond markets think this is the safest possible investment they can make. If the bond markets were demanding huge interest rates, that would be one thing... but they're not. And that means no one thinks the US government is teetering on the brink of bankruptcy.

  93. It's really rather simple by PuckSR · · Score: 1

    The Facts:

    Texas has no income tax, but it does have sales tax.
    If Amazon moves out of state, taking jobs with it...this has a minimum impact on Texas' bottom line. Texas would only be making money off of Amazon employees who buy goods. They don't actually directly make tax money from employees working in Texas.

    Amazon could move their operations to a neighboring state that might let them pull this tax trick, but those states have income tax and would be glad to have the jobs.

    Texas is sending a message that it will not allow companies to skirt their tax obligations. Corporations love locations in Texas because of the lack of income tax. Texas also has fairly limited Franchise tax. Amazon is losing in this scenario. They will be paying more money in another state(employee income tax) and most states will require them to pay sales tax(unless they move to a state without sales tax).

    This is really just Amazon trying to cheat the system.

  94. I doubt they can get away with it by sean.peters · · Score: 1

    My understanding is that it doesn't matter if your facility has anything to do with making the sale or not. If you have a physical presence in the state, you must collect the tax. But then IANAL.

  95. They do realize... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That closing down its Texas business in the future doesn't affect the taxes it already owes the state, right? Unless tax law and jurisdiction works really strangely in the US, Texas would have no trouble making this a federal matter...

  96. Well that's a stretch by howardd21 · · Score: 1

    They might. When I buy a £100 pair of trail running shoes, they last until the sole wears through - but cheaper shoes I've had in the past have sometimes only lasted a few weeks. I'm sure this applies to more than just shoes. When you can afford quality products, you don't have to buy stuff so often. Being rich means you can buy stuff more often if you wish to of course, but then again, I'm sure some rich people are now rich because they have saved, then invested wisely.

    Hey Mr. Runner man, did you hurt yourself with the stretch in logic? I am baffled by your reasoning. If a person makes $30,000 they likely spend about every penny they make on shoes or whatever, To keep it simple, if the sales tax rate was 10% they would pay 3,000 in taxes. Now a rich person. They make $100,000 per year and spend 90% of it (and that is conservative). That means they pay $9,000 in taxes. There is no way you as a poor runner can spend as much as the average rich person. No way.

    --
    no comment
    1. Re:Well that's a stretch by somersault · · Score: 1

      Okay, I agree that they'll probably spend more overall than a poor person, at least when it comes to luxuries, but I think you're aiming a bit high.

      They make $100,000 per year and spend 90% of it (and that is conservative)

      Maybe I just don't know the right rich people, but the majority of the people I know who make that much money or more, are overall sensible with it. Of 6 of the Directors in our company, 2 are allegedly wasteful, and the rest are quite sensible. Of course they'll all have some fun every now and then, have nice cars, etc (though they're usually company cars so it doesn't really cost them anything other than company car tax), but they certainly are not spending 90% of their pay every month. It wouldn't be impossible for them to do that in the same way that it literally must be near impossible for Bill Gates to spend all of his earnings, but they honestly have no need to spend that much to live well. I don't even spend 90% of my pay each month despite buying loads of gadgets and expensive food - and I'm only making around half that.

      --
      which is totally what she said
  97. You still owed the taxes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Internet commerce does not require a separate set of laws. The State had no mechanism for collecting the taxes in place, and probably thought they weren't worth going after. Now on-line commerce has exploded along with budget deficits, so they have deemed it worth going after, and here we are.

    In every state I have lived in since I started buying things on line, a "Use Tax" line has appeared on forms along with instructions to calculate and pay taxes owed that were not collected by sellers (of any kind).

    Sales taxes were always a part of the law, and technically you should have paid them regardless of whether the usual convenient methods of doing so were in place.

  98. Tax Evasion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So when a government suggests that perhaps a tax-evader should maybe, pay their back taxes, the appropriate answer is, "fuck you I'm going somewhere else"? What kind of shitty, backwoods county do we live in? I hope the decision makers at Amazon are arrested and tried for tax evasion and coercion.

  99. Re:Normally - Equity by Cederic · · Score: 1

    Say, how much is that bridge?

    Just that the UK has a 20% VAT rate right now. VAT is a sales tax.

  100. Re:Oregon does not have sales tax. by Americium · · Score: 1

    So your argument is that it's OK to give a break to Intel, yet at the same time fair to tax Nike, which seems to have found a loop hole by outsourcing labor.

    Accumulating capitol... machines, wealth, knowledge, should never be taxed, since those are the tools needed to create products and services. Tax the end goal, the profits.

  101. Level the playing field by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

    Getting the Federal government involved is a stupid idea and you have no idea how complex sales tax is.

    The stupidity is in thinking that a multitude of different sales tax systems in a single nation can be anything but grossly inefficient. Australia (a federation of states) had exactly the same problem with similar loop holes and headaches for business. The cure (in a nutshell) was for all state sales taxes to be replaced by a single federal sales tax (10% GST) which is then divided up and given back to the states via a formula negotiated between the states. To implement this system all of the states had to agree to cead their constitutional power to collect sales tax to the feds. It would never work in the US because a large proportion of the states ( and Fox news) would brand it as communisim, a federal power grab, or both.

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
  102. Just make all internet purchases tax-free by sycomonkey · · Score: 1

    I am strongly opposed to the idea floating around of making all online retailers collect taxes in all states. Buying things online is, in and of itself, better for the economy and the environment than buying them in a brick an mortar store, it is significantly less expensive and wasteful. If we are going to consolidate the system, level the playing field, then all online purchases should be tax-free. Let the states raise money through some other means (income tax, property tax, etc.).

    --
    --The universe will not be altered by forum threads, even those which are very wry. --Tycho Brahe (Penny Arcade)
  103. Re:Normally - Equity by swalve · · Score: 0

    Not if they quit taking a third of everyone's paychecks.

  104. The nice thing about today by sethstorm · · Score: 1

    There's nowhere to hide.

    --
    Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
  105. You give Perry too much credit by flotsam · · Score: 1

    Perry is only into politics to make his friends rich. Over the past 10 years the only time he seems to be awake and active is when he is seeking a deal which enriches his buddies. Examples include the Trans Texas corridor. If you were to get rid of his pork, there would be more monies. Lloyd Doggett tried to get him to stop that with Education spending by putting in a rider which would have kept him from swapping out what the State should be paying for Education with the Federal monies and using that money on other projects that benefit his friends. The whole point of the Federal money is to extend, not replace the state obligation.

    I do agree with you that the Republicans are definitely into Socialism - Corporate Welfare is their stock and trade.

  106. Re:Oregon does not have sales tax. by certsoft · · Score: 1

    Oregon does not have sales tax. They do have an inventory tax. The inventory tax is not only on your product, but on your furnishings and equipment.

    That's not an inventory tax (there isn't one, see ORS 307.400) but business personal property tax. I think that all of the 4 states I've done business in have that tax.

  107. Embarrassed! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think it's pretty safe to say this is one of the largest bonehead moves this state has made recently!!! As a born and bred Texan, I say "Amazon, tell the state comptroller and Perry to shove it up their asses". We will still all continue to shop on Amazon and Perry and the SC can go to hell. Until these morons who were voted in are actually held accountable for our money they are spending, they shouldn't throw stones! Their glass house will eventually come crashing down slicing them to bits as it does! Perry, GWB, etc all make it embarrassing to say that we are Texans. It used to be something I said with pride. Not so much anymore!

  108. Amazon sales tax/ Borders Bankruptcy/ Texas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Borders bookstore to file for bankruptcy.
    Jobs at stake: 19,000

    Amazon to close Irving,TX distribution center.
    Jobs lost: 119

    Does anyone connect the dots ?

    Borders, like bookstores everywhere, have been facing the sales tax headwind as a competitive handicap for years vs. Amazon.

    In contrast to the aggressive unethical tactics by Amazon, it is interesting to note that the much vilified WalMart collects sales tax on online sales even to states where it does not have a physical presence.

  109. Internet sales tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the only way to deal with internet sales and sales tax is at the federal level. I propose the following and have for years:

    I'm sure there will be an internet sales tax. There is too much money
    involved for politicians to not tax it. Since this is inevitable, I
    think the best thing to do is design a tax system that causes the least
    complication for retailers. I propose the following:

    1) An internet sales tax based solely on the shipping address.

    2) The tax rate be set at 5% (no more then 7%).

    3) The money is collected by the IRS or a separate federal sales tax
    division.

    4) The collected money is divided as follows:

        4a) 1% goes to the federal government general fund.

        4b) 3% goes to the state according to item 1 above.

        4c) .9% (or less then 1% depending on the amounts involved with the
    rest going to the federal government) goes to R&D for the internet,
    support of public exchange points, support of public high speed links,
    and the rest goes to college/university scholarships, general research,
    the current general research emphases should be development of new new
    sources of energy such as fusion, wind, water, etc.

        4d) .1% should go into an emergency relief fund to help deal with
    emergencies so relief organizations do not have to wait for congress to
    authorize funds. This money would also go to the military to cover
    costs of military assistance when military resources are used to
    transport relief supplies any where in the world.

    5) All merchants have to report is $$$'s collected by city, state,
    zip/postal code, and country.

    6) Other countries can sign on to the tax agreement by meeting the same
    requirements for simplicity, ie reporting is done like item 5 above and
    each country can decide how to apply the 5% between federal and local
    authorities.

    7) Tax should be collected on all sales, no exceptions even if the sale
    is to a government, church, state, college, university, etc.

    This is my basic opinion and plan. KEEP IT SIMPLE!!!!

  110. taxes by acalltoreason · · Score: 0

    I guess if you make enough money you don't have to pay taxes, because when the authorities come calling its totally legit to just move.

    --
    Where has reason in the world gone? Have we abandoned it in favor of power and politics?
  111. Re:Price by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 1

    Nah, I have a much easier one for you.
    Housing.

    Housing drives people's budgets, and in turn drives the wages necessary to live there, which drives more housing to get those wages.

    I could work for $8 an hour if I didn't have to pay housing. (It filters into the rent prices in a lot of places.)

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  112. Atlas Shrugs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yoo hoo! Atlas is Shrugging!

  113. Re:Oregon does not have sales tax. by Technician · · Score: 1

    That tax is why you can't buy parts for 20 year old oddball collectible cars and antique stereos and jukeboxes. They implemented the tax and all slow moving taxed inventory went to the dump.

    --
    The truth shall set you free!
  114. Re:Normally - Equity by JimFive · · Score: 1

    also suspect there will be loopholes to buy an extraordinary yacht and keep it somewhere else most of the time, killing the argument that at least the rich are getting taxed more than they do now.

    The rich will either buy everything they want somewhere that doesn't have a sales tax, or move out completely.

    It should also help skew the economy towards one with a savings rate by taxing spending,

    One person's spending is another person's income. Increasing the savings rate will necessarily reduce economic growth.
    --
    JimFive

    --
    Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
  115. law? excuse me? by bstender · · Score: 1

    maybe they need a little call from the Lieberman

    --
    look sig is kool
  116. Job growth comes from YOUNG businesses by Steve+Hamlin · · Score: 1

    "The real job growth comes with small business."

    Incorrect. Real job growth comes from YOUNG businesses, many of whom happen to be small when they start. Older businesses, both large and small, don't generate much job growth.

    So the public policy should be to encourage entrepreneurialsim, not necessarily small businesses. There is a difference.

  117. FreeFederal1040Taxes.com by andrzej.istvan · · Score: 1

    Free 1040 tax forms online, No download needed, Federal 1040ez, 1040a forms for easy online tax return filing absolutely free. Fill your details, it calculate taxes, e-file it to IRS for free. Before you file any tax form online, you should know clearly about the importance of it. And, it is also important to know whether you qualify for the tax form or not. Suppose you are young or retired person, you can benefit from filing the most simple income tax form like Federal 1040ez tax form. It is the easiest tax form for individual because it requires reporting the simplest things. You can checkout whether you are eligible or not for using this income tax form. If you do not have many deductions and have simple claim to file, then using 1040ez form will be perfect option for you. This form will make it easy for filing your tax return online if you have simple taxes to do. You can do filing of the form 1040ez online on your own and become worry-free. If you feel confusion regarding this tax form, you can visit the IRS website at irs.gov and get to more about this IRS 1040ez tax form. So, when it comes to filing your income tax return online, you need to understand your taxes. If you have your W-2 form, then filing IRS 1040ez will be an easiest option for you to file your individual tax return online. If you prefer the easier form like 1040ez form online, it will become pretty easier for you to do your taxes on your own.